Gender

[Teresa Edgerton]

All things being equal, Lace, I don't doubt that you could, no matter the female's psychological state -- but what if all things weren't equal, what if you lived in a society where only women were trained to use the weapons and techniques of hand-to-hand combat and the men only taught how to put that greater physical strength into other kinds of tasks?

[Earos]

some of the comparisons being used are unfair to women... I mean comparing a trained woman to a bar room brawler and saying the woman would win... I think I could come up with a better comparison...

How about if a man and woman were both trained... both physically in shape and mentally fit... who would win then? I for one wouldnt be to eager to lay bets on that one...

I knew a girl in high school, she kicked ass... literally... I would actually go out of my way to avoid a confrontation with that person... didnt even enter my mind that she was a she while we were sparring... She held her own and some of mine when all was said and done...

Then again, I have seen a 3rd degree black belt in multiple forms of martial arts get beat down by a street thug... granted the street thug wasn't your typical type of person, he had no formal training whatsoever... He was one of those instinctive type of fighters... He was just really good at it...

If I was to ever write a book or two he would definately be one of the characters

[polymorphikos]

So what does all this have to do with whether or not an authoress was favouring the selection of female characters over male, and potentially compromising her own ideology by doing so?

I haven't read the book, so wouldn't know. But I do get irked about how all these discussions become pointless 'men/women kick arse over women/men' situations. It's the reason I don't watch sitcoms.

[Winters_Sorrow]

Jerry, Jerry! Woo-yeah! Men rock!!

I haven't read any of Kate Elliott's books either (yet) but I think women characters are a bit under-represented in Fantasy. They're usually the 'scream queen' types or seem to give up their feminism by outdoing the men in "macho-ness" if that makes sense.

I think Anne McCaffrey did a fairly good job in portraying realistic dynamic female characters in her books, though. Killashandra Ree always seemed very independant and competant IMO.

[polymorphikos]

As a serious, non-critical question, what would you define as trying to out-do the macho? For example, a ruthless mercantile killer who dresses in trousers would not be defined as too macho, would they? To do so would be stereotyping.

And, having read a fair bit of very dated sf/f adventure fiction, I must say that we have come leaps and bounds in the depiction of women in fantasy. No, wait, in fact that was an entirely-inaccurate statement.

[Alia]

Originally Posted by polymorphikos

So what does all this have to do with whether or not an authoress was favouring the selection of female characters over male, and potentially compromising her own ideology by doing so?

I haven't read the book, so wouldn't know. But I do get irked about how all these discussions become pointless 'men/women kick arse over women/men' situations. It's the reason I don't watch sitcoms.

Poly... it's all Lacey's fault for side tracking the conversation he started.

In the Kate Elliott book's the eldest girl inherits everything... not the boy. The oldest boy marries into wealth to improve the families situation, and the second boy and other boys, are placed in the church.
The church is ran by a woman, the Holy Mother, not a man.
One of the things mentioned in the books too is how it is easier for a woman to claim birth of a child than it is for a man. Blue puts it very nicely in her first post on this thread.
All bastard children, I believe male or female are placed in the church. (If you read the books, bastard is a common word, please don't take offense) I could be wrong about the females.
Both women and men go to war, but is men who fight while the women lead along side other men.
There are lots of other little things that make women a stronger presence in the story than the men. Never does it seem like a man verse women thing in the books. The men know their place and don't fight it.

If someone could add to this list or make a point I miss, I would greatly appreciate it.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by polymorphikos

So what does all this have to do with whether or not an authoress was favouring the selection of female characters over male, and potentially compromising her own ideology by doing so?

I haven't read the book, so wouldn't know. But I do get irked about how all these discussions become pointless 'men/women kick arse over women/men' situations. It's the reason I don't watch sitcoms.

I've split the thread and removed the general banter to the lounge, to keep this discussion on topic.

[Lacedaemonian]

Alia you have opened our views to the general forum, now The Master and co will be having a field day. Well done!

The point was simple. Kate Elliott has the female role portrayed excellently in these books. But at times she appears to struggle with her own concepts. Sanglant - pre chained to the ground with dogs for over a year - is the obvious heir to the king. However, the remarriage/bastardisation concept thwarts this. As does the preference for a female heir. What makes Sanglant a better heir than his sisters? He is a natural war leader who men want to follow. By the way I love Theophanu before you crucify me further, and think she should be the heir.

We are who we are why? Because of one decision in history? I don't think so. Stop being naive and wake up to the reality that is the the human condition. Television has conned you into thinking that we are all something we are not. Turn Sex in the City off and have a drink of strong coffee. I kept the discussion base because we were discussing the base natures of human beings and the effect that this would have on a hereditary concept.

[Alia]

I did not do this Lacey... I merely provided some examples of how women and men were viewed in the book.

And your right about Sanglant, but you missed a very valuable concept with him. Sanglant was born and trained forthe soul purpose in life, which was to lead the King's dragons. If he had been a girl, the same would apply. It did not matter the gender for that position in which Sanglant held. The first born bastard child of the next heir. Granted Sanglant has the ability to lead people, he has that charm and charisma about him... but I think that is his personality and any woman can have the same charm.
Besides that, in the book, each character was dealing and struggling with change. Times were changing, as was the desire of Sanglant and those in charge around him. His own father, King Henri, also struggled with changing things and used Rosvita to seek out information to help bring about change in his own kingdom.

And I don't watch Sex in the City, ever.

[Lacedaemonian]

I won't post into this discussion again. The men in her books are better at war as a generalised base view. As war and empire govern most if not all political consequences within the story why would the most successful warring gender bend its knee to the weaker warring gender? They simply would not. God help you for those who think otherwise! Enjoy watching your Ali McBeal DVD box sets.

[Alia]

Lacey... chill... you need to finish reading the books for starters. If I tell you anything, it will ruin the story. And your right, it is very stupid for a successful warring gender to bend their knee to the weaker warring gender, both in fiction and reality. And this is an issue in the story, especially with the king and letting his first born daughter take over after him. Her marriage plays an important part in that decision.
And I don't watch Ali McBeal either.