Are female characters in Fantasy subservient to their male counterparts?

[psychotick]

Hi,

Just a thought. Have any of you considered that at least in traditional fantasy books, the hero is often a swordsman of some sort? Yes I am thinking Conan and Gor. Now not wanting to appear sexist, but the idea of a woman - even Red Sonja or Lara Croft - duking it out with men on that physical level, seems a little unrealistic. (And I liked both those movies, and while we're at it, Buffy).

My thought is that its hard to write a female fantasy hero who uses swords or weapons or any sort of physical attack, without 'butching?' if that's a word, her up. In short making her masculine. That in turn makes it hard to take the character seriously. In telly and movies, that's starting to be the case, and these kick ass women rock because in some way they appeal to men like me, since they're both hot and masculine in some (lord I hope not sexual!) way. I mean have you ever seen Lara Croft talking about her feelings? Did Keira Knight's character from Underworld go out and try on clothes or talk about pretty things? They don't because it would interfer with their perceived character, as women competing in a mans world - as men.

There are some exceptions of course, as there are with everything. But really for women to compete as fantasy leads on an even playing field I think they have to find their own place, and it can't really be as a warrior. Magic though seems a natural forte, and I so no reason at all why a witch shouldn't be both twice as deadly as a wizard, and feminine.

Cheers.

[Anne Lyle]

See, that's the problem with these "kickass warrior chicks" - they're basically men with boobs.

I deliberately shied away from the "guy gets the sword, girl gets the magic" cliché - in my book the girl is the creative thinker in the partnership and also a bit of a geek with a flair for mechanical stuff and making things. Sort of a thief-type character without the stealing part, if that makes sense!

(Not a self-insertion at all, no sirree... *cough*)

[AnyaKimlin]

Yet with the real life versions - Lady of Mercia, Elizabeth I, Boudicca, Empress Maude, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra etc their image isn't usually a butch one. Even Elizabeth II is all female despite knowing her way round a shot gun, being a talented horsewoman and knows her way round an old fashioned car engine.

I just gave my queen different weapons - a fan (I redesigned the Japanese/Korean weapons), and a bow. She has vulnerability, but the men around her do her bidding -- her fathers because she has them charmed, her husband, brothers and army because of a mix of coquetishness and they are concerned they will get a strategically placed arrow. Until next story she is fairly minor character though.

[sabolich]

Originally Posted by AnyaKimlin

Yet with the real life versions - Lady of Mercia, Elizabeth I, Boudicca, Empress Maude, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra etc their image isn't usually a butch one. Even Elizabeth II is all female despite knowing her way round a shot gun, being a talented horsewoman and knows her way round an old fashioned car engine.

I just gave my queen different weapons

None of those ladies was actually expected to fight. As you said, they could command the men around them to do the heavier lifting. This is part of what I liked about Raymond Feist/Janni Wurtz's "Daughter of the Empire" and the other two books in that series. No one expected her to fight; she rose to the occasion on brains, competence, and original thinking. She inspired loyalty which made everyone around her achieve their best as well, which is the mark of a leader.

The emphasis on sheer brute, kickass muscle power is a mistake, in my opinion, both because it is unrealistic for most women, and limiting in terms of expectations. Okay, so she drops the baddies with well-placed kicks and dead-eye shooting. Then what? Pretty soon we're tottering on the edge of Mary Sue territory as she demonstrates her superior brains, empathy, subtlety and come-hither hottiness. However much people might admire the "guys with boobs", they are rapidly becoming a stereotype and no doubt will soon become tiresome to read. Movies have an advantage in that you get this pretty visual with a constant stream of different women in the lead role for variety. I admire well-toned bodies, male or female, as much as the next person, but honestly, what's under the skin? Or does the majority of the audience not care? Puh-lease don't tell me the genre audience is really that shallow.

This discussion is interesting. The guys like watching hot chicks for the same reason women like watching hot guys. I don't feel threatened by a man's brains, so if he is smarter than he is muscular, that's okay by me. Guys, what do you say? Are women getting crammed into the guys-with-boobs role because nobody wants to snuggle up to the smart girl?

[Quokka]

Personally I don't think intelligence is the big issue, fiction has always had intelligent women and in general that doesn't challenge the stereotypes. Maybe this is reflected in real life to some extent with men not neccessarily finding an intelligent woman threatning or unattractive, even for many of those who don't recognise intelligence as increasing a woman's attractiveness?

But a woman who shows leadership? Someone who leads by natural talent and group consensus, where the surrounding males are not told by a higher authority as with royalty, prophecy or special bloodline that this person must lead but where people actively decide that a female shall lead because she is best skilled for the task. This is less common imo but is it also more threatning... or I suppose unbelievable, to someone with stereotypical views of gender roles?

[psychotick]

Hi Sabolich,

Sadly, speaking for myself as a mere male - yes I am that shallow. I will happily accept a kick ass warrior chick in a movie / tv series if she's hot.

But in my meagre defence the televisual media make it easy - not only do they make the women hot, but with special effects they make the action almost believable. Yes, when I see Buffy smash someone in the face I can almost believe its a bone crunching impact which could knock someone aroud a room, simply because its what I'm shown. As they say seeing is believing.

In a book though I have to try and imagine it, and that's not so easy. After all I know what my fist can do to an eighty pound bag, so if I can't hit someone and expect them to go flying, how am I expected to believe someone less then half my weight can? Uber warrior chick just adds another layer of incredibility to try and overcome for me as a reader.

As I say, if women are to be seen as equal(?) in fantasy lead roles in books at least, I think they have to fight on their own battlefield. Magic, strategy, cunning, range weapons, stealth, - all good choices, and lets be honest, women are naturally going to be seen as better choices for some roles such as the seductive spy / agent, or confident. After all can anyone really see Arnold as sneak thief or spy? How about Jean Claude as a harem dancer? (Ohh god just the idea turns my head inside out!).

Cheers.

[sabolich]

Mm, Quokka, yes! The whole woman as leader thing is often overlooked. I loved Marjorie Monahan's character (#1) on Babylon 5 because, yes, she was tough, but she was the head of the resistance because she could lead, not just kick ass. I like characters who have to claw their way up, rather than just having the top spot handed to them by birth or superior talent.

Psychotick, you gave me a good laugh. Hollywood is too good at making you believe the impossible. But boy, howdy, you're giving me ideas with that femme fatale stuff. James Bond actually plays this role to a certain degree, wrapped inside the suave, urbane action hero. Imagine a pretty boy spy in a female-dominated society worming his way into high society beds. A gigolo with a mission. Oy. It might be fun, actually, to invert these roles and see what happens.

Still, in the realities of Mother Nature, you are right that women generally need some advantage to overcome the fact that guys are born stronger. One hopes that just occasionally, it is brains and recognized superiority of the same character qualities we admire in men: courage, determination, loyalty, brains... Not just magic or whatever.

[Anne Lyle]

Originally Posted by sabolich

I loved Marjorie Monahan's character (#1) on Babylon 5 because, yes, she was tough, but she was the head of the resistance because she could lead, not just kick ass. I like characters who have to claw their way up, rather than just having the top spot handed to them by birth or superior talent.

One of the things I loved about Babylon 5 was that it showed a range of female characters, many of them strong and few of them kick-ass. Delenn was a leader and very feminine, Ivanova was funny as well as kick-ass and Na'Toth was...Na'Toth.

Originally Posted by sabolich

James Bond actually plays this role to a certain degree, wrapped inside the suave, urbane action hero. Imagine a pretty boy spy in a female-dominated society worming his way into high society beds. A gigolo with a mission. Oy. It might be fun, actually, to invert these roles and see what happens.

Who needs a female-dominated society to have a pretty-boy spy worming his way into high society beds?

But yes - I'm having fun at the moment, developing some strong female characters who are so not kick-ass...

[Toby Frost]

Most fantasy – at least the heroic sort – seems to be a cross between medieval and modern in outlook, with magical elements. Fortunately it’s not entirely medieval, because the medieval times were both disgusting and really quite alien in terms of the way people thought. The upshot of that is that a standard feminist (whatever the hell that means) outlook would be extremely unlikely in that kind of world. A woman wanting to run her own affairs would be up against not just men but other women and the Church, in which, being medieval, she’d almost certainly devoutly believe. So it wouldn’t just be men keeping her down, but the word of God. Although there were some female saints, they were usually chaste and suffered considerably, which few would want to emulate. That’s a lot to rebel against. (For a demonstration of medieval tolerance, see the death of Richard II).

So I’d have thought that to be credible in fantasy, a female character would have to have some sort of history to base herself on or at least ‘excuse’ her conduct. The Order of Joan of Arc, or something similar, could allow female fighters to operate. Wizardry would put an interesting spin on things, by making some women inherently very powerful, although religion being what it is they would probably be seen as something to be destroyed unless they were able to secure themselves.

And then there’s the practical problem of physique, especially when being pale and plump was seen as a sign of wealth. At the very least, I’d expect a female swordswoman to have the rather stringy, muscled physique Madonna had a few years back. I suspect most men find that unattractive: I certainly do. (That said, I did once know a girl who was about 5 feet tall, pretty and skilled in ninjutsu. But against a trained male fighter, who knows?). It’s possible, I guess, but don’t expect a lady swordsman to look that kind of fit.

Which brings us onto Mary Sue. I suspect the answer is just to accept that attractive girls who can fight in close combat are about as common as manly lone woodsmen who are actually kind to puppies, or anyone even slightly resembling Jude Law in a pre-moisturiser setting. Of course, fantasy does let writers do what they want, but it’s got to make some sort of sense. Oh, and wearing high heels in a fight is just plain stupid. I wish male artists would stop drawing them like that.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I do agree with Toby on a lot of points here; that being said, the slim-muscled female warrior should be able to still wield light weaponry like katanas, daggers, rapiers, throwing stars, whatever. And not to mention the fact that a small, slim figure could have an asset the larger, heavier opponents might not have: speed and agility.


I do find high-heel combat to be ridiculous. I tend to prefer my characters to use the standard basic leather boots, plate greave boots, or better yet, modern standard military combat boots.

[AnyaKimlin]

Also this is fantasy - I just created a new metal-ore which was light and strong. OK my main female character probably couldn't manage a claymore but as she is 5ft11 she is bigger than William Wallace/Robert the Bruce/Henry VIII etc.

We can do what we want with the world and society to make it make sense.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

That's not so true, Anya, because the reader will want some semblence of adhesive reality. One can only suspend their disbelief for so long.


My own main character is quite short by modern standards in both our world and hers-she only stands at an even five feet tall-and she can't wield heavy weaponry, hence her preference to katanas.


She doesn't wear armor, but her small stature allows her to be incredibly fast and agile.

[sabolich]

Originally Posted by Anne Lyle

One of the things I loved about Babylon 5 was that it showed a range of female characters, many of them strong and few of them kick-ass. Delenn was a leader and very feminine, Ivanova was funny as well as kick-ass and Na'Toth was...Na'Toth.

Heh. Yes. Na'Toth was so much fun. That deadpan look and total inability to understand why murder can be detrimental to diplomacy.

Originally Posted by Anne Lyle

Who needs a female-dominated society to have a pretty-boy spy worming his way into high society beds?

But yes - I'm having fun at the moment, developing some strong female characters who are so not kick-ass...

LOL. Oh, indeed, he could do well just about anywhere, one imagines. I seem to recall one historical novel of my acquaintance where the spy was the hairdresser to the town's high-society ladies, absorbing all that chattering gossip.

I have to confess that the majority of my published stories have male protags but not all, and my novel, Firedancer, does have a female lead. She must establish herself as capable before she can hope to enlist the support of the people she has been assigned to protect, and the only ass she has to kick is the enemy's, which is fire. No swords, no brute one-on-one sweaty fights, but my publisher did tease me about what a bad costuming fad I might start at conventions if they dress like Jetta in her Dance leathers. Oh, my...

[AnyaKimlin]

Originally Posted by Karn Maeshalanadae

That's not so true, Anya, because the reader will want some semblence of adhesive reality. One can only suspend their disbelief for so long.

.

But in a society where people are better fed etc then the women would actually be bigger in stature than many medieval male 'heroes' If you haven't created that situation then no it won't make sense. In the world I have created there is no reason why a normal woman can't fight with a sword.

It isn't unreasonable that a different race or species would just be bigger without being less feminine.

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Well no, Anya, that isn't what I meant. What you suggested can indeed be plausible, but what I was referring to was your "We can do whatever we want" comment in that you just can't be off the wall too much. For instance, you can't just make the hero win by snapping his fingers or being able to perform master swordsmanship the first time they've ever even seen a blade.