# What YOU dislike seeing in female fantasy characters



## thecoldembrace (Nov 23, 2015)

This has been floating around in my skull for awhile now. Male characters have often taken the lead in fantasy writing for a long time with females almost always in the background or serving simply as the romantic interest of the protagonist. Most female characters annoy me, seeming more two dimensional than anything really fleshed out, or too petty.

   I personally have worked hard at creating dynamic females in my stories, ones who can survive without any notice from my male protagonists, but still it nags at me that I might not be doing enough to make them better.

  I would like to start a discussion, a list of opinions on what people hate seeing in female characters. This isn't about what makes a strong female character, we have threads for that already. What do YOU personally not like seeing in a female character or what turns you off to even liking one in the first place?

Also... lets make sure to be respectful here. We live in a modern era where a lot of things can be interpreted multiple ways, be respectful to those who post their opinions.

-Cold


----------



## FifthView (Nov 23, 2015)

Indecisiveness.

That's probably my biggest dislike.  Often, it's accompanied by hyper-emotionalism and/or hysteria, hurt feelings.


----------



## Devor (Nov 23, 2015)

What I dislike seeing?  Female characters who are either sexed up or political, mostly.  Every once in a while I can read a story and I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something in the female characters that makes me realize, "This author sees the world very differently than I do."  It's happened a few times, and I couldn't even put into words what it was that made me feel that way.  It wasn't that the character did something, but that she did it _in such a way as to_ . . . something.

What I dislike _writing_ might be a somewhat longer list.  But truthfully I can't think of any additions right now.  There's a few things I'd like to figure out how to nail it down, such as a basic romance plot, but for the most part it's the same list as above.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 23, 2015)

For me it is diversity. As a teenager it never bugged me that in the Sword of Truth series every woman was more beautiful and smart and deadly then the next and only bad characters were ugly. As an adult, this bugs me. A lot. 

I love George RR Martin, because yes, we have Dany, but we also have Cersei, and Arya, and Sansa, and Catelyn and Brienne, and all are so different from each other. All are each their own unique person with their own unique skill set and values and opinions and motives.

I love Dean Koontz, but damn, he is so predictable! I can pick up any book and on page 24 we will meet the woman who will be 'the most beautiful, smart, funny… blah blah blah…"


----------



## Ban (Nov 23, 2015)

Shy female protagonist... Hate this character. It has been overdone and often leads to a boring, bland character who becomes an emotional trainwreck.


----------



## valiant12 (Nov 23, 2015)

I personally dislike female characters that are gold diggers. I think they are a bad influence. (especially for young boys)


----------



## thecoldembrace (Nov 23, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> For me it is diversity. As a teenager it never bugged me that in the Sword of Truth series every woman was more beautiful and smart and deadly then the next and only bad characters were ugly. As an adult, this bugs me. A lot.
> 
> I love George RR Martin, because yes, we have Dany, but we also have Cersei, and Arya, and Sansa, and Catelyn and Brienne, and all are so different from each other. All are each their own unique person with their own unique skill set and values and opinions and motives.
> 
> I love Dean Koontz, but damn, he is so predictable! I can pick up any book and on page 24 we will meet the woman who will be 'the most beautiful, smart, funny… blah blah blah…"



I agree. I personally dislike it when every woman responds or reacts in the same way as every other woman in a story. It makes it feel like they are just all manufactured as the same drone and thrown into the story. It also makes me feel that the author has never met more than one female in their life and is using all their basis for their characters on that one experience. Does anyone else get this way?


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 23, 2015)

YES! And people do say that Dean Koontz bases all the women off his wife, but it is old. So old.

Except Stormy Llewellyn. He got her right. 

Same as Dan Brown. All the women in his books are the same woman. 

Honestly, I think fantasy does this better than some. Even Princess Buttercup was better then what I see in action fiction. I love the beginning of The Princess Bride "At the time Buttercup was born, she was the ninth most beautiful girl in the kingdom…."


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 23, 2015)

To be honest, I never dislike characters because of particular traits. Unless it less of a trait and more of a "quirk" that I find annoying and doesn't contribute to anything other than being "quirky". Other than that, I see no point in disliking particular character traits. The whole point of a story is trying to get into the head of a character. To try to understand things from their point of view. This involves accepting their traits and trying to understand how they make up a part of the person. 

The only thing, then, that bothers me is if the entire characterization falls apart because the various character traits never form a whole picture of the person. For instance, if the author is only giving a character certain traits out of convenience to the plot and some of them are contradictory in a way that doesn't make sense.


----------



## thecoldembrace (Nov 23, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> To be honest, I never dislike characters because of particular traits. Unless it less of a trait and more of a "quirk" that I find annoying and doesn't contribute to anything other than being "quirky". Other than that, I see no point in disliking particular character traits. The whole point of a story is trying to get into the head of a character. To try to understand things from their point of view. This involves accepting their traits and trying to understand how they make up a part of the person.
> 
> The only thing, then, that bothers me is if the entire characterization falls apart because the various character traits never form a whole picture of the person. For instance, if the author is only giving a character certain traits out of convenience to the plot and some of them are contradictory in a way that doesn't make sense.



Does it bother you when you want to get into the head of a character but there is literally nothing there but air? Do you feel disappointed when they aren't fleshed out enough as dynamic characters?


----------



## Incanus (Nov 23, 2015)

Both in real life and in fiction, I don't respond well to 'the ultimatum'.

I've been (slowly) re-reading Silverthorn by Feist.  Granted this is an early 80's book.  The character Princess Carline basically tells her lover, "Marry me, or else we're done."  Aside from this, the character is portrayed generally as 'sympathetic'.  (In my opinion, the characterizations in this book are all a bit on the weak-ish side.)

I think I would use this 'ultimatum' type of thing to show a kind of petty character, and never, ever make one of my more likable females do anything like this.


----------



## Velka (Nov 23, 2015)

Female characters that are are written inside a very shallow box - either they're beautiful and wonderful and amazing and fart butterflies, or they're bitter and horrible and ugly. 

On that note, why do so many females in fantasy have to be beautiful, and not just beautiful, but ethereally, goddess-like beautiful? I'd like to read female characters that have a crooked nose, or a missing tooth from a bar fight, or have a few zits.

Female characters that kick-ass, speak what is on their mind, don't take crap from others and save the world, but as soon as they are written in the context of a relationship they become simpering and spineless. 

Female characters that don't screw up. Ugh, I personally screw up at least 10 times a day.

Female characters that need to be rescued and just sit there and wait for rescue instead of trying to at least try to get herself out of it.

Female characters that fall in love with the MC because he/she is the MC and there is no actual connection, or merit, established.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Nov 23, 2015)

Overly romantic female characters. For some reason women are always portrayed as being more romantic then men. Whereas men can have romantic subplots, it doesn't define their character. Female characters seem to be constantly thinking about their love interest. I'm not against romance, but I'd like a female character who has her priority straight (defeating the bad guy is more important than your relationship)

Also the "aura of specialness" as I like to call it where the female character is really weird and that's supposed to make her adorable. This usually comes off as attention seeking or down right crazy. It just gives off this "ooh I'm so unique because I like to dance in the rain and I don't like seashells because they're dead things." Being a nonconformist does not make you adorable.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 23, 2015)

Dull dialogue is a joy kill. 

Especially with female characters.

I could sit down and read Conan the Barbarian and if he only grunted out a few words I would be fine with that, but not so with a female character.

I want to read and write about female characters that are expressively dynamic. 

I do not expect perfection in deeds or curb appeal either. 

I admire women in general and I try to incorporate that in my writing. 

Women should have the best dialogue by rights anyway, they do most of the talking.


----------



## Ban (Nov 23, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> Dull dialogue is a joy kill.
> 
> Especially with female characters.
> 
> ...



Why do you expect female characters to be more dialogue oriented? And why do you "admire" women, do you admire a woman more than a man?


----------



## Devor (Nov 23, 2015)

I want to ask everyone not to treat this thread as a "trap" to catch and criticize people whose answers you do not like or I will not hesitate to lock the thread.  Share your answer to the question, or elaborate on your own views civilly, but pouncing on people who respond in a way you view unfavorably will be considered trolling.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 23, 2015)

Actually, now that I think about it, there is one thing that will make me instantly dislike a female character. When she's willing to screw the male MC at the first sign of a bed even though she hated him moments before. Seriously? Just no. Have some dignity.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Nov 23, 2015)

^ That. But this doesn't just apply to females. It applies, to me, for all characters that break character in order to check a box. Honestly, this question could be rephrased to what do you dislike about a character or what character traits don't you like and the responses would likely read the same.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 23, 2015)

Banten said:


> Why do you expect female characters to be more dialogue oriented? And why do you "admire" women, do you admire a woman more than a man?



In real life I admire women for many reasons: as opposed to thinking of them as second class citizens for one. 

I have strong women in my life that I rely on and that I look up to. Considering how women have been treated historically, I think it's only fitting to offer my interpretation of a literary voice that attempts to champion their strengths.

Plus I'm attracted to women so for me it's a win, win. 

Rosalind is one of my favorite Shakespearean characters. If I could create my own Rosalind I would consider myself a success.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 23, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> For me it is diversity. As a teenager it never bugged me that in the Sword of Truth series every woman was more beautiful and smart and deadly then the next and only bad characters were ugly. As an adult, this bugs me. A lot.
> 
> I love George RR Martin, because yes, we have Dany, but we also have Cersei, and Arya, and Sansa, and Catelyn and Brienne, and all are so different from each other. All are each their own unique person with their own unique skill set and values and opinions and motives.
> 
> I love Dean Koontz, but damn, he is so predictable! I can pick up any book and on page 24 we will meet the woman who will be 'the most beautiful, smart, funny… blah blah blah…"



George R.R. Martin on writing women



> George Stroumboulopoulos: There's one thing that's interesting about your books. I noticed that you write women really well and really different. Where does that come from?
> George R.R. Martin: You know, I've always considered women to be people.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Nov 23, 2015)

Well, I've read a lot of historical romance, so let's be honest, it isn't exactly realism in those books.  It's over-emotional inner monologues, codependence, and a general skewing of history to fit the overall tone and focus of the genre.  When I read fantasy, I like female characters who are real and believable.  I like female thieves and mages, I like women who have a goal other than bagging a handsome knight.  I like women who want love for their own sake, not for what they gain in getting a man's affections. However, when i write, I write women who are plain, rather than beautiful, maybe demure on the outside but with a nasty streak. I like women who speak up when they have something to say, and though they all tend to have their own sensibilities about what is proper or what is right, none of them follow even their own rules all the time.

I've written a mage who assembles a company of mages to lead into battle to save her husband. I've written a middle-aged woman who uses poisons to control and con men in the crime syndicate in her city.  I've written a teen girl whose lover is kidnapped and she never forgets him, even after her father tells her to stop digging for answers because powerful people have spoken, and the boy's not coming back. I wrote a blind priestess who has to choose whether to abandon her life as a priestess or remain under her mother's control forever.  I wrote a woman bent on revenge when she believes a powerful cleric killed her son, though she has no proof.  I like to think even though most of my stories are at least partly romance, that the individuals I choose to write aren't stereotypical.  none of them are beautiful, or especially powerful, or even remarkable.  Some are cunning, some are manipulative, some are really honest, while others are born deceivers.  I didn't choose any of their traits because they're female specifically, but I do sometimes include some reflection that includes their gender.  What I mean by that, is that my blind priestess knows she has a brother or two, that were given away, to live with their fathers, but she was kept to be a priestess and that's why she's in her mother's strangling grasp.  She doesn't wish she was born a boy because boys are better, but she does wish she had been born free.  My lady whose son was killed doesn't regret being a woman, but she laments her years (she's 43) because she feels past her prime and fears she's running out of time to get her revenge (she spent two years plotting).

I do the same things equally with my male characters.  For example, I have a knight in one book who is mortally wounded on a journey with some mages, and he's healed with magic, but it makes him question his mettle and whether he's still strong enough to see his goals through (he's 31).  It's less about his age and more about how he's given up and started a new life, and maybe he doesn't even want it anymore? Anyways, so my male characters have some of the same dilemmas my female characters do, and that's part of the fun for me in matching up the main characters with secondary characters who can help them overcome their personal shortcomings.  Yes I write romance, but some of my male characters need love as much or more than my female ones, and I try to make both genders not only believable, but really authentic to people I've known.  Some are good communicators, some are mostly good communicators but have a bit of grouchiness that gets in their way, and some are just altogether anxious or secretive, making them horrible communicators, until they can overcome their personal issues.  Also, their goals tend to be individualistic, rather than "us" or "we", even if a couple forms.  yeah, that's loads of fun for me.


----------



## NerdyCavegirl (Nov 23, 2015)

My own personal standards are the same for men and women, but I have a few particular bones to pick with with my own gender. I don't dislike individual traits, I dislike the package as a whole, real or fictional. The prissy made-up damsel-in-distress type is pretty bad, but I prefer it over the Feminazi. Especially the ones who use it as an excuse to be bad cooks and have filthy houses, who think they're entitled to more and more in the name of equality, and who claim to be strong independent women but blame men for violent crime rather than have the common sense and initiative to harden their bodies and learn the skills to defend themselves. Also hate seeing women charge into battle with hair down and a flowy gown. So impractical.


----------



## ThinkerX (Nov 23, 2015)

Hmmm...I could be in trouble here.

I have two (well, three with the current NaNo) works that have prominent female characters.

In 'Labyrinth: Journal,' Doctor Isabella Menendez is an aging female magician of great power (by my worlds standards) and a close confederate of the MC.  She usually plays the advisor role, but from time to time she'll make comments indicating a varied past.

Tia Samos is probably the central character in my 'Empire' series of novellas.  She is attractive (and knows it), can be superficial, takes substances she shouldn't (though not to excess).  But she is also smart and well educated.  And for the first two novellas at least, husband hunting is one of her prime motivations.  Her parents are wealthy commoners seeking an increase in social status, and seek to have Tia marry an aristocrat to gain that status.  They did give her a list to choose from...and because they are merchants, told her to keep an eye out for profitable opportunities as well.  This husband hunt occupies much of Tia's time, though darker forces are swirling around her.  But, she is a sheltered student, not a warrior or a witch (though she does take a rudimentary self defense class later on).  Hence, she ends up in a couple situations where panic seemed appropriate.  

Hmm...I suppose Tia's maid Rebecca is worthy of note as well, though she gets far less page time.  Rebecca is a former gypsy (clan was wiped out) with a knack for musicianship, makeup application, and an eye for fashion.  Also a bit of a snoop and knows a few street fighting moves.  I included her because a woman of Tia's status would need at least one capable maidservant. 

Carina Menendez - grand daughter - of Isabella Menendez, is one of the principle characters in 'Labyrinth: Seed' which I am writing now.  She is a former military mage trying to keep a low profile during an empire wide persecution of magical types.  Keeps a fair bit of low company.


----------



## Chessie (Nov 24, 2015)

Personally, I dislike the way women are portrayed in Westeros. Sickens...is more like it. However, Martin does a really good job of characterization in the first place so there's that aspect. He plays into my pet peeve though of sexualizing women. Using our bodies to get ahead in life is far from reality for most women. 

So I guess my answer to this is female characters who use their looks and sexuality to solve problems or survive somehow. It's degrading unless it fits into the context of the story somehow (like prostitution or slavery, etc). Also, women who think too highly of themselves and have men falling all over them. That gets on my nerves fast.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 24, 2015)

I imagine it would be the same things I dislike in men. 

As far as writing/cinema/TV etc., I get extremely bored with the need for every lead to be the prototypical "strong, independent, female". 

I prefer characters like Ellen Ripley and Sarah Connor (The original from the first two Terminator films) to all these Xena clones that the story creators are using to convince the audience that women are the physical equals of men. 


I don't need every male lead to be the epitome of masculinity and machismo either.


----------



## Ban (Nov 24, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> In real life I admire women for many reasons: as opposed to thinking of them as second class citizens for one.
> 
> I have strong women in my life that I rely on and that I look up to. Considering how women have been treated historically, I think it's only fitting to offer my interpretation of a literary voice that attempts to champion their strengths.
> 
> ...



Ok so you mean "admire" in the sense of respecting them? English is not my native language, and while i believe that i can express myself rather well in this language, there are still some things that feel weird. When i see admire for instance, the first thing i think of is worship. And worshipping one gender over the other is something that seems very... silence of the lambsy.

But i understand what you mean. Thanks.


----------



## DeathtoTrite (Nov 24, 2015)

A weird one- strong-willed, fiery female characters (stay with me) when this is their only defining trait. If I read your story and your female protagonist is one-dimensional in this way, it can be quite jarring and self-defeating.


----------



## Xitra_Blud (Nov 24, 2015)

For me (and this is with female characters in anything) I hate when they try too hard to make them "strong". Don't get me wrong, I like strong female character, but people seem to have the impression that a strong female character automatically means she has to be punching people in the face all the time and constantly boasting about how she's "one of the boys". Tomboy characters, I don't have a problem with. If she's a tomboy then she's a tomboy, but when her being a tomboy is strictly to prove that she's "tough" or "strong", she feels the need to shout out to the world how big and bad she is, I automatically hate the character. A strong female character does not mean that she has to be a tomboy. It doesn't even mean she has to abandon being feminine. She can be as feminine as ever and be one of the strongest character in the story. The way I see it, being a strong character means she's capable of taking care of herself, she's courageous, she's not afraid to stand up for herself and what she believes in. That's what makes a strong character and that's what I like. Honestly, I'd rather read about a one dimensional, background piece character than an obnoxious broad running around with a sword and punching people in the face to prove how "tough" she is.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 24, 2015)

^^^

That's why I like Ellen Ripley's character so much. She combines tenacity with wit in order to overcome difficult situations. 

In Aliens, Ripley shows she knows how to handle a loader like a pro and that's pretty much all that a lot of the alpha male leads need to know when it comes to her personality and character. Then later on she displays strong leadership skills when things hit the fan. In Alien 3 she shows much of the same. Not to mention her sacrifice at the end. 

The same with Sara Connor. Her strength comes from her determination, from the love she has for her son and Reese. She was basically an average every day woman at the start but necessity brought out a hidden strength and gave her a purpose that she never strayed from. 

Both of these women kick serious ass but their characters aren't all about this "girl power" nonsense.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 24, 2015)

Xitra_Blud said:


> The way I see it, being a strong character means she's capable of taking care of herself, she's courageous, she's not afraid to stand up for herself and what she believes in.



Just to touch on this a bit (and not in any way arguing), I think I would define being a strong person as "the ability to remain true to yourself and what you hold sacred despite adversity and hardship". It has nothing to do with your physical condition, or your position in life. A devoted wife and mother is one of the strongest people you'll ever meet. Whereas the woman OR man who solves every problem with a weapon is one of the weakest.


----------



## evolution_rex (Nov 24, 2015)

No character should be one dimensional and serve only one purpose. There isn't anything that's against the rules when it comes to writing specifically female characters, but they're often written poorly. If your character is just a love interest to a male character, writing depth to that character is needed and you _have_ to make that love convincing. If your character is an ass kicking woman hero, she better have flaws and character development like any other hero. If your character is just there to seduce a man or 'be sexy', then she better have a good reason to do so or be portrayed as a character who would do such a thing.

There are no rules, but there are suggestions I would have to avoid doing. I would just never do a love interest character (female or male). A love subplot that has nothing to do with the overall story isn't needed. That character better serve more purpose than just to be the main characters lover or that love subplot better be important to the overall story and it's themes. I would avoid any characters that are overtly 'sexy' and used like an object. Damsel in distress should be avoided, but that doesn't mean you can never have a man save a woman in your story. Most of what people have said in this thread are things you should watch out for. But they're not strictly things you should never do, you just have to be careful on how you do it.


----------



## Nimue (Nov 24, 2015)

Yeah, uh, this would probably be a better discussion if people weren't throwing around terms like "obnoxious broad" and "Feminazi."


----------



## KC Trae Becker (Nov 24, 2015)

My biggest pet peeve are women (and men for that matter) that, to further the plot, float through the story without expressing themselves much. They either spend too much time in their heads if they're the MC or POV character or they keep their dialogue short and ambiguous. 

Most people talk too much rather than not enough. Overly quiet characters just seem so unreal. Who can survive in life being misunderstood all the time or leaving things unsaid when just a few words of explanation would clear up the confusion. And of course unravel the plot, but remaining silent to further the plot seems like a terrible, yet common, character trait for female (and male) characters to have.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 24, 2015)

Banten said:


> Ok so you mean "admire" in the sense of respecting them? English is not my native language, and while i believe that i can express myself rather well in this language, there are still some things that feel weird. When i see admire for instance, the first thing i think of is worship. And worshipping one gender over the other is something that seems very... silence of the lambsy.
> 
> But i understand what you mean. Thanks.



I have no idea how you get worship out of admire.

Respect is something that is earned.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I mean exactly what I said and because it was a compliment your remarks are very inappropriate.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 24, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> I have no idea how you get worship out of admire.
> 
> Respect is something that is earned.
> 
> ...



Come on now, he said English wasn't his first language. Don't be rude.


----------



## Ban (Nov 24, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> I have no idea how you get worship out of admire.
> 
> Respect is something that is earned.
> 
> ...




I stated that english isn't my first language. I think i am allowed to make mistakes. Worship is respect and admiration taken to the extreme, it really isn't that hard to see that. I am sorry i made a mistake because that is apparantly not allowed. Really you don't have to write so dismissively, you try and be dutch and be expected by all your neighbours to know french, english and german besides your own language.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 24, 2015)

Not only that banten explained his confusion.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 24, 2015)

Banten said:


> I stated that english isn't my first language. I think i am allowed to make mistakes. Worship is respect and admiration taken to the extreme, it really isn't that hard to see that. I am sorry i made a mistake because that is apparantly not allowed. Really you don't have to write so dismissively, you try and be dutch and be expected by all your neighbours to know french, english and german besides your own language.



Seriously. The people from non-English speaking countries on this site always astound me. I wish I could speak any other language half so well!

And anyway, the word "worship" didn't always refer to the reverence due to a divine being, as it is almost strictly used in America. "Worship" has been used as a title of respect for officials or people in a higher social class in England for instance. So Banten is not being "inappropriate" or even incorrect at all.


----------



## Ban (Nov 24, 2015)

Thank you Mythopoet. 

Normally i don't get worked up very easily, but considering that i already have to struggle with multiple languages (of which i am only fluent in 2 but as soon as i arrive in germany or wallonia i am expected to speak german and french respectively), i find it very annoying when i am not just being called out on a minor mistake i made but also deemed "inappropriate". Seriously, i don't want to whine but everyone expects me to speak their language (international study) and they scoff at the idea of learning mine, despite studying in my country! 

I went off topic there...


----------



## Guy (Nov 24, 2015)

Well, here are my issues with female characters. I absolutely love strong female characters. The problem is, most people get them wrong. The two common mistakes are:

1. They think "strong female" = "cast iron bitch." This is every bit as fallacious as "strong male" = "arrogant ass."

2. They make her a faux action girl. She's built up as some sort of bad ass, but at some point she always needs a guy to rescue her, or as soon as she falls for a guy she ceases to be an action girl. This really annoys the hell out of me.

My other issue is why so many people seem to think writing a good female character is akin to quantum theory. It's really not any more difficult than any other character. Just write the character. She's a human being, with all the complexities and paradoxes that entails - just because she's strong and independent doesn't mean she can't enjoy being wooed, just because she's a stay at home mom doesn't mean she can't be strong and decisive (indeed, mothers frequently have to be). Conversely, just because a male character is strong doesn't mean he can't cry or enjoy being with his children. We don't think twice about writing different species - elf, dwarf, fairy, orc, etc. - yet the idea of writing a woman stops us in our tracks. I really don't see what's so hard about this.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Nov 24, 2015)

I didn't receive a single positive comment for my original post.

I'm not sure why people are projecting negativity into my comments, you are all reading what you want to out of my words.

If English is a second language then think twice before attacking, I have a right to be offended. 

This is not the first time that Mythopoet has jumped on me either. I really don't understand why.

I just want to help people and be positive.

Same team Farva.


----------



## kennyc (Nov 24, 2015)

Bye-bye.




.


----------



## Ban (Nov 24, 2015)

If i recall correctly i merely asked for some clarification, no attack. Read the original question again and try to find any sign of hostility.

 Afterwards i apologized for my mistake and you call me "inappropriate". 

For what reason and at what point do you have the right to be offended and how exactly is this being helpful to anyone? If you wish to answer than PM me because i don't want to clutter the chat with this off-topic conversation.


----------



## Devor (Nov 24, 2015)

I think it's best if we let it go and get back on point.  The current back and forth has run its course.


----------



## thecoldembrace (Nov 24, 2015)

Agreed, Devor. There is no need for back and forth comments that increase in their hostile feelings. I do want discussion on this issue, and if you are confused about what someone says, please state that you are confused so that no one takes it the wrong way. 

I have also been thinking on this issue after I made the thread, and I found something else I didn't enjoy. A lot of stories I have read include women who are perfect. Its like they were cut from marble, and made to be the best of everything. I already hate it when male characters are overly powerful or perfect, the same thing applies to women who seem to be the best of all ideals. I expect all characters to have flaws and to suck and multiple things. No one I know in real life is a genius at every aspect of life.
Anyone see this more and more?


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 24, 2015)

Yes, I made a comment about this earlier. I find this in Dean Koontz, like I said, or in Dan Brown, where the girl is always "the most beautiful, smartest, brain surgeon but also works for an orphanage in Peru where she engages in combat against the rebels with manicured finger nails, and has three golden retrievers who are also perfect and beautiful and poop golden eggs.... and she's funny and witty...etc." Drives me nuts.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 24, 2015)

And she wants kids, but she is so busy fighting rebels in Peru, and saving people's hearts, and she just _hasn't_ found the _right_ guy yet....

Oh, I can just keep going and going...

Actually, come to think of it, I think Patrick Rothfuss sort of played with this a bit in Name of the Wind. The way he described Denna, or Denea or whatever her name was (She was also perfect and beautiful and mysterious and funny and smart and used her body to get what she wanted...) in this very stereotypical way, but... when he was telling the story to the Chronicler his god/goat friend guy stepped in and commented that he always felt her nose was off a bit. Just a tiny bit, she had a weird nose, and Kvoth argues that she was perfect, but he is adamant that _he_ thought she was perfect, but her nose was a bit off... 

Something to that effect. It was pretty funny.


----------



## Daughter of Hell (Nov 25, 2015)

Regarding the OP,

Female characters in fantasy. I hate seeing feminist statements. Too many authors try to make their female protagonists as an ode to feminism. It splits me down the middle like an axe does. The problem really is feminism is a modern ideal and exporting it into a medieval environment is not only unrealistic, but it also sends the message that medieval women are incompatible with heroism, which ironically is misogynist!

With my own female protagonists, I strive to make them the same as medieval women were, then write them into a heroic story. So like, most medieval girls were pregnant by age 15, for example. Don't shy away from things like that. Put a baby in their belly, then make them save the world afterwards.

Also exaggerated combat skills. Women cannot fight as well as men (on average - and it's a major difference). Get over it. Writers who make men and women completely equal in combat aren't doing reality any favors, and again it sends the message that realistic women are somehow not awesome enough to appear in their work. Some of my female protagonists carry spears, but... wait, here's a quote I wrote from my current novel:
_
The ox-cart passed, so they continued on their way. They seemed to be heading out of town, down the lakeside road towards the pine forest beyond. SkaÃ°i eyed her mistress out of the corner of her eye as they went. Siggy armored in knee-high boots, pleated leather short-skirt, matching sleeveless vest with a high collar hugging her throat like a gorget, green woolen cloak, and wielded an iron-tipped spear in hand.
“You dress very strangely, for a woman.”
Siggy snorted in disdain. “Women are the wives o’ men. I’m a girl and proud of it.”
“Sorry,” SkaÃ°i apologized. “But are you a warrior?”
“No. I’m a shieldmay.”
“Is there a difference?”
“Warriors aim to win battles. Shieldmays only strive to survive ‘em.”
“Oh, okay.” She still wasn’t sure she could see the difference, but decided she liked the answer all the same, and her new mistress too.
_

See the line about the difference in a female warrior. It's no less awesome, her plight is no less real, and it takes into account the reality that women aren't front-line fighters, dealing an overall better compliment to women.

Bye now.


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

Here's a list of almost everything discussed.



-One dimensional, non fleshed out women
-Indecisive Women
-Sexed up Women/ Overly romantic women
-Perfect women
-Emotional wrecks
-Political women
-Lack of diversity in women
-Shy female protagonist (so overused!)
-Gold diggers
-Quirky women 
-Non Cohesive personality. Too many traits.
-Weird ultimatum making women
-"Special" women who are more than likely just crazy
- Dull dialogue
-Stereotypes: Damsel in distress, Tomboy, etc.. Who have little else to them


----------



## Gurkhal (Nov 25, 2015)

I may catch some flak, but I dislike to see female characters raised in a sexist society who are entirely unaffected by the norms and values they have been raised with. To me, in my potential ignorance of the subject, the idea that gender and social roles have such a weak grasp on people that just like that they'll go puff if you want it, is mind boggling. If it was like that we'd have a 100% equality by now. 

The same also goes for male characters, or noble characters who thinks everyone's an equal despite raised to think there is no such thing as equals and the list goes on. If the society is presented as having no class or gender differentiation then I'm ok with it. But if you write the world as full of sexism and inequality but the characters are unaffected by their own culture's values, then I've got a problem with it.


----------



## Nimue (Nov 25, 2015)

Banten said:


> -One dimensional, non fleshed out women
> -Indecisive Women
> -Sexed up Women/ Overly romantic women
> -Perfect women
> ...



In other words:  Female characters!  We hate 'em when they're shy and when they're spunky, we hate 'em when they fight and when they don't fight, when they're emotional and when they're cold, we hate 'em when they're powerless and when they're powerful, too!

To back down a little--I think the effect in this thread is mainly unintentional, but it's a good moment to take a step back and acknowledge that we may be enforcing higher standards of likeability on female characters than male ones.  Do we hate mercenary male characters the same way that we hate gold-digging female ones?  Do we hate awkward, passive male characters the same way we hate timid, passive female ones?  Do we really hate wish-fulfilling male characters the same amount that we hate wish-fulfilling female characters? (There's an entire huge trope about that--the Mary Sue.  You really don't see the Marty Stu label being thrown around half as much.)

That's not arguing that female characters haven't been written poorly in the past, or that characters with those traits haven't been given them because of tired stereotypes.  Far from it.  But I'd really like to point out that the point of objection should be with the author writing these characters and the cliches that give rise to them--not the idea of women with these traits.  And when you're referring to them as an "obnoxious broad" or a "cast-iron bitch"... The line between critiquing fictional women and disparaging real ones is getting kind of blurry.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 25, 2015)

Hi Nimue, I'm out of thanks for today ;( but this needed a comment. 

Thank you. 

I noticed the same thing in the post you quoted (again, probably not the intention of the poster) but I'm glad you brought it up. 

We hate female characters. 

And this is what I was trying to say with my 'diversity' post. I just want to see diversity. LIke KennyC said, women who are people. Some women are shy, some aren't, some are wildy passionate, some aren't. Some are beautiful, some aren't. Some are fighters, some aren't. Some are leaders, some aren't. Yet they are all women, and they can all be represented. 

It kills me that we are still trying to shape some idea of the 'perfect' woman… whatever that is. And that we are trying to recreate some new ideal of what that should be in writing…


----------



## FifthView (Nov 25, 2015)

Or, Nimue, it could be that different readers are...different. What might annoy you might not annoy me, and vice versa.  Or maybe you won't notice the same things I notice, and I habitually overlook what you do not.  "You," understand, being the generic case here and not you, Nimue, specifically. 

P.S. edit:  I'm responding to the general list, since I haven't followed the thread and really don't want to involve myself in whatever ongoing back-and-forth might be happening.


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

Good conclusion. My idea was that it would be useful to know what has already been said but the list is so diverse that few traits are not considered bad writing. Didn't notice it in writing but i'm glad you did Nimue.


----------



## Nimue (Nov 25, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> And this is what I was trying to say with my 'diversity' post. I just want to see diversity. LIke KennyC said, women who are people. Some women are shy, some aren't, some are wildy passionate, some aren't. Some are beautiful, some aren't. Some are fighters, some aren't. Some are leaders, some aren't. Yet they are all women, and they can all be represented.


I agree.  In the context of "Why do we only see women written like this...?", almost all of these criticisms make sense.  I want to see so many more facets of these characters than just "strong" or "weak", to be sure!  It's when they're phrased as "I hate female characters who are like this" that it sounds a lot more bitter.



FifthView said:


> Or, Nimue, it could be that different readers are...different. What might annoy you might not annoy me, and vice versa.  Or maybe you won't notice the same things I notice, and I habitually overlook what you do not.  "You," understand, being the generic case here and not you, Nimue, specifically.
> 
> P.S. edit:  I'm responding to the general list, since I haven't followed the thread and really don't want to involve myself in whatever ongoing back-and-forth might be happening.


Of course.  But I don't think that alone explains the cross-section and rejection of almost every trait that a woman can have--and the _way_ in which these traits have been marked as undesirable.  There's vitriol here, and language, that I don't think you'd find in a general discussion of bad character writing.  Again, not the entire thread, but enough to be off-putting.

Edit @ Banten: Also, yes, not trying to say you did anything wrong by condensing the thread!  I'm really trying to reply to the thread as a whole, and that about summed it up.


----------



## FifthView (Nov 25, 2015)

Well, and each person (of those posts I've read) singled out one trait or type.  Some may have singled out a couple?  Others took the more generic route, to cover all bases—"stereotypes," "lack of diversity"—but what, exactly, can be expected of a thread that poses the question posed in the OP?

As with so many similar threads, there's always this feeling I get that someone or multiple someones are looking for a condensed, inviolate template that might be followed:  do _this_ always, or avoid _this_ always!

It's just so weird, when you get right down to it.


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

Exactly Fifthview. It is also completely understandable however. I mean which writer wouldn't love to know what exactly they should do to not offend anyone. Unless someone is purposefully writing to  create controversy, which isn't necessarily bad, then a template would be magnificent. Sadly (or luckily depending on your view) such a thing can not exist in a world as diverse as ours.


----------



## Nimue (Nov 25, 2015)

Yeah, I'm also a bit leery of threads like this.  I almost think the meta-analysis of why we discuss things the way we do is more valuable than any given outcome.  Because there really never is a conclusion to these threads, is there?  Except that you should write well, and write thoughtfully.


----------



## valiant12 (Nov 25, 2015)

I'm surprised nobody complained about tsundere characters. 
They are usually flat characters with very few unique traits ,and the stereotipical tsundere serve only as love interest and wish fulfilment.



> Do we hate mercenary male characters the same way that we hate gold-digging female ones?



I like female mercenaries and dislike male gold diggers.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Nov 25, 2015)

We need to see and feel our characters as people.

It does not matter really if they are men or women, because after all there are so many types of people, motivations and personalities. As Storytellers we should get into contact with our characters and portray them as who they really are, without worrying so much about stereotypes and cliches.

Also, I have observed in this thread something that has been repeated over and over again in many other similar threads:

Most people see these issues exclusively from our world's point of view, and it happens that we tell Fantasy stories. If I want to write a story about a medieval world in which all women are normal height but all men are two feet tall, I can... And that would result in armies composed by women only, because the men are too small and weak to fight.

The women in that world would be trained to fight and defend their countries, it would be normal for them and they would have a culture quite different to the Medieval Europe of our world.

We can also write stories about other species, not only ours! Why do you keep seeing everything from a human-only and realistic point of view? We can have great fun imagining worlds very different to this one.

Above all, the truly important thing is to Tell Stories and tell them well.


----------



## Ban (Nov 25, 2015)

That's true Sheilawisz. My interests tend to be political, historical or scientific in nature so that's the point of view i operate from.
However, if it is not specifically stated that this can be a fictional world than i consider it standard to see this hypothetical world from our point of view. Besides, if it can be wildly outrageous fantasy than there is no point to this discussion, because each statement can be refuted with "Not my world".


----------



## Russ (Nov 25, 2015)

Sheilawisz said:


> We need to see and feel our characters as people.
> 
> It does not matter really if they are men or women, because after all there are so many types of people, motivations and personalities. As Storytellers we should get into contact with our characters and portray them as who they really are, without worrying so much about stereotypes and cliches.
> 
> ...



While fantasy does give us this thought experiment opportunity, I would suggest that all good writing tells us something, directly or indirectly about the human condition.  And at the end of the day, as far as I can tell, both the writer and the audience are human.

In fact, I would argue that there should be a reason, related to your story and its message for the men to be two feet tall and the women then the warriors.  A good writer does not make stuff up just for the heck of it and throw it on a page.


----------



## Guy (Nov 25, 2015)

Nimue said:


> Do we hate awkward, passive male characters the same way we hate timid, passive female ones?  Do we really hate wish-fulfilling male characters the same amount that we hate wish-fulfilling female characters?


Yes.


> And when you're referring to them as an "obnoxious broad" or a "cast-iron bitch"... The line between critiquing fictional women and disparaging real ones is getting kind of blurry.


Is this also a concern when male characters are referred to as arrogant asses or smug bastards?


----------



## Russ (Nov 25, 2015)

Guy said:


> Is this also a concern when male characters are referred to as arrogant asses or smug bastards?



Should there be?  Is there a lengthy history of using such pejoratives to keep men down?


----------



## Sheilawisz (Nov 25, 2015)

All of the good and well told stories have a message and a special meaning indeed, but that does not mean that we have to be strictly realistic regarding the worlds and the species that we describe in our stories. The freedom to engage in other-worldly elements is the greatest and most valuable part of Fantasy, at least for me.

I am against this current fashion for being realistic in Fantasy.

My love for the unrealistic and the fantastic is very strong, and I will always go against the trend of realism in Fantasy even though I admit that having at least some realism is always good and necessary.

The explanation for the tiny men in that story (which I doubt that I will ever write, it was just an example) would be that there is a special Genetic code in this species that makes them different to us Earth people. I could also explain that they have two hearts, and that they live for three hundred years... Whatever that I want.

I do not consider myself a writer, I am a Storyteller =)


----------



## Russ (Nov 25, 2015)

Sheilawisz said:


> All of the good and well told stories have a message and a special meaning indeed, but that does not mean that we have to be strictly realistic regarding the worlds and the species that we describe in our stories. The freedom to engage in other-worldly elements is the greatest and most valuable part of Fantasy, at least for me.
> 
> I am against this current fashion for being realistic in Fantasy.
> 
> ...



I am all for the unrealistic and the fantastic as long as they serve a purpose.  I don't even care whether or not there is a quasi-scientific explanation for them, but they just need to earn their place in the story.

And, I also suspect that the storyteller's audience is as human as the writers.  =)


----------



## Guy (Nov 25, 2015)

Russ said:


> Should there be?


If the standard is equality, yes.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 25, 2015)

Guy said:


> If the standard is equality, yes.



I think it reflects differences in reality, is all. If such comments about men don't have a history of use in oppression of men or talking down men, then it's really not an "apples to apples" comparison, so I don't think equality is implicated here. When you treat similar remarks about similarly situated groups in a different manner, then I think you have an equality issue. The determination has to be made in a broader context in cases like this, because the same or similar phrases can have entirely different levels of power and meaning in the real world depending on the historical context.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Nov 26, 2015)

There are certain traits that I dislike a lot in characters.

I find it very annoying when a character is a super good person. You know, some type of bright and pure soul that is incapable of performing any dark or evil action. Those characters that are loyal and gentle and all good things to the very end, all the way from their exterior to the deepest of their hearts.

At the same time, I dislike those villain characters that are all evil, like super evilness concentrated!

I prefer to read about characters that have a dark side despite being the good guys, and others that have a positive side buried somewhere even though they are the villains... From my point of view this applies to both male and female characters, I just don't want them to be like that.

About the other topic:

It's true that using highly non-human characters (like sentient gas clouds floating in outer space) would result in poor stories, because the readers want characters and adventures that they can relate to. Good stories need relatable characters, and you need to be very realistic if you are writing Historical Fiction or Contemporary stuff.

In Fantasy, it's not necessary to be realistic about everything.

We are a unique literary genre because we are free to describe other worlds and the people and creatures living there. Why would the readers expect those people to be exactly like people here in Earth? Why would they have a similar culture and similar gender roles to the ones we have?

We can do so many things with our stories, so when Fantasy authors decide to limit themselves to the most realistic style they are closing the door to many other possibilities out there.

The other-worldly elements are an integral part of Fantasy, because without them we would be writing Historical Fiction or just Contemporary. There is no need to justify or give a purpose to every non-earth element that shows up in a Fantasy story, because it's Fantasy after all.

If I want my world to have a purple sky, three moons made of transparent diamond and a society dominated by female Mages, then I simply move ahead and do it because that's what I want my Fantasy world to be like.

Then, somebody realistic would read a story set in that world and tell me: _"Oh, that society cannot work because women this, and women that..."_

Well, their Earth views are not valid in my world simply because it's not Earth and they are not human, at least not precisely human as we are in this world. What makes me sad is that now your world and your story are viewed as flawed if they do not reflect humanity and our world in every detail...

How did this come to happen to Fantasy?


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 26, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> I think it reflects differences in reality, is all. If such comments about men don't have a history of use in oppression of men or talking down men, then it's really not an "apples to apples" comparison, so I don't think equality is implicated here. When you treat similar remarks about similarly situated groups in a different manner, then I think you have an equality issue. The determination has to be made in a broader context in cases like this, because the same or similar phrases can have entirely different levels of power and meaning in the real world depending on the historical context.



No they just make men the villains nearly all the time. Villains tend to oppress people, so it paints men as the main source of oppression. Give them blonde hair and blue eyes if you want to take it up a couple notches.

There is no grey area where equality is concerned. You either agree that all people, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standard or you are essentially a hypocrite, and an intellectually dishonest one as that.

I'm always wary of people that throw around the word equality whenever the opportunity presents itself.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 26, 2015)

Russ said:


> Should there be?  Is there a lengthy history of using such pejoratives to keep men down?



So we make exceptions because it has happened less often to men?

Sounds like a double standard to me. Not all that surprising.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 26, 2015)

Nimue said:


> In other words:  Female characters!  We hate 'em when they're shy and when they're spunky, we hate 'em when they fight and when they don't fight, when they're emotional and when they're cold, we hate 'em when they're powerless and when they're powerful, too!
> 
> To back down a little--I think the effect in this thread is mainly unintentional, but it's a good moment to take a step back and acknowledge that we may be enforcing higher standards of likeability on female characters than male ones.  Do we hate mercenary male characters the same way that we hate gold-digging female ones?  Do we hate awkward, passive male characters the same way we hate timid, passive female ones?  Do we really hate wish-fulfilling male characters the same amount that we hate wish-fulfilling female characters? (There's an entire huge trope about that--the Mary Sue.  You really don't see the Marty Stu label being thrown around half as much.)
> 
> That's not arguing that female characters haven't been written poorly in the past, or that characters with those traits haven't been given them because of tired stereotypes.  Far from it.  But I'd really like to point out that the point of objection should be with the author writing these characters and the cliches that give rise to them--not the idea of women with these traits.  And when you're referring to them as an "obnoxious broad" or a "cast-iron bitch"... The line between critiquing fictional women and disparaging real ones is getting kind of blurry.



A scumbag is a scumbag, it doesn't matter what gender they are.

There are probably a lot more male characters that I dislike than female.

I dislike Jaime Lanister as much as I dislike Cersei Lanister. And I dislike their son far more.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 26, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Hi Nimue, I'm out of thanks for today ;( but this needed a comment.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> ...



Who is _*we*_?


----------



## Russ (Nov 26, 2015)

Guy said:


> If the standard is equality, yes.



So I notice you choose not to answer the second question.

By the by, the first of the pejoratives you used as an example is not at all gender specific.  The second, being a "bastard" is more than a tad outdated and pretty irrelevant.

Do  you think calling someone an ass is a gender insult?  Do you think men as a gender have been harmed and repressed by society and culture?

And if  you believe that the use of the term "bastard" really is causing harm to men or specific men, then by all means, speak out and do something about it.  By using it in this context it makes it look like you are just trying to stop people who think certain terms are harmful to women, rather than protect men.


----------



## Russ (Nov 26, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> So we make exceptions because it has happened less often to men?
> 
> Sounds like a double standard to me. Not all that surprising.



As I pointed out above the first pejorative is not even gender specific,  so it doesn't bear at all on the conversation.

The term bastard actually refers to men born out of wedlock, which while gender specific, does not apply to the whole gender.

I guess in your analysis calling a black person the "n" word or the "k" word is the same as calling a man a bastard.

It is not treated differently because it happens less often (although rationally speaking there is nothing wrong with that analysis either) it is treated differently because a gender has been victimized by the use of those and similar terms.

If you think men have been victimized by modern culture as a group, I think you are just plain wrong and would be happy to show you the statistics to prove it.


----------



## Guy (Nov 26, 2015)

Russ said:


> So I notice you choose not to answer the second question.


There's a reason for that. With all the comparisons of men to women, I was under the impression the standard we were going for was equality, so I wanted to see your response. If we were indeed going for equality, then I would address the second point with two responses, though Miskatonic already did:  if we are truly going for equality, the second question is irrelevant. If we say we're going for equality but then apply different standards to different groups, we're hypocrites.


> By the by, the first of the pejoratives you used as an example is not at all gender specific.


In my 45 years, I have only seen those insults applied to men.


> The second, being a "bastard" is more than a tad outdated and pretty irrelevant.


I don't understand what you mean. I hear that label used often enough, and I've only seen it applied to men.


> Do  you think calling someone an ass is a gender insult?  Do you think men as a gender have been harmed and repressed by society and culture?
> 
> And if  you believe that the use of the term "bastard" really is causing harm to men or specific men, then by all means, speak out and do something about it.  By using it in this context it makes it look like you are just trying to stop people who think certain terms are harmful to women, rather than protect men.


My point was simply anyone who says they're for sexual equality should actually be for sexual equality, and anyone who says they're for sexual equality but then defends one sex while making excuses for disrespecting the other is a hypocrite. If someone thinks one group should get preferential treatment, fine, but they should have the integrity to say so and not claim they support equality. Furthermore, I would argue that any adult who thinks being called a name is genuinely doing them harm is probably too fragile to make it in life. Yes, it hurts and no, it isn't fun, but you deal, then move on. 

Really, though, I think we're blowing this out of proportion. Let's remember that in this discussion we're talking about applying these terms to fictional characters (people who don't actually exist), so let's try to keep a little perspective.


----------



## Russ (Nov 26, 2015)

Guy said:


> Furthermore, I would argue that any adult who thinks being called a name *is genuinely doing them harm is probably too fragile to make it in life*. Yes, it hurts and no, it isn't fun, but you deal, then move on.



So spic, kyke, kaffir, cracker, wetback, wop, the "n" word, chink, etc all good for adults who are not too fragile?


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 26, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> No they just make men the villains nearly all the time. Villains tend to oppress people, so it paints men as the main source of oppression. Give them blonde hair and blue eyes if you want to take it up a couple notches.
> 
> There is no grey area where equality is concerned. You either agree that all people, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standard or you are essentially a hypocrite, and an intellectually dishonest one as that.
> 
> I'm always wary of people that throw around the word equality whenever the opportunity presents itself.



This doesn't make sense in terms of an equality argument. Everything exists within a context. If your interpretation of something relies on a purposeful disregard of historical and cultural context and you're making judgments as if those things don't exist, then you're not arguing for equality but something else. You're arguing for a fictional ideal that could exist, perhaps, if the world wasn't the way it is or has been. You're arguing for the wolf of privilege in the sheep's clothing of inequality. It has deceptive attraction because it is so simple, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 26, 2015)

Russ said:


> As I pointed out above the first pejorative is not even gender specific,  so it doesn't bear at all on the conversation.
> 
> The term bastard actually refers to men born out of wedlock, which while gender specific, does not apply to the whole gender.
> 
> ...



Ah yes the wonderful world of stats. What shall we start with? The wage gap stat? Or how about the stat showing the lack of women in STEM fields? Or other stats that have been proven to be false over and over again. 

If you don't think men have been attacked in society as a group then I'd say you are delusional at best. 

To keep myself from wasting a ton of time, I'll let this gentlemen do the work for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mzYKWDx6YI

Watch it if you want, ignore it if you want, I really don't care. 

I've learned from past mistakes to not waste time talking to feminists or any other emotionally driven idealist, regardless of what gender they are. It's about as productive as trying to fill a bottomless jug with water. 

What is so ironic is you are a shining example of what Guy is talking about. 

Your ideals and bias are painfully obvious.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 26, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Who is _*we*_?




I wasn't trying to start anything. Sorry. I was just saying, based on Banten's list, apparently we just don't like female characters in general. I was being facetious. I wasn't trying to make a serious blanket generalization about us in general. I was going specifically off of Banten's list.


----------



## Miskatonic (Nov 26, 2015)

Steerpike said:


> This doesn't make sense in terms of an equality argument. Everything exists within a context. If your interpretation of something relies on a purposeful disregard of historical and cultural context and you're making judgments as if those things don't exist, then you're not arguing for equality but something else. You're arguing for a fictional ideal that could exist, perhaps, if the world wasn't the way it is or has been. You're arguing for the wolf of privilege in the sheep's clothing of inequality. It has deceptive attraction because it is so simple, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.



I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand. You either believe in the same standard for all participating groups as a rule of general principle, or you believe in the notion of "some people are just more equal than others". Making exceptions falls into the realm of hypocrisy.

I'm talking about general principles here. If one was to desire the notion of equality then as a rule it would create a standard that everyone who also wanted equality would have to adhere to. 

It's not any different than the idea of free speech. If you are for the freedom of speech then you can't pick and choose who it applies to and still be considered genuinely for it. You are creating double standards that go against the general principle. 

Equality doesn't exist and will never exist in the real world. That's the reality of it all. I'm not implying that it ever has in a historical context.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 26, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand. You either believe in the same standard for all participating groups as a rule of general principle, or you believe in the notion of "some people are just more equal than others". Making exceptions falls into the realm of hypocrisy.
> 
> I'm talking about general principles here. If one was to desire the notion of equality then as a rule it would create a standard that everyone who also wanted equality would have to adhere to.
> 
> ...



Again, this is an overly simplistic analysis, and like many such analyses it doesn't hold up. An example would be looking at the movie White Girls, where two black actors appear in white makeup to play white characters. A simplistic analysis might lead you to conclude that actors appearing in black face should be just as acceptable. On the surface, you have two equivalent things: people using making to assume the appearance of another race. But a deeper analysis of the issue would demonstrate quickly enough why the two acts that appear on equivalent on the surface aren't really equivalent. If you're discarding a lot of the facts around these issues you can't make a good judgment about them.

As an aside, your post to Russ where you deride emotionally-driven arguments is also odd. One can usually tell when emotionally-driven arguments are at work because they tend to include name calling, insults, and ad hominem arguments. Your post back to Russ was, ironically, the emotional one because it resorted to such insults. You're welcome to your opinion, but if you can't express them without making direct insults to other members of the community you should probably step away from the thread until you can. It is perfectly possible to argue your position without resorting to those tactics.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 26, 2015)

Ok… I'm going to get into trouble for this…. 

What's the worst possible thing you can call a woman? Don't hold back, now. 

You're probably thinking of words like slut, whore, b*tch, C***… (I told you not to hold back!), skank. 

Ok, now what are the worst things you can call a guy? ***, girl, B*tch, p*ssy, I've even heard the term "mangina.." 

Notice anything? The worst thing you can call a girl is a girl, and the worst thing you can call a guy is a girl. Being a woman, in our culture, is the ultimate insult. Now tell me that is not royally F'd up. 

There is a general problem here, and it does not come down to a simple ideology of equality, or meritocracy.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 26, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Ok… I'm going to get into trouble for this….
> 
> What's the worst possible thing you can call a woman? Don't hold back, now.
> 
> ...



Our culture is patriarchal, and certainly historically derived from centuries of patriarchy. Patriarchal systems tend to devalue traditional feminine roles, and therefore traditionally devalue women in many ways. Thus, using the feminine to insult men is a natural consequence of a patriarchal society. 

In a fictional matriarchal society, it might be interesting to use the reverse.


----------



## Heliotrope (Nov 26, 2015)

Exactly, Steerpike. We can argue equality and meritocracy all we want, but in our culture it simply doesn't exist.


----------



## Russ (Nov 26, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> I'm not sure what it is that you don't understand. You either believe in the same standard for all participating groups as a rule of general principle, or you believe in the notion of "some people are just more equal than others". Making exceptions falls into the realm of hypocrisy.



It's not about exceptions, it is about moving towards equality.  Let me make the argument as simply as possible.

If white men are functioning in society at a 10 and women are functioning at a 7, and one of the reasons that women are functioning at a 7 is because people use derogatory language about them, then removing that language makes it easier for women to be moved towards that desirable 10.  If I believed that some negative language was holding men back (I am not convinced but for the sake of argument let's say it is true) than I would say, let's not use negative gender language at all and move both groups towards functioning as a 12.

Now there are differences between reducing inequality between groups and treating all individuals equally. They are handled very differently, one is a matter of policy and one is a matter of individual conduct.

I agree with you perfect equality cannot be achieved.  That however is no reason not to work on it.  Your logic falls flat there. We will never achieve perfect literacy, or the total elimination of starvation.  That is no reason to stop trying to improve our educational system or to stop trying to feed the hungry now is it?


----------



## Russ (Nov 26, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> Ah yes the wonderful world of stats. What shall we start with? The wage gap stat? Or how about the stat showing the lack of women in STEM fields? Or other stats that have been proven to be false over and over again.
> 
> If you don't think men have been attacked in society as a group then I'd say you are delusional at best.
> 
> ...



Mr. Molyneux is pretty out there.  How about let's say a peer reviewed paper, a real study, a university department policy, something with some credibility?

Cute to watch you stoop to call me delusional.  

Funny thing is I have not made a single emotion based argument.  It seems your lack of ability to reason through the argument has left you trying to build straw men and make some negative generalizations about feminists being emotionally driven.  Well played.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Nov 26, 2015)

I think it's better if we take this thread back to the discussion of Fantasy.

My opinion is that most of the Fantasy series out there are targeted at a male audience, and as a result of that it's the male characters that get the most important roles in the stories while the female characters are relegated to the background.

They are not as explored as they should be, and their true potential gets lost.

The key to solve the problem is not to portray female characters in certain way or another, but to give them more protagonist roles and allow them to grow through the story instead of always remaining in the shadow of the male heroes. This is true not only in the case of Fantasy literature, but also in most video games and other media.

Also important is to think of all characters as people with motivations, personality and desires, and stop labeling them either male or female all the time.

We need many more female characters in the spotlight, it's as simple as that.


----------



## Mythopoet (Nov 26, 2015)

Sheilawisz said:


> My opinion is that most of the Fantasy series out there are targeted at a male audience



This is very true. Traditional publishers still do this because they don't really understand the market of readers. (Their market has always been bookstores, not readers, until recently.) But then for a very long time authors have not been writing for the reader market either so much as they have been writing to the demands of the publishers. (They didn't really have a choice, if they wanted to be published.) 

However, the way to rectify this is not to place overemphasis on female characters instead of male characters in a misguided effort to balance the scales. The way to rectify this is for author to bypass the behemoth publishers and their imprints who still have a stone age mentality. Authors need to connect with their readers and realize that the fantasy audience is full of both men and women and so they should be writing for both. The fantasy audience is large and diverse and any author who still thinks it is primarily composed mostly of adolescent white boys is living in another age. 

Don't write for any specific kind of person, write for all of them.


----------



## Guy (Nov 26, 2015)

Russ said:


> So spic, kyke, kaffir, cracker, wetback, wop, the "n" word, chink, etc all good for adults who are not too fragile?


Good? No. Like I said, you deal and you move on.


----------



## Guy (Nov 26, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Ok… I'm going to get into trouble for this….
> 
> What's the worst possible thing you can call a woman? Don't hold back, now.
> 
> ...


Unless you don't think those are the worst things you can call a guy.


----------



## Chessie (Nov 26, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> Being a woman, in our culture, is the ultimate insult. Now tell me that is not royally F'd up.


I completely disagree. Being a woman in this society is respected FAR MORE than in other places in the world I won't get into. We're allowed so much freedom here to have fulfilling lives. I've only ever felt disrespected as a woman when I've allowed myself to be by dating the wrong dudes in the past. 

But back to the OP, honestly, I think we can all agree on writing men or women should be the same: write believable characters that change as individuals in the story. Boom. That's it. All of the negative things we've spouted about women characters we dislike probably had to do with the author not portraying a believable character, or just us not liking the story. I've had beta readers tell me before that they hated my heroine(s) because she was creepy, or too mean, or too naive, or whatever. The point is not everyone is going to like your character, so whatevs, right?


----------



## Ban (Nov 26, 2015)

Guy said:


> Unless you don't think those are the worst things you can call a guy.



What do you think annoys the average guy more then?


----------



## Guy (Nov 26, 2015)

Banten said:


> What do you think annoys the average guy more then?


Well, the statement wasn't what annoys the average guy. It was "the worst thing you can call a guy." Bitch, girl and pussy aren't even close. I heard about a stunt some group pulled on a college campus years ago. They posted notices all over campus saying, "These men are potential rapists." Underneath that provocative title was a list of every male student at the college. Being equated with the lowest scum imaginable would piss me off. Being hit with junior high level insults, not so much.


----------



## Nimue (Nov 26, 2015)

Chesterama said:


> I've only ever felt disrespected as a woman when I've allowed myself to be by dating the wrong dudes in the past.


I'm confused as to why it's your fault that some guy disrespected you instead of, y'know, that being the guy's fault?  Nor am i convinced that the fact that women are treated terribly elsewhere means that there are no problems facing them in the US.  By that logic there's no poverty or inequality here, either.  But I can respect your opinion, if I disagree with it.  As for the rest...


I feel like I should get out a "Men are the Real Oppressed, Women are Lying" bingo card here.  While what you're describing sounds like a frankly bizarre attempt to grab attention (though it'd be nice to get a source on that besides "some college, years ago"), it doesn't change the fact that rape is a huge f*cking issue.  And there are far more people out there calling women c*nts and wh*res than there are people calling all men rapists.  The bottom line is still: please don't call people bitches, alright?  It's not an unreasonable thing to ask.

This conversation has gone wildly off the rails from any point related to writing.  Can we just let Guy get another one-liner in and close the thread already?


----------



## thecoldembrace (Nov 27, 2015)

Alright everyone, I do not like how people have continually side tracked this thread. It started out well, and there was some good, honest discussion, and to those people I am grateful to your responses. I like people who speak honestly with their words and who aren't afraid to speak their minds. Some people are too sensitive for such arguments and in the case of this thread, they hitched a ride and then derailed the train because they didn't like what people where saying or how they were saying it.

   Thus, I have asked Sheilawisz to lock the thread. If you have an issue, talk to me, not to her. 



-Cold


----------

