# Is it unfair to dislike characters because they are "strong" female characters?



## fantastic

There has been many complaints about term "strong female character" and what it usually means. Supposedly, the term strong female character becomes a synonym with "a physically strong woman" or even "badass female fighter". And some people feel that it somehow underestimates other useful roles female characters could be in.

I understand that reasoning but I don't think it is entirely correct.

First of all, I think you will probably agree that if a character is a skilled fighter, he probably deserves to be called strong. After all, when you think about word strong, physical meaning is perhaps the most obvious one. At this point, I expect someone to correct me and say that a good fighter is not necessarily physically strong. Speed, technique, intelligence, mindset and will are all important. But even so, if a fighter is skilled purely because of his speed, I still think he could be described as a strong fighter.

So, when you say "strong female character", you assume that this character is strong in some sense. Maybe physically or mentally or in some other way.

Which brings me to a very important point. The reason why people even want strong female character is because they are usually reduced to essentially useless character whose only purpose is being saved, also known as damsel in distress. "Strong female character" is a reply to "useless female character". The term is supposed to let you know, that the female character won't be reduced to a useless character. And in that sense, I believe it is a good term that tells you the character is capable of something.

The problems people think they have with "strong" female characters, is not a problem with female characters being strong. The problem they have is the fact that, a strong character can still be useless, a strong character may not be an interesting one, a strong character being strong without a good reason makes the story weak.

If you say that a female character doesn't have to be physically strong to be "strong", you are absolutely right. But if a female character is physically strong, she is also "strong". So, when you complain about female character being strong, are you not really complaining that the character is not realistic, interesting or more useful in the story?


----------



## Peat

Straight off the top of my head answer - I don't care whether its fair to dislike characters or not, I do or I don't.

Slightly more considered answer - Love the player, hate the game. I don't dislike characters because they "strong female characters". I dislike the preponderence of them, they way they're sometimes seen as the only worthwhile female lead, but I don't dislike the characters just because.

And I have to say I've never seen anyone complain about a character just because they're a "strong female character". *pause* I haven't seen anyone who isn't clearly sexist as all hell do so. I've seen complaints about the trend, or wishing to avoid being labelled part of the trend, but not about individual characters because they're part of it. Fair enough if you've sent different.


----------



## psychotick

Hi,

First to paraphrase Peat - it's not about fairness. The reader doesn't care whether he's right about his opinion of a particular character.

Next, I don't think that the resistence to strong female characters is only because there'sso many of them these days, or even because they sometimes end up like a cartoonish characature and not very believable. I think there's another factor at work - the issue of femininity. Women are sterotypically supposed to be the safoter carers, the nurturers. And the idea of the kick arse female seems to rub against this. You start tearing down someone's sterotypes and they aren't going to be happy. Just think how happy you'd be reading about the effeminate male hero of a book. It just grates somehow, even though there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## fantastic

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> First to paraphrase Peat - it's not about fairness. The reader doesn't care whether he's right about his opinion of a particular character.
> 
> Next, I don't think that the resistence to strong female characters is only because there'sso many of them these days, or even because they sometimes end up like a cartoonish characature and not very believable. I think there's another factor at work - the issue of femininity. Women are sterotypically supposed to be the safoter carers, the nurturers. And the idea of the kick arse female seems to rub against this. You start tearing down someone's sterotypes and they aren't going to be happy. Just think how happy you'd be reading about the effeminate male hero of a book. It just grates somehow, even though there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



Well, unfair was maybe the wrong word to use. After all, you are allowed to like whatever you want. However, what you say means that people dislike some characters not because he is not made well, but simply because it breaks stereotypes.

Disliking some types of people is one thing, but disliking idea of such people being in a story is weird, in my opinion. Also, something to keep in mind is that women are less likely to be skilled fighters in our world, in some stories however, there may be systems that allow them to fight equally or even better. In which case it is pointless to even have the same stereotypes you would in our world.

I can definitely understand the complaints when a character is too skilled and it doesn't make sense. There are plenty of people who make the female characters physically strong just to avoid having a "weak female character" everyone will complain about.


----------



## Peat

I'm more used to seeing people dislike it because it is a stereotype - and it is by now - than I am to seeing people dislike it because it breaks stereotypes.

Although that might be because I tend to walk a wide path around the latter.


----------



## WooHooMan

This thread smells like trouble.  But hey, I'll throw in my opinion.  I'm explicitly against "strong female characters" so maybe I can act as the voice for that camp, as I know that many people on this forum are in favor of them and few will admit to being against them.



fantastic said:


> So, when you say "strong female character", you assume that this character is strong in some sense. Maybe physically or mentally or in some other way.



For myself, no, I don't think that at all.  For me, when I hear "strong female character", I assume that the character's actual character is secondary to their position as a "strong female" representation.

Not to sound conspiratorial or whatever but there seems to be a debate going around as to the role of media in humanity.  Many people seem to be under the impression that the value of art is determinant on its value to society.  The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is that the "ultimate use" of art is to promote "good" social beliefs such as "women must display these 'strong' traits but not these 'weak' traits".
I can go on about the theory behind this like where this line of thinking originated and how it has manifested through history but that all gets very political.

I believe that the value of art is determined by how it effects individuals.  Not society.
Just today, I had a friend give me a weird look when I suggested that people can "have relationships with" books and movies and things like that.  But that's my viewpoint.  I don't really think that art's only place in the puzzle of humanity is to act as a reflection of society which in turns transforms that society.

When I hear "strong female character", a red flag goes off.  It tells me that the writer is probably more interesting in selling me an idea about humanity than telling me a story about people.

Does that explain it very well?  If you have questions, let me know.


----------



## psychotick

Hi Fantastic,

The point is that stereotypes are important to us. They frame our psychological world. They let us see it in a way that makes sense to us. And some stereotypes are central to our world. A lot of the resistence to changing our racist, sexist, and every other ist world comes from the simple fact that people are comfortable with their world views and if you force them to change what they "know" they're going to be unhappy. Their world is changing and people don't generally find change comforting.

Fiction has a role to play here. It helps to shape the world readers see around them. At its best it makes people think. But the more challenging a work is in terms of breaking down stereotypes, the greater the resistence will be and the more likely it is that a work will be considered unrealistic or even offensive.

Consider the reaction to Stowe's work - Uncle Tom's Cabin. While it was wildly successful in some parts, in the south it provoked an outcry with booksellers being run out of town for even stocking it and everyone jumping on the bandwagon to ban it. And if you read the criticisms of the book carefully, you'll see that what is being complained about is as much about the shattering of a world view as it is about the work itself. The criticism was so severe that Stowe had to write a second book to defend the first - A Key To Uncle Tom's Cabin. And this is for a work of fiction.

In the same way, though obviously not to the same extent since there have already been many role models in fiction of strong woman, more books following this trope still have to overcome this natural resistence.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## WooHooMan

psychotick said:


> some stereotypes are central to our world. A lot of the resistence to changing our racist, sexist, and every other ist world comes from the simple fact that people are comfortable with their world views and if you force them to change what they "know" they're going to be unhappy. Their world is changing and people don't generally find change comforting.



Come now, this seems reductive.  This suggests that people primarily or only resist certain conventions (subversion of archetypes) because it falls outside of their comfort zone and they feel threatened.  It's almost a strawman, really.

Some individuals like the "subverted stereotype" because it rings true to them.  Others like the "straight stereotype" because it rings true to them.  Some people may feel that both can ring true.



psychotick said:


> Fiction has a role to play here. It helps to shape the world readers see around them.



I mentioned in my previous post that I do not see this as being the case.  In fact, I don't _want_ it to be the case.  I really dislike that art is used as a tool for people to "shape" others.  That sounds like propaganda to me.
In my opinion, I do not think art changes who we are.  Certainly not in my experience.
Art lets us learn about ourselves.  It's a lens with which we see ourselves.  Not a chisel that let's the writers carve us.


----------



## Peat

WooHooMan said:


> I mentioned in my previous post that I do not see this as being the case.  In fact, I don't _want_ it to be the case.  I really dislike that art is used as a tool for people to "shape" others.  That sounds like propaganda to me.
> In my opinion, I do not think art changes who we are.  Certainly not in my experience.
> Art lets us learn about ourselves.  It's a lens with which we see ourselves.  Not a chisel that let's the writers carve us.



If art is a lens that lets us see ourselves, then it helps to shape the world we see around ourselves.

The lens we use will shape how we view ourselves. The world we see is linked to our view of ourselves and our position in it. 

More over, how we see ourselves, what we learn about ourselves, will slowly change ourselves. 

And if a piece of art does that to thousands and millions of people, then how is that piece of art not affecting society?

I am not advocating art as a way of deliberately attempting to shape the opinions of others. Nor am I saying that is the only value art has. Or even the main one.

But I think that denying that art is capable of shaping the way others think - whether the creator intended it to or not - is illogical. It has done so in the past and there is no reason for it to not do so in the future.


----------



## Russ

WooHooMan said:


> I mentioned in my previous post that I do not see this as being the case.  In fact, I don't _want_ it to be the case.  I really dislike that art is used as a tool for people to "shape" others.  That sounds like propaganda to me.
> In my opinion, I do not think art changes who we are.  Certainly not in my experience.
> Art lets us learn about ourselves.  It's a lens with which we see ourselves.  Not a chisel that let's the writers carve us.



While you may not like the idea that art is trying to shape you, that is very  much part of what it is, particularly in writing.

Communications is about transmitting something relevant from the sender to the receiver, in the hope that the message will change the recipient in some fashion.

That is the essence of writing and even more particularly story telling.  

What the message is varies, but the purpose of the message is the change the reader.

I may want to:

- make you entertained
- improve your mood
- educate you
- provide you valuable information
- change your view about something
-get you to think about something you may not have otherwise thought about
- depress you
- outrage you
- harm you

But communications is about changing the receiver.

Communications in its many forms changes us as individuals and as groups.

Otherwise...why bother?

And if you want a lens to look at yourself in an enhanced fashion, feel free to just buy a better mirror.


----------



## Guy

Dislike a character for whatever reason strikes your fancy, though the strong female is probably my favorite character type. My red button on this particular issue is when a character is presented as a strong female but when a serious challenge shows up she's reduced to a damsel in distress.


----------



## WooHooMan

Peat said:


> _The whole post_



I thought that everything you just said was implied in what I said.  I didn't think that I'd have to expand on that.



Russ said:


> Communications is about transmitting something relevant from the sender to the receiver, in the hope that the message will change the recipient in some fashion.
> 
> That is the essence of writing and even more particularly story telling.
> 
> What the message is varies, but the purpose of the message is the change the reader.



The message isn't the only thing that varies.  The purpose of the message would vary depending on the messenger.  The purpose varies from piece to piece and creator to creator.

There is a world of difference between saying "I want to change someone's mood" and saying "I want to change someone's worldview".

I, personally, have _never_ written anything with the intent to change someone's worldview in any way, shape or form.  I write mostly for myself.  Allowing other people to read my work is mostly just a way of legitimizing the time and effort I put into my craft.  I don't care what reader's think about my work, for the most part.
I mean, I would _want_ them to think "hey, this is great!  This dude is talented" but, y'know, that's the most I can ask for.



Russ said:


> Communications in its many forms changes us as individuals and as groups.
> 
> Otherwise...why bother?



You're suggesting that storytelling is just a form of persuasion.  I like to think that storytelling is something else entirely.  Something purer, maybe.  Like something more romantic.
I don't know.  I'm a romantic person.  I like to think there's something else.



Russ said:


> And if you want a lens to look at yourself in an enhanced fashion, feel free to just buy a better mirror.



Look, I was speaking figuratively.  The "lens" in this case was a metaphor for...oh, wait....is that a joke?

I feel like _my_ writing shapes me in a way that no other writer has been able to.  Every time I finish a book or a short story or a comic or a poem, I feel like I'm a slightly better (wiser, more experienced, more practiced, more complete) person than when I began writing the work.
This is partially why I write.  I'm very slowly making myself into what I want to be, in a way.
I don't want to get too personal in this thread.  It's not worth it.



Guy said:


> My red button on this particular issue is when a character is presented as a strong female but when a serious challenge shows up she's reduced to a damsel in distress.



Hey, under the right circumstances, _I'd_ turn into a damsel in distress.  No one is invincible.

That scenario is an example of a writer wanting to have a "strong female character" without actually having a strong character who is a woman.  There _is_ a difference between those two things.  The former is a tool that imitates a character and the latter is a character that imitates a person.

Also, I've been drinking so I can't tell if this post makes any sense.  I'm really sorry if it doesn't.  I can't post responsibly.

Kids, don't drink and post.


----------



## ascanius

My problem with the 'strong' female character is a lot of times, not always, they are nothing more than men with breasts.  A lot of time I get the impression that the author in an attempt to be diverse, inclusive what have you, they simply take character traits for a male character, multiply by 10, and make her antisocial.  It ignores all differences between the sexs.  They lack all depth and uniqueness.

I don't think it has anything to do with breaking stereotypes, but more to do with with creating an equally absurd stereotype in its place.


----------



## psychotick

Hi WooHoo,

First, didn't say that people only resist what they see as perversions of their established norms because it falls outside of their comfort zones. There are other reasons they may resist too. But that is an important factor which is what I said.

Second, when you talk about art being used as a tool to recreate you, that is propaganda as you say. But propaganda is not necessarily bad. Propaganda comes in many forms including education and the things parents teach their children etc. And I get that you don't like that writers / artists may be trying to use their work to influence your viewpoints. But one thing you have to understand about many forms of writing and other arts is that they do influence your world view. They do shape you. That's regardless of whether the writer / artist is trying to persuade you to a particular view or not. 

The only way to avoid this is to avoid all forms of communication. Hiff the telly out, burn all the books, live in a shack by yourself and refuse to speak to anyone. That way that at least you can be sure that all the ideas you come up with are purely your own and your world view is completely of your own making. But they'll probably be pretty mundane thoughts and a sad world view!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## glutton

I think discussion of the Strong Female Character stereotype is overplayed because while it does exist, so do stock Strong Male Characters (see most B action movies) and they don't get nearly the same amount of attention. Heck if you focus more on developing your heroines like I do, you might have to pay more attention to developing your male supporting characters enough so that they don't come across as token Strong Male Characters who are there to have a male presence among the protagonists.

With regard to the Strong Female Character being overly aggressive and antisocial though I think that is overdone and often makes them look like tryhards (which is okay if they are actually supposed to be), but a real confident badass doesn't need to go around beating up random men and even allies with little to no justification if they're actually secure in their abilities and don't feel the need to validate themselves by bullying others.

Why try to make yourself feel tough by picking on your male allies who are weaker or unwilling to fight back, save that aggression for fighting the big bad so you hopefully don't get humiliated and look completely useless compared to the same male hero you were bullying earlier in the story lol.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

I don't dislike Strong Female Characters. I don't think anyone does. 

What I do dislike is "Strong Female Characters" who are just one-dimensional caricatures lacking any depth or development and who are characterized as "strong" by making them badass fighters who have no emotions. THAT's what's annoying. 

Or worse, weak, weepy, unmotivated heroines unable to do much except melt across the nearest male's bronzed pectoral muscles, but who are presented as "strong female characters" but lose that facade whenever the tiniest bit of danger shows up. 

Nobody hates a strong woman for being strong, but the "strong female" cliches are very much worth hating.


----------



## WooHooMan

> First, didn't say that people only resist what they see as perversions of their established norms because it falls outside of their comfort zones. There are other reasons they may resist too. But that is an important factor which is what I said.



That was the only reason you addressed.  That suggested you thought it was the only or primary reason.
As someone who dislikes "strong female characters" (and is speaking for that opinion in this thread), I do not believe that ingrained sexist attitudes is a major factor in dislike of "strong female characters".



> Second, when you talk about art being used as a tool to recreate you, that is propaganda as you say. But propaganda is not necessarily bad. Propaganda comes in many forms including education and the things parents teach their children etc. And I get that you don't like that writers / artists may be trying to use their work to influence your viewpoints. But one thing you have to understand about many forms of writing and other arts is that they do influence your world view. They do shape you. That's regardless of whether the writer / artist is trying to persuade you to a particular view or not.



The definitions of propaganda are...

_"Propaganda is information, especially of a biased nature, used to promote or publicise a particular political cause or point of view.

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also a public action having such an effect"_

You're trying to justify propaganda by saying it is similar to socializing agents such as what parents teach children.  Propaganda is something different entirely.  Mostly, it is understood that propaganda is a tool that the creator uses on the audience for the sake of a cause (which tends to be political in nature).
Attempting to use art as a way of bettering myself is hardly comparable to propaganda.

It is also a little much to state "one thing you have to understand about many forms of writing and other arts is that they do influence your world view. They do shape you."
That doesn't align with my experience.  There's no evidence I have encountered to lead me to believe that this statement is factual true.  I have never had my opinion/view on something explicitly changed by a piece of fiction.



> The only way to avoid this is to avoid all forms of communication.



This is a black-and-white fallacy.  My want is not to prevent people from being effected by art.  It is for artist to not primarily use their art to try and push viewpoints on people.  This can be achieved without avoiding communication.



> Hiff the telly out, burn all the books, live in a shack by yourself and refuse to speak to anyone. That way that at least you can be sure that all the ideas you come up with are purely your own and your world view is completely of your own making. But they'll probably be pretty mundane thoughts and a sad world view!



This is a slippery slope fallacy.  I dislike creators using art primarily as a tool to influence people's views.  The logical conclusion of this line of thinking is not that I will become some kind of hermit who destroys media for fear of being influenced.

And hey, who's to say being a hermit is "mundane and sad".  I'm sure that some people enjoy being hermits.  It doesn't mean their thoughts are mundane or their worldview is sad.


----------



## Nimue

I disagree with the idea that books with strong social messages are automatically propaganda.  They may be simply written for and by people who believe in those ideas, and like to read things that explore those messages, or at the very least won't surprise them with problematic (from their view) character treatment or authorial viewpoints.  It's possible that something rubs you the wrong way simply because you're not the target audience--that doesn't exclude the idea, of course, that it might be poorly written.  Putting message before writing quality might be a red flag.

Literature carries the ingrained assumptions and beliefs of the society it's written in.  Hard to imagine a book that doesn't, unless it was written by a computer.  Of course, if we all share that society, it's almost invisible, and comes through only when we get to political or fringe beliefs.  This includes fantasy fiction, to be sure, because in imagining new worlds or characters, we may gravitate to ideals or symbols that reflect our own world or history...


----------



## AElisabet

a) Just want to get out of the way that I think a book can "say" something to society without being propaganda.  A GREAT book finds the universal in particular.  Sure, some books are propaganda, and I don't care for that.  But what makes them propaganda isn't that they have a moral center, but that they failed to find the particular in universal, or tried to ram something that isn't universal down the readers throats as if it was.  

I think ASOIAF has an amazing moral center - the brutal consequences of war, the hubris of power, the falseness of the traditional "hero" narrative, the significance of women, bastards, cripples, and "broken things" to saving the world.  But is it "preachy"?  Heck no.

b) When it comes to "Strong Female Characters" my annoyance at them comes from the following (rant incoming  )

** First:* "Strong" is almost always equivalent to seeking out non-"traditional" female roles.  Being a fighter!  Or a scholar!  No dresses!  No marriage and babies.

Now, I'm definitely no traditionalist when it comes to gender roles.  I've been a "Career" woman.  I'm a Feminist.  I've been a scholar.  Graduate degrees and a decade commuting to Manhattan to show for it.  But now I'm a SAHM and I love it, too.  And you know what?  Getting married, falling in love, and having babies is the STRONGEST and bravest and most exciting thing I've ever done.  Having to choose between my career and my children _broke my heart._.  But I made the right choice (For me.  For me.)

So many Strong Female Characters don't make real choices like real women do.  They want only one thing.  To not get married!  To Do One Awesome Thing!  But IRL the conflict for many women isn't just "I want to be X Awesome Thing, but society says I must get married and have babies, which I have no desire for."  The conflict for many women is "I want to be X Awesome Thing, AND marry this person I love, AND be with the children who have filled my whole heart, AND find an hour a day to write a novel about it all...but I only have 24 hours in a day and have to choose between these things, society will work against me no matter what I do, and the choices I must make hurt."

If I read one more female character in a fantasy world who is all "Woe, I don't want to marry, it will destroy my ability to go on adventures, and I hate dresses!"  I will hurl. 

And yes, there absolutely are women who genuinely have no desire to marry or have children.  But even for women who have no interest in "domesticity", their conflicts aren't one sided.  They are complex.  Their choices hurt.  They still have social networks and relationships that are affected by their choices and people whom they love.  They have good things they must sacrifice for better things.  I want to see writers really show this, rather than resorting to the easy dichotomies of the stereotypical Strong Female Character.

* *Second:* The Strong Female Character often ignores all the potential for women who are more traditionally domestic to go on world saving adventures.  Mothers have tremendous incentive to save the world.  We have the very lives of our children.  Someone please write this into fantasy aside from GRRM.

We also have Baby Bjorns (or Bekos, or whatever your favorite brand is).  I regularly hike small mountains with a 2 year old on my back and my four year old running ahead talking to imaginary dragons.  Mothers don't sit around the house poking the hearthfires; have you ever sat around the house with small children?  IT'S CRAZY MAKING.  Mothers with small children want to GET OUT.  Mothers with small children would be the first ones in the village to raise their hands and volunteer for adventure if just to tire the munchkins out. 

I think we could make it to Mordor if we needed to.  


In conclusion, I don't like the stereotypical Strong Female Characters because it is a cheap shorthand for character development, it is too distant and simplistic when compared with the real experiences of women (including women who have no interest in marriage or babies), and because it implies that women who do have those "traditional" domestic responsibilities are somehow excluded from having interesting or adventurous lives and too boring to write fantasy stories about.

No, no, and no.  

Rant concluded 

(Totally unrelated, I noticed a few familiar names on the thread - I am AKA MammaMamae in other corners of the internets, so hello!)


----------



## WooHooMan

Nimue said:


> I disagree with the idea that books with strong social messages are automatically propaganda.



I'm not trying to imply it is.  I'm saying that when a writer invests in the "strong female character" archetype, their goal tends to be propaganda.  Not art.



Nimue said:


> Literature carries the ingrained assumptions and beliefs of the society it's written in.



I don't see how this is relevant.

It's not like that because the writer is shaped by their environment, their work must be written _for_ that one society.  Or that they or their work must act as representatives of their society.
And I definitely don't think that a work can only be appreciated/examined in context of the culture that allowed for its creation.

And surely there must be some value given to works that manage to transcend their own culture and speak to everyone.  The Iliad doesn't just speak to Hellenist Greeks, Journey to the West doesn't just speak for Ming-era Chinese people and Lord of the Rings doesn't just speak for English Catholics who love Norse mythology.

All these works have something in them that manages to cut through cultural attitudes and speak to humanity.
When a writer's primary concern is the society they live in and not human nature in general, I doubt they'd really be able to make something universal.



AElisabet said:


> Mothers have tremendous incentive to save the world.  We have the very lives of our children.  Someone please write this into fantasy aside from GRRM.



Man, I've been wanting to either read or write about an older mother protagonist for the longest time.  I really should get on that.
It's strange that for as important as mothers tend to be in _every_ human society, there are very few works of fiction that focuses on them.  Mothers are almost always supporting characters.



AElisabet said:


> I don't like the stereotypical Strong Female Characters because it is a cheap shorthand for character development, it is too distant and simplistic when compared with the real experiences of women (including women who have no interest in marriage or babies), and because it implies that women who do have those "traditional" domestic responsibilities are somehow excluded from having interesting or adventurous lives and too boring to write fantasy stories about.



This ties into what I was saying in my previous posts: there is a difference between "strong female characters" and strong characters who are women.


----------



## AElisabet

WooHooMan said:


> I'm not trying to imply it is.  I'm saying that when a writer invests in the "strong female character" archetype, their goal tends to be propaganda.  Not art.



Yes, this is often the case.  Clarification noted.

So we can agree


----------



## AElisabet

WooHooMan said:


> Man, I've been wanting to either read or write about an older mother protagonist for the longest time.  I really should get on that.
> It's strange that for as important as mothers tend to be in _every_ human society, there are very few works of fiction that focuses on them.  Mothers are almost always supporting characters.



I'm on it!  I'm on it!

I'm working on an epic fantasy with a heroine who is also a mother (or at least becomes one halfway through the story and it is central).  Her own mother is also a major protagonist (and not dead!  Totally alive and central to the plot well into grandmotherhood.)

It goes without saying, but _all_ genders - all people - deserve to have their complexity recognized, and not just to serve a "message" but because it just makes for better, more interesting fiction.  I don't like stereotypical male characters either.  I don't like anti-men propaganda in fiction (I'm married to one - he's pretty cool).  A story with complex female characters deserves equally complex male characters.


----------



## Peat

WooHooMan said:


> Man, I've been wanting to either read or write about an older mother protagonist for the longest time.  I really should get on that.
> It's strange that for as important as mothers tend to be in _every_ human society, there are very few works of fiction that focuses on them.  Mothers are almost always *dead*.



Edited for cheap joke.

I thought of this when reviewing Pawn of Prophecy the other day. Polgara is arguably the real protagonist of the Belgariad the same way Samwise is arguably the real protagonist of Lord of the Rings. She's certainly second in billing after Garion. 

And I just couldn't think of any other maternal figures who receive such prominence in fantasy other than maybe Isana in the Codex Alera. Even then, there are complications to their maternal status. (Trying to dance around spoilers here).

Flippin' crazy man. One of the most revered and richest roles in human society and as far as Fantasy is concerned, it might as well be so much chopped tripe. Usually fairly literally.


----------



## Nimue

Paladin of Souls by Lois McMaster-Bujold is a great book, and the main character Ista is not only a mother but over 40.  I really wish there were more characters out there like her, the wealth of her experiences and the uniqueness of her viewpoint and motives alike.  Queen Dowager and former saint is a fantastic role for a main character!  Bujold does a great job of choosing unusual MCs, in the common run of things, and writing them completely believably--old former-slave councilors, main characters that are disabled to one degree or another...

Agreed, though, that it's not exactly classic fantasy, and I can't think of another example that isn't one character of many in a political fantasy like Kay or Martin's books.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

This ties into the cultural popularity of the "strong female" archetype. Motherhood is not respected and valued as much as it should be in modern society, probably because it's a "traditional" role and much effort has been spent trying to break away from traditional ideas of what the role of women should be. So, we admire the "strong, independent woman who hates feminine things and does everything a man can do" and devalue women in the role of wife and mother. Unintentionally (usually) but, our society is mirrored by the books we write. 

Why isn't a female character who is just a mom and doesn't fight bad guys or ride horses or shoot arrows considered a "strong female character?" Molly Weasley from the Harry Potter series is one of my favorite mom characters and strong female characters in fantasy fiction. My mom is probably the strongest person I know, but in a book she wouldn't be called a "strong female character." 

I wouldn't either. I don't fight bad guys with weapons. I sit around and write books.


----------



## WooHooMan

Nimue said:


> Agreed, though, that it's not exactly classic fantasy, and I can't think of another example that isn't one character of many in a political fantasy like Kay or Martin's books.



There's a Japanese comic called Mother Sarah which has a character who is both a mother of three and a very, very tough lady.  Shame that she is the only example I can think of when I think heroic mothers.

Also, Mrs. Brisby/Frisby from Secret of NIHM.  Five star protagonist, right there!



AElisabet said:


> It goes without saying, but _all_ genders - all people - deserve to have their complexity recognized, and not just to serve a "message" but because it just makes for better, more interesting fiction.



In my experience, you aren't likely to get complex people when your chief concern is "I need to make a statement about the role of demographic X in today's society".
When your goal is try tell a story about people and emotions and human nature, that's when you get complex characters. 

I think the term "strong female character" is kind of telling.  Something about it says "_what_ the character is matters more than _who_ the character is or what she does".  Am I the only one who gets that vibe?



AElisabet said:


> I'm on it!  I'm on it!
> 
> I'm working on an epic fantasy with a heroine who is also a mother (or at least becomes one halfway through the story and it is central).  Her own mother is also a major protagonist (and not dead!  Totally alive and central to the plot well into grandmotherhood.)



Hurry up and write this!  I want to read it.


----------



## Devor

Given that I'm trying to do Trope Reboots now, this might sound a little hypocritical of me.  But for me, these kinds of phrases and labels and definitions are just an abstract starting point in a design phase.  I don't usually look at a character and think, "This is a strong female character," let alone the corollary, "I have an opinion about that."

You can switch "strong female character" with "Chosen One" or "Dark Lord" or anything else you'd like.  If I have an opinion on it, it's only during that design/creation phase, and it drops by the time I'm considering an actual fully developed story because the story and even the character are so much more than that one characteristic.

So during the design phase, considering what I or somebody else might be thinking when they decide to go with the strong female character . . . . I think it depends.  It's not a trope that I'm drawn to.  It usually gets its power from the contradiction of what you "expect" from a woman and what you expect from a warrior.  Even if the point is to try and disprove expectations, it seems a little too focused on that real world social point for me.

But again, I don't read about Brienne of Tarth and think "Author duude's trying to get all up in my face and tell me something about women" or "do I think it's realistic for a woman to really get this strong?  Let me think about that."  By the point we're talking about Brienne of Tarth, that abstract trope has been buried in immersive details so that I barely think about it, and probably wouldn't at all if it wasn't for conversations like this one.


Note:  To be super-clear, I mean female characters who are defined by their _physical_ strength.


----------



## FifthView

Mothering takes a lot of time and effort, especially in a medieval type of setting.  Slipping in the occasional dungeon crawl might often be out of the question.  Cersei at least has the benefit of an army of servants.

Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled program.


----------



## Heliotrope

Man FifthView, you and I are always on the same page. 

I was going to mention Cercie last night. 

I think that this entire conversation is geared towards the "Brienne of Tarth" type character? OR the Arya Stark type character? To be totally honest I have actually never seen the trope presented in a way I didn't like (The Paperbag Princess? I loved that). So if someone could direct me to novel where this trope is actually done badly, not just hypothetically done badly, I would love to see it. 

On the other side, for me, Strong Female Character is a woman who has some gumption and gets stuff done. My favorites are Cercie, as mentioned above, also Morgaine from Mists of Avalon, or Scarlett O'Hara from Gone With The Wind. I also loved the French Princess in Braveheart and Lucilla in Gladiator (also a mother). All these characters, to me, were presented as "Strong Female Characters." 

I loved them all.


----------



## Russ

And who can forget Moorcock's Empress Gloriana...?


----------



## FifthView

@Helio:

I'd written a longer comment last night, then deleted it, similar to yours.  Please point out to me the bad examples, because the books I read don't have them.  Also, I'm quite fine with the female "helper" supporting character, the nurturing friend, sister, mother type of character the MC returns to for solace, comfort, aid.  Does that make me evil?  Even most of those supporting characters have strong personalities–a rock for purchase in the middle of a storm at sea.

I've recently been watching _Supergirl_ S1 on Netflix, and I admit to feeling a little perturbed at the way she can become hyperemotional, filled with self-doubt, and can vacillate between plans of action because of those things.  But then I remember _Arrow_ on the CW network, and to a lesser extent _The Flash_, and think, meh, it's more that YA CW-ish sort of kneejerk scriptwriting and directing than any sort of negative "strong female character" trope.  Even male superheroes are portrayed in those ways.

And besides, Cat Grant on _Supergirl_ is a_ phenomenal _strong female character:


----------



## Heliotrope

Yeah, I'm not sure I get this hate either lol. 

One of my favorite tropes is the bad ass latina girl character (typically played by Michelle Rodriguez). 

I guess maybe the "strong female character" can be lumped into the "mary sue", but I've actually never seen this done in a novel. TV or Movies maybe? Like Cat Woman with Halle Berry? But like you mentioned, I think that is more the cheap writing and directing than the actual characterization itself? And like you said, even male characters can be presented that way? 

I think, for me, the issue is more one of feminism. The fact that there seems to be no "female character" than anyone likes. We don't like them strong, but we don't like them weak either. I have seen certain literary magazines have "no mothers" in their submission packages because they are tired of "women being driven only by protecting their children", but I have also seen "no bad ass mary sue characters" as well. 

So where is the balance? Why are there restrictions on female characters, but not on male characters? 

But this could quickly run into a feminist debate.... so I will stop here.

My husband and I were discussing this last night when I deleted my long post, and he told me this lovely lady was his childhood crush:


----------



## Nimue

Mmhmm.  I could get into a very long post here about the different angles this "strong female character" hate comes from and why I'm kind of leery of it but also not always enthusiastic about the trope itself...  But maybe the strongest ground I have to stand on is my own experience and examples that I've actually read.  When I was younger (10-15ish) I had a real penchant for what my mom sometimes called "women with swords" stories, the best and most memorable of which were The Blue Sword by Robin McKinley, Sabriel by Garth Nix, and the Protector of the Small series by Tamora Pierce.  All had physically strong and indeed sword-wielding female characters, who were also all complex, human, drivers of their own stories.  I tended to stick to writing "women with swords" stories at that point too, and while I've gradually come around to a broader view of the roles a heroine might have, I can't hate on those books for embracing the swords and combat and ass-kicking.  It's a starting place, and a very appealing one for young girls, against other messages that might be flying their way.

It's entirely possible that there are loads of shallow, derivative, "strong" female characters in say, television writing, or action move writing, or pulp fiction, or male-oriented adventure fantasy fiction.  But...I don't read or watch any of that, and to be honest weak characterization might be endemic anyway.  As Fifth brought up, and the OP as well, the question might be whether the dislike is disproportionate.


----------



## Peat

There's a difference - to me at least - between strong and "strong".

Strong can be... anything I guess. That seems a weak way of putting it but strong people can be anything. Feminism is about letting women be anything they want to be. Strength comes in all shapes and sizes.

"Strong" is only "strong" if it can kick ass. Its 'Okay, listen up, audiences says they love watching women kick ass, so make sure its in the movie'. Its that 2D checklist character that only exists to look gorgeous, punch things, and deliver a few snarky lines if lucky. And, err, guilty as charged, I love characters like that. But I dislike how often that's the only good game in town for female characters - 'You can be sexy and punch things, or sexy and kiss the hero after getting your tits out'. And I dislike how "strong" is often only "strong" as long as it doesn't overshadow the male hero. I dislike how you sometimes you can't compare 'strong' with strong with weak in the same piece of media because woah now, lets not get overboard with the amount of women. In fairness - I doubt many people actively set out to do that. Just happens. Dislike that too tbh but hey, hate the game, love the player. Nobody asked to be brought up in a very biased society and when we do recognise it and try to balance it, people often do often bring out the most awful thin stereotypes. Like the "strong" female character.

I guess this link deserves to be reposted again - I hate Strong Female Characters

I have to say, it seems more of a Hollywood thing than a fantasy thing. Although I think some of Gemmell's female characters show signs of it. And it totally is a feminism thing. Art seems all in a dither about how to portray women and ends up making a few too many statements and a few too little characters.


----------



## AElisabet

When I think of Strong Female Characters I dislike, I think of characters like in Graceling (ugh) and even Arya Stark (who along with Jon Snow is one of - IMHO - the more boring characters in Game of Thrones).  I read a little Tamora Pierce and couldn't really connect with Alanna either.  So there are a few examples.

I'm a mother of daughters, I'm not cool with the subtle message of so many of the books they will eventually pick up and read to be "boy stuff is cool and exciting, girl stuff is lame."

My little girls love their princess dresses.  And they love playing ninja and dragon rider (I'm the dragon).  And they love swords.  Especially with princess dresses.

I remember being a little girl, and we got dirty and played in the woods and climbed trees AND liked to play dress up and with dolls and wear our mother's makeup.  I really hate that so much YA and fantasy fiction puts a dichotomy between these things in the name of "Strong Female Characters" when for real life girls that dichotomy just isn't there - and putting it there sends an awful message to young female readers.  

Because the message isn't "you can be whatever you want".  The message is "girly stuff is stupid - female characters are only interesting if they do stereotypical boy and men stuff, and don't fall in any sort of committed love."

EW.  NO.  

In my experience most girls and women IRL don't think or live like this.  They don't aspire to this.  They are way more complex in their dreams and interests.  Why are there so many fantasies that think this is "feminist" or somehow speaks broadly to the experience of women?

And it drives a lot of female readers away from fantasy, starting young, which I think is very sad.  I think of so many friends of mine who used to love fantasy, are totally open to secondary worlds, magic, were Harry Potter fangirls, obsess over GOT (the show, not the books so much) but as adults read mostly "book club" fiction, lots of AS Byatt, and _Outlander_ because they feel that - unless you dig deep - there is nothing in genre fantasy that is relevant to their experience.

The week before I left my old job, my coworkers and I (all who are GOT obsessed, and all who are women under 36 + one gay man) went out to happy hour.  We got drunk and started assigning a character to everyone in our office.  The plotter who was the "Littlefinger", the secret keeper who was "Varys", etc.  

When they got to me, that said "AND YOU ARE SANSA!  Because everyone thinks you are are so nice until…whoaaa… you let the dogs out!" "Yeah, you are badass, like Sansa."  "Whenever we need to get someone to shut sh*t down with a smile, its like 'call A------!'  Because you are our Sansa.'" "What are we going to do without our Sansa!"

To a group of 30 something women, Sansa was a badass. 

Is that how Sansa usually gets labeled in fantasy Fandom?  Is she considered a Strong Female Character?  

FWIW, none of these women read fantasy _books_.  And I don't think it is because they have something against secondary worlds or are literary snobs.

There are a lot of women who do read fantasy.  There are women who do like Action Girls.  Not denying that.  And there are good fantasy books out there with real, complex female characters (as hard as they can be to find at the bookstore).  There are good, complex, well written female characters who are "action women".  

But there is also a disconnect between the fantasy genre and a lot of female readers.  And the pervasiveness of the Strong Female Character - the sexy assassin in leather, the warrior chick, the Girl who Hates Marriage, etc. and the contempt for "girly" things is part of that disconnect.

******

And to the "mothering is time consuming" comment above - mothering in ANY culture is time consuming. Doesn't mean mothers just spend all their time gazing at their babies.  Feeding, diapering, disciplining, that stuff all becomes second nature.  It doesn't consume much time at all.  I spent a teeny portion of my day wiping bums and feeding chirpy little mouths.

The most time consuming thing about motherhood is finding things to _get out of the house and do with the kids all day._ Take the ring to Mordor you say?  Well let me pack some juice boxes and we are on it.  Sounds more interesting than going to the same playground or museum for the 10000th time.

There is no "but it's medieval" excuse for excluding women from having a variety of roles in fantasy.  It's either a failure of will, or of imagination, or just a lack of fantasy writers who respect or know first hand what mothers, wives, and other Non-Action chicks do all day.

Sorry, but this topic is one that just really sets my teeth on edge.  I feel passionate about because I am woman, I love being a woman, and I love and am passionate about fantasy and want to see it be the big, diverse genre it can be.  There is so much potential in fantasy that is not being fully realized because of ideas about the limits of female characters.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

So I like strong female characters. The problem I have is when people try to pass off a character as "strong" when they mistake strength for pure ass holery. There are a few characters I can think of, usually on TV, where the character is supposed to be strong but in reality they are weak and their strength is just being a jerk. 

As an example of a strong character I like the pirate captain in the second Gentlemen Bastard book Red Seas Under Red Skies. She is a BAMF, but she is also fairly well rounded and is neither overly emotional nor ever becomes a D.I.D. 

A bad strong character is Sky White in the later seasons of breaking bad. All of a sudden this DARE mom tries to help in the criminal empire, it was just blech for me. She is cutting and mean and has no strength on her own. I liked her better when she was straight up opposed to Walter's criminal empire.


----------



## FifthView

AElisabet said:


> And to the "mothering is time consuming" comment above - mothering in ANY culture is time consuming. Doesn't mean mothers just spend all their time gazing at their babies.  Feeding, diapering, disciplining, that stuff all becomes second nature.  It doesn't consume much time at all.  I spent a teeny portion of my day wiping bums and feeding chirpy little mouths.
> 
> The most time consuming thing about motherhood is finding things to _get out of the house and do with the kids all day._ Take the ring to Mordor you say?  Well let me pack some juice boxes and we are on it.  Sounds more interesting than going to the same playground or museum for the 10000th time.
> 
> There is no "but it's medieval" excuse for excluding women from having a variety of roles in fantasy.  It's either a failure of will, or of imagination, or just a lack of fantasy writers who respect or know first hand what mothers, wives, and other Non-Action chicks do all day.



Yeah, and I wrote _Mothering takes a lot of time and effort, especially in a medieval type of setting._ 

So "mothering in ANY culture is time consuming" as you say.  But it's the _especially_ part I think you don't understand.

If it's time consuming in ANY culture, and so is time consuming in OUR culture, take our culture and then remove all the modern appliances and other technologies we use.  Take away the supply chains for food and the gas/oil/electricity that power those technologies.  Forget paying the electric bill or propane bill, and keep that wood fire going instead.  Forget having the convenience of a public school system to act as daycare or babysitter for  most of the day.  Forget hospitals, doctors, and effective medicines that reduce healing time.  The list goes on.

Of course one could imagine a lot of convenience stores or supermarkets with a steady supply of fruit boxes for the long trip to Mordor, or some fantasy equivalent.  It's fantasy.  I could imagine a younger Weasley family going on just such an adventure, with Ron and the other children in tow as Arthur and Molly set off on such a quest. Why not?

But it's not an excuse so much as a reality for those who like to write in a more down-to-earth or realistic vein.


----------



## Nimue

Aelisabet, I can see where you're coming from.  The answer is undoubtedly that we need more variety--of complex, compelling female characters of every stripe but particularly underrepresented ones.  Honestly makes for more interesting stories and perspectives.  I think over the years, my bookshelf has expanded from a lot of those tomboy and/or fighting stories to women who are not only warriors but witches, seers, camp-followers, musicians, wives and mothers, queens, peacemakers, scholars, cinnamon-roll bakers...  And for every one of those I wish there were more. (My library of beloveds is a small one.  As an aside, I've never liked GOT enough to read it, and I also didn't like the Alanna series as a kid, not because of the swashbuckling but because of the...too much of everything, and the writing quality.  You can definitely tell it was Pierce's first series.)  I don't have much of an issue with that criticism of the trope.

I've more of a bone to pick with professed non- or anti-feminist folks who criticize the strong female character or the Mary Sue without giving the same excorciation to unrealistic action-jocks or male wish-fulfillment characters.  Often from the same corners, Cersei is decried as a bitch, and Sansa as a boring pushover.  It's the general hating-on central female characters that can sometimes seep into a discussion like this, and certainly has before on this forum.


----------



## AElisabet

FifthView said:


> Yeah, and I wrote _Mothering takes a lot of time and effort, especially in a medieval type of setting._
> 
> So "mothering in ANY culture is time consuming" as you say.  But it's the _especially_ part I think you don't understand.
> 
> If it's time consuming in ANY culture, and so is time consuming in OUR culture, take our culture and then remove all the modern appliances and other technologies we use.  Take away the supply chains for food and the gas/oil/electricity that power those technologies.  Forget paying the electric bill or propane bill, and keep that wood fire going instead.  Forget having the convenience of a public school system to act as daycare or babysitter for  most of the day.  Forget hospitals, doctors, and effective medicines that reduce healing time.  The list goes on.
> 
> Of course one could imagine a lot of convenience stores or supermarkets with a steady supply of fruit boxes for the long trip to Mordor, or some fantasy equivalent.  It's fantasy.  I could imagine a younger Weasley family going on just such an adventure, with Ron and the other children in tow as Arthur and Molly set off on such a quest. Why not?
> 
> But it's not an excuse so much as a reality for those who like to write in a more down-to-earth or realistic vein.



No, I heard the "especially."  And I was being fasicious about the juice boxes.

Mothering, to put it more simply, is, in any culture, something _women do while they do a lot of other things_.  It's not all consuming, sucking up every second of a woman's day.  Women mother while accomplishing a lot of things at the same time.  Women bring their kids along while they do things.  Women have _always_ been capable of doing this.  They mother while working in fields, they do it while gathering berries. They do it while fleeing war.  They do it while fighting war.  They did it immigrating to other countries and pioneering to new lands.  In the real world and in history.

But yet it is considered not "down to earth" or "realistic" to write _fantasy_ that includes mothers who go on _make believe _adventures?  I would say it is every bit as realistic - and more common - than many of the Strong Female Characters who fit the violent stereotype.

To not be able to imagine something like that is a failure of imagination.


----------



## AElisabet

Nimue said:


> I've more of a bone to pick with professed non- or anti-feminist folks who criticize the strong female character or the Mary Sue without giving the same excorciation to unrealistic action-jocks or male wish-fulfillment characters.  Often from the same corners, Cersei is decried as a bitch, and Sansa as a boring pushover.  It's the general hating-on central female characters that can sometimes seep into a discussion like this, and certainly has before on this forum.



Yes.  So many times, yes.


----------



## FifthView

Incidentally, the implication that someone who realizes that conveniently prepackaged jars of baby food were unavailable in medieval times is someone who just doesn't understand what it is to be a mother and really just wants to keep all fictional women restricted to a tiny number of roles was pretty much the most insulting thing I've ever read on this site.  (Which is saying something, heh.)


----------



## Chessie

One of the reasons why I dislike GoT is precisely because -and some may not like this- the portrayal of women as mostly whores really irritated me. I only read the first book and that was too much for me. A discussion with some friends a while ago about this was ended with the response of "well, that's just because women used their bodies in the Middle Ages to get what they wanted."

Huh? wtf ever, really.

I haven't read the rest of the series so I have no idea how these characters develop as people, but the simple fact that they weren't given much of a chance to begin with annoyed me. I've read many fantasy books where female characters were intelligent & strong people (strong either internally or physically). All I care about is that women are portrayed as realistic. And for the most part, I do believe that they are. Typically books with crappy characterization have lame males, too. 

This conversation seems to come up weekly here. It's interesting.


----------



## glutton

...so what about those 'Strong Male Characters'?



Peat said:


> And I dislike how "strong" is often only "strong" as long as it doesn't overshadow the male hero.



Actually, looking at this makes me wonder about my own use of 'Strong Male Characters'


----------



## FifthView

AElisabet said:


> Mothering, to put it more simply, is, in any culture, something _women do while they do a lot of other things_.  It's not all consuming, sucking up every second of a woman's day.  Women mother while accomplishing a lot of things at the same time.  Women bring their kids along while they do things.  Women have _always_ been capable of doing this.  They mother while working in fields, they do it while gathering berries. They do it while fleeing war.  They do it while fighting war.  They did it immigrating to other countries and pioneering to new lands.  In the real world and in history.
> 
> But yet it is considered not "down to earth" or "realistic" to write _fantasy_ that includes mothers who go on _make believe _adventures?  I would say it is every bit as realistic - and more common - than many of the Strong Female Characters who fit the violent stereotype.
> 
> To not be able to imagine something like that is a failure of imagination.



You are listing things women did to provide for, or to protect their children, to set up, secure, and maintain a household.

Those are not the same as going on any number of quests typical in fantasy fiction.  I can more easily imagine a mother w/ children in tow moving her family as far away from Mordor and danger as possible than leading all the little kiddies up to Mt. Doom.  These are different things.

Yes, one can imagine a woman w/ children being caught up in turmoil and needing to survive it.  Mostly, survive and escape it.  That could make for an interesting story, no doubt.

But taking them into danger?  How motherly.  What you end up with, again, is that negative "Strong Female Trope" in which the pseudo-mother really just acquires an aspect of motherhood because someone's demanding that females with children should be able to rush into danger, kids in tow—to meet the quota, I presume.  Even so, you could imagine a mother forced into doing so, for some reason.  But saying that writers of the 1000000000 other stories possible are pigeon-holing women into only a handful of roles because they don't go out of their way to write that specific story is, in my opinion, ridiculous.


----------



## Chessie

I'll tell you what, in romantic fantasy strong male characters are hotter than hell, with ripped bodies that'll make any gal tingle. It's beyond stupid because they're almost always assholes as well.


----------



## Heliotrope

Yep, the women in GOT are pretty much all whores (except perhaps Arya), and then men are all pretty much rapists and murderers (except maybe Jon Snow?) I also have noticed that. 

Lack of rounded people, in general, does seem to be an issue in fantasy. Even in traditional fantasy, you have very strong archetypes, like Galadriel or Eowyn, but they are so fantasized that they are not even remotely 'real'. But neither are the men, really. 

And I wonder if that is the issue here? Like, in literary fiction, or in magical realism I find it is easy to create 'real' feeling people. Characters that actually feel like real people, but in fantasy, it is much harder, for some reason. 

Like, in historical fiction we might find a character like Sacagawea who led Lewis and Clarke across the friggin continent with a baby on her back, or Hypatia, a greek mathematician and philosopher who was eventually murdered by the Christians. These are some pretty bad ass women, I would have to say... Definitely, women, I would want my daughter to read about. And yet I don't see enough fantasy writers draw on real history. I don't see enough fantasy writers actually write about women that feel real, but it feels, to me, that the men in fantasy don't exactly feel real either? 

So why don't we complain about that? 

- I'm tired of the 'dark and brooding alcoholic just wants to have casual sex' trope. 
- I'm tired of the 'groups of men traveling in the dark just want to rape young girls' trope. 
- I'm tired of the 'all kings are womanizers if you give them the chance' trope. 

I'm tired of certain male tropes too, and yet that never comes up. Ever. Instead, we complain about the 'strong woman' one week, then the 'damsel in distress' the next.

Maybe the freakin' damsel could get on with her life as a world changing philosopher if all the men in her fantasy world weren't constanly raping and murdering all the time.


----------



## Chessie

Because dark is all the rage now.


----------



## AElisabet

FifthView said:


> You are listing things women did to provide for, or to protect their children, to set up, secure, and maintain a household.
> 
> Those are not the same as going on any number of quests typical in fantasy fiction.  I can more easily imagine a mother w/ children in tow moving her family as far away from Mordor and danger as possible than leading all the little kiddies up to Mt. Doom.  These are different things.
> 
> Yes, one can imagine a woman w/ children being caught up in turmoil and needing to survive it.  Mostly, survive and escape it.  That could make for an interesting story, no doubt.
> 
> But taking them into danger?  How motherly.  What you end up with, again, is that negative "Strong Female Trope" in which the pseudo-mother really just acquires an aspect of motherhood because someone's demanding that females with children should be able to rush into danger, kids in tow—to meet the quota, I presume.  Even so, you could imagine a mother forced into doing so, for some reason.  But saying that writers of the 1000000000 other stories possible are pigeon-holing women into only a handful of roles because they don't go out of their way to write that specific story is, in my opinion, ridiculous.




Thats not what I am saying.  What I am saying is simply that female characters, who are mothers, in traditional roles, can have an adventurous fantasy arc, because they are capable of being mothers and other things at the same time, and that includes travelers, adventurers, migrants, etc.  That is all that I am saying.

My own _in-laws_ were migrants from a functionally pre-industrial village in northern Portugal who traveled all over Europe with a baby looking for work and escaping political chaos at home.  No, its not "saving the world," but couldn't a woman like my MIL also, say, go on an adventure in a make believe world for a reason that made sense as part of a fantasy plot? 

No, perhaps no one wouldn't arbitrarily haul their kid into danger, but is that what the "typical fantasy arc" is limited to?  (I was being snarky about Mordor).  Again it is a failure of imagination if this is the only fantasy, or even only adventure, plot line that can be imagined, or to think that the conditions of mothering in a *fake pseudo-medieval setting* would preclude it when mothering *in the real world* does not.

Is a quest to safety not a quest?  Is a quest out of necessity not a quest?  

Why is that so offensive or unrealistic to suggest that a woman in a maternal female role could be an interesting fantasy character or go on an adventure away from her home, and that the fantasy genre would be richer and more interesting if it had more of these kinds of characters, in addition to _other varied roles for women_, aside from the stereotypical Strong Female Character?

And yes, all those other stereotypical roles for men - just as grating.  

I'm stepping away now.  I have some mothering to do.


----------



## FifthView

There was another thread recently that brought up the idea of adventurers.  Venture.  "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."  The idea is that high risk can lead to high reward, and a great variety of character types could operate from that motivation, leading to a real variety in stories.  

Personally, I think a mother with young children would see no reward great enough to put those children into high risk situations willingly. When I think of creating an authentic mother for a story, making her an adventurer is likely to break the authenticity.  

Of course, there are LOTS of bad mothers in the world, selfish people who might not be bothered by putting their children into danger.  (Cersei, it could be argued, was a bad mother.)  So maybe I need to expand my horizon and start including some of those character types.  Bad mothers.  The Queen in my current WIP, who is mother to my villain, is not evil herself, but in some respects she is selfish.  Hmmm.


----------



## Heliotrope

^^ 

I can. I would. I do believe that _good_ fiction presents hard choices. Impossible choices. 

I've imagined myself entering the depths of Mordor with my daughter on my back. You guys know she is severely handicapped, she can't look after herself. At all. She can't even feed herself, so if I left her she would be totally helpless. I have imagined things like, what would happen if there was a zombie apocalypse and for some reason, I was the only person who could stop it, would I abandon my baby, knowing she would likely die? Or would I take her with me, knowing we would die together, but at least I would be able to sing to her on the way out? 

I would choose the later. I would. I know it sounds horrible, but I think, sometimes, fiction is about that. Exploring those horrible choices. Showing why, that particular mother, in that particular situation, made that choice. 

I just couldn't leave my little girl. 

So I can see how it could happen. But I think in order for it to feel real, the right person needs to write that story. 

I mean, if we want to get into bad ass mom's, look at Sara Conners lol.


----------



## FifthView

AElisabet said:


> No, perhaps no one wouldn't arbitrarily haul their kid into danger, but is that what the "typical fantasy arc" is limited to?  (I was being snarky about Mordor).  Again it is a failure of imagination if this is the only fantasy, or even only adventure, plot line that can be imagined, or to think that the conditions of mothering in a *fake pseudo-medieval setting* would preclude it when mothering *in the real world* does not.
> 
> Why is that so offensive or unrealistic to suggest that a woman in a maternal female role could be an interesting fantasy character or go on an adventure away from her home, and that the fantasy genre would be richer and more interesting if it had more of these kinds of characters, in addition to  _other_ varied roles for women, aside from the stereotypical Strong Female Character?



What's insulting is the repetitive use of "failure of imagination" in your commentary.

There are 10000000000000000+ fantasy stories possible, and no one person can write all of them.  That any given writer might not write the 50-500 stories that you find to be the only worthy types should not be considered a failure of imagination.  It's insulting.


----------



## Nimue

It's not so much that you're not currently writing that story, Fifth, but that you're saying it's impossible, and that someone who sets out to write it is being unrealistic...


----------



## AElisabet

Heliotrope said:


> And I wonder if that is the issue here? Like, in literary fiction, or in magical realism I find it is easy to create 'real' feeling people. Characters that actually feel like real people, but in fantasy, it is much harder, for some reason.



I think this is the real issue.


----------



## cydare

What if the reward is the child's life itself? Say a child is cursed in some way, and a great quest is required to save them (there may be other stakes too, depending on the scale of things). If there is no other alternative than to put herself and her child in other high risk situations, will the mother not do it?


----------



## AElisabet

Nimue said:


> It's not so much that you're not currently writing that story, Fifth, but that you're saying it's impossible, and that someone who sets out to write it is being unrealistic...



This.  To not want to write that story?  Of course there is nothing wrong with that.  No one has to write every kind of story.  No one even suggested that every writer should write every story.  No one has to like every kind of story.  I am not good at writing war stories.  I don't find battle scenes very interesting, even in novels I do love.

But I would never say that war stories can't or shouldn't be told just because I can't write them or don't love them.

The "failure of imagination" is to say that such a story is impossible and unrealistic for ANYONE to write, and to dismiss mothering blithely in a conversation about female characters by asking to get back to "regular programming", because not only would that story be unrealistic and impossible, but it's _not even worth talking about_.  

Really stepping away now.


----------



## FifthView

Nimue said:


> It's not so much that you're not currently writing that story, Fifth, but that you're saying it's impossible, and that someone who sets out to write it is being unrealistic...



And yet, what I actually said was this:



> But it's not an excuse so much as a reality for those who like to write in a more down-to-earth or realistic vein.



This is only saying that it's a reality for those who want a more realistic approach.  I.e., it's something to be considered.  Mothering in such a setting is not so simple as wiping a few noses, changing a few diapers, and throwing juice boxes in backpacks.  This is not saying it's impossible.  But I do think it limits the possibilities.  So, Cersei, who is wealthy and has an army of servants, gets around some of those limitations.


----------



## FifthView

AElisabet said:


> The "failure of imagination" is to say that such a story is impossible and unrealistic for ANYONE to write, and dismiss blithely mothering in a conversation about female characters and ask to get back to "regular programming", because not only would that story be unrealistic and impossible, but it's _not even worth talking about_.
> 
> Really stepping away now.



Yeah, I never once.  Not once.  Let me repeat, not once.   Never said it was impossible.  Please quote me where I said it's "not even worth talking about."  Please.  So I can correct my failure of imagination.


----------



## Chessie

I would go into the depths of Mordor with my son (who btw turns 9 today). He knows how to use a BB gun and a slingshot...but in a fantasy setting? I think he'd hack it. We take him into deep forests with bears, moose, and all sorts of danger all the time and he loves it. So I think it depends on the age of the children in the story as well. The older, the more capable they'd be. The younger, the more dependent they'd be.

It would be interesting to see mothers as central characters in an epic fantasy. It can be done realistically but it all depends on plot/circumstance/age of the children/are dads involved/etc. 

One thing though: just because you have a kid doesn't mean your life ends. Just because you're pregnant doesn't mean you're helpless. I've seen hugely pregnant women do some crazy shit. I've seen women with babies on their backs do some even crazier shit. Like...hike mountains. Women AND men have a strong sense of attachment and protection to their young, but this doesn't mean they wouldn't be out adventuring if the need arose.

A fine example in TWD is Rick Grimes. He's got Carl as a sidekick and in the show, the baby doesn't stop him from getting shit done. Even Lori defended and fought while pregnant. J/s.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

AElisabet said:


> When I think of Strong Female Characters I dislike, I think of characters like in Graceling (ugh) and even Arya Stark (who along with Jon Snow is one of - IMHO - the more boring characters in Game of Thrones).  I read a little Tamora Pierce and couldn't really connect with Alanna either.  So there are a few examples.
> 
> I'm a mother of daughters, I'm not cool with the subtle message of so many of the books they will eventually pick up and read to be "boy stuff is cool and exciting, girl stuff is lame."
> 
> My little girls love their princess dresses.  And they love playing ninja and dragon rider (I'm the dragon).  And they love swords.  Especially with princess dresses.
> 
> I remember being a little girl, and we got dirty and played in the woods and climbed trees AND liked to play dress up and with dolls and wear our mother's makeup.  I really hate that so much YA and fantasy fiction puts a dichotomy between these things in the name of "Strong Female Characters" when for real life girls that dichotomy just isn't there - and putting it there sends an awful message to young female readers.
> 
> Because the message isn't "you can be whatever you want".  The message is "girly stuff is stupid - female characters are only interesting if they do stereotypical boy and men stuff, and don't fall in any sort of committed love."
> 
> EW.  NO.
> 
> In my experience most girls and women IRL don't think or live like this.  They don't aspire to this.  They are way more complex in their dreams and interests.  Why are there so many fantasies that think this is "feminist" or somehow speaks broadly to the experience of women?
> 
> And it drives a lot of female readers away from fantasy, starting young, which I think is very sad.  I think of so many friends of mine who used to love fantasy, are totally open to secondary worlds, magic, were Harry Potter fangirls, obsess over GOT (the show, not the books so much) but as adults read mostly "book club" fiction, lots of AS Byatt, and _Outlander_ because they feel that - unless you dig deep - there is nothing in genre fantasy that is relevant to their experience.
> 
> The week before I left my old job, my coworkers and I (all who are GOT obsessed, and all who are women under 36 + one gay man) went out to happy hour.  We got drunk and started assigning a character to everyone in our office.  The plotter who was the "Littlefinger", the secret keeper who was "Varys", etc.
> 
> When they got to me, that said "AND YOU ARE SANSA!  Because everyone thinks you are are so nice until…whoaaa… you let the dogs out!" "Yeah, you are badass, like Sansa."  "Whenever we need to get someone to shut sh*t down with a smile, its like 'call A------!'  Because you are our Sansa.'" "What are we going to do without our Sansa!"
> 
> To a group of 30 something women, Sansa was a badass.
> 
> Is that how Sansa usually gets labeled in fantasy Fandom?  Is she considered a Strong Female Character?
> 
> FWIW, none of these women read fantasy _books_.  And I don't think it is because they have something against secondary worlds or are literary snobs.
> 
> There are a lot of women who do read fantasy.  There are women who do like Action Girls.  Not denying that.  And there are good fantasy books out there with real, complex female characters (as hard as they can be to find at the bookstore).  There are good, complex, well written female characters who are "action women".
> 
> But there is also a disconnect between the fantasy genre and a lot of female readers.  And the pervasiveness of the Strong Female Character - the sexy assassin in leather, the warrior chick, the Girl who Hates Marriage, etc. and the contempt for "girly" things is part of that disconnect.
> 
> ******
> 
> And to the "mothering is time consuming" comment above - mothering in ANY culture is time consuming. Doesn't mean mothers just spend all their time gazing at their babies.  Feeding, diapering, disciplining, that stuff all becomes second nature.  It doesn't consume much time at all.  I spent a teeny portion of my day wiping bums and feeding chirpy little mouths.
> 
> The most time consuming thing about motherhood is finding things to _get out of the house and do with the kids all day._ Take the ring to Mordor you say?  Well let me pack some juice boxes and we are on it.  Sounds more interesting than going to the same playground or museum for the 10000th time.
> 
> There is no "but it's medieval" excuse for excluding women from having a variety of roles in fantasy.  It's either a failure of will, or of imagination, or just a lack of fantasy writers who respect or know first hand what mothers, wives, and other Non-Action chicks do all day.
> 
> Sorry, but this topic is one that just really sets my teeth on edge.  I feel passionate about because I am woman, I love being a woman, and I love and am passionate about fantasy and want to see it be the big, diverse genre it can be.  There is so much potential in fantasy that is not being fully realized because of ideas about the limits of female characters.



Yay! Someone else thinks the values and ideas Graceling promotes are horrible!

You're totally right--girls can be 'girly' and still like to do 'boy' things--but why are we assigning gender to every activity children engage in? Like, my little sister (who is awesome) could be called a 'girly girl.' She played dress-up and played with dolls. (Her Barbies are in a gang and burglarize houses...so...i'm not sure what gender you would call that). But, she asked for a pistol and a motorcycle for her birthday. 

I don't think i've EVER met anyone who falls neatly into either the 'tomboy' or the 'girly girl' categories. Ever. 

All that was to illustrate the pointlessness of saying that certain things are "feminine' and certain things are 'unfeminine,' and then defining a character's 'strength' or value on how 'unfeminine' she is. Because being 'feminine' is bad...right? Ugh. 

Fighting, making sassy comments, being fiery and spiteful, hating dresses, not wanting a husband or children--these things don't make you unfeminine. Neither do they make you strong.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

The whole idea of a strong female character implies that strength is not typical of females. 

Ever heard of a 'strong male character?' 

Didn't think so.


----------



## Nimue

Not in so many words, but:



> But it's not an excuse so much as a reality for those who like to write in a more down-to-earth or realistic vein.





FifthView said:


> Personally, I think a mother with young children would see no reward great enough to put those children into high risk situations willingly. When I think of creating an authentic mother for a story, making her an adventurer is likely to break the authenticity.





> But taking them into danger?  How motherly.



Not an excuse for someone writing realistically. No mother would do that.  It'd break authenticity.  How motherly--again, no good mother would do that!

I'm not sure if you had some other intention in mind when you wrote these statements, and I generally respect your opinion, but I think it may be worth it to reflect that you're arguing about what motherhood means and entails with a small gaggle of actual mothers...


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

In any discussion about strong female characters, there are two things that need defining. First, strength, and second, femininity.


----------



## FifthView

Nimue said:


> Not in so many words, but:
> 
> 
> >But it's not an excuse so much as a reality for those who like to write in a more down-to-earth or realistic vein.
> 
> >Personally, I think a mother with young children would see no reward great enough to put those children into high risk situations willingly. When I think of creating an authentic mother for a story, making her an adventurer is likely to break the authenticity.
> 
> >But taking them into danger? How motherly.



Exactly.  Not in so many words.

To say it's a "reality" is to say it's a reality that should be dealt with in a down-to-earth or realistic setting.  Dealt with.  This doesn't mean "oh hell just ignore the possibility; it's impossible."

"Personally," in the second statement is me expressing my personal opinion and belief that it would break authenticity.  This is not me saying NO ONE can do it.  Has anyone in this thread said that there are, absolutely, only a small handful of roles women can play in fiction?  Is anyone saying it's an absolute impossibility?  Who, in this thread or anywhere in the world, is saying that?  But look at this statement in context with what follows, which includes "how motherly":



> But taking them into danger? How motherly. What you end up with, again, is that negative "Strong Female Trope" in which the pseudo-mother really just acquires an aspect of motherhood because someone's demanding that females with children should be able to rush into danger, kids in tow–to meet the quota, I presume. _*Even so, you could imagine a mother forced into doing so, for some reason.*_



I'm overemphasizing the type of the last sentence because it's been overlooked in selective reading.  This is me saying it's possible to imagine a mother being forced to lead the kiddies into danger.  I also, earlier, mentioned the ease I had of imagining the Weasley's taking their family on a quest.  Also, working through the "reality" thing again, I mentioned later that, sure, one could imagine a selfish mother doing these things.  So:  Mother-going-on-adventure.

So nowhere have I said it's impossible, that it's ridiculous, and that writers should stick to the handful of portrayals of women that someone, somewhere (never got his name) had declared the only acceptable list of portrayals.


----------



## Nimue

Yes, I read that, and the "for some reason" really makes you sound like you're acknowledging the validity of the idea.  And saying, oh, a bad and selfish mother might do that isn't exactly redemptive?

Regardless, I think this may be a good time to cool off and consider the numerous ways in which we agree, for the most part.  And I'm going to go have that damn dark chocolate ice cream bar I've been thinking tenderly about all day...


----------



## FifthView

Nimue said:


> Yes, I read that, and the "for some reason" really makes you sound like you're acknowledging the validity of the idea.  And saying, oh, a bad and selfish mother might do that isn't exactly redemptive?



What, we want to limit roles?  So there can be no bad mothers portrayed?  Weird. 

Yeah, the "for some reason" was used because I didn't want to spend the next two days typing out possible motivations.  That I can easily imagine.  A mother forced into danger with kids in tow?  Yes, of course it's possible.  I didn't put "for some reason" in there for no reason.


----------



## ascanius

AElisabet said:


> When I think of Strong Female Characters I dislike, I think of characters like in Graceling (ugh) and even Arya Stark (who along with Jon Snow is one of - IMHO - the more boring characters in Game of Thrones).  I read a little Tamora Pierce and couldn't really connect with Alanna either.  So there are a few examples.
> 
> I'm a mother of daughters, I'm not cool with the subtle message of so many of the books they will eventually pick up and read to be "boy stuff is cool and exciting, girl stuff is lame."
> 
> My little girls love their princess dresses.  And they love playing ninja and dragon rider (I'm the dragon).  And they love swords.  Especially with princess dresses.
> 
> I remember being a little girl, and we got dirty and played in the woods and climbed trees AND liked to play dress up and with dolls and wear our mother's makeup.  I really hate that so much YA and fantasy fiction puts a dichotomy between these things in the name of "Strong Female Characters" when for real life girls that dichotomy just isn't there - and putting it there sends an awful message to young female readers.
> 
> Because the message isn't "you can be whatever you want".  The message is "girly stuff is stupid - female characters are only interesting if they do stereotypical boy and men stuff, and don't fall in any sort of committed love."
> 
> EW.  NO.
> 
> In my experience most girls and women IRL don't think or live like this.  They don't aspire to this.  They are way more complex in their dreams and interests.  Why are there so many fantasies that think this is "feminist" or somehow speaks broadly to the experience of women?
> 
> And it drives a lot of female readers away from fantasy, starting young, which I think is very sad.  I think of so many friends of mine who used to love fantasy, are totally open to secondary worlds, magic, were Harry Potter fangirls, obsess over GOT (the show, not the books so much) but as adults read mostly "book club" fiction, lots of AS Byatt, and _Outlander_ because they feel that - unless you dig deep - there is nothing in genre fantasy that is relevant to their experience.
> 
> The week before I left my old job, my coworkers and I (all who are GOT obsessed, and all who are women under 36 + one gay man) went out to happy hour.  We got drunk and started assigning a character to everyone in our office.  The plotter who was the "Littlefinger", the secret keeper who was "Varys", etc.
> 
> When they got to me, that said "AND YOU ARE SANSA!  Because everyone thinks you are are so nice until…whoaaa… you let the dogs out!" "Yeah, you are badass, like Sansa."  "Whenever we need to get someone to shut sh*t down with a smile, its like 'call A------!'  Because you are our Sansa.'" "What are we going to do without our Sansa!"
> 
> To a group of 30 something women, Sansa was a badass.
> 
> Is that how Sansa usually gets labeled in fantasy Fandom?  Is she considered a Strong Female Character?
> 
> FWIW, none of these women read fantasy _books_.  And I don't think it is because they have something against secondary worlds or are literary snobs.
> 
> There are a lot of women who do read fantasy.  There are women who do like Action Girls.  Not denying that.  And there are good fantasy books out there with real, complex female characters (as hard as they can be to find at the bookstore).  There are good, complex, well written female characters who are "action women".
> 
> But there is also a disconnect between the fantasy genre and a lot of female readers.  And the pervasiveness of the Strong Female Character - the sexy assassin in leather, the warrior chick, the Girl who Hates Marriage, etc. and the contempt for "girly" things is part of that disconnect.



I agree with this 100%.  Somewhere along the way writers forgot that female characters are actually female and not men with breasts.



Nimue said:


> Aelisabet, I can see where you're coming from.  The answer is undoubtedly that we need more variety--of complex, compelling female characters of every stripe but particularly underrepresented ones.  Honestly makes for more interesting stories and perspectives.  I think over the years, my bookshelf has expanded from a lot of those tomboy and/or fighting stories to women who are not only warriors but witches, seers, camp-followers, musicians, wives and mothers, queens, peacemakers, scholars, cinnamon-roll bakers...  And for every one of those I wish there were more. (My library of beloveds is a small one.  As an aside, I've never liked GOT enough to read it, and I also didn't like the Alanna series as a kid, not because of the swashbuckling but because of the...too much of everything, and the writing quality.  You can definitely tell it was Pierce's first series.)  I don't have much of an issue with that criticism of the trope.



I find this very funny, not that I don't agree with you but....  I had often pondered the idea of one of my female characters having no greater goal that simply having a family in a small out of the way village, she does.  Otherwise I think characters need to be people first then everything else later.




Nimue said:


> I've more of a bone to pick with professed non- or anti-feminist folks who criticize the strong female character or the Mary Sue without giving the same excorciation to unrealistic action-jocks or male wish-fulfillment characters.  Often from the same corners, Cersei is decried as a bitch, and Sansa as a boring pushover.  It's the general hating-on central female characters that can sometimes seep into a discussion like this, and certainly has before on this forum.



First do you have a bone to pick with professed non/anit-feminists simply because they are criticizing the strong female character or because they are non/anit-fiminists.  I can't stand anything to do with modern feminism, definitely a non-feminists.  Why?  because feminism gave us the stupid 'strong female character' among other things.  They gave us the idea that men and women are interchangeable, that there are no differences.  Yet, the strong female character doesn't really work.  It's the differences that make us interesting and worth reading about.

Cersei is a bitch but that doesn't mean she is not someone to underestimate.  I hate cersei, the same way I would hate a person like that if I met them in real life, but that doesn't mean that she isn't one of the best female characters in the whole series.  I don't think anyone could say she doesn't lack depth, she has to be one of the most tormented characters in the books.  Sansa...  Sansa isn't a pushover she is nieve, I found her infuriating to read, I think because she reminded me a lot of my sister at that age.  Thing is I don't really think they fall into the category of 'strong female character'.  Other than that, the strong male character is one of the reasons i'm not a big fan of comic books, nor the Captain America movies.  It's also why my favorite character in GOT is the imp, because he is most definitely is not a 'strong male character'.


----------



## FifthView

Heliotrope said:


> I mean, if we want to get into bad ass mom's, look at Sara Conners lol.



I've never watched the series, so I don't know all that happens, but based on T2, she didn't have a choice.

A scenario like the one you gave about your daughter also seems like a "no choice" situation or being forced into it.  Like a zombie apocalypse:  She's as safe, or safer, with you than by herself.  This is one of those escape scenarios, or of fleeing a greater danger and attempting to find safety.  Going into Mordor could be another "no choice" scenario, given the needs of your daughter.  But you do raise up a good point when considering "goodness" vs "badness" —i.e., a person can act selfishly and still not be absolutely bad as a mother or father.  But there are still extenuating circumstances, and this is different than having a character simply desire to go on an adventure for the fun of it or in the hopes of being the first to discover the long-hidden chest of gold, etc.  

Even most male heroes are single, lacking families, and forced into situations.  Not all, of course.  And it's easily possible to imagine a mother who has a special talent—let's say it's magic—who is the only one capable of completing a necessary quest and decides to leave her children at home with dad or other relatives or with their older siblings.  In fact, I'm sure I've read something like that before; I just don't remember what it was.

But in general one point remains for me:  Just because someone doesn't choose to write such a story is not a sign of a lack of imagination.  I can imagine a great deal that I don't have any desire to write.  And sometimes the projects I have in mind already call my attentions; if these don't have a mother on such a quest, that doesn't mean that my stories suffer from a lack of imagination.  I give other writers the same consideration.

Plus, let's be real.  The fantasy genre can be fantastic.   Absolute reality would be anathema, and writers have different goals, different ways of touching reality and veering from it.  What's important to me, to you, to anyone is not somehow wrong simply because the output doesn't approach a subject, character, etc., in the way that someone else, somewhere else, believes it must.


----------



## AElisabet

FifthView said:


> But in general one point remains for me:  Just because someone doesn't choose to write such a story is not a sign of a lack of imagination.  I can imagine a great deal that I don't have any desire to write.  And sometimes the projects I have in mind already call my attentions; if these don't have a mother on such a quest, that doesn't mean that my stories suffer from a lack of imagination.  I give other writers the same consideration.



But no one said this, as was stated and clarified repeatedly above.

No one is telling you what to write, or saying you have a bad imagination because you don't want to write something *yourself*.  All of us have limited imaginations and varying tastes.

Calling something "unrealistic" for _*other writers to write*_, particularly when those writers have *first hand actual real life experience of the thing they are writing about*, dismisses the stories, experiences, and voices of other writers.  You don't have to like other people's stories, you don't have write stories they like, but to dismiss them as "unrealistic" * especially to people who have real experience of them*, without taking into account any of what women with these experiences have to offer, is what was meant by "failure of imagination."

And BTW, the "failure of imagination" was not aimed at you personally.  It was more generally aimed at multiple people, in multiple places, who have said on the internet or in real life, that "fantasy stories about women who are mothers are unrealistic."  And it is something I am so sick of hearing.  If you agree with that, that such stories cannot be written "realistically" or truthfully *by someone else*, well, then yes, I would say that is a lack of imagination and dismissive of other voices.

If you, or anyone else, can't imagine that _*someone else*_ could write such a story and make it "realistic", that - and that only - is the problem. 

If that is not what you meant, I apologize for misunderstanding your words.  I think I wrote some things that were also misconstrued, and I apologize for not being clearer (when mothers get together, we often say snarky things about motherhood.  Call it our "locker room talk."  Perhaps "pack the juice boxes for Mordor" does not translate as well to a fantasy forum as it would to Scary Mommy or the wine and swing set crowd).

But as I read your words about what is supposedly "realistic" and what is not, they were taken as very insulting to me as a mother, and to my ownership of my own experience, my ability to use it as a writer, and my desire to see it represented occasionally as a reader.  

Again, if that is not how they were meant, I apologize.  

All I was asking for in my original post was well thought out, VARIED, female characters, who have more than stock motivations, and who represent the complexity and variety of real women (all women, not just mommies and girly ladies), and to see this more often in imaginative fantasy settings as opposed to just realist book club fiction. 

That shouldn't be controversial.


----------



## fantastic

AElisabet said:


> There is no "but it's medieval" excuse for excluding women from having a variety of roles in fantasy.  It's either a failure of will, or of imagination, or just a lack of fantasy writers who respect or know first hand what mothers, wives, and other Non-Action chicks do all day.



I don't understand what some of you are trying to say. Women do have a variety of roles in fantasy. There are plenty of "non-action chicks". There are plenty of girls who want to play princesses, dress up and things like that. There are plenty of mothers.

What makes you think women are somehow excluded from having a variety of roles?

As for mothers, there are plenty of mothers in different fantasy stories. They have a variety of roles and most of them are relevant to the story in one or another way.

In Game of Thrones alone, you have plenty of mothers. Cersei, Catelyn, Daenerys (she is a mother of dragons) and plenty of other mothers. If anything, there is a lack of well developed female characters that fight.

So, I don't really understand what kind of female characters you would like to see more of.

I guess you are right that there aren't many mother characters who are willing to go on an adventure and put their child into a great danger. But the reason there are few such stories is because that is unlikely and it is hard to make it a convincing story.

And most writers probably aren't interested in writing such stories.

Just because there are not many stories someone desires does not mean reason for that is the lack of imagination.


----------



## FifthView

AElisabet said:


> Calling something "unrealistic" for _*other writers to write*_, particularly when those writers have *first hand actual real life experience of the thing they are writing about*, dismisses the stories, experiences, and voices of other writers.  You don't have to like other people's stories, you don't have write stories they like, but to dismiss them as "unrealistic" * especially to people who have real experience of them*, without taking into account any of what women with these experiences have to offer, is what was meant by "failure of imagination."



You do NOT have personal experience of living in a medieval setting, of hunting dragons or traveling to Mt. Doom, etc.

I also don't have experience of traveling to Mt. Doom or slaying dragons; those are entirely imaginary things.

I also don't have personal experience of living in medieval settings.  Nor am I really an expert in medieval history.  But I do believe I have some understanding of the differences between now and then.  Conditions were harder for many people, including women and consequently, mothers.

My initial comment was actually just a quick comment following some talk about mothers and why more mothers, strong mothers, aren't common in fantasy.  A handful of names had been dropped.  I left my comment as one reason.  Not an excuse.  And I do believe it is a good reason.   When you replied by specifically referencing my comments and gave your description of how simple child-rearing is, including mention of juice boxes and the like, and utterly ignored consideration of the more difficult medieval setting while implying that anyone who could possibly entertain the thought of such difficulties is someone who lacks imagination and simply can't know anything about motherhood, I took it as the insult I'm fairly sure it was intended to be. It was demeaning.

Even now, the claim of some special privilege based on personal motherhood is insulting to me.  Surely, I'll never experience birthing pains; but neither will mothers and fathers who have adopted or other caregivers.  My own personal opinion, that I've stood on pedestals to proclaim often enough, is that a mother's love is the most powerful force in the universe.  I have no desire to demean or overlook real mothers.  But caregiving isn't something you can say I have no right to simply because I've not given birth. The realities of caregiving are not something beyond my ability to know.  Besides, I have a very strong mother, had strong grandmothers, and have two sisters who are strong mothers, so I have great role models.


----------



## FifthView

AElisabet said:


> All I was asking for in my original post was well thought out, VARIED, female characters, who have more than stock motivations, and who represent the complexity and variety of real women (all women, not just mommies and girly ladies), and to see this more often in imaginative fantasy settings as opposed to just realist book club fiction.



This is something I can value.

I do wonder, given my own experience and some of the experiences others have mentioned, whether those varied roles really are out there so, read more....?

But if not, then the simple solution would be to write those yourself.  Fill the world with the stories and characters you want to see more of.  That's always a great incentive to write, from my experience.

I don't believe the current situation is as bad as you make out?  But if it is, then you have the power to correct things.


----------



## AElisabet

FifthView said:


> This is something I can value.
> 
> I do wonder, given my own experience and some of the experiences others have mentioned, whether those varied roles really are out there so, read more....?
> 
> But if not, then the simple solution would be to write those yourself.  Fill the world with the stories and characters you want to see more of.  That's always a great incentive to write, from my experience.
> 
> I don't believe the current situation is as bad as you make out?  But if it is, then you have the power to correct things.



Well, reconciled?  

::::extends hand of peace:::: 

Well rounded female characters are definitely out there - thinking of books like the _Chalion_ series, or NK Jemison or the Robin Hobb's books (though she I find harder to get into, because she occasionally falls back on the Strong Female Trope) or _Uprooted_ and anything by Neil Gaiman - but it does sometimes seem when searching for the next thing to read, what is out there is limited.  More than a few times I've walked into a book store, hoped to find something good in the fantasy section, and walked out with something from "General Fiction" when I really, really would have preferred to read something more...fantastic.  

So not so dire - but can be limited.


----------



## AElisabet

FifthView said:


> You do NOT have personal experience of living in a medieval setting, of hunting dragons or traveling to Mt. Doom, etc.
> 
> I also don't have experience of traveling to Mt. Doom or slaying dragons; those are entirely imaginary things.
> 
> I also don't have personal experience of living in medieval settings.  Nor am I really an expert in medieval history.  But I do believe I have some understanding of the differences between now and then.  Conditions were harder for many people, including women and consequently, mothers.
> 
> My initial comment was actually just a quick comment following some talk about mothers and why more mothers, strong mothers, aren't common in fantasy.  A handful of names had been dropped.  I left my comment as one reason.  Not an excuse.  And I do believe it is a good reason.   When you replied by specifically referencing my comments and gave your description of how simple child-rearing is, including mention of juice boxes and the like, and utterly ignored consideration of the more difficult medieval setting while implying that anyone who could possibly entertain the thought of such difficulties is someone who lacks imagination and simply can't know anything about motherhood, I took it as the insult I'm fairly sure it was intended to be. It was demeaning.
> 
> Even now, the claim of some special privilege based on personal motherhood is insulting to me.  Surely, I'll never experience birthing pains; but neither will mothers and fathers who have adopted or other caregivers.  My own personal opinion, that I've stood on pedestals to proclaim often enough, is that a mother's love is the most powerful force in the universe.  I have no desire to demean or overlook real mothers.  But caregiving isn't something you can say I have no right to simply because I've not given birth. The realities of caregiving are not something beyond my ability to know.  Besides, I have a very strong mother, had strong grandmothers, and have two sisters who are strong mothers, so I have great role models.



No, I did not mean to insult - just to be allowed to own my own experience without having it be called unrealistic.

You absolutely have a right to imagine. 

I didn't say child rearing was simple; I said it was not all consuming.  I said women do other things while they raise children.  The notion that having children utterly ties women down is one that IRL leads to a lot of women experiencing unfortunate limitations, imposed by themselves and by others, that can become very harmful and painful, and I've seen too many women get hurt from this assumption, as a mother, friend, and sister in law.

I have very much imagined what it is like to raise children in a pre-industrial setting; that the very women who have been most helpful to me with raising my own children - the Vovos and Tias and Primas - themselves grew up in a rural village living off the land without plumbing or grocery stores I think has given me a pretty strong appreciation for it.  

And as someone who did graduate studies in Theology at a university with a huge Medieval studies department, has many colleagues and friends in Medieval Studies, and a sister who is a Medievalist, I wouldn't say I'm an *expert* in Medieval life, but I do think I have a generally pretty good grasp on it, or at least a better grasp the the average Jane.

You have a right to your experience, and your perception of it.  But - to use another example, I, as a civilian, would never tell a soldier how to discuss or imagine their experience.  The fact they have been to war, yes, would give them a special privilege to articulate that experience.

The fact that I am a mother, that I raise and am responsible for children, does give me - and any other woman in that position - a privilege to articulate that experience.  That includes the privilege to be snarky about it, to joke about it, to disagree with other women about it.  To be casual about it.  To simplify, mock, and dismiss aspects of my experience it.  To make light of it.  To not fit my comments into preconceived notions of what is motherly.

That doesn't mean someone who is not a woman and has no experience of motherhood can't talk about it or imagine it.  Of course not - that would be ridiculous.  Especially in relation to fiction - good fiction comes from writers who can articulate experiences way outside their own.  

But yes, the experience of women who actually do it every day is privileged, when speaking _specifically_ on their own role. 

And women might disagree with each other.  That is fine; but at least we are disagreeing from a place of experiencing it and being responsible for it.

I - and I hope any one else - would never tell a soldier he or she had no privilege to their experience of war.  I would never tell a gay or lesbian person, or a person of a different race, that they had no privilege to their experience of discrimination.  Don't tell a mother she has no privilege to her experience of motherhood.  That isn't insulting.  That is just basic decency and common sense, and something that, in my day to day, IRL world, doesn't seem to be particularly controversial.

There is a very long history of men trying to articulate motherhood for women.  It's an ugly, horrible history.  It's one that still causes tremendous suffering in parts of the world.  Until recently I was a graduate student in Theology, and boy is that ever an area where not letting mothers claim a privilege over their experience has resulted in horrific consequences.  So it is something I am - maybe unreasonably, maybe not - sensitive to.


----------



## Reaver

FifthView said:


> But caregiving isn't something you can say I have no right to simply because I've not given birth. The realities of caregiving are not something beyond my ability to know.  .



Preach FV, preach. This would make a great saying for one of those motivational posters you see in offices everywhere.


----------



## Chessie

Elisabet is right. Raising children isn't all that time consuming. It also depends on how many children a woman has (thus given her experience as a mother), how old the kids are, whether dad is in the pic, etc.

And just to give an idea...our friend's grandma, while heavily pregnant, hunted down a moose and dragged his body through a swamp. Ok, lol, she was also alone, without a 4 wheeler to help her carry the meat, carrying a shotgun, and she had small children at home. She did this so her family could eat (not sure where grandpa was he may have been in Vietnam at the time). Swamps in Alaska are NO joke. She risked being mauled by patroling bears, losing her child, moving through thick brush and marshlands that'll swallow up your entire legs.  Women are capable of anything while pregnant or rearing children so long as they're healthy. I'll just leave that here.


----------



## skip.knox

The OP was this:
>Is it unfair to dislike characters because they are "strong" female characters? 

The answer is: yes.


----------



## glutton

I could imagine a good scenario for a mother taking her child on a dangerous adventure - she is an extremely powerful warrior to the point of being vital for success, but doesn't trust anyone else to care for her child in case the bad guys decide they want to kidnap or harm the child to get to her. Maybe have some paranoia and/or hubris thrown in there... xd

Also maybe it's her second kid, and the first one was killed when she entrusted them to someone else's care.

'I'm the ONLY one I can trust...'


----------



## FifthView

Chesterama said:


> And just to give an idea...our friend's grandma, while heavily pregnant, hunted down a moose and dragged his body through a swamp. Ok, lol, she was also alone, without a 4 wheeler to help her carry the meat, carrying a shotgun, and she had small children at home. She did this so her family could eat (not sure where grandpa was he may have been in Vietnam at the time). Swamps in Alaska are NO joke. She risked being mauled by patroling bears, losing her child, moving through thick brush and marshlands that'll swallow up your entire legs.  Women are capable of anything while pregnant or rearing children so long as they're healthy. I'll just leave that here.



So it sounds like she exerted a lot of effort to do what many of our contemporary mothers can do with a short ride to the supermarket.

And, that so much energy was expended in rearing the children.  (Providing for food is a part of raising children?)  And that she didn't venture too far from home—and left the children at home while she did.  (Bears are not orcs, bandits, reavers, dragons but still...wouldn't want to run into one, personally.  I hope if that grandma was attacked by a group of bandits, she had a familiar sword at her side or a well-rehearsed spell.)

I do think a distinction should be made between ages of children, whether dad is around, and how many of the children she has.   Heck, it's easier to see teens holding their own than the littlest ones.  (Ex.: The Netflix show _Stranger Things_.)


----------



## FifthView

AElisabet said:


> No, I did not mean to insult - just to be allowed to own my own experience without having it be called unrealistic.



I never said you couldn't.  But your own experience does NOT include going on the sorts of adventures, in the sorts of worlds we find in many fantasy novels.

I do believe that for those–not you, understand–who write a type of fantasy novel modeled on medieval Europe and with a sense of realism may be less likely to write about mothers going on adventures because the activities necessary to raise children in such a world are extremely time consuming, themselves.  To say "less likely" is not to say the effort to write such a novel would be utterly impossible.



> I didn't say child rearing was simple; I said it was not all consuming.  I said women do other things while they raise children.  The notion that having children utterly ties women down is one that IRL leads to a lot of women experiencing unfortunate limitations, imposed by themselves and by others, that can become very harmful and painful, and I've seen too many women get hurt from this assumption, as a mother, friend, and sister in law.



But it is absolutely true that many mothers in our own world, with all our modern conveniences, do end up needing to sacrifice some things, some dreams, in order to provide for their children.  I have met many who have worked two jobs just to accomplish that.  My own mother often told me the story about how she gave up a full scholarship in order to be a mother and raise children–but that is not a mark against her!  

The fact that it happens in our own world despite all the modern conveniences is, for me, a hint about what things might have been like 1000 years ago.  These "limitations" you mention were greater in number then.  Unfortunate?  Maybe.  But a way of life, and a time-consuming one as well.  Not only for mothers but also for fathers and often for their children who helped with all those chores.  

But as writers of fantasy, we can design worlds to fit our own purposes. Some writers might not design a world in which the average way of life is very time consuming.  Heck, many fantasy novels feature characters who are nobility, royalty, or some type of elite class like mages, i.e., a type that doesn't need to spend so much of their waking day simply trying to keep food on the table and clothing mended and so forth.  I never once said you couldn't design whatever world you want or choose the characters you want.



> The fact that I am a mother, that I raise and am responsible for children, does give me - and any other woman in that position - a privilege to articulate that experience.  That includes the privilege to be snarky about it, to joke about it, to disagree with other women about it.  To be casual about it.  To simplify, mock, and dismiss aspects of my experience it.  To make light of it.  To not fit my comments into preconceived notions of what is motherly.
> 
> That doesn't mean someone who is not a woman and has no experience of motherhood can't talk about it or imagine it.  Of course not - that would be ridiculous.  Especially in relation to fiction - good fiction comes from writers who can articulate experiences way outside their own.
> 
> But yes, the experience of women who actually do it every day is privileged, *when speaking specifically on their own role*.



Yes, _specifically_.  That means what you actually, truly, really live today.  Your life.  It is yours.  

But the role of mother in a medieval society is not your experience.  That isn't your role.  You have never been such a mother.  Do you know what it's like to raise true heirs to the throne of a kingdom?  Do you know what it's like to raise children who are born slaves?  Well, maybe you can imagine these things.  But being a mother to royal heirs or slaves is not in your experience.  You have never had that role–I assume.  (We really don't know each other IRL.) 

I would hope that my reference to "special privilege" would have been taken in context with that paragraph in which I used it.  (One of my reasons for writing a whole paragraph around it.)  We've been talking about something other than your personal, private life, haven't we?



> There is a very long history of men trying to articulate motherhood for women.  It's an ugly, horrible history.  It's one that still causes tremendous suffering in parts of the world.  Until recently I was a graduate student in Theology, and boy is that ever an area where not letting mothers claim a privilege over their experience has resulted in horrific consequences.  So it is something I am - maybe unreasonably, maybe not - sensitive to.



I would propose that "motherhood" as such is not defined by simply having given birth.  The _role_ of being mother also isn't defined by simply having given birth.  There's more to it, and these other things are different in different times, cultures, and so forth.

So for example.  Providing or preparing food might be one role of motherhood that is common through many cultures throughout time.  But what providing or preparing food _entails_ could be quite different.  "Providing or preparing" is abstract, but the actual endeavors are the real thing.  And these endeavors might not be the same throughout all cultures at all times.

I can understand that there is a long history of men defining women's roles for them, and that's something that has led to many injustices, many limitations placed on women throughout history.  But I do not think that ignoring the historical limitations that were mundane, a fact of being mortals and being alive, is a case of unfairly defining the role of motherhood.


----------



## FifthView

Reaver said:


> Preach FV, preach. This would make a great saying for one of those motivational posters you see in offices everywhere.



I might have gone with a screen grab from _Enemy Mine_.


----------



## Miskatonic

skip.knox said:


> The OP was this:
> >Is it unfair to dislike characters because they are "strong" female characters?
> 
> The answer is: yes.



And you base this on what exactly?


----------



## AElisabet

Kate Elliot has a good article here on writing female characters:

Writing Women Characters as Human Beings | Tor.com

She touches on pretty much everything in this thread, including how to avoid using stock female characters as a replacement for genuine character development (which is what is at the heart of the issue many people have with the Strong Female Character).  

She also covers the problem of claiming pseudo-"medievalism" - relying on uninformed and preconceived notions of "life back then" as opposed to engaging the possibilities and complexity of pre-industrial societies - as a poor excuse for limiting the roles of female characters written into in those settings.  Saying "but it's realistically medieval" is a common way to dismiss or resist varied female characterization, or to justify overly violent treatment of female characters, and almost never has a solid basis in the realities and possibilities of living in a pre-industrial society.

What it comes down to is no matter what kind of characters and/or setting you have, think them out, be creative, and don't fall back on easy tropes or preconceived notions of what is "realistic", because what is perceived to be "realistic" is generally far more limited than actual reality.  Characters of all genders and types should have complex motivations, from action girls to mothers to sexy love interests to brooding male warriors.  And created worlds should be complex enough to incorporate _at minimum_ the many and often crazy variations of "realistic" that show up in our own world and history.  I think this becomes especially true when writing about women, who often bear the brunt of stock characterization (the "Strong Female Character") and the limitations of poorly imagined "medieval" settings that ignore the actual complexities of real pre-industrial life in the name of "realism".


----------



## Miskatonic

What I don't understand is why asking these types of questions is even necessary. Are you afraid you are committing some kind of thought crime? Who cares what other people think. You don't owe anyone an explanation in order to defend what you like and don't like.


----------



## Guy

Miskatonic said:


> What I don't understand is why asking these types of questions is even necessary. Are you afraid you are committing some kind of thought crime? Who cares what other people think. You don't owe anyone an explanation in order to defend what you like and don't like.



I, too, am utterly baffled by this as well as why so many people find writing female characters so difficult.


----------



## glutton

I think the criticized dichotomy between 'strong' and 'feminine' often implied by depictions of 'strong female characters' is at least in part an artifact of pseudo-realism where writers think a character needs to eschew traditionally feminine traits in order to come off as a credible warrior/action girl etc. It's not necessary, deeds speak louder than having a 'male-like' attitude.

The princess in my current WIP wears dresses, a bunch of jewelry, high heels and cosmetics, spends a long time fixing her hair, goes on day-long shopping trips, expresses a desire to ride a horse-drawn cab just to go a few blocks because her heels are hurting her feet, etc. but in her prime (she's pretending to have become complacent now), Gregor the Mountain would probably be intimidated from being in the same room with her if he knew who she was. The Ogre-Hime nickname given to her by a foreign diplomat isn't meant to be ironic... she also dislikes it because it draws attention to her less conventionally attractive traits.

She does have massive arms and shoulders for her height that make it hard for her to find clothes that fit comfortably during those lengthy shopping trips, but that doesn't preclude being feminine either. She's a girly monster lol.


----------



## Svrtnsse

Guy said:


> I, too, am utterly baffled by this as well as why so many people find writing female characters so difficult.



It's fascinating.
I think it says a lot about both people in general and about our culture and the world we live in. I'm not entirely sure what it says, or if my understanding is right or wrong, but it's still interesting to muse on.

I think that understanding things like this can be really helpful for us as writers - and in general as well.


----------



## FifthView

AElisabet said:


> Kate Elliot has a good article here on writing female characters:
> 
> Writing Women Characters as Human Beings | Tor.com
> 
> She touches on pretty much everything in this thread, including how to avoid using stock female characters as a replacement for genuine character development (which is what is at the heart of the issue many people have with the Strong Female Character).
> 
> She also covers the problem of claiming pseudo-"medievalism" - relying on uninformed and preconceived notions of "life back then" as opposed to engaging the possibilities and complexity of pre-industrial societies - as a poor excuse for limiting the roles of female characters written into in those settings.  Saying "but it's realistically medieval" is a common way to dismiss or resist varied female characterization, or to justify overly violent treatment of female characters, and almost never has a solid basis in the realities and possibilities of living in a pre-industrial society.
> 
> What it comes down to is no matter what kind of characters and/or setting you have, think them out, be creative, and don't fall back on easy tropes or preconceived notions of what is "realistic", because what is perceived to be "realistic" is generally far more limited than actual reality.  Characters of all genders and types should have complex motivations, from action girls to mothers to sexy love interests to brooding male warriors.  And created worlds should be complex enough to incorporate _at minimum_ the many and often crazy variations of "realistic" that show up in our own world and history.  I think this becomes especially true when writing about women, who often bear the brunt of stock characterization (the "Strong Female Character") and the limitations of poorly imagined "medieval" settings that ignore the actual complexities of real pre-industrial life in the name of "realism".



That's a great article and it speaks to the point about a mindset that allows and promotes thinking of varied roles for women in fantasy and how giving them agency is one of the key considerations.

It also discusses what I think is an accurate stumbling block to doing this:  pre-conceived and incorrect notions about "life back then" in the name of being "realistic."

But what it DOESN'T do is address motherhood in a complex way; i.e.,

Be cautious with the popular Mother Figure, for as I once described the film Immortals: Men can aspire to be divine. Women can aspire to have sons who can grow up to be men who can aspire to be divine.​
Yes, the stereotypical view that the only significant role for women is being a mother (and, mother of heroes) is a ridiculous limitation when all women are shoved into that role.

Otherwise, the article is mostly about female characters in general and not much about motherhood.

When discussing incorrect notions about "life back then," she gave this, which is NOT about motherhood per se:

Consider discussions of age of marriage in the European Middle Ages and what some readers consider realistic in fiction set in a “medieval-like” fantasy. I occasionally see the vociferously argued position that back in those days all girls married at 14 to 16 and therefore if a fantasy world shows women getting married in their 20s it is nothing more than a sop to modern sensibilities.​
I would not conflate incorrect notions about the age of marriage with what it means to be a mother.  Naturally, the idea that all women were married at 14 and mothers at 14/15 would say something incorrect about motherhood _by extension_; but it doesn't address the complex roles of motherhood, the extra hardships and limitations mothers would experience, and so forth.

And get this:   In supporting her example about fallacious ideas about the age of marriage for women in medieval times, she quotes someone she believes to be an authority on the matter who says, among other things, the following:

*There were many many single women and men, i.e. people who never married (in part for economic reasons). *​
This is an acknowledgement that, as in our own world, _raising a family would be expensive_.  

She also mentions elsewhere that "As always, everywhere, working class and poor women have to work, to haul water, to run businesses, to sell in the marketplace. No matter what other constraints these women live under, they partake in the tasks that make society function."  One of her primary points in mentioning this and other examples is important:  Regardless of role, women could have _agency_.  That means even under those constraints, they could think and act.  But this is addressing women in general.  This is not saying that _motherhood_ is in no way, shape or form a constraint.

As for your comment that,



> Saying "but it's realistically medieval" is a common way to dismiss or resist varied female characterization, or to justify overly violent treatment of female characters, and almost never has a solid basis in the realities and possibilities of living in a pre-industrial society.



I would agree that such an argument _can_ be used to dismiss serious thought about the many roles women can fill in a fantasy novel.  But it is not _always_ such an argument.  I will give you examples directly from Kate Elliott's essay about using "realism" (my bold):

"Women and girls talk to other women and girls A LOT. If you are writing a hard-shelled patriarchal society, this is going to be even more true rather than less true, and in such a case your story will be *less realistic* if the female characters in the narrative only ever talk to or interact with men."

"*In virtually all societies historically* there have been both women and men present. Really, it’s true."

"*As always, everywhere*, working class and poor women have to work, to haul water, to run businesses, to sell in the marketplace."

"Furthermore, people with fewer direct avenues to power and influence *have always had ways* of digging around obstacles, cobbling together leverage, or acting privately through the public agency of others. "

"extensive land-holding by women in the ancient world, a woman running a business, or a king’s daughter fighting on the battlefield [*all attested in the historical record*]"​
So as you see, Kate Elliot can freely make statements about "life back then" (or indeed, about "always, everywhere.")

What she's arguing against is a simplistic, stereotypical and *incorrect* understanding of "life back then."

Bringing up _fallacious_ use of "life back then" as if it means _every_ use of historical realities is a vile constraint on would-be writers is not helpful.

My own personal opinion is that a mother character from a poorer class would be far, far more interesting if those responsibilities (personally assigned by herself, _and/or_ cultural expectations) and difficulties _are actually considered_ when creating that character. It would make a more textured, multidimensional characer—"How does she overcome these things?  How does she feel about these things?  What are the significant forces or motivators that prompt her to take on new, vital responsibilities _on top of her role as mother_?"  That's potentially so much more interesting to me than not even asking those questions.


----------



## Miskatonic

Guy said:


> I, too, am utterly baffled by this as well as why so many people find writing female characters so difficult.



The problem is the way in which these questions are framed. It's always in some sort of sociopolitical context instead of the context of telling a story as a creative medium. Take the "strong female" character for example. It's focused less on creating the character and more on trying to adhere to some set of rules established by group x,y,z. 

I'd rather just focus on how to create interesting characters and not automatically associate aspects of the character with sociopolitical topics and discussions. The readers are the ones who will ultimately form an opinion about the character based on their own values and viewpoints.


----------



## glutton

Miskatonic said:


> The problem is the way in which these questions are framed. It's always in some sort of sociopolitical context instead of the context of telling a story as a creative medium. Take the "strong female" character for example. It's focused less on creating the character and more on trying to adhere to some set of rules established by group x,y,z.
> 
> I'd rather just focus on how to create interesting characters and not automatically associate aspects of the character with sociopolitical topics and discussions. The readers are the ones who will ultimately form an opinion about the character based on their own values and viewpoints.



People also seem more overly focused on 'realism' when it comes to female characters as opposed to male characters, you'll see plenty of questions about how one can make even an unexceptionable female warrior 'believable' while there are tons of male characters who can take a small army single-handedly and very few questions about how to make such a character believable when that is just as unreal.

I like the term 'unapologetically strong' ie. free to be just as unrestrained as the more over-the-top male characters and without being bound by 'rules' like having to act masculine or not overshadow a male hero.


----------



## Nimue

> Bringing up _fallacious_ use of "life back then" as if it means _every_ use of historical realities is a vile male-dominated hegemonic voice constraining would-be writers is not helpful.



Certainly, when you take it to that extreme.  However, is it really incomprehensible to you that someone, encountering a dismissive remark about how an adventuring mother character couldn't realistically be done, might be inspired to say "F**k it, it can be done and I'll do it"?  I think that's a pretty natural response and one that leads down some interesting creative avenues.

To be honest, I've seen a hundred narrower hoops jumped through to get a peasant boy on a world-saving adventure than those you would need to put a traveling mother of two on the page.

So here you are, feeling mightily insulted that your authority on medieval life has not been accepted to its full breadth, and more than one person on the other side is feeling dismissed and belittled by the idea that mothers cannot realistically achieve things besides mothering. Is it impossible to understand the emotions and reasoning at work?  Do tone and implication only work one way?

Of course they do, on the internet.  But I kinda thought better of you, Fifth.



> My own personal opinion is that a mother character from a poorer class would be far, far more interesting if those responsibilities (personally assigned by herself, and/or cultural expectations) and difficulties are actually considered when creating that character. It would make a more textured, multidimensional characer–"How does she overcome these things? How does she feel about these things? What are the significant forces or motivators that prompt her to take on new, vital responsibilities on top of her role as mother?" That's potentially so much more interesting to me than not even asking those questions.


This is a better statement than how you came across before.  But I don't believe people weren't asking those questions.  I think they were saying that in the end, the answer to those questions can be, at least one time out of a myriad of situations, setups, and cultures, _yes, it's possible_.


----------



## FifthView

No Nimue, I'm mightily insulted that my many explanations of my views, my many comments about how, yes, mothers in fantasies can do something other than stay at home, and so forth, are considered to be irrelevant signs of some subterfuge utilised by someone wanting to limit what others may write.

There is a forum guideline somewhere about handling volatile topics which says we should strive to see and acknowledge the views of others even if we disagree.  I have bent over backwards to do this, and what I get in return is a continual accusation that my goal is to tell people how they must write their fictional mothers when that was never my intent, as I've said repeatedly.


----------



## glutton

On another note, I think this kind of stuff is often handled fairly well in anime and video games. In those you'll often have female characters who are very strong (not 'strong'/'strong for a woman' but actually impressive in the overall context) without the creator jumping through hoops to try and justify it (by making them act like a man with breasts for example). So they are 'unapologetically strong'. There are still plenty of examples of them not being allowed to overshadow the male hero but then again, male supporting characters often aren't allowed to overshadow a female MC either. And even then it's not too uncommon for them to outshine the male MC in gameplay, 'unrestrained' style XD


----------



## Miskatonic

glutton said:


> People also seem more overly focused on 'realism' when it comes to female characters as opposed to male characters, you'll see plenty of questions about how one can make even an unexceptionable female warrior 'believable' while there are tons of male characters who can take a small army single-handedly and very few questions about how to make such a character believable when that is just as unreal.
> 
> I like the term 'unapologetically strong' ie. free to be just as unrestrained as the more over-the-top male characters and without being bound by 'rules' like having to act masculine or not overshadow a male hero.



When it comes to the idea of a strong female I would first like to know what is it about her being strong (or weak for that matter) that is necessary for the story the person is trying to tell? Why is that factor important above any other? The fact that she's "strong" doesn't really tell me all that much about the story itself or her place in it. 

After you've finished reading the book is the time when you can look back and reflect and say "Wow she really was a strong person to go through so much and make it out alive", or whatever the impression was the character made on you.


----------



## glutton

Miskatonic said:


> When it comes to the idea of a strong female I would first like to know what is it about her being strong (or weak for that matter) that is necessary for the story the person is trying to tell? Why is that factor important above any other? The fact that she's "strong" doesn't really tell me all that much about the story itself or her place in it.
> 
> After you've finished reading the book is the time when you can look back and reflect and say "Wow she really was a strong person to go through so much and make it out alive", or whatever the impression was the character made on you.



Well most of my stories are meant to be cathartic fun action stories first and foremost (like many anime and most video games as mentioned above) and being concerned with keeping the heroines more 'restrained' than male heroes would often be an unnecessary complication to that in my view. Plus not as subjectively fun.


----------



## Heliotrope

FifthView said:


> My own personal opinion is that a mother character from a poorer class would be far, far more interesting if those responsibilities (personally assigned by herself, _and/or_ cultural expectations) and difficulties _are actually considered_ when creating that character. It would make a more textured, multidimensional characer–"How does she overcome these things?  How does she feel about these things?  What are the significant forces or motivators that prompt her to take on new, vital responsibilities _on top of her role as mother_?"  That's potentially so much more interesting to me than not even asking those questions.



I know this post has sort of cooled down now, and I hate to revive a dead horse, but because I have a ton of respect for FifthView, I wanted to come back and re-read and try to understand his posts, and I wanted to respond to his posts publically, again, because I have a lot of respect for him and he and I have had some pretty solid conversations. 

@FifthView, this quote, I think, sums up everything you are saying perfectly. And I think you actually have a lot really interesting feminist view points in this entire post... because what I get out of this is that you are totally respecting the 'mother' and how she is different than 'man with boobs' or 'man with baby'. You are respecting that there is some serious extra work that goes into mothering, and to include this in the character would be rounding her out, showing that women (especially mothers) have different things that they must deal with than men do. I actually applaude you for this post! Thank-you! 

So in essence, what I think you are saying is that "look, obviously women are different then men, and obviously mothers are different then kidless women, and obviously fathers are different than kidless men, and obvoiusly adopted parent are different again, and grandparents are different again... why not celebrate those individual differences and hardships and struggles instead of glossing over them?" - I think this is what you are saying and I love that so much, because it is true. 

Sometimes I do feel like the feminist movement has made a mistake in saying that women are just "men with boobs" and should be treated as such. It's not true. We aren't. We have something distinct about us that is very different than men, and we make different choices and have different opportunities. We do. And I think you are saying that that needs to be respected, and I agree with you.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

I would say pretty much all advocacy groups/movements will do harm while doing good while having even better intentions, in part because they tend to be headed by like-minded people involved in groupthink (beware the echo chamber) and because of the "lumping" of large, diverse groups together... and because politics and power gets involved, that's the ultimate kicker. But that is for a much different conversation, LOL. 



Heliotrope said:


> I know this post has sort of cooled down now, and I hate to revive a dead horse, but because I have a ton of respect for FifthView, I wanted to come back and re-read and try to understand his posts, and I wanted to respond to his posts publically, again, because I have a lot of respect for him and he and I have had some pretty solid conversations.
> 
> @FifthView, this quote, I think, sums up everything you are saying perfectly. And I think you actually have a lot really interesting feminist view points in this entire post... because what I get out of this is that you are totally respecting the 'mother' and how she is different than 'man with boobs' or 'man with baby'. You are respecting that there is some serious extra work that goes into mothering, and to include this in the character would be rounding her out, showing that women (especially mothers) have different things that they must deal with than men do. I actually applaude you for this post! Thank-you!
> 
> So in essence, what I think you are saying is that "look, obviously women are different then men, and obviously mothers are different then kidless women, and obviously fathers are different than kidless men, and obvoiusly adopted parent are different again, and grandparents are different again... why not celebrate those individual differences and hardships and struggles instead of glossing over them?" - I think this is what you are saying and I love that so much, because it is true.
> 
> Sometimes I do feel like the feminist movement has made a mistake in saying that women are just "men with boobs" and should be treated as such. It's not true. We aren't. We have something distinct about us that is very different than men, and we make different choices and have different opportunities. We do. And I think you are saying that that needs to be respected, and I agree with you.


----------



## Guy

Miskatonic said:


> The problem is the way in which these questions are framed. It's always in some sort of sociopolitical context instead of the context of telling a story as a creative medium. Take the "strong female" character for example. It's focused less on creating the character and more on trying to adhere to some set of rules established by group x,y,z.
> 
> I'd rather just focus on how to create interesting characters and not automatically associate aspects of the character with sociopolitical topics and discussions. The readers are the ones who will ultimately form an opinion about the character based on their own values and viewpoints.



Agreed. Like I said, strong females are among my favorite characters, but when I write them, social or political statements are the farthest from my mind. I'm just trying to tell a good story with well-developed characters. Just because she's strong doesn't mean she doesn't mourn or cry, and it doesn't mean she can't enjoy her lover sweeping her off her feet, or wearing nice gowns. In other words, I try to make them actual human beings. I never got why that was so hard.


----------



## AElisabet

FifthView said:


> My own personal opinion is that a mother character from a poorer class would be far, far more interesting if those responsibilities (personally assigned by herself, _and/or_ cultural expectations) and difficulties _are actually considered_ when creating that character. It would make a more textured, multidimensional characer—"How does she overcome these things?  How does she feel about these things?  What are the significant forces or motivators that prompt her to take on new, vital responsibilities _on top of her role as mother_?"  That's potentially so much more interesting to me than not even asking those questions.



But this we all can agree on - if this had been your first post, there would have been no heat.  We all want to ask these kind of questions of every character.

I can be intemperate myself, and I could have phrased some of my responses better.  But phrases like "Motherhood is time consuming" frequently get used to dismiss women, particularly professional women. "Because it is Medieval" and "realism" is a very common way to dismiss variety in the portrayal of female roles in fantasy (as has been noted in many other places), along with justifying gratuitous violence against women, while absolving the writer of responsibility for their imagined setting.  And "return to our regular programming" - yikes, I don't even know how to interpret that but with hackles.  Especially in the larger context of a genre that has historically had a tense relationship with issues of gender and sexism.  I'm not saying _you_ are sexist, or that anyone else here is, but that sexism exists in spades in fandoms, sometimes very openly, and so when someone says something like that with no other context, it should be understandable that the gut reaction is visceral - even if you did not intend it as an insult.

I know, I know, being PC is a pain.  But it is really just about considering words, knowing how those words are frequently used to marginalize people, and engaging ideas rather than dismissing them.  (And I know I can be a failure in "using words" department as well - everyone can always get better at it).  That isn't an angry agenda driven thing to say, or a particularly unique thing, to say; it's something both women and men in the context of fantasy _say all the time_. 

So that is why I responded the way I did.  Re-reading some of my posts, my tone was not always the best, and some of my words were written quickly and not clearly, and I can see where they were misconstrued and found offensive.  Many of them were directed at writers and fiction in general and not at you personally, and written out of frustration as a reader.  So I am sorry for that.  I hate internet arguments.  

I think everyone wants the same things; well thought out characters and settings, and the openness to be creative.


----------



## Demesnedenoir

Personally, I don't think twice about how any character is portrayed, they are who they in the story. They all have strengths, they all have weaknesses... that said, death to PC... heh heh.


----------



## Devor

Me:  "I don't like cake.  Yeah, sometimes, if it's nice and creamy and is really well done it can be good.  But most cakes are tasteless puff bread with wet sugar spread on top.  Give me a pie any day."

My Wife:  "I love cake.  But it's got to be good cake.  I'm a total cake snob.  There's nothing better than a good cake.  I can't believe he doesn't like cake.  Who doesn't like cake?"

Our actual taste preferences:  Nearly identical, especially proven when we were taste-testing cakes for our wedding.

*Sometimes you just have to see past the conversation.*


----------



## Peat

AElisabet said:


> I think everyone wants the same things; well thought out characters and settings, and the openness to be creative.



Sometimes  Sometimes I want dumb mindless entertainment and these things can be more of a hindrance then. That's more of a film thing mind, but then so's the 'strong' female character, and I'd say her natural home are those films. Or maybe the comics that inspire so many of such films these days. Either way, she's a product of media types where frequently the capacity for violence is the most important measuring stick of the character's worth. 'Strong' female characters are the result of trying to give female characters agency in incredibly macho environments; either she's just as macho as the guys, or she's decoration. (Or they can put a bit of thought into it and find a middle way, but hey, this is dumb generic entertainment and thinking time cuts into time spent planning explosions).

The problem arises when it spreads beyond that to more considered, more ostensibly family-friendly action-adventures. Or maybe when dumb action movies become ostensibly family-friendly. One of those. Something. My brain ran out halfway through this post. 

As pointed out, these sort of films rarely give men great characterisation either. But given macho men have better stereotypes than macho women and get to share them, its not such an issue. Someone needs to do an action movie script based around Valkyries. Or Amazons. Or the Amazons of Dahomey. Or something.


*pause* I do think these conversations are valuable though. I don't think its as simple as 'Just write the characters you want, it'll be fine'. Because

a) We pick up a surprising amount of biases and its good sometimes to sit back and have a bit of talk about the biases to see if it strikes any resonances. Although these 'strong' female character threads are a little more than sometimes at the moment.

b) Playing with tropes is a good way to manipulate one's audience and Hollywood's female leads shape expectations around Action Girls. And Fantasy literature has a fair amount of stories where Action Girls are the biggest proportion of non-decorative female roles.


----------



## Miskatonic

If the themes of the story revolve around analyzing questions such as "what constitutes a strong person?", in the context of a society, then getting into the more political/philosophical side of things makes plenty of sense. If the aim of the book is to analyze how women fit into the society you are creating then by all means ask these types of questions. If that isn't the focus or not even a remotely relevant theme then I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it. You'll get plenty of feedback on the quality of your characters from the readers. Unless you are writing extremely stereotypical characters and are completely oblivious to this fact, you should be OK. 

In my stories women are players on the big stage, just like men, and seldom (if ever) is their existence completely based upon what sex they were born as. Societal attitudes towards women will be present, varying from place to place, but that's because it's a realistic expectation when creating different cultures to demonstrate these things to some degree. I have physically dominate women, physically weak women, compassionate women, conniving and vindictive women, etc. 

I don't think we should entirely avoid the political discussions about sex/gender, but just try and identify when it's actually relevant, because it can potentially have an adverse effect and perhaps keep people from writing a character a certain way because of a potential backlash.


----------



## FifthView

Devor said:


> Me:  "I don't like cake.  Yeah, sometimes, if it's nice and creamy and is really well done it can be good.  But most cakes are tasteless puff bread with wet sugar spread on top.  Give me a pie any day."
> 
> My Wife:  "I love cake.  But it's got to be good cake.  I'm a total cake snob.  There's nothing better than a good cake.  I can't believe he doesn't like cake.  Who doesn't like cake?"
> 
> Our actual taste preferences:  Nearly identical, especially proven when we were taste-testing cakes for our wedding.
> 
> *Sometimes you just have to see past the conversation.*



Seems this post belongs in the "Developing a distinct character voice?" thread.  :insertevillaughhere

It would fit great as an example of how to reveal information to a reader without revealing it to the 1st person narrator.

He'd been speaking a long time before I thought to pay attention.  "I don't like cake.  Yeah, sometimes, if it's nice and creamy and is really well done it can be good.  But most cakes are tasteless puff bread with wet sugar spread on top.  Give me a pie any day."  He hates cake?  Why was he telling me this.  All I could think about was the fact that my best friend in the world had been murdered, I couldn't find the killer, and here he was talking about cake as if my friend's death wasn't important.  The nerve.  I couldn't care less that his wife had taken him to taste-test wedding cakes, and instead of telling her that he hated cakes, he was now telling me.

_[Meanwhile, the reader will remember that two chapters earlier, the police inspector had mentioned to our 1st person narrator, among many other things,  that pie crust crumbs had been found at the murder scene....]_​


----------



## Annoyingkid

ascanius said:


> I agree with this 100%.  Somewhere along the way writers forgot that female characters are actually female and not *men with breasts.*










Well no, you don't agree 100%, because* AElisabet*, never called these characters "men with breasts", whatever that's supposed to mean. She was criticising the typical disdain of femininity in the strong female character trope. That's  all. Masculinity =/= a man.


> I could imagine a good scenario for a mother taking her child on a dangerous adventure - she is an extremely powerful warrior to the point of being vital for success, but doesn't trust anyone else to care for her child in case the bad guys decide they want to kidnap or harm the child to get to her. Maybe have some paranoia and/or hubris thrown in there... xd



I don't understand why you would have a child if you were vital. I mean disciplined enough to become an extremely powerful warrior, but not disciplined enough to ignore baby cravings?


----------



## glutton

Annoyingkid said:


> I don't understand why you would have a child if you were vital.



She might not have known the country or whatever would be direly threatened when she had the child.



Annoyingkid said:


> I mean disciplined enough to become an extremely powerful warrior, but not disciplined enough to ignore baby cravings?



Is there something wrong with having a child during peacetime just because you are a powerful warrior?


----------



## glutton

Annoyingkid said:


> Well no, you don't agree 100%, because* AElisabet*, never called these characters "men with breasts", whatever that's supposed to mean. She was criticising the typical disdain of femininity in the strong female character trope. That's  all. Masculinity =/= a man.



Pretty sure it wasn't meant to be literal.


----------



## Annoyingkid

> She might not have known the country or whatever would be direly threatened when she had the child.



The conversation for most of the topic has been about the everywoman mother who has a child as part of daily life, has the sudden call to adventure and goes of with the kid cos she has to, which is understandable. But now we're talking about a professional warrior who's at such a high level she's vital to a war effort. It's her entire job to be prepared for the possibility of war. Surely.



glutton said:


> Pretty sure it wasn't meant to be literal.



He specifically said writers forget that female characters are not men with breasts. That's literally saying female characters are not legit females if they "act like a man."


> Is there something wrong with having a child during peacetime just because you are a powerful warrior?



Yeah. Because having the uber powerful warrior is like having a nuclear bomb. It's a deterrent that creates peacetime. Your enemies need to know that you can whip it out at any moment.


----------



## glutton

Annoyingkid said:


> The conversation for most of the topic has been about the everywoman mother who has a child as part of daily life, has the sudden call to adventure and goes of with the kid cos she has to, which is understandable. But now we're talking about a professional warrior who's at such a high level she's vital to a war effort. It's her entire job to be prepared for the possibility of war. Surely.
> 
> 
> 
> He specifically said writers forget that female characters are not men with breasts. That's literally saying female characters are not legit females if they "act like a man."
> 
> 
> Yeah. Because having the uber powerful warrior is like having a nuclear bomb. It's a deterrent that creates peacetime. Your enemies need to know that you can whip it out at any moment.



There are plenty of super powerful/skilled characters in fiction who aren't even employed by a specific nation or major faction, or are the head of their own faction and might just want to have a kid. Thinking this singlemindedly about it is just strange.


----------



## Annoyingkid

glutton said:


> There are plenty of super powerful/skilled characters in fiction who aren't even employed by a specific nation or major faction, or are the head of their own faction and might just want to have a kid. Thinking this singlemindedly about it is just strange.




How many of those characters are female and how many are vital to a war effort out of presumably thousands of guys?


----------



## glutton

Annoyingkid said:


> How many of those characters are female and how many are vital to a war effort out of presumably thousands of guys?



The original mention of this was about an adventure not specifically a 'war effort involving thousands of guys', and this is truly one of the weirdest arguments I have encountered lately.


----------



## Annoyingkid

glutton said:


> The original mention of this was about an adventure not specifically a 'war effort involving thousands of guys', and this is truly one of the weirdest arguments I have encountered lately.



You've yet to say on why it's weird. It's actually basic common sense. if you have a big gun, and potential threats, you keep the big gun loaded and primed for use. Period. You talk about peacetime. But peacetime doesn't exist for high level warriors. It's something they work at maintaining for other people to experience. 

The original quote.


> I could imagine a good scenario for a mother taking her child on a dangerous adventure - she is an extremely powerful warrior to the point of being vital for success.



If she's vital for success on any adventure that means she's a better candidate than thousands of guys. If her children are actually safer with her in a battle than with other people who aren't, that means she is the big gun. My point stands. 

actually back up your argument and explain why it's weird.


----------



## glutton

Annoyingkid said:


> You've yet to say on why it's weird. It's actually basic common sense. if you have a big gun, and potential threats, you keep the big gun loaded and primed for use. Period. You talk about peacetime. But peacetime doesn't exist for high level warriors. It's something they work at maintaining for other people to experience.
> 
> The original quote.
> I could imagine a good scenario for a mother taking her child on a dangerous adventure - she is an extremely powerful warrior to the point of being vital for success.
> 
> If she's vital for success on any adventure that means she's a better candidate than thousands of guys. If her children are actually safer with her in a battle than with other people who aren't, that means she is the big gun. My point stands.
> 
> actually back up your argument and explain why it's weird.



It's weird because the only way she is obligated to follow your _very specific_ notions is if she is a knight or member of a military that will enforce your idea. If she's a mercenary, freelancer adventurer, queen or princess of her nation, outlaw etc. then who is likely to make her act in the way you describe? Even if she is in a military they would not necessarily refuse to let her have children, only if they are as draconian as you wish. This is about as singleminded a devotion to your own idea as it gets.


----------



## Annoyingkid

glutton said:


> It's weird because the only way she is obligated to follow your _very specific_ notions is if she is a knight or member of a military that will enforce your idea. If she's a mercenary, freelancer adventure, queen or princess of her nation, outlaw etc. then who is likely to make her act in the way you describe? Even if she is in a military they would not necessarily refuse to let her have children.



I don't see how profession is relevant.  If the person's available to be hired than that's a deterrent. If they're heavily pregnant and they're not, they can't interfere with my plans so that's when I'm attacking. 

It only comes down to if this warrior cares about the nation within which they live.


----------



## glutton

Annoyingkid said:


> I don't see how profession is relevant.  If the person's available to be hired than that's a deterrent. If they're heavily pregnant and they're not, they can't interfere with my plans so that's when I'm attacking.
> 
> It only comes down to if this warrior cares about the nation within which they live.



They can care about it without caring so much and being so paranoid about opportunistic enemies that they force themselves not to have children throughout the entirety of their career, which would probably also include all of their childbearing years. If nothing else, they might also want to pass down their awesome warrior genes.

Plus if they're a princess/queen/noble some people just MIGHT want them to help continue the family line...

I just don't understand why you are so adamant about your idea being the 'only' way to do things.


----------



## Annoyingkid

glutton said:


> They can care about it without caring so much and being so paranoid about opportunistic enemies that they force themselves not to have children throughout the entirety of their career, which would probably also include all of their childbearing years. If nothing else, they might also want to pass down their awesome warrior genes.
> 
> Plus if they're a princess/queen/noble some people just MIGHT want them to help continue the family line...
> 
> I just don't understand why you are so adamant about your idea being the 'only' way to do things.



I don't think it's paranoia. If this warrior is a potential thorn in my side how else am I going to beat them? Take them on while at their peak? No, I'm not stupid. Her getting pregnant is when I actually have a decent chance of killing this person. And if she doesn't realize that, she's going down.

Now if Royalty is vital, that person must be REALLY GOOD for them to send her to any front line. I mean mind bogglingly good. If THAT person gets pregnant than Jesus christ, I'm putting a ton of resources into taking her out when she's pregnant and off her peak. She may not even have a line to continue because I'd be gathering my resources and launching an all out attack when she's 8.5 months pregnant? Why? Because I'm not going to get another chance. Certainly not a better one. 

You can call that paranoia, but she doesn't realize what's up, she will be dead.


----------



## glutton

Annoyingkid said:


> I don't think it's paranoia. If this warrior is a potential thorn in my side how else am I going to beat them? Take them on while at their peak? No, I'm not stupid. Her getting pregnant is when I actually have a decent chance of killing this person. And if she doesn't realize that, she's going down.
> 
> Now if Royalty is vital, that person must be REALLY GOOD for them to send her to any front line. I mean mind bogglingly good. If THAT person gets pregnant than Jesus christ, I'm putting a ton of resources into taking her out when she's pregnant and off her peak. She may not even have a line to continue because I'd be gathering my resources and launching an all out attack when she's 8.5 months pregnant? Why? Because I'm not going to get another chance. Certainly not a better one.
> 
> You can call that paranoia, but she doesn't realize what's up, she will be dead.



So just because enemies might attack her while she is pregnant, she should never take the risk of getting pregnant above all other considerations?

I think maybe I should back off on this and see if you are this forceful about all your opinions on 'the one right way' characters/stories should be written, or only fixated on this particular issue.

But really this is probably the strongest suggestion of 'One Right Way' I've seen on this site.


----------



## Queshire

From a story telling perspective, the type of high level warriors you seem to be talking about could be considered effectively Human Weapons. However the thing with Human Weapons is that you need to remember the human part, if you just treat them as only weapons... Well, that's a good way to get a pissed off uber warrior aimed at you.

Now, if the warrior herself or her culture decides to avoid having any children out of a sense of duty, hey! That'd make an interesting character or culture in a story! Presuming that *every* one of them _everywhere_ would choose that is completely unrealistic.

I mean, wasn't this thread started about a dislike of the stereotypical real-women-don't-wear-dresses style "Strong Female" character? It's sweeping generalizations like that which lead to such generic character types being created. =/


----------



## Sheilawisz

Hello Annoyingkid.

First of all, Welcome to Mythic Scribes. This is a place in which we try to be as friendly and civil as possible, something like an island of peace in the sea of hostility that the Internet has become. 

When new members post at the Introductions Forum before engaging into discussions or arguments, we appreciate it a lot.

You are new, so I wanted to ask you to please check out the Mythic Scribes Forum Guidelines that can be found right here.

Have a great day!

Sheilawisz


----------



## ascanius

Annoyingkid said:


> Well no, you don't agree 100%, because* AElisabet*, never called these characters "men with breasts", whatever that's supposed to mean. She was criticising the typical disdain of femininity in the strong female character trope. That's  all. Masculinity =/= a man.



No, sorry I meant exactly that 100%, fine she didn't say men with breasts, big deal.  The idea is the same, disdain of femininity in strong female characters, and me (men with breasts bit) lack of femininity in strong female characters.  Men with breasts because the only thing that makes the character feminine are breasts, otherwise they could be a male character for all intents and purposes.  Thus they lack any sort of femininity aside from breasts.  Really, I don't see why this needs explaining again.  We were saying the same thing just differently.



Annoyingkid said:


> He specifically said writers forget that female characters are not men with breasts. That's literally saying female characters are not legit females if they "act like a man."



Again no.

definition of Literal
 1.
in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical:
the literal meaning of a word
2...

Literally
1.
in the literal or strict sense: She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.
What does the word mean literally?
2....

You literally said, and I quote. 'That's literally saying female characters are not legit females if they "act like a man."'

The 'men with breasts' is a metaphor for a lack of femininity in the strong female character trope.. so I never literally said anything that you have construed.  Now, I think the word you are looking for is implied, as in.  _that's implying female characters are not legitimate females of they "act like a man."_  This makes more sense....yet it doesn't.  It doesn't because based of the context of the thread and everything else I have posted it would be more logical to come to the conclusion that I am implying that the sole presence of breasts is not sufficient for a 'legit' female.


----------



## Russ

Annoyingkid said:


> I don't understand why you would have a child if you were vital. I mean disciplined enough to become an extremely powerful warrior, but not disciplined enough to ignore baby cravings?



What an interesting, if sexist approach.  This same logic pretty much applies to men then doesn't it?  For a powerful woman warrior, the period of "vulnerability" due to pregnancy might last say 9 months more than for a man?  A male parent is just as vulnerable to an attack on his children as is a female parent in a purely utilitarian sense is he not?

You should have a look at all the great warriors of history, or even great leaders of history, both of which require great discipline and investment of resources and then tell us how many of them were disciplined enough to ignore their natural urges.


----------



## Russ

Annoyingkid said:


> I don't think it's paranoia. If this warrior is a potential thorn in my side how else am I going to beat them? Take them on while at their peak? No, I'm not stupid. Her getting pregnant is when I actually have a decent chance of killing this person. And if she doesn't realize that, she's going down.
> 
> Now if Royalty is vital, that person must be REALLY GOOD for them to send her to any front line. I mean mind bogglingly good. If THAT person gets pregnant than Jesus christ, I'm putting a ton of resources into taking her out when she's pregnant and off her peak. She may not even have a line to continue because I'd be gathering my resources and launching an all out attack when she's 8.5 months pregnant? Why? Because I'm not going to get another chance. Certainly not a better one.
> 
> You can call that paranoia, but she doesn't realize what's up, she will be dead.



The problem is that your thinking  is too focussed on the gender of the warrior and trying to make a point about the vulnerability of the woman warrior on  a sex basis that you lose track of all the real issues around such a warrior.

For instance, they will spend about one third of their time asleep, much more vulnerable then when they are pregnant and awake.  Or you can poison a great warrior, ambush them with numbers, cut off their supplies (or hair), starve them, attack them from behind, bury them in volleys of arrows etc.  All of which is easier to do than actually finding out when your opponent is pregnant, and then trying to get to  her at the small window, if you are right about how far she is along (your argument assumes near perfect intelligence and access).

Your argument also fails to make into account the human nature of her followers and allies.  People will fight harder to defend a pregnant woman or a woman with a child than they might otherwise.  You seem to think about real people as chess pieces or if they are in video game, they are not.

You also don't seem to understand royalty very well either.  History is replete with royal leaders of armies leading from the front, not because they are "REALLY GOOD" but because they have symbolic or moral value, or simply, because it is expected of them.

War has never been fought with calculators, the way you seem to want it to be.  And your ignoring of multiple factors of war to try and make a point about gender is a weird argument.


----------



## Russ

Annoyingkid said:


> You've yet to say on why it's weird. It's actually basic common sense. if you have a big gun, and potential threats, you keep the big gun loaded and primed for use. Period. You talk about peacetime. But peacetime doesn't exist for high level warriors. It's something they work at maintaining for other people to experience.



Actually not only does peacetime exist for "high level warriors" it is vital for them.  In military parlance, through thousands of years now, the importance of peacetime for military professionals has been referred to as the "time to sharpen the sword".  The concept being that if you simply keep grinding away the tool becomes worn and broken and it certainly does not improve.

The world you describe  where peace does not exist for top class fighting men only exists on T-shirts and bumper stickers.


----------



## valiant12

> Yeah. Because having the uber powerful warrior is like having a nuclear bomb. It's a deterrent that creates peacetime. Your enemies need to know that you can whip it out at any moment.



Seriously.
Writing is not about who can create the most powerful character. It's about telling a interesting story. A story needs conflict. If a character is so powerfull that her mere existance make her enymies so scared that they won't attack you have a crappy story.
The character gender is completely irrelevant when your story have no conflict.


----------



## Annoyingkid

glutton said:


> So just because enemies might attack her while she is pregnant, she should never take the risk of getting pregnant above all other considerations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not my position. No, she can have a child. However, in any game of chess, you don't just take the queen off the board without preparing for it first. You prepare your defences, then you can take her off.
> 
> If a strong female character that was vital told the people she was vital to ahead of time with enough time so they can compensate and make adjustments, that she intends to get pregnant, then went out the back door, and didn't broadcast it, and didn't publically claim this kid as her own, then I would think yes, this woman's level headed and aware of danger. And I would almost certainly like her.
> 
> If on the other hand if she had the attitude that it's all just gonna work itself out and people are just being paranoid, I'd wonder how she even survived this long. I would dislike her probably.
> 
> Now there are varying degrees in between those, but the bottom line is I don't want to see the character behave as if they know the author will save them.
> 
> ----------------
> ascanius
> 
> 
> 
> Men with breasts because the only thing that makes the character feminine are breasts, otherwise they could be a male character for all intents and purposes. Thus they lack any sort of femininity aside from breasts. Really, I don't see why this needs explaining again. We were saying the same thing just differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being feminine doesn't make you a woman, so I don't follow you. Could they be a male character for all intents and purposes? I would say no. A woman performing a masculine action has different subtext to a man doing the same. By default. Because the sexes are perceived differently in our society.
> 
> I'm not interested in going back and forth with semantics.  You believe that being a legit female is something a character must earn by being feminine enough. That is fundamentally not true.
> 
> Russ. said;
> 
> 
> 
> This same logic pretty much applies to men then doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe. The difference is of course that Men don't bear children, so men wouldn't be compromised physically as a warrior by the reproduction process.
> 
> 
> 
> You should have a look at all the great warriors of history, or even great leaders of history, both of which require great discipline and investment of resources and then tell us how many of them were disciplined enough to ignore their natural urges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say any one human warrior has ever been vital historically. In reality there's a clear separation between leaders and fighters. Leaders are vital, but no one warrior is,  so why would they ignore their urges? Leaders are just there for their brains, so it doesn't matter if they  ignored their urges or not.
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that your thinking is too focussed on the gender of the warrior and trying to make a point about the vulnerability of the woman warrior on a sex basis that you lose track of all the real issues around such a warrior.
> 
> For instance, they will spend about one third of their time asleep, much more vulnerable then when they are pregnant and awake. Or you can poison a great warrior, ambush them with numbers, cut off their supplies (or hair), starve them, attack them from behind, bury them in volleys of arrows etc. All of which is easier to do than actually finding out when your opponent is pregnant, and then trying to get to her at the small window, if you are right about how far she is along (your argument assumes near perfect intelligence and access).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under my reckoning, if they've progressed to the point that they're vital and renowned, or powerful to the point that kids are safer in a battle with them then at home, than Ima assume that stuff has been tried and hasn't worked. That's a reasonable assumption to me. If I was a villain it's not like I left her alone up till now and suddenly I'm going to attack. No. I would have tried many methods beforehand, and if this warriors a persistant  pain in my ass that won't die, why wouldn't i attack when she's pregnant? As long as she's off the field being pregnant I'm happy, cos I can more military gains against her allies. If she actually comes on battlefield pregnant, I'll be all thank you! I'll take that! Total gift. I finally get to kill this person.
> 
> Back to the chess analogy. If the queen isn't able to come after me, I can make greater progress elsewhere on the board.
> 
> 
> 
> People will fight harder to defend a pregnant woman or a woman with a child than they might otherwise.You seem to think about real people as chess pieces or if they are in video game, they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course. That's why they call it "war-games". Second, I don't buy it. It's a stretch to think her being pregnant is gonna make them fight notably harder than they otherwise would. They already have families and loved ones of their own to fight for. I don't see her pregnancy  having an impact that way. But in terms of morale, if I was a bad guy and you're asking me to choose between her actually present at the battle and in fighting condition vs her not there and pregnant, Or there but not fighting, that's a no brainer. Any of the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You also don't seem to understand royalty very well either. History is replete with royal leaders of armies leading from the front, not because they are "REALLY GOOD" but because they have symbolic or moral value, or simply, because it is expected of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may have attended the battles. But they were not literally at the front. They acted as generals and tacticians. And they certainly didn't send the women who they wanted an heir from to the battle. which was mentioned in his post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ctually not only does peacetime exist for "high level warriors" it is vital for them. In military parlance, through thousands of years now, the importance of peacetime for military professionals has been referred to as the "time to sharpen the sword". The concept being that if you simply keep grinding away the tool becomes worn and broken and it certainly does not improve.
> 
> The world you describe where peace does not exist for top class fighting men only exists on T-shirts and bumper stickers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The US military is active 24/7. Soldiers are rotated on leave, and of course these soldiers are not vital as individuals, but that doesn't make it peacetie. The military is monitoring and stamping out small scale conflicts all the time. We think it's peace because we don't see it. It's a false analogy to think of a vital fantasy warrior special character as comparable to one real human soldier elite. It's much more accurate to think of that warrior as comparable with an entire branch of the US military. That would be  classed as a vital part of the army. So unless you reorganize the military to compensate, you can't just  have that branch cease activities. Even during what a civilian would call peacetime.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously.
> Writing is not about who can create the most powerful character. It's about telling a interesting story. A story needs conflict. If a character is so powerfull that her mere existance make her enymies so scared that they won't attack you have a crappy story.
> The character gender is completely irrelevant when your story have no conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different levels of villains. Some can't hurt Superman others can. It's not really an issue.
> 
> In my story, the bandits just stay out of her state, work on the other states, keep your crimes on a level that they're beneath her notice and won't rouse her to war, but do so many of them, that you still destabilize society and one person can't do much about it. A bandit could outright murder someone and as long as it's not someone of very high rank that won't get her to react.
> 
> Unfortunately for them she has a brother. But that's off topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## glutton

...I have never seen anyone make this many assumptions and extrapolations about the details of a story that is not even an actual story, and merely mentioned as a potential idea. You have apparently created an entire rather specific setup around this vague idea in your head, and cannot even imagine any other setup for it.


----------



## skip.knox

I agree with glutton. First, the thread is seriously derailed. A discussion of someone's specific story should branch into its own thread.

Second, no one has ever reviewed a plot idea. Rather than argue about how this or that _might_ play out, I suggest people write their stories and get feedback on what they have actually written. The comments from this community will be far more helpful and on point.


----------



## ascanius

Yup I agree this just got really stupid, I'm out.  
This is pointless


----------



## Annoyingkid

glutton said:


> ...I have never seen anyone make this many assumptions and extrapolations about the details of a story that is not even an actual story, and merely mentioned as a potential idea. You have apparently created an entire rather specific setup around this vague idea in your head, and cannot even imagine any other setup for it.



That's an outright lie. 

What I actually said;
If a strong female character that was vital told the people she was vital to ahead of time with enough time so they can compensate and make adjustments, that she intends to get pregnant, then went out the back door, and didn't broadcast it, and didn't publically claim this kid as her own, then I would think yes, this woman's level headed and aware of danger. And I would almost certainly like her.

That's based directly on a quote from this thread, not a story. Certainly not mine. 

If on the other hand if she had the attitude that it's all just gonna work itself out and people are just being paranoid, I'd wonder how she even survived this long. I would dislike her probably.
*
Now there are varying degrees in between those, but the bottom line is I don't want to see the character behave as if they know the author will save them.*

I don't care where you are in between those points, acting like everything will just work out is relying on an author saving throw. And that is why SFC's end up sucking. Too much damn author protection.

I'm condemning one scenario. The carefree who cares attitude.


----------



## Steerpike

Using powers of prognostication universal to the biology and spiritualism of the feline, I predict negative interactions with forum moderators unless posts on this thread remain civil. 








Please keep it friendly, folks. There have been other reminders in this thread already


----------



## glutton

Annoyingkid said:


> That's an outright lie.
> 
> What I actually said;
> If a strong female character that was vital told the people she was vital to ahead of time with enough time so they can compensate and make adjustments, that she intends to get pregnant, then went out the back door, and didn't broadcast it, and didn't publically claim this kid as her own, then I would think yes, this woman's level headed and aware of danger. And I would almost certainly like her.
> 
> That's based directly on a quote from this thread, not a story. Certainly not mine.
> 
> If on the other hand if she had the attitude that it's all just gonna work itself out and people are just being paranoid, I'd wonder how she even survived this long. I would dislike her probably.
> *
> Now there are varying degrees in between those, but the bottom line is I don't want to see the character behave as if they know the author will save them.*
> 
> I don't care where you are in between those points, acting like everything will just work out is relying on an author saving throw. And that is why SFC's end up sucking. Too much damn author protection.
> 
> I'm condemning one scenario. The carefree who cares attitude.



You made the assumption that the issue the 'adventure' is meant to solve was a country-level conflict which was never in the original idea and by itself a massive leap (and continue to insist that it _must_ be such), and then made points based on numerous other assumptions in that long post. You have taken so many details for granted to be true that would not necessarily be so, you have practically constructed an entire scenario around the original idea.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie

I don't know why you guys have to argue. The whole "warrior woman getting pregnant" thing is a hypothetical scenario that I don't think anyone is actually using in their story, so I don't see the point in fighting about it. 

And regardless of what the optimal choice would be for hypothetical warrior lady to best protect her country and stay at her peak, she might not pick it. Characters don't always do what is the best thing for the world in the large scheme of things, just like people don't. You might have a warrior woman who decides to never have a family because protecting her country is the most important thing to her. That's okay and she could be a great character. You also might have a warrior woman who chooses to have a family despite her duty as a warrior. That's also okay and she could also be a great character. 

But, why argue about it, unless this warrior woman is an actual character in an actual story that needs written?


----------



## Russ

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I don't know why you guys have to argue. The whole "warrior woman getting pregnant" thing is a hypothetical scenario that I don't think anyone is actually using in their story, so I don't see the point in fighting about it.
> 
> And regardless of what the optimal choice would be for hypothetical warrior lady to best protect her country and stay at her peak, she might not pick it. Characters don't always do what is the best thing for the world in the large scheme of things, just like people don't. You might have a warrior woman who decides to never have a family because protecting her country is the most important thing to her. That's okay and she could be a great character. You also might have a warrior woman who chooses to have a family despite her duty as a warrior. That's also okay and she could also be a great character.
> 
> But, why argue about it, unless this warrior woman is an actual character in an actual story that needs written?



The problem seems to be that annoying kid (he picked the  name not me...) want to say things that are counter-factual, ahistorical and not rational or reasoned out in order to make a point that seems sexist.  

While he wrongly accuses others of "outright lie" he continues to state things that are untrue, false and use misleading or inaccurate analogies to cling to a bizarre point.  

I could go into more detail, but why bother?


----------



## FifthView

Annoyingkid said:


> If on the other hand if she had the attitude that it's all just gonna work itself out and people are just being paranoid, I'd wonder how she even survived this long. I would dislike her probably.
> *
> Now there are varying degrees in between those, but the bottom line is I don't want to see the character behave as if they know the author will save them.*
> 
> I don't care where you are in between those points, acting like everything will just work out is relying on an author saving throw. And that is why SFC's end up sucking. Too much damn author protection.
> 
> I'm condemning one scenario. The carefree who cares attitude.



I'm going out on a limb on a tree I'd abandoned earlier, and probably shouldn't rejoin this conversation....But the thing Annoyingkid seems to be addressing ties in somewhat with some thoughts I'd also had.

It seems to me that introducing children, pregnancy, and so forth are real changes.  Introducing these things into a story changes the story, or ought to change the story in most cases, because these are additional, significant burdens.  Pretending otherwise, or as if having family and children is an identical circumstance to having no family or children, seems extremely odd.  It demeans the significance of family and children.  Saying that pregnancy is irrelevant is similarly ridiculous.  In my opinion.

IN A WAY, to return a little to the general idea of "man with breasts," saying that children and pregnancy make little difference is like saying that a woman (or man) with children is identical to a woman (or man) with no children.  It's "standard unmarried hero" with incidental, superficial children/pregnancy thrown in.  A woman warrior who is not pregnant, has no family or children, has absolutely no advantages on a woman warrior who has children and is 5 months pregnant with her fourth?  Why, a woman warrior who is eight months pregnant is hardly distinguishable from a male warrior!

None of this is to say that women can't be warriors, or that warrior women can't have children, or whatever other absolutist idea one might like to attack.  But – in my opinion – pretending like these factors make no difference whatsoever is taking the wrong path.  And I wonder if Annoyingkid's idea of "The carefree who cares attitude" is meant to target that failure to consider the ramifications of these additional burdens when writing the story.  (For me:  NOT that the story can't be written, but that these factors should be addressed within the story in some way and not with a shrug as if they are merely cosmetic factors.)


----------



## glutton

FifthView said:


> I'm going out on a limb on a tree I'd abandoned earlier, and probably shouldn't rejoin this conversation....But the thing Annoyingkid seems to be addressing ties in somewhat with some thoughts I'd also had.
> 
> It seems to me that introducing children, pregnancy, and so forth are real changes.  Introducing these things into a story changes the story, or ought to change the story in most cases, because these are additional, significant burdens.  Pretending otherwise, or as if having family and children is an identical circumstance to having no family or children, seems extremely odd.  It demeans the significance of family and children.  Saying that pregnancy is irrelevant is similarly ridiculous.  In my opinion.
> 
> IN A WAY, to return a little to the general idea of "man with breasts," saying that children and pregnancy make little difference is like saying that a woman (or man) with children is identical to a woman (or man) with no children.  It's "standard unmarried hero" with incidental, superficial children/pregnancy thrown in.  A woman warrior who is not pregnant, has no family or children, has absolutely no advantages on a woman warrior who has children and is 5 months pregnant with her fourth?  Why, a woman warrior who is eight months pregnant is hardly distinguishable from a male warrior!
> 
> None of this is to say that women can't be warriors, or that warrior women can't have children, or whatever other absolutist idea one might like to attack.  But — in my opinion — pretending like these factors make no difference whatsoever is taking the wrong path.  And I wonder if Annoyingkid's idea of "The carefree who cares attitude" is meant to target that failure to consider the ramifications of these additional burdens when writing the story.  (For me:  NOT that the story can't be written, but that these factors should be addressed within the story in some way and not with a shrug as if they are merely cosmetic factors.)



The problem is that Annoying kid made literally dozens of assumptions beyond what was given in the original idea to craft the fairly specific setup his posts allude to, and then acts as if it is the ONLY valid setup for that type of story. I could list the dozens of assumptions he takes for granted in his long post if you want. In his own words -



Annoyingkid said:


> *Under my reckoning,*
> 
> *than Ima assume* that stuff has been tried and hasn't worked.
> 
> *That's a reasonable assumption* to me.



He wrote this regarding assumptions that are FURTHER leaps beyond his unwarranted base assumption that an 'adventure' must have the goal of stopping a country-level conflict.


----------



## FifthView

glutton said:


> The problem is that Annoyingkid made literally dozens of assumptions beyond what was given in the original idea to craft the fairly specific setup for the idea his posts allude to, and then acts as if it is the ONLY valid setup for it. I could list the dozens of assumptions he takes for granted in his long post if you want.



For me it's not a personal issue, but an ideas issue.   I've read through those longer posts; but his last seemed an attempt to summarize his primary point.  That's something I've done often enough:  Find myself distracted by the minutia of a specific instance, a test case, and then have to work my way toward whatever issue lies behind that case or the essence of the case.  I'm not sure this is Annoyingkid's process, but I thought I would salvage something that might be useful from all the rest of it.

_Edit:_  Ah, you added some to your comment.  The way I see it is that Annoyingkid's initial post that set off this long string of comments referenced your idea about a woman warrior setting off on a quest with children because a) she was vital for success, and b) the children would be safer with her than left alone. This was a rather broad "idea" for a story, without many specifics.  So Annoyingkid, seeing the bare bones, may have made assumptions about that idea.  But this happens ALL THE TIME here.  Some brainstorming question is put forth, bare bones fashion, and the responses can be all over the place simply due to the fact that the initial idea is so broad and/or bare.  I think it's normal to make assumptions in such a case, if for no other reason than that such a case leaves open so many doors and windows on a very general idea.   I'm not altogether sure why Annoyingkid should be attacked personally for making assumptions when the initial post that sparked those assumptions didn't offer many specifics.  But as I said above, sometimes I myself get lost in the thickets of an idea, the minutia, while trying to find my way out to a more general statement, trying to find the essence.  We can discuss these things without getting lost in other thickets, too.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> I'm not altogether sure why Annoyingkid should be attacked personally for making assumptions when the initial post that sparked those assumptions didn't offer many specifics.  But as I said above, sometimes I myself get lost in the thickets of an idea, the minutia, while trying to find my way out to a more general statement, trying to find the essence.  We can discuss these things without getting lost in other thickets, too.



It struck me that he was not only making assumptions but saying illogical and incorrect things to try and make a sexist point.  Then he suggested someone was lying.

Like saying historical leaders didn't lead from the front

or suggesting that if someone had the discipline to become a great warrior why wouldn't they have the discipline not to have children

or suggesting that for real warriors there is no peace time 

or suggesting a single individual was best compared to an entire branch of the modern US military.

I could go on.  

But it struck me, and apparently others, that he was not willing to consider or concede other viewpoints when this logic or assumed facts were proven wrong.

His apparent concession that his reasoning was more or less based on video games and a video game logic didn't help matters either.


----------



## glutton

FifthView said:


> _Edit:_  Ah, you added some to your comment.  The way I see it is that Annoyingkid's initial post that set off this long string of comments referenced your idea about a woman warrior setting off on a quest with children because a) she was vital for success, and b) the children would be safer with her than left alone. This was a rather broad "idea" for a story, without many specifics.  So Annoyingkid, seeing the bare bones, may have made assumptions about that idea.  But this happens ALL THE TIME here.  Some brainstorming question is put forth, bare bones fashion, and the responses can be all over the place simply due to the fact that the initial idea is so broad and/or bare.  I think it's normal to make assumptions in such a case, if for no other reason than that such a case leaves open so many doors and windows on a very general idea.   I'm not altogether sure why Annoyingkid should be attacked personally for making assumptions when the initial post that sparked those assumptions didn't offer many specifics.  But as I said above, sometimes I myself get lost in the thickets of an idea, the minutia, while trying to find my way out to a more general statement, trying to find the essence.  We can discuss these things without getting lost in other thickets, too.



After making those assumptions he acted like those assumptions were inherent to the idea and that a setup with those assumptions - which favored his stance - in place was the ONLY valid setup for the story idea.

It's as bad as if somebody said they had an idea for their female MC being torn between a prince and a farmer as romantic interests, and I MADE UP 30 new details that they didn't mention and used those to argue in favor of the MC choosing the prince.

It's normal to make GUESSES or share IDEAS about the way things might go, it's not normal to act like they are facts of the scenario when the original post never mentioned such.


----------



## skip.knox

Um, allow me to suggest, in the interest of laying this thread to rest, that we refrain from summarizing or otherwise re-wording what someone else has said. The saying party is present and can speak his own lines. If the person has left the room, then there's little point in being an echo chamber.


----------



## Reaver

Ninja'd by the good Professor but I'll add my two cents.

The last six posts prior to skip's have been about how annoying Annoyingkid's posts are. Complaining about another members posts isn't constructive and belongs in PM's between complainants. 

This thread needs to either get back on track or die a well deserved death. 

I'm fine with either but the off topic posts need to stop. 

Thank you for your cooperation.


----------



## fantastic

glutton said:


> It's as bad as if somebody said they had an idea for their female MC being torn between a prince and a farmer as romantic interests, and I MADE UP 30 new details that they didn't mention and used those to argue in favor of the MC choosing the prince.



But you don't need to make up any new facts, the probability already suggests that the prince is a better choice. Unless you give more information.

Likewise, the idea that a woman is pregnant suggests she is at a disadvantage compared to a woman who is not pregnant.

Obviously, I am not claiming you can't make a story with a pregnant woman. But it does explain why it would be significantly harder to write a convincing classical story with a pregnant woman who fights and is not affected by it.


----------



## Russ

fantastic said:


> Obviously, I am not claiming you can't make a story with a pregnant woman. But it does explain why it would be significantly harder to write a convincing classical story with a pregnant woman who fights and is not affected by it.



Two quick thoughts:

1) the whole idea is to make things hard for the protagonist and obstacles can be internal or external

2) did anyone suggest that a pregnant woman fighting is not affected by it?


----------



## FifthView

I don't believe that positing a female warrior who maintains readiness by avoiding pregnancy, in order to be able to fight at any moment's notice in top form, necessarily springs from a sexist POV.  But I do believe that's only one type of warrior and one type of situation (being "always ready"), and may be a very narrow consideration that ignores other potentials.  Within _that_ situation, sure, the avoidance of pregnancy might make great sense.  (And surely she could make such a decision for herself.)

I don't believe that asking the question, _Why would this pregnant female warrior be chosen to fight rather than a thousand available male warriors?_ is a sexist question.  I actually think it's a very good question that ought to be answered.  It's like asking _Why would this young teenage wizard be chosen to fight and defeat the Big Bad Guy when so many older, more proficient wizards, and probably more powerful wizards exist to take on that task?_   There's Harry Potter; and yet, there's Dumbledore.  Asking the question is important, because then we can approach an answer that will make sense to the reader.  (Harry has a connection to Voldemort; Harry is a horcrux; a prophecy has already determined it's Harry or Voldemort at the end; etc.)  So asking the question, _Why this pregnant warrior?_ will lead us to the answers that will make the story more interesting.  (Maybe there aren't any male warriors left; they've already been killed in 25 years' worth of war.  Or maybe her bloodline is the only bloodline able to kill the villain who is immune to attack from any other source.  Or maybe no one else sees the threat; every man and other woman laughs at her; and she takes up the task herself.  Or any number of reasons.)


----------



## glutton

fantastic said:


> But you don't need to make up any new facts, the probability already suggests that the prince is a better choice. Unless you give more information.
> 
> Likewise, the idea that a woman is pregnant suggests she is at a disadvantage compared to a woman who is not pregnant.
> 
> Obviously, I am not claiming you can't make a story with a pregnant woman. But it does explain why it would be significantly harder to write a convincing classical story with a pregnant woman who fights and is not affected by it.



It's besides the point that the prince is favored by default with no other details, it's disingenuous if I make up extra stuff to support the prince.

Also the idea was originally about a woman with children who fights not a woman who fights while actually pregnant.


----------



## glutton

FifthView said:


> I don't believe that positing a female warrior who maintains readiness by avoiding pregnancy, in order to be able to fight at any moment's notice in top form, necessarily springs from a sexist POV.  But I do believe that's only one type of warrior and one type of situation (being "always ready"), and may be a very narrow consideration that ignores other potentials.  Within _that_ situation, sure, the avoidance of pregnancy might make great sense.  (And surely she could make such a decision for herself.)
> 
> I don't believe that asking the question, _Why would this pregnant female warrior be chosen to fight rather than a thousand available male warriors?_ is a sexist question.  I actually think it's a very good question that ought to be answered.  It's like asking _Why would this young teenage wizard be chosen to fight and defeat the Big Bad Guy when so many older, more proficient wizards, and probably more powerful wizards exist to take on that task?_   There's Harry Potter; and yet, there's Dumbledore.  Asking the question is important, because then we can approach an answer that will make sense to the reader.  (Harry has a connection to Voldemort; Harry is a horcrux; a prophecy has already determined it's Harry or Voldemort at the end; etc.)  So asking the question, _Why this pregnant warrior?_ will lead us to the answers that will make the story more interesting.  (Maybe there aren't any male warriors left; they've already been killed in 25 years' worth of war.  Or maybe her bloodline is the only bloodline able to kill the villain who is immune to attack from any other source.  Or maybe no one else sees the threat; every man and other woman laughs at her; and she takes up the task herself.  Or any number of reasons.)



It was originally about a woman with children who fought, a currently pregnant woman who fights is a step beyond that in temrs of difficulty to justify.


----------



## fantastic

glutton said:


> It's besides the point that the prince is favored by default with no other details, it's disingenuous if I make up extra stuff to support the prince.
> 
> Also the idea was originally about a woman with children who fights not a woman who fights while actually pregnant.



It is not besides the point. One requires you make up extra stuff, the other does not.

That explains some things. But even so, it requires a much better explanation than a woman who is not with a child.



Russ said:


> Two quick thoughts:
> 
> 1) the whole idea is to make things hard for the protagonist and obstacles can be internal or external
> 
> 2) did anyone suggest that a pregnant woman fighting is not affected by it?



That is true. But if the woman needs to fight opponents, there already exists an obstacle. Making her pregnant is not necessary just to create more obstacles.

Maybe nobody said it directly but many compared woman who is not pregnant with woman who is pregnant. But the clear difference is that one situation is far more plausible. Having a female fighter that is not pregnant requires much less explanation. Keep in mind, it is much harder to suspend disbelief if a woman fighting is also pregnant. It is even harder if she seems to be the strongest and the most important person in terms of defeating her opponents.

Fifthview said it very well. If you make her pregnant because the story needs it, then you need to explain why she fights even though she is pregnant.


----------



## glutton

fantastic said:


> That is true. But if the woman needs to fight opponents, there already exists an obstacle. Making her pregnant is not necessary just to create more obstacles.
> 
> Maybe nobody said it directly but many compared woman who is not pregnant with woman who is pregnant. But the clear difference is that one situation is far more plausible. Having a female fighter that is not pregnant requires much less explanation. Keep in mind, it is much harder to suspend disbelief if a woman fighting is also pregnant. It is even harder if she seems to be the strongest and the most important person in terms of defeating her opponents.
> 
> Fifthview said it very well. If you make her pregnant because the story needs it, then you need to explain why she fights even though she is pregnant.



The debate I was in was about whether it's okay for a powerful female warrior to get pregnant at some point, not about someone going into battle while pregnant. I don't know where the latter idea is coming from.


----------



## glutton

fantastic said:


> It is not besides the point. One requires you make up extra stuff, the other does not.



But if I actually do make up extra stuff to further strengthen the prince's argument, I am being disingenuous either way. That's why I said it was besides the point, because extra stuff has been made whether or not it was actually 'needed' to make a case.


----------



## fantastic

glutton said:


> The debate I was in was about whether it's okay for a powerful female warrior to get pregnant at some point, not about someone going into battle while pregnant. I don't know where the latter idea is coming from.



I don't see a problem if she becomes pregnant. There already are many female characters that become pregnant at some point. Even in Harry Potter, Ginny and Hermione were probably pregnant at some point, probably.

But most people were talking about pregnant woman fighting.



glutton said:


> But if I actually do make up extra stuff to further strengthen the prince's argument, I am being disingenuous either way. That's why I said it was besides the point, because extra stuff has been made whether or not it was actually 'needed' to make a case.



I agree that there was no need to make more assumptions than what was talked about.


----------



## glutton

fantastic said:


> But most people were talking about pregnant woman fighting.



Not really, I suppose it could have been misread that way but the debate at least for the last few pages was about whether a powerful female warrior should risk getting pregnant when there might be opportunistic enemies waiting to attack her, not her getting pregnant and then going onto the field while with child.

Edit - Fifthview introduced the idea of a pregnant woman fighting being no different from a non-pregnant woman or a man fighting as a sarcastic exaggeration of what was being discussed.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> I don't believe that positing a female warrior who maintains readiness by avoiding pregnancy, in order to be able to fight at any moment's notice in top form, necessarily springs from a sexist POV.  But I do believe that's only one type of warrior and one type of situation (being "always ready"), and may be a very narrow consideration that ignores other potentials.  Within _that_ situation, sure, the avoidance of pregnancy might make great sense.  (And surely she could make such a decision for herself.)
> 
> I don't believe that asking the question, _Why would this pregnant female warrior be chosen to fight rather than a thousand available male warriors?_ is a sexist question.  I actually think it's a very good question that ought to be answered.  It's like asking _Why would this young teenage wizard be chosen to fight and defeat the Big Bad Guy when so many older, more proficient wizards, and probably more powerful wizards exist to take on that task?_   There's Harry Potter; and yet, there's Dumbledore.  Asking the question is important, because then we can approach an answer that will make sense to the reader.  (Harry has a connection to Voldemort; Harry is a horcrux; a prophecy has already determined it's Harry or Voldemort at the end; etc.)  So asking the question, _Why this pregnant warrior?_ will lead us to the answers that will make the story more interesting.  (Maybe there aren't any male warriors left; they've already been killed in 25 years' worth of war.  Or maybe her bloodline is the only bloodline able to kill the villain who is immune to attack from any other source.  Or maybe no one else sees the threat; every man and other woman laughs at her; and she takes up the task herself.  Or any number of reasons.)



In this context those questions were not sexist, they were straw men, because nobody was suggesting those things.

Sexist was the suggestion that a female who chose to become a warrior should, inter alia, have the discipline to remain "not pregnant" because she had the discipline to become a warrior.  This, of course, flies in the face of the thousands of examples of male warriors who have children despite their discipline.  

It also flies in the face of the fact that male warriors, despite their vast discipline, have been known to do many, many "unwise" things that put themselves at risk or cost them their lives.  Getting drunk, having affairs, crossing a river in full armour, getting obese etc.  

This is simply placing a higher standard on the female character's conduct simply because she is female.  IT becomes more traditionally sexist by its message that women have a special duty to protect their virtue, or remain chaste.


----------



## Russ

So on the question of pregnancy and fighting the issue evolved out of a suggestion that female warriors with discipline who are "vital", should would not get pregnant:



> I don't understand why you would have a child if you were vital. I mean disciplined enough to become an extremely powerful warrior, but not disciplined enough to ignore baby cravings?



and then this:



> But now we're talking about a professional warrior who's at such a high level she's vital to a war effort. It's her entire job to be prepared for the possibility of war. Surely.



It then digressed into a bunch of other badly thought out stuff, but that was the origin of the issue on this thread.

The original discussion was not about a pregnant women fighting, it was about a woman with a child taking the child on campaign/adventure, and the objection to this (noted above) is that any warrior who was "vital" would be disciplined enough not to have children, to which I say "hogwash" and why can't women warriors have sex when nobody bats an eye at male warriors doing so?

Pregnancy is also a short term disability in terms of fighting.  The disability probably lasts about 8 or 9 months.  A broken arm or leg, a bad infection, a eye problem, all can cause disability that impairs fighting ability, but history is rife with men fighting with significant disabilities.  

The problem with AK's position, was not that "he was asking questions" (which I think fifth view is putting his position far too high or simply changing it), it was that he was trying to construct an argument against women warriors in fiction  based on straw men arguments, counter-factual assertions and sexist reasoning.


----------



## FifthView

Russ said:


> The original discussion was not about a pregnant women fighting, it was about a woman with a child taking the child on campaign/adventure, and the objection to this (noted above) is that any warrior who was "vital" would be disciplined enough not to have children, to which I say "hogwash" and why can't women warriors have sex when nobody bats an eye at male warriors doing so?





> This is simply placing a higher standard on the female character's conduct simply because she is female.  IT becomes more traditionally sexist by its message that women have a special duty to protect their virtue, or remain chaste.



Russ, is it sexist to assume that women only have sex in order to become pregnant, so avoiding pregnancy means protecting their virtue and remaining chaste?

I have not found anywhere in A.'s comments where he suggested these things.  They seem to have come entirely from your own mind.  You read something about avoiding pregnancy ergo you read something about remaining chaste.

The discussion turned from this,



> I could imagine a good scenario for a mother taking her child on a dangerous adventure - she is an extremely powerful warrior to the point of being vital for success,



To the issue of pregnancy because A. seems to have taken a particular view of what the latter half meant. She is vital precisely because she's an extremely powerful warrior.  Being _so_ vital (as a warrior, not for some other reason like those I gave in my earlier comment) means, presumably, that she would hold a special position within a society and also that she would maintain preparedness and be available to fight at any moment.  (If there are others who can successfully defend their society during her 9 months of pregnancy, then why aren't they the "vital" ones later, but only her?)  That's a narrow view of all possibilities for women warriors–but I don't think A. was speaking of all possibilities for women warriors nor for every potential case of a woman warrior in fantasy fiction.  For example, A. also wrote this:



> The conversation for most of the topic has been about the everywoman mother who has a child as part of daily life, has the sudden call to adventure and goes of with the kid cos she has to, which is understandable. But now we're talking about a professional warrior who's at such a high level she's vital to a war effort. It's her entire job to be prepared for the possibility of war. Surely.



This signals a very specific case, not a broad swipe at all women fighters.  Additionally, when asked this,



glutton said:


> So just because enemies might attack her while she is pregnant, she should never take the risk of getting pregnant above all other considerations?



A. said this:



> That's not my position. No, she can have a child. However, in any game of chess, you don't just take the queen off the board without preparing for it first. You prepare your defences, then you can take her off.
> 
> If a strong female character that was vital told the people she was vital to ahead of time with enough time so they can compensate and make adjustments, that she intends to get pregnant, then went out the back door, and didn't broadcast it, and didn't publically claim this kid as her own, then I would think yes, this woman's level headed and aware of danger. And I would almost certainly like her.



–in which it is stated that, yep, sure enough, by golly gee, he can see warrior women deciding to have children.  So, again, A. is not broadcasting something sexist about women but only is addressing a very specific case of a woman warrior who his vital in a very specific (and, I think, extreme) way and who would want to maintain preparedness.

We can argue that a multitude of other types of woman warrior are possible, as well as many types of scenario for them, but I don't think we can argue that A. is sexist merely because so many comments have been made about only one narrow case. 



Russ said:


> Sexist was the suggestion that a female who chose to become a warrior should, inter alia, have the discipline to remain "not pregnant" because she had the discipline to become a warrior.  This, of course, flies in the face of the thousands of examples of male warriors who have children despite their discipline.
> 
> It also flies in the face of the fact that male warriors, despite their vast discipline, have been known to do many, many "unwise" things that put themselves at risk or cost them their lives.  Getting drunk, having affairs, crossing a river in full armour, getting obese etc.



In the first paragraph above, you seem to be suggesting that a woman in the process of having a new child (going through pregnancy) is identical to the process of a man begetting a child.  Basically, women are men with boobs.  The consequences, the ramifications of pregnancy for women and men are identical.  I don't know if this is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of the sexes or some type of sexism.

In the second, you seem to be arguing that women, in general, can do foolish things and shouldn't we make our women characters just as dumb, irresponsible, etc., as male characters?  Perhaps if we were speaking in very general terms and not about a specific case–of a professional warrior who has decided to maintain constant readiness–that would make sense.  Unlike you, I do not believe A. is attempting some grand statement on all women or even all women warriors.


----------



## Nimue

Oh for f*ck's sake, Fifth, let's not pretend that all these statements don't have overtones of that old sexist chestnut--"Women can't do this job because they might get pregnant" or the variant "women shouldn't be paid as much because they'll take time off to raise children."

And how exactly is a woman supposed to avoid pregnancy completely in the classic medieval fantasy, if not by abstaining from sex?  When you say of a character that it would be incredibly irresponsible of her to have a child, exactly what barriers are you putting on her in the world you're working in?  And why are those so different from the mistakes male characters are permitted to make, as Russ pointed our?

This entire conversation seems to be made up of digressions and straw men, but when that straw stinks of something, are we really going to pretend it doesn't?


----------



## FifthView

Nimue said:


> This entire conversation seems to be made up of digressions and straw men, but when that straw stinks of something, are we really going to pretend it doesn't?



No, Nimue, the discussion from one side seems to center on the idea that the mere suggestion that _women are not merely men with boobs_ is somehow a sexist statement.  

Also, a lot of people are so sensitive to the topic, they seem to read sexism where it doesn't exist and are very quick to label others sexists.


----------



## Nimue

Gee, maybe it's possible that there's an emotional component to this.  Can't imagine why, though.  Almost as though this borders on issues that affect people in real life?

Also, nice fat red herring there.  Women aren't men with boobs.  Everyone agrees with that.  *throws up hands*


----------



## FifthView

Nimue said:


> Gee, maybe it's possible that there's an emotional component to this.  Can't imagine why, though.  Almost as though this borders on issues that affect people in real life?
> 
> Also, nice fat red herring there.  Women aren't men with boobs.  Everyone agrees with that.  *throws up hands*



Yeah, Russ suggesting that a man going out and begetting children has identical repercussions for the man as a woman faces when becoming pregnant:  Women are just men with boobs.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> Yeah, Russ suggesting that a man going out and begetting children has identical repercussions for the man as a woman faces when becoming pregnant:  Women are just men with boobs.



Which is not what I said.  If you are going to discuss my arguments could you do me the courtesy of accurately characterizing them?


----------



## glutton

FifthView said:


> Yeah, Russ suggesting that a man going out and begetting children has identical repercussions for the man as a woman faces when becoming pregnant:  Women are just men with boobs.



Russ did not say women getting pregnant has identical repercussions as men having children, I suspect the reason you defend AK is because like AK, you are fond of baseless leaps of logic, extrapolations and distortions.


----------



## Nimue

If you read the post, and I think you did, he makes a very clear point:  the limiting factors of pregnancy can be compared to illness or injury, that it would take a warrior off the field for a certain amount of time (not likely to be a full nine months, barring early complications).  Male warriors are permitted to break legs and become ill, but pregnancy is somehow unforgivable?

And then, past the point of actual pregnancy, why is it so different for a female warrior to have a child than a male warrior?  These are two separate points--not contradiction.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> In the first paragraph above, you seem to be suggesting that a woman in the process of having a new child (going through pregnancy) is identical to the process of a man begetting a child.  Basically, women are men with boobs.  The consequences, the ramifications of pregnancy for women and men are identical.  I don't know if this is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of the sexes or some type of sexism.
> 
> In the second, you seem to be arguing that women, in general, can do foolish things and shouldn't we make our women characters just as dumb, irresponsible, etc., as male characters?  Perhaps if we were speaking in very general terms and not about a specific case—of a professional warrior who has decided to maintain constant readiness—that would make sense.  Unlike you, I do not believe A. is attempting some grand statement on all women or even all women warriors.



Again, you are mischaracterizing what I have said on this issue.  Why are you choosing to represent my arguments so dishonestly?


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> Again, you are mischaracterizing what I have said on this issue.  Why are you choosing to represent my arguments so dishonestly?



He is Distortion Lord hence confusing Fantastic by bringing in the idea of women fighting while pregnant being the same as a non-pregnant man fighting.


----------



## Nimue

But of course, other people are too sensitive, not you.  Other people are being illogical. Other people are misquoting and building straw men.  And any allegations of sexism are far worse and more objectionable than the presence of sexist rhetoric.  They must be defended against at all costs!

God, this is the picture of a circular internet argument.  I'd say I thought we were better than that, but, well... I know that's not true.


----------



## glutton

I kind of overlooked this before, but this is the definition of a strawman when nobody suggested that having a family makes no difference -



FifthView said:


> It seems to me that introducing children, pregnancy, and so forth are real changes.  Introducing these things into a story changes the story, or ought to change the story in most cases, because these are additional, significant burdens.  Pretending otherwise, or as if having family and children is an identical circumstance to having no family or children, seems extremely odd.  It demeans the significance of family and children.  Saying that pregnancy is irrelevant is similarly ridiculous.  In my opinion.
> 
> IN A WAY, to return a little to the general idea of "man with breasts," saying that children and pregnancy make little difference is like saying that a woman (or man) with children is identical to a woman (or man) with no children.  It's "standard unmarried hero" with incidental, superficial children/pregnancy thrown in.  A woman warrior who is not pregnant, has no family or children, has absolutely no advantages on a woman warrior who has children and is 5 months pregnant with her fourth?  Why, a woman warrior who is eight months pregnant is hardly distinguishable from a male warrior!


----------



## Steerpike

I don't know how many times the community has to be asked to dial it back a notch in this thread, but lets hope that this post represents a realization of that number. 

This issue can be discussed without personal attacks. I know this first hand, having done so many, many times in social settings. And whatever view you take, if you believe that viewpoint is deserving of serious consideration, personal attacks only undermine your goals. 

In any event, sorry for the lecture, but I hope I don't have to point out that there shouldn't be a need for a further warning here.

ETA: I'm not singling anyone out, so don't feel singled out


----------



## glutton

Steerpike said:


> This issue can be discussed without personal attacks. I know this first hand, having done so many, many times in social settings. And whatever view you take, if you believe that viewpoint is deserving of serious consideration, personal attacks only undermine your goals.



Is pointing out strawmen and distortions disallowed as a 'personal attack'? If so then it might be easier just to block users of distortions and strawmen.


----------



## Steerpike

glutton said:


> Is pointing out strawmen and distortions disallowed as a 'personal attack'? If so then it might be easier just to block users of distortions and strawmen.



No. Pointing out what you perceive as errors, logical or otherwise, in another person's position is fine. That is the nature of debate, and a natural consequence of these types of discussions. Doing it in a manner that belittles other members, attacks the person rather than the argument, name-calls, or what have you, is a problem. It's a particular problem in threads like this because the issues tend to raise emotional responses for good reason, and injecting posts of the type described above into a discussion that may already be hitting people on an emotional level is a recipe for the thread going down in flames.

Feel free to disagree. Just be cognizant of the fact that there's a person on the other end of computer screen and try to be nice (or at least civil) to them.


----------



## Nimue

Yeah, I have to say that it feels great to have female members and/or people defending women's issues being repeatedly told they're sensitive and overreacting.  Not only here but in earlier conversations about motherhood.  I'm going to be optimistic and assume that's part of this reprimand.  Feel free to correct me, I suppose.


----------



## FifthView

Russ said:


> Again, you are mischaracterizing what I have said on this issue.  Why are you choosing to represent my arguments so dishonestly?



This:



> Sexist was the suggestion that a female who chose to become a warrior should, inter alia, have the discipline to remain "not pregnant" because she had the discipline to become a warrior. This, of course, flies in the face of the thousands of examples of male warriors who have children despite their discipline.



You are building a false equivalence, as if the repercussions of becoming pregnant are identical to the repercussions a male would face when he begets children.  A male warrior maintaining a constant state of preparedness can have children, so why can't a woman warrior maintain a constant state of preparedness while also getting pregnant?  The discipline required is the same because the repercussions are the same, presumably.  I.e., the importance of the discipline in these two cases is identical.


----------



## Steerpike

Nimue, I hope I can make it more plain by referring to the forum rules, which encapsulate this better than I have, and which state:

_"__When discussing sensitive issues, all members participating in such a discussion (post originator and respondents) are required to take extra care and treat the topic with the appropriate gravity, making certain they exhibit open-mindedness, understanding, respect, & empathy for their fellow scribes."_

Everyone in the thread is entitled to a viewpoint. What people are not entitled to do is attack (using the term broadly) other forums members as opposed to their arguments. Yes, that includes telling someone they're over-sensitive, because that's a characterization of the person and has nothing to do with their argument. 

You can boil it down to avoiding making statements about the other person (i.e. an ad hominem argument), and instead directing opposing arguments at the points people are making. The post above is an attempt to keep the thread on track and within the boundaries of the forum rules. There's no reason why that goal can't be accomplished.

The post I made was also a reminder to everyone discussing here and not directed at any specific person. I just don't want the thread to head in directions I've seen them go before and have to be closed, because I do think these are interesting as well as important topics to fantasy literature.


----------



## Nimue

So, then, a woman taking ~4 months of time away from the battlefield for as important a purpose as having a child is guilty of a lapse in discipline.  Ignoring the idea that she would probably plan to have children during peacetime--because apparently we've decided to ignore that--the pregnancy may have been accidental, highly likely at a low level of medical technology, or driven by something like the desire to have a child before she dies in battle.  And, according to some, this "irresponsibility" cannot be justified by the reward, apparently.  Therefore...what?  Women should not be warriors because they cannot be prepared for battle 100% of the time?  A female character who wants to have a child is unfit to be a warrior?  People cannot have multiple priorities in their lives?  Because absolute biological equality cannot be possible, female warriors must always be sidelined or sexless?

These are the arguments you are facing!  This is what you're looking at, and claiming nothing under the moon is sexist!  What is your point?

Is it: write these characters, have a ball, but of course they will face difficulties when pregnant, maybe something that could strengthen the conflicts of a story?  If so, great.  However, _that's not what you're saying._ You're digging a deeper and deeper hole that makes inroads on the sexist arguments outlined above.  If you can agree that female warriors and mothers can be great protagonists, without feeling compelled to say in the same breath that they would be flawed by their nature, then say so.  But you're so fixated on the drawbacks of these characters rather than their possibility that it continues to be discouraging and off-putting.  What _is_ your point?  What are you arguing against--not one of the straw men you've offered?


----------



## Steerpike

Was there not a warrior in one of the Norse stories (related to Leif Eriksson maybe?) who battled while pregnant? Fought off skraelings, I believe. And it wasn't early in her pregnancy. Of course, we don't know the veracity of these types of tales, but it does show that the conception of a female warrior also having children isn't something that is unknown. Also, Boudicca had daughters, and while she had them before the events that are most often associated with them, she was already queen of the Iceni and a warrior in her own right, from what I've read.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> You are building a false equivalence, as if the repercussions of becoming pregnant are identical to the repercussions a male would face when he begets children.  A male warrior maintaining a constant state of preparedness can have children, so why can't a woman warrior maintain a constant state of preparedness while also getting pregnant?  The discipline required is the same because the repercussions are the same, presumably.  I.e., the importance of the discipline in these two cases is identical.



That simply misrepresents what I have said in at least two regards.

Firstly, and let me make it clear, I never suggested that the physical repercussions of having children is identical for men and women.  *If I said that why don't you show me where I said that*.

Secondly I clearly rejected the "constant state of preparedness-there is no peace" argument *for warriors of either sex* (see my comments about "sharpening the sword").

I did make it clear that pregnancy is a potential disability in combat, but that a disability has never seemed to stop men from engaging in combat in fiction and wondered why AK, and perhaps you, think it should stop women.

What is sexist is AK's argument that if a female has the discipline to become a skilled warrior that she should have the discipline to avoid all disabilities and especially ignore 





> baby cravings


 (a pretty crappy term) where the argument is not advanced to say male warriors should avoid 





> baby cravings


, adultery, alcohol, hunting, swimming etc.

It is remarkable how many times and what lengths you go to to try and mischaracterize what I have said.


----------



## FifthView

Russ said:


> Secondly I clearly rejected the "constant state of preparedness-there is no peace" argument *for warriors of either sex* (see my comments about "sharpening the sword").



The comments that were made about "peace time" were metaphorical, and in context with the whole argument being made were indeed about a state of maintaining constant preparedness.  Even if the society was at peace, the warriors (in the given hypothetical scenario) would not be, because functionally they'd always work to remain prepared to fight at any moment.

You rejected the scenario as being a-historical.  But we are talking about fantasy worlds and fantasy scenarios.  And I'm not sure I'd buy arguments about counterfactual claims either, given that you've seemed to suggest that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops to fight harder might be a viable military strategy.  Perhaps an outlier case of that could be found, I don't know; but it's surely a great rarity in world history if so–I mean, using that _strategy_.



> I did make it clear that pregnancy is a potential disability in combat, but that a disability has never seemed to stop men from engaging in combat in fiction and wondered why AK, and perhaps you, think it should stop women.



Again, a false equivalency.  As if all disabilities are identical, and as if avoiding accidental bone breaks or severed arms is identical to being able to avoid pregnancy.  The issue is about avoiding pregnancy for a purpose; and, I believe a woman warrior surely could do so if she chose.

Also, I'd find it refreshing if you would acknowledge any of the points I've made concerning the fact that a) A. (and I) have been discussing a narrow scenario and specific type of warrior, and b) I'm not making claims about every possible scenario imaginable.  "why...it should stop women."  I've never said this, I think?  Avoiding pregnancy, for advantageous reasons, is not equivalent to never fighting while pregnant.


----------



## FifthView

Nimue,

Part of the confusion and conflict in this discussion is the assumption that talking about a very narrow scenario and saying things relevant to that scenario is equivalent to talking about all potentials.  I personally do not see why a woman can't choose to avoid pregnancy in order to maintain preparedness; nor do I see why saying such a potential exists must be construed as describing (or limiting) all other potentials as scenarios.

I believe we can look at the narrow scenario A. gave, and discuss it, without assuming outright that A. meant to describe every possibility, all women, all women warriors, and so forth.

I think it's fair to others who come to Mythic Scribes to try to understand their points of view, see where they are coming from, what they are really saying, and not jump to conclusions about any sort of imagined baggage they might be bringing.  (Imagined, because we don't really know them.)  And I do believe that the arguments that were given in the earliest part of this most recent debate can be understood, and in fact make sense, from an understanding that they were addressing a very particular, narrow scenario.


----------



## glutton

FifthView said:


> given that you've seemed to suggest that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops to fight harder might be a viable military strategy.



Yet another distortion as Russ never suggested putting pregnant women on the front lines, he said the pregnant woman's allies might fight harder to defend her if she was attacked.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop twisting other people's words.


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> You rejected the scenario as being a-historical.  But we are talking about fantasy worlds and fantasy scenarios.  And I'm not sure I'd buy arguments about counterfactual claims either, given that *you've seemed to suggest that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops to fight harder might be a viable military strategy.*  Perhaps an outlier case of that could be found, I don't know; but it's surely a great rarity in world history if so—I mean, using that _strategy_.
> .



You have again misrepresented why I have said and taken it grossly out of context.

Show me where I suggested that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops might be a viable military strategy.


----------



## glutton

Russ said:


> You have again misrepresented why I have said and taken it grossly out of context.
> 
> Show me where I suggested that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops might be a viable military strategy.



About time to block Fifthview methinks, seems pointless to continue engaging in a debate against such disingenuous arguments.


----------



## FifthView

Russ said:


> You have again misrepresented why I have said and taken it grossly out of context.
> 
> Show me where I suggested that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops might be a viable military strategy.



Here is my reference:



Russ said:


> Your argument also fails to make into account the human nature of her followers and allies.  People will fight harder to defend a pregnant woman or a woman with a child than they might otherwise.  You seem to think about real people as chess pieces or if they are in video game, they are not.
> 
> You also don't seem to understand royalty very well either.  History is replete with royal leaders of armies leading from the front, not because they are "REALLY GOOD" but because they have symbolic or moral value, or simply, because it is expected of them.



He was referring to, and had quoted, a comment made about sending the pregnant warrior into battle, including on the front line.


----------



## FifthView

glutton said:


> disingenuous arguments.



Do you know that terms like disingenuous, dishonest, sexist and so forth, when describing arguments, are really a form of _ad hominem_ argumentation?

Saying, "please block" or the equivalent, rather than addressing the points being made, are another form of attacking the person, not the argument.

Although I'll admit enough (too much) of it has gone around.


----------



## Russ

FifthView;248917

He was referring to said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I am again forced to correct you on misrepresenting my argument.  And since you appear to have read the post recently and chosen not to quote it, one can only conclude you are misrepresenting my argument yet again (which does not even deal with the fact that no where did I suggest that sending pregnant women to the front line was a viable tactic).
> 
> Here is what annoying kid (his choice of name) said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She may not even have a line to continue because *I'd be gathering my resources and launching an all out attack when she's 8.5 months pregnant?* Why? Because I'm not going to get another chance. Certainly not a better one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was responding quite clearly to his assertion that he would launch an all out attack when she was 8.5 months pregnant.  This was made clear when I also commented that it would be unlikely he would know when she was 8.5 months pregnant and it would be no simple thing to gather the resources and launch such an attack.
> 
> You have now, at least twice, intentionally misrepresented my position.  I could point out a number of other places in this thread where you have chosen to do so as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## glutton

FifthView said:


> Do you know that terms like disingenuous, dishonest, sexist and so forth, when describing arguments, are really a form of _ad hominem_ argumentation?
> 
> Saying, "please block" or the equivalent, rather than addressing the points being made, are another form of attacking the person, not the argument.
> 
> Although I'll admit enough (too much) of it has gone around.



The points being made are not worth addressing when accompanied by such constant, obvious, and deliberate misconstruing of others' points. Such blatant attempts to make the other party look ridiculous are at least as antagonistic as more direct 'personal attacks.'


----------



## Russ

FifthView said:


> Do you know that terms like disingenuous, dishonest, sexist and so forth, when describing arguments, are really a form of _ad hominem_ argumentation?
> 
> Saying, "please block" or the equivalent, rather than addressing the points being made, are another form of attacking the person, not the argument.
> 
> .



Actually saying an argument is sexist or dishonest or misleading or disingenuous is not necessarily an ad hominem attack.  

For instance misrepresenting someone else's arguments is a dishonest form of discussion.


----------



## Devor

After multiple warnings from multiple moderators, I think this thread has run its course.

Several of you may be receiving PMs over the next day or so.

Please don't let this behavior repeat itself in future threads or we will be issuing infractions.


----------

