Are female characters in Fantasy subservient to their male counterparts?

[Jeffbert]

Originally Posted by Parson

I did indeed draw the wrong conclusion (again!), assuming that you were Jewish. But in this place agnostic/atheist might just put you in the majority. Feel free to pm me if you want to talk about this a bit further.

What I meant by "racial memory" --- probably not the best use of the term --- was that women are subservient to men without any thought out bias, but rather because that's the way it's always done even from before critical thinking about these kinds of things became common place. A kind of direct line from the oral traditions from which Fantasy arose.

I am writing a book about my experiences in a FUNDAMENTALIST CHURCH, & until that is either published oir rejected, I really do not want to say more than this.

O.k., to answer your question, while I cannot comment on modern fantasy, the older, classic stuff such as E. R. Burroughs, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, & others during that time wrote, yes, I would say that they put women in roles that were appropriate for the culture at that time. I read all of E.R. Burroughs' Mars, moon, Venus, Pellucidar, & the LAND THAT TIME FORGOT series. Likewise, I read all the Professor Challenger stories. In these, women, if they were there at all, were there to give the heroes damsels to rescue. In Journey to the Center of the Earth, only the men went on the expedition, though the 1950s film version did include at least 1 woman, she was only there to be rescued. Likewise the Verne & Wells Moon adventures. Women only went in the 1950s & '60s film versions, & then, they likely screamed, fainted, & needed rescue. Though MASTER OF THE WORLD is one of my favorite Vincent Price films, & I have read both that & Robur, The Conquerer, I cannot recall if any women were in either novel as adventurers.

I think that if any author had dared to defy convention & created female characters in any but the helpless damsel role, he or she would have sold very few copies of that story, & perhaps would have been lucky if any subsequent novels regardless of female characters, sold at all.

[Anne Lyle]

I suspect it's more likely that it never occurred to the (male) authors that there could be women in active roles.

In fact there were successful stories of strong female characters even back in the early 20th century, but as with so much else written by women, they've been largely forgotten:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jirel_of_Joiry

[Jeffbert]

I had no idea! I still remember the VIRGINIA SLIMS ads that ran, I guess during the late 1960s that showed men's attitudes toward women who smoked. The men always held the habit as belonging exclusively to men, & by one means or another, extinguished the women's cigarettes. But, since I have been watching old movies, I note that everybody smoked.

Back to your post, the cover shown on that wikipedia page uses the women as an attraction to male readers. I imagine that the stories depicted the women as scantily clad, or placed in sexy situations. Do you know of any stories in which the female characters were not there for the sake of sexiness? I subscribed to more than a few magazines in my life, & I believe an Asimov anthology scifi series was among them. I cannot recall any details, though. http://www.asimovs.com/2012_03/index.shtml

Anyway, I really only knew about the names of the founders of scifi, & it was their stories that I sought to read.

[Anne Lyle]

I suspect that the cover art bears little relation to the content of the story, which is set in a medieval world, but I've never read the stories so I couldn't say.

[Triceratops]

Goodness gadness, we're having this same topic over at AbsoluteWrite, and it does tend to get a bit heated.

Answer to OP: Both my genders are on equal footing with each other, unless the plot dictates that one take control. My gals are intelligent, independent and very physically active. They have to be with the **** I put them through.

The trick is to serve a fair balance between the sexes, in whatever capacity.

chris

[cesarica]

Haven't read the whole discussion but basically, yes, they are subservient to their male counterparts. Although this is not surprising considering the historical framework it's still quite annoying (probably because I am a woman too ). However, I also must admit that I tried reading LeGuin's fiction and I didn't like it; not sure why though and if it has anything to do with some reviews I read prior to LeGuin in which the author argues that women's SF is much more emotional and character-focused - the characteristics we usually ascribe to women. -_- So when I saw that it is kind of true I stopped reading it.
I also read the post from the first page that mentions some research about boys and girls watching superhero shows and how girls identify themselves with male instead of female heroes...That's probably correct, and that's probably the reason why i have problems digesting female SF.
Anyways, cyberpunk has given us quite a lot of heroines so it would be unfair to claim that all female charact. are subordinate to men

[Parson]

That's not exactly what the research said. It said that boys don't identify with female heroes and therefore will not watch the show. If I remember correctly females identified with both and therefore it was wise for the producers to put guys in the lead role, and gals in the secondary (although important) roles.

[cesarica]

ok, possible but then again I know that all the books/movies/tv shows that i like were about men power, heroes etc; even if you had women in secondary role it just didn't seem so relevant when compared to the character
and also, take any DC or Marvel (ok, few exceptions there) comic, take any canonical piece of lit and I don't think you'll find female characters that have predisposition to become serious heroines, or idols whatever.
things are changing nowadays though..

[Parson]

I don't read many comics (none in the last 30-40 years) so can't really speak there.

But in classical literature, and often in music and the situation comedies of the first half of the 20th century, "Mom/Wife" was always the stable and sane one. She might not drive the bad guys away, but she was the one who made home worth coming back to. So I would posit that she was a very real hero even if not the "action hero."

[cesarica]

Ok, I agree with you but the problem is the fact that that was the only thing they could and should be: stable and firm characters that keep the family together while the big guys save the world and what not.
I don't have problems with that picture but I do have it if it's the only picture there is. Only recently have female characters evolved into something more than mom\wife image and I'm not saying that all those new portrayals are flattering or better; all I'm saying is that there should be a choice.
And

So I would posit that she was a very real hero even if not the "action hero."

From the contemporary perspective, yes. Go back 30, 40 years and I don't think you'd have the same perception of female characters because, simply, the life was different for both sexes.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by cesarica

Only recently have female characters evolved into something more than mom\wife image and I'm not saying that all those new portrayals are flattering or better; all I'm saying is that there should be a choice.

From the contemporary perspective, yes. Go back 30, 40 years and I don't think you'd have the same perception of female characters because, simply, the life was different for both sexes.

If we are moving into the "should" category, I agree wholeheartedly; there should be a choice. Previously I thought we were discussing the "is" category (as in -- what is the contemporary state of being).

I have the ability (unfortunately easily) to go back 30 years and even 40 years ago. (I was 21, 40 years ago.) I don't think things were as different, at least in the USA, as you seem to infer. There was most definitely a "glass ceiling" and there was a lower percentage of women working in almost any field you could name (education and nursing had a higher percentage than today). But I can think of no field where women were totally banned. (Do you count combat soldiers? That would be one.)

One thing that is different is that today a woman has to put up with a lot of "You mean you don't actually do anything" looks if she chooses to be a stay at home wife/mother. That choice is not considered to be as good or wholesome as it was 40 years ago or more.

My point is that women were "domestic heroes" and were honored for that. Today "domestic hero" sounds like an oxymoron or a kind of insult.

[cesarica]

well, yes, the present state of literature shows the absence of choice (as in, being a 'domestic hero' as you call it or an action hero) where there should be one that's why i said that female characters are actually subservient to the male ones.

and i definitely agree on the last point you made; but i suppose it's only a natural course of events; once we had a completely different situation, now we have this and maybe some time in the future we'll find a balance in that sense.

[Mangara]

I seem to have picked up a lot of books with female leads recently, characters like Vin in the Mistborn series might have an argument with you

I have however just finished day by day Armageddon by J.L. Bourne, who seemed to find women quite useless in Zombie survival situations.

And in Fool Moon by Jim Butcher the women were irrational or a sex object. Found it quite distracting really.