# How to Fight Like a Girl



## Feo Takahari (Apr 12, 2015)

An article about how smaller characters can win close-quarters fights against big brutes. It's very "look at me, I'm so feminist!", but it does have enough to be useful. http://www.themarysue.com/how-to-fight-like-a-girl/


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Apr 12, 2015)

This presents some interesting hings to consider with smaller characters. Thank you ...
You're right though - super "pat me on the back, I'm a man that's a Feminist"  

It's really sexist. 
"Girls have always enjoyed psychological advantages. Emotional perceptiveness and the ability to gather precise observations of body language, facial expressions, and speech patterns can give females a dramatic advantage in a conflict. Males are generally too busy making brave noises and engaging in aggressive displays of strength, even subconsciously, to notice such things."
Who says women are always more emotionally perceptive? I wasn't aware that all men and women hold these qualities but I guess you learn something new every day  

If you want to consider gender while fighting, personally, I would expect to see women fighting "unfair" (throwing dirt in opponent's eyes, pulling hair, gouging eyes, etc ... I once saw two girls rip each others' earrings out- ouch!) Women can be vicious in their own ways (which don't require size or strength).  

I think there'd be more merit to the article if they left gender out of it. It's not just something that affects female characters -- smaller male characters are often portrayed similarly. I don't think I'd call it "fighting like a girl" so much as being resourceful and "fighting with a brain". 

Whether male or female, the fighting should be believable and if the classically "weak" character is to triumph, it should come either as sheer luck (the troll trips and falls on his own sword) or because (s)he surpasses the opposing character in wit.  

I'm concerned that the writer believes all men are so stupid and predictable- he makes it sound as if all "weak" women are destined to triumph over men because we're so much smarter. Flattering but no. 

Using brains can tip the scale against physical strength but  whether male or female - victory should never come too easily... even if your character is up against a big stupid man making "brave noises" and obnoxious "displays of strength"


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 12, 2015)

The amount of subtle, and not so subtle, sexism in that article is startling.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 13, 2015)

It's The Mary Sue. You pretty much have to expect a certain amount of "Girls rule, boys drool."

(Maybe my standards have been lowered by posting on a certain pro-Gamergate site that shall not be named. They've got a really funny gallery of anime GIFs, but they're so scary when they talk race and sex that other sites' biases feel mild by comparison.)


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 13, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> It's The Mary Sue. You pretty much have to expect a certain amount of "Girls rule, boys drool."
> 
> (Maybe my standards have been lowered by posting on a certain pro-Gamergate site that shall not be named. They've got a really funny gallery of anime GIFs, but they're so scary when they talk race and sex that other sites' biases feel mild by comparison.)



Sure, but the hypocrisy of it all is rather amusing.  Things like that do a spectacular job of shooting your cause in the foot.

The article dismisses this rather offhandedly, but there are some weapons that play to women's strengths.  Bows and polearms, for example.  And this can be seen in those ancient and medieval societies where women saw actual combat.  

Something else the article ignores in favor of perpetuating more than a few stereotypes is the class divide.  If your female character is part of a warrior or noble class, she's got a solid advantage.  Being trained from the age of seven to fight is going to give you a leg up experience wise on peasant levies.  And she's going to have better weapons and armor.


----------



## BronzeOracle (Apr 13, 2015)

The article considers the phenomenal skills and group coordination that a particular band of fighters have - who happen to be female.  They could instead be a band of men who have the same skills/team work.  Of course the average foot soldier wont have anywhere near these skills, in reality almost all fighters wouldn't.  I don't find this part of the article very helpful - '_hey the answer to overcoming an opponent's size/strength is to be a ridiculously overpowered fighter working in a coordinated team.  You just need to be able to hear blood from 100 yards away_'.  You might as well just give them a gun or magical powers.

I think making displays of strength is about (1) intimidating your opponent and (2) bolstering your own courage.  They aren't silly or stupid but relate to the psychology of close quarters combat among average combatants - up against such displays the average, unskilled fighter gets scared.  Of course the experienced fighter is conditioned to this and in the face of such displays will calm their nerves, but wouldn't this apply to both men and women and large or small fighters?  

I do think the article makes a valid point about underestimating one's opponent.  In this respect a larger warrior will probably underestimate a smaller warrior, but not always - it comes down to the individual. I thought an interesting take on this was in the climatic sword fight in Rob Roy, where the tall and strong but slow protagonist (Liam Neeson) is getting cut to ribbons by the smaller and far quicker fencer (Tim Roth).  But in the end he goes for broke and it is the prideful fencer who is caught off guard.  A similar upstage occurs between the darting Viper and the lumbering Mountain in Game of Thrones.  In this respect '_The bigger they are, the harder they fall_' applies to one's pride, not just stature.  

So those LadyStar girls had better keep their heads on their shoulders if they don't want to lose them - super skills or not.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 13, 2015)

Yeah, I really don't think this guy knows what he's talking about. Aside from the straw-men and the fact his fighters, by his own admission, are a bit OPd,but there is a reason why there are weight classes in fighting sports. The bigger guy has the advantage over the smaller guy. Reach, strength, weight, access to one's most vital area (the noggin) all of those combined make it difficult for a smaller fighter to win.

His examples from history, more like gross over-generalizations, are also a bit laughable. He states that history is replete with the underdog winning. Guess what, history is more replete with the not underdog winning (is there a better term for this). Civil War? Big Guys won. Sure they may have lost a battle but eventually the might of the North overcame the South. WWII the Allies were clearly superior in production, population, and GDP. Guess what, they won. The various battles the Romans faced. Hey they won a ton of those too. Combat with actual militaries in Iraq and Afghanistan oh look the US won there too. Guess what, not underdogs. (We can get into the whether the US is winning against the illegal combatants in another thread). Fact is bigger is almost always better. That's why underdogs are so dang cool. They fight and win against the big guy.

Another interesting thing about underdogs this guy touches on but loses in the whole mantra that girls are better than guys. Underdogs often use unconventional tactics or tactics that deliberately play to their strengths. Take the David v. Goliath story. David used a sling. Most modern readers would see that as a weak weapon, when in fact slingers in ancient days were deadly warriors. David realizing he lacks the reach and the strength to stand toe-to-toe with old Goli removes those advantages by using a ranged weapon. He wasn't facing some insurmountable obstacle, he just had to think outside the box. He did. He won. People love that story. 

Same goes with women fighters. Biologically, women can't develop upper body strength like men can. They're not as tall and don't have the same reach. So they have to think outside the box. So, if you're a woman magic user why not just use arcane skills to waste your lumbering brute of an opponent, as all men are. Going toe-to-toe with someone bigger and stronger is dumb, dumb, dumb. That's why al-Qaeda never did. Should the US go in to fight ISIS in Syria their standing army would be wasted quick, but guerrilla tactics would keep them alive long enough for the US to tire of war. 

TL;DR? you know nothing Theodore. (See what I did there?)


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 13, 2015)

I'm a sword fighter and I'm 5'3" and 130 lbs.  I'm at a disadvantage and that's that.  I'm weaker than my male counterparts, who can swing heavier swords, which have a reach advantage, and then there's the you know, shortness of my arms.  Plain and simple, against a guy who's 6'4" and fighting a pair of 35" blades, I'm not gonna win.  Unless...I get in close and gain the advantage.  But that's not easy to do, so I've never actually beat him one-on-one.  In a team, I can be more effective because I present a smaller target and can often dart in and take a leg before I get hit, meaning my partners/ team can score the kill.  

As a younger woman, I've been beat up pretty good.  I wrestled in high school, even.  I was 119 on the team and my practice partner was 135.  I got beat every day and I just thought I sucked.  However, one day, my partner was absent and we were getting ready for a tournament, and I got paired with the 112 varsity guy.  I totally dominated him.  Wow.  Really?  Who knew seven pounds and a low (and unusual to wrestler boys) center of gravity could make a difference? 

The advantages of being a woman in a wrestling ring are few.  With a sword, it's potentially a lot more even.  With a bow...the table is leveled.  Whomever has the better poise and confidence wins that bout.  The thing is, there's no reason a female character needs to be weaker than a male character.  Both can be good police detectives, good mages, good writers (ha, a throwback to the sexist writing thread), but in swinging a battle axe, there are certain disadvantages to being female.  Now, I've met women who could give any normal man a run for his money in an arm-wrestling competition, but they were like professional lumberjacks. That isn't an average woman by any standard, but who are we writing about?  

If i'm writing an average woman and an average man, she's rather scrappy, and he's more brawny.  i'm not sexist, I've fought with a fair number of men hand-to hand, and a number of women with swords.  Weird I've never wrestled a girl.  Something feels unnatural about that to me, I guess.  Maybe because I never met a girl who wanted to?  once, I had a boyfriend who was about 135 pounds when I weighed 120.  I was messing around with him and his friends and I don't remember how we got to it, but we ended up in the grass wrestling.  I got him in a half nelson and pinned him and I thought he was just letting me win, but his friends laughed at him and I felt bad after, because he was literally just a skinny dude with noodle arms.  Whoops.  I think that's one of the things we forget, that pride has a place in this debate, and a lot of guys wouldn't feel particularly thrilled if their girlfriends pinned them and made them a joke. 

In a non-traditional world, it probably wouldn't be as much a problem.  I think most men would sort of think it's cool to have a female partner who's badass (like at work) but it can be threatening in a relationship.  Not that I technically agree with that sort of macho thinking, just saying it exists.  I've known men who equate all female aggression with hormones or bitchiness, and it's kinda sad that we accept male aggression as more "natural."  Why shouldn't a woman be a warrior?  Or a seventeen-year-old wrestler, rather than a gymnast?  HA!


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 13, 2015)

You know, the author of that piece blows this off, but "brave noises and aggressive displays of strength" certainly have their place, especially in the set piece battles of history, and even on to today.  Most battles ended not when an enemy army had suffered horrible casualties, but when their morale broke.  War cries were supposed to bolster your side's morale and weaken the enemies, war paint was supposed to make you look scary, crests were supposed to make you look bigger than you really are, and so on.  

In the ancient and medieval worlds, the time periods where most fantasy takes place, most casualties took place once the enemy broke and ran, when a victorious commander cut his cavalry loose after his fleeing opponent.  That's why you have things like battles where the enemy lost tens of thousands and the Romans lost hundreds or less.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 13, 2015)

I feel like being a stinker, so I'll link you folks to part 2: http://www.themarysue.com/how-to-fight-like-a-girl-2/

And in the comments of part 2, I'll link this thread and ask for his response. I'm interested to see how well he fields the criticisms here.


----------



## Tom (Apr 13, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> You know, the author of that piece blows this off, but "brave noises and aggressive displays of strength" certainly have their place, especially in the set piece battles of history, and even on to today.  Most battles ended not when an enemy army had suffered horrible casualties, but when their morale broke.  War cries were supposed to bolster your side's morale and weaken the enemies, war paint was supposed to make you look scary, crests were supposed to make you look bigger than you really are, and so on.
> 
> In the ancient and medieval worlds, the time periods where most fantasy takes place, most casualties took place once the enemy broke and ran, when a victorious commander cut his cavalry loose after his fleeing opponent.  That's why you have things like battles where the enemy lost tens of thousands and the Romans lost hundreds or less.



Exactly. Often the battle was already half-won if you could intimidate your opponent.

Same in fencing--we utilize a move called a_ ballestra_, which is essentially a leaping advance. When you come down, you kick your forward foot hard against the floor to make a loud stomping sound. It's meant to startle and intimidate the opponent. We'll also use "scare tactics" to unnerve our opponents--rapid footwork to confuse them, aggressive attacks to keep them on edge, sometimes even pure, unadulterated physical intimidation such as getting up in their face, yelling as we make an attack, etc. It's not the most honorable strategy, but it works. Aggression determines who will win and who will lose, much of the time.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 13, 2015)

One of my favorite examples of ostentatious displays in warfare are the Polish Winged Hussars.  These guys wore actual wings on their backs.  Historians are divided about their exact purpose: some think they were meant to intimidate the enemy, others that they were to protect against lassos and back cuts, and others that they were to deafen their horses to the noisemakers used by the Mongols and Turks.  In any case, these guys sure would have been intimidating.


----------



## Devor (Apr 14, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> . . . .  and others that they were to deafen their horses to the noisemakers used by the Mongols and Turks.



Does that mean the wings made some kind of noise when they run?


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 14, 2015)

Devor said:


> Does that mean the wings made some kind of noise when they run?



Yeah, they made a clatter as the horse galloped.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 14, 2015)

X Equestris said:
			
		

> Historians are divided about their exact purpose



My money's on 'because swag'.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 14, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> I feel like being a stinker, so I'll link you folks to part 2: How To Fight Like A Girl, Part 2: LadyStar, Teamwork, And Empowering Female Characters | The Mary Sue
> 
> And in the comments of part 2, I'll link this thread and ask for his response. I'm interested to see how well he fields the criticisms here.



I would be interested to see what he has to say.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 14, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> I would be interested to see what he has to say.





> Hi Feo,
> 
> Thanks for joining the conversation! Please send my warmest regards to all those who responded to your thread. It certainly is quite an intriguing discussion!
> 
> To be brief, I would point out my purpose was not to advance one gender over another. Only to point out that characters like the heroines in LadyStar should not be dismissed simply because they happen to be girls. I'm told a fair number of the monsters and villains in the book series make that very mistake, and it doesn't end well for them.



Smooth. They could teach politicians how to evade a question.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 14, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> Smooth. They could teach politicians how to evade a question.



That they certainly could. It's a little frustrating too because there could be a great dialogue going to really hammer out the nuances and complexities of this issue. Well perhaps someone else will take up the charge.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 14, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> Smooth. They could teach politicians how to evade a question.



Indeed.  I can't say I'm surprised.  I was expecting either some sort of dodge like this or a frothing rage.


----------



## glutton (Apr 14, 2015)

I understand from a realistic perspective that someone like Ronda Rousey would have very little chance against someone like Cain Velasquez, but I write pure fantasy and in my worlds, it wouldn't be surprising for one of the heroines to call Gregor the Mountain 'The Molehill' and then kick his ass in a toe to toe battle. Just a matter of style IMO.

Fictional men surpass the limits of what should be a realistic male character all the time after all, why shouldn't fictional women XD

I disapprove of making the male opponents necessarily stupider/less competent etc. though, I prefer them to be incredibly strong, fast, skilled, tough, intelligent and all but the heroines are just better lol.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 14, 2015)

glutton said:


> I understand from a realistic perspective that someone like Ronda Rousey would have very little chance against someone like Cain Velasquez, but I write pure fantasy and in my worlds, it wouldn't be surprising for one of the heroines to call Gregor the Mountain 'The Molehill' and then kick his ass in a toe to toe battle. Just a matter of style IMO.
> 
> Fictional men surpass the limits of what should be a realistic male character all the time after all, why shouldn't fictional women XD



True, but there needs to be a good reason for it, even if it's a bit of hand-waveium. Saying she is quick, smarter, etc. is a good reason. It might not be realistic but it'll work well enough. But if you say that an Arya character beat a Clegane character without a mentioned justification not a single person would believe. They, like I, would toss the book and call BS. 

To your fictional men point there is always a reason why they're defying basic facts of life. When applied logically it may not actually work, but it's still a reason and readers will say, "I can accept that." The same must apply to women as well.


----------



## glutton (Apr 15, 2015)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> True, but there needs to be a good reason for it, even if it's a bit of hand-waveium. Saying she is quick, smarter, etc. is a good reason. It might not be realistic but it'll work well enough. But if you say that an Arya character beat a Clegane character without a mentioned justification not a single person would believe. They, like I, would toss the book and call BS.
> 
> To your fictional men point there is always a reason why they're defying basic facts of life. When applied logically it may not actually work, but it's still a reason and readers will say, "I can accept that." The same must apply to women as well.



The reason for my works is usually just the established style of the stories, from the moment the story starts or not long after it it's established that the limits for women - and men - are not comparable to reality and it's blatantly obvious you're reading a comic book/manga in text form.

Like the male MC who is basically a skilled normal human killing a giant snake monster with difficulty and then having to flee from its 10X larger parent... and then the female MC appearing and killing the tower-sized serpent in 3 hits lol.


----------



## Guy (Apr 15, 2015)

For my MC, the reason she's such a good fighter is because the gods wanted her to be and made her so. I also have Amazons in my world, but they're not human so I can make their physiology pretty much whatever I want.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Apr 15, 2015)

What makes a heroine fun is the same as what makes a hero fun.

That is, she wins despite the odds being against her by working around her limitations (as opposed to her limitations being treated as irrelevant). I try to find different ways to show that Addison has limitations. This could mean getting wounded, walking away from a fight, or failing to protect someone. If I keep writing stories with her, the reader knows she's not going to die, so I strive to find other ways to keep her believable and the stories surprising.



> I disapprove of making the male opponents necessarily stupider/less competent etc. though, I prefer them to be incredibly strong, fast, skilled, tough, intelligent and all but the heroines are just better lol.


Basically, I agree with this. I don't actually think my heroine is better than the competent (male) warriors in my stories, so much as she takes risks and they pay off to the point that she'll live to star in another tale.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 15, 2015)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> What makes a heroine fun is the same as what makes a hero fun.
> 
> That is, she wins despite the odds being against her by working around her limitations (as opposed to her limitations being treated as irrelevant). I try to find different ways to show that Addison has limitations. This could mean getting wounded, walking away from a fight, or failing to protect someone. If I keep writing stories with her, the reader knows she's not going to die, so I strive to find other ways to keep her believable and the stories surprising.
> 
> ...



I think this is an important point, no matter what gender your hero is their victories should come primarily from their own skills and not plot or character induced stupidity (PIS and CIS respectively). This is not to say an MC can't exploit CIS but the exploitation must be done by the MC deliberately. Luck can be involved but I think the character's skill should feed that luck, unless it's established that the character can either increase his luck via potion or is just lucky like Mat Cauthon from WOT.


----------



## TheCatholicCrow (Apr 17, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> I feel like being a stinker, so I'll link you folks to part 2: How To Fight Like A Girl, Part 2: LadyStar, Teamwork, And Empowering Female Characters | The Mary Sue



IMO this was a much better written piece. I'd agree that there is a marked difference in the representation of teamwork in tween shows but it depends on what you use to define "teamwork"- is it a tribal mentality of a group of friends looking out for one another or are they all working towards an end goal? I think it seems so different because the end goal changes from (MLP) the ponies protecting the elements of harmony & defeating Discord or  Nightmare Moon  or whatever have you - it's teamwork in a good vs evil setting (never watched it but I'd bet its the same w Power Puff Girls). That same framework is no longer present in Tween shows so I think the teamwork appears much more subtle - rather than casting a spell to protect your friend it might be something like being there as a shoulder for them to cry on.    

I'm conflicted with the notion of "boy" and "girl" shows. Is something a boy show because it has boys or because it's intended for boys? IDK if such separation of genders in television is really relevant in the modern era. I think from a purely marketing standpoint, it'd be more profitable when they ride the line than when they go boy show / girl show. Again- The line between "girly" and "masculine" shows is becoming more and more blurred so I'd be curious to know (perhaps I missed it) what he means by this. 

I agree that tv shows transition sharply from (children's) MLP:FIM to tween crap like ICarly, Dog w a Blog, Drake & Josh, etc. There is an increase in competition but I'm not sure if it's necessarily specific to girls. The male characters are frequently in competition with one another as well (often over the same girl). I would agree that they reduce women to sexual objects- almost never developing the female objects of affection beyond the point that they're "hot" but I don't know if I agree w the point of teamwork.  Perhaps I'm just not up to date with my "boy" shows but I can't think of too many that rely on teamwork (towards a goal) either. In college I lived w Engineers. The guys were the worst. They were super competitive- just in different ways from the girls. If there was any teamwork there (regardless of gender) I never saw it. I'm wondering if perhaps this is a romantic view of male representation in media. 

Assuming I'm wrong though, it would make sense to me that women would be more competitive with one another because of our basic biology. Logically we should be in great competition with one another over the best/genetically strongest (potential) mate. Women naturally have more riding on the line when it comes to choosing a partner.

Most of the "teams" that come to mind are either all women or mixed - Charmed, (of course) The Avengers, The Justice League, The "Scoobies" on Buffy / Angel, etc. Actually, I would argue that there has been more of an emphasis on friendship in recent years as the emphasis on family declines. Of course now families come in all shapes and sizes and the one size fits all portrayal of Leave it to Beaver is no longer applicable to most. I would venture to say that the American family has died in favor of teams.

IDK - maybe I'm just watching really different shows from him.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 17, 2015)

glutton said:


> Fictional men surpass the limits of what should be a realistic male character all the time after all, why shouldn't fictional women XD



One thing that bothers me is that fictional supermen are usually depicted that way physically. They have greater stature, more muscles, etc. You look at them and you expect them to be physical powerhouses. However, fictional superwomen usually look no different physically than regular women. They don't have exceptional stature or more than average muscle or anything that would lead me to look at them and think "wow, I bet she's so awesome she could totally kick that tough guy's butt". 

I once dropped an anime because it showed a group of female fighters easily doing manual tasks that would be tough on the average guy and the thing was that these chicks were all very petite and had stick thin arms. I'm sorry, just NO. That is not believable. If you want me to believe that a girl is strong then don't literally make her the size of a child. Don't insist that the heroine has to be petite AND flawless without any scars or callouses or any of the other signs of the grueling training it would take to get as strong as you're telling me she is AND whenever she's not actually fighting she suddenly becomes a giggling, clutzy preteen type or something. Movies are notorious for this type of "female warrior" character and it drives me mad. 

I don't care if you (plural, not directed at anyone here, just the world at large) want to make your women as strong as your men, but it has to show in them physically. They can't be the pretty, pretty princess if they're also strong enough to take on the toughest of the men. It's just not believable.


----------



## Russ (Apr 17, 2015)

TheCatholicCrow said:


> Assuming I'm wrong though, it would make sense to me that women would be more competitive with one another because of our basic biology. Logically we should be in great competition with one another over the best/genetically strongest (potential) mate. Women naturally have more riding on the line when it comes to choosing a partner.



While it is a little off topic, this is a fascinating debate these days.  While the popular evolutionary model seems to think women should be more inclined to settle down than women, there are new ways of looking at human reproduction and evolution that suggest males might well be more evolved to be monogamous than is traditionally thought (low fecundity and crazy long childhoods for example).


----------



## Devor (Apr 17, 2015)

TheCatholicCrow said:


> I'm conflicted with the notion of "boy" and "girl" shows. Is something a boy show because it has boys or because it's intended for boys? IDK if such separation of genders in television is really relevant in the modern era. I think from a purely marketing standpoint, it'd be more profitable when they ride the line than when they go boy show / girl show. Again- The line between "girly" and "masculine" shows is becoming more and more blurred so I'd be curious to know (perhaps I missed it) what he means by this.



I can try to answer that.

It's a boy or a girl show based on the show's target audience.  But a show usually targets a primary audience and several different secondary audiences with different elements of the show.  A good example of this is Sesame Street, which focuses on children as the primary audience, but they also try really hard to get parents watching with their kids by using semi-clever puns, celebrity guests, and parodies of popular television shows.  None of that is for the kids.  They've concluded that their show is more effective when children watch it with their parents, and so they aim for both audiences.

Lots of shows target a primary audience based on their gender, even adult shows, but very few target that audience exclusively.  Most have some elements to reach different groups, which also may or may not be gender based.

So, why?  There's a few reasons.  TV is constantly getting more segmented as the number of options keeps going up.  It helps to find an audience and make an impression on them when you know who you're targeting.  It helps them to build a stronger audience by putting together blocks that target a similar audience, and then advertise the whole block at once.  Networks also try to counter-program one another.  If the Disney channel is airing a boys show, Nick will try to air a girls show.

Also, for whatever reason, the majority of TV viewers are women, and that plays into their programming.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 17, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> One thing that bothers me is that fictional supermen are usually depicted that way physically. They have greater stature, more muscles, etc. You look at them and you expect them to be physical powerhouses. However, fictional superwomen usually look no different physically than regular women. They don't have exceptional stature or more than average muscle or anything that would lead me to look at them and think "wow, I bet she's so awesome she could totally kick that tough guy's butt".
> 
> I once dropped an anime because it showed a group of female fighters easily doing manual tasks that would be tough on the average guy and the thing was that these chicks were all very petite and had stick thin arms. I'm sorry, just NO. That is not believable. If you want me to believe that a girl is strong then don't literally make her the size of a child. Don't insist that the heroine has to be petite AND flawless without any scars or callouses or any of the other signs of the grueling training it would take to get as strong as you're telling me she is AND whenever she's not actually fighting she suddenly becomes a giggling, clutzy preteen type or something. Movies are notorious for this type of "female warrior" character and it drives me mad.
> 
> I don't care if you (plural, not directed at anyone here, just the world at large) want to make your women as strong as your men, but it has to show in them physically. They can't be the pretty, pretty princess if they're also strong enough to take on the toughest of the men. It's just not believable.



As a side note, this happens in shoujo too! Fruits Basket, for instance, has an author's note that the male martial artists should really have more muscle, but they're all twiggy prettyboys because that's the kind of guy she's attracted to and likes drawing.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 17, 2015)

Feo Takahari said:


> As a side note, this happens in shoujo too! Fruits Basket, for instance, has an author's note that the male martial artists should really have more muscle, but they're all twiggy prettyboys because that's the kind of guy she's attracted to and likes drawing.



Yeah, it's a problem. Sometimes I can ignore it, depending on the overall tone of the work and the circumstances of the setting (less realistic setting means you can get away with more), but on the whole, it's off putting.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 17, 2015)

During my time in the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army, I've had the privilege of knowing several females who could quite literally kick the shit out of most men. Training was the key factor, not size and strength.

In my opinion, it all comes down to who has the most training and skill. In my stories, it's these things that matter, not gender.

Case in point: Amazon Warriors Did Indeed Fight and Die Like Men


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 17, 2015)

That was a really good article, Reaver, thanks.  I've admired the women who live in nomadic cultures and aren't simply housewives, chatting around the cook fire while watching children.  I might have to write more female warriors into my stories.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 17, 2015)

I love writing strong female characters. I'm not saying that I'm particularly good at it, but I do love it.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 17, 2015)

I do too, but when I tally them up, I've got this:

Yvette- age 43 and strong mentally and good with a bow and knives, but not going to win an arm-wrestling match.  Speed is her strength and at the time I'm writing her, she's feeling past her prime and letting paranoia and depression interfere with her goals.

Daniela- age 23 and devious, but not physically strong.  I think she's scrappy, like when she resists her first kidnapping, but she's easily overpowered.  She's cunning and sneaky, though, which is how she gets out of bad places.

Raven- effective age late twenties, she's emotionally detached which provides her a sort of mental strength over anyone trying to intimidate her, but her physical strength is about what mine is.  She has some fight in her, but isn't going to present a tough opponent for a trained fighter or thug.

Claudia- age 26-ish.  While she's good with a sword, she hasn't had extensive training.  But she shows enough promise Vincenzo, a middle-age swordsman, even muses about taking her on as a student "if only she weren't female".  She's good enough to fight off guards while they're saving his ass, though.  I hint at her previous work as an assassin, though I never fully develop it, and I believe if she were a killer, she'd either be a poisoner, or the kind of assassin no one sees coming, a pretty face, a little too much wine, and a knife in their back and no witnesses.

Alayna- age 28.  She's emotionally damaged and keeps weighty secrets that prevent her from ever feeling comfortable.  Her magic isn't strong, but it's visually impressive enough to run off a few mercenaries with bad manners and even kill one in a single desperate scene.  Against any accomplished mage, she's be fried.  Her counterpart and love interest isn't really anymore impressive, though (because my male MCs aren't brawny brutes any more than my females are).  He's a warrior, but it's in his defense that she kills someone, to save the life of the guy who can get her safely home.  Both of them are really intelligent, though.  They both can talk their way out of trouble.

Zedrina- age 20, is a blind priestess who is extremely competent as a fortuneteller.  Her physical might again isn't impressive, but her resolve and bravery are enough to show up her soldier companion, who isn't as suited to certain obstacles along their journey.

Ayleth-age 18, is probably one of my strongest female characters.  Her magic is potent and her self-assurance is maddening to her parents.  I guess that's why I threw some of the biggest obstacles her way, because she was just so well-equipped to deal with them.  Of course (since we're talking about strong males vs. weaker females) her male counterpart and love interest is probably one of the weakest male MCs I've written, a plow boy (no, he isn't a chosen one) who is drafted into the army (long story) and can't hack it with a sword, so he joins the archers, where he excels and actually thrives against the odds.  

So yeah, when comparing my male and female characters, they all have their flaws and strengths, but I think in my stories, the genders are pretty evenly matched.  Because I write strong romantic elements into many of my tales, it wouldn't make sense to have one partner super strong (in the general sense, not physical power necessarily) and the other significantly weaker.  Where Alayna has a closet full of secrets, her mercenary lover is burdened by a tragic past he can't resolve.  Where Ayleth is a strong mage and Aarin is a weak plow boy, she's burdened by a family legacy she can't dodge and he's bolstered by pride and accomplishment.  Where Raven is physically weak and puts on an impenetrable demeanor to intimidate the competition, Logan is a physical powerhouse but soft and sentimental on the inside.

I guess for me, it was about balance and acknowledging that sure, my characters get into scrapes together, but their strengths often compliment each other's weaknesses, so they can pull through together.  I guess in my real life, that's what I've learned--that I'm weak in ways and strong in others, and if I can't do something alone, I'm charismatic enough that I have friends who can and will come to my aid.  And some of the toughest people I know ask for my help on occasion, too.  Unless it's lifting stuff.  HA!  I recall a time my friend and I were doing leather-working together.  He offered to cut out my pieces for me (watching me struggle with my scissors).  He used a fancy blade (that looked like it took leather and fingers indiscriminately), and cut all my pieces and his...but I was the one who designed all the patterns, and he was happy to sit back and let me do my thing, because it's my strength.  That's how my men and women relate and compliment each other.  I hope that's not sexist.  To me, it's just how I've observed the world.  Now, that being said, I've done my fair share of physical stuff.  I'm not exactly fragile, but I'm about as far from brawny as it comes.  The point above about petite powerhouses is a bit off-putting, I agree, but I'm scrappy and pound for pound, I think I do alright.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 18, 2015)

Well, as your number one fan, you already know how much I enjoy your stories and your characters. Especially *WiR*.

You create rich characters and vivid worlds and I'm envious.


----------



## Guy (Apr 18, 2015)

Reaver said:


> During my time in the U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Army, I've had the privilege of knowing several females who could quite literally kick the shit out of most men. Training was the key factor, not size and strength.


Kind of going off on a tangent, but when I was in A school in the navy we had marines on the base. One of the safety briefings they gave us one morning was to stop coming onto the female marines in the enlisted club. A couple of sailors tried it and got their asses kicked by the female marines. I was the only one in the room who thought that was hilarious.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Apr 18, 2015)

I see that this has been a very interesting discussion so far.

As you know, in the past I have replied to threads similar to this by posting a very different point of view. I believe that most of you concentrate too much on human characters, or at least characters that are heavily human in nature. So yeah, it was inevitable that I would show up here to present you with...

_The Aylar Point of View!_

In the Aylar species, there is nothing strange in the idea of the females fighting and also going to war. That is a very normal thing, and this is despite the fact that the _Guardians_ (male Aylars) are over twice the height and twelve times stronger than the average female.

In the medieval times of Aylanya, it was common for the Guardians to form armies and go to war. Their modern War Museums are still full of giant suits of armor and ten-foot long swords, and those battles of old times were truly legendary and terrifying to witness.

The problem was that so many Guardians were getting killed in the wars that eventually it had a negative effect on the reproduction of the species, and so the female Aylars took the main role of fighting...

This is not a complication for them, because Aylars (despite their fragile and delicate appearance) are strong enough to toss boulders and tear polar bears to shreds with their claws. Their speed and reflexes are far faster than even the best felines, and their stamina is so great that any teenage girl could carry a horse on her back all day without breaking a sweat.

In war they fight possessed by the fierce and sadistic nature of their species, turning into authentic nightmares in the battlefield...

To them, there is little sense in the expression _To Fight like a Girl_. The Aylar females fight just as good and viciously as the Guardians, the differences are just their size and the numbers involved in a battle... In Aylar stories there is no need to give the females any special skills or training to explain their fighting prowess, it's just natural for them.

Writing about human characters gets very complicated sometimes, Aylars are better =)


----------



## Lunaairis (Apr 18, 2015)

A little side note, but something I thought was really cool when I found it out a few days ago on the 'Mental Floss' youtube channel.

 Gladiator is the male term for warriors that fought as entertainment in the roman world. There was also a female term: Gladiatrix.

the wiki page has a bunch of sources if you wish to read up on this.


----------



## glutton (Apr 19, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> One thing that bothers me is that fictional supermen are usually depicted that way physically. They have greater stature, more muscles, etc. You look at them and you expect them to be physical powerhouses. However, fictional superwomen usually look no different physically than regular women. They don't have exceptional stature or more than average muscle or anything that would lead me to look at them and think "wow, I bet she's so awesome she could totally kick that tough guy's butt".
> 
> I once dropped an anime because it showed a group of female fighters easily doing manual tasks that would be tough on the average guy and the thing was that these chicks were all very petite and had stick thin arms. I'm sorry, just NO. That is not believable. If you want me to believe that a girl is strong then don't literally make her the size of a child. Don't insist that the heroine has to be petite AND flawless without any scars or callouses or any of the other signs of the grueling training it would take to get as strong as you're telling me she is AND whenever she's not actually fighting she suddenly becomes a giggling, clutzy preteen type or something. Movies are notorious for this type of "female warrior" character and it drives me mad.
> 
> I don't care if you (plural, not directed at anyone here, just the world at large) want to make your women as strong as your men, but it has to show in them physically. They can't be the pretty, pretty princess if they're also strong enough to take on the toughest of the men. It's just not believable.



They tend to be pretty tanky in my works. The heroine of my main series is 6' 240-250 lbs depending on diet, most aren't quite that bulked up but they're never 'modelweight' and tend to be rather stocky with tons of 'aesthetic' scars lol. Thinking the main 'badass' girl of my new WIP will be around 5'9 170... considering having her wear lifts inside already thick-heeled boots to make her look 6' lol. Yeah it would make her kind of a 'tryhard' but she's legit beastly too of course.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 19, 2015)

Lunaairis said:


> A little side note, but something I thought was really cool when I found it out a few days ago on the 'Mental Floss' youtube channel.
> 
> Gladiator is the male term for warriors that fought as entertainment in the roman world. There was also a female term: Gladiatrix.
> 
> the wiki page has a bunch of sources if you wish to read up on this.



Indeed, though I hesitated to bring them up, as both gladiators and gladiatrices fought primarily as entertainment.  It was relatively rare for them to die in the arena.


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 20, 2015)

Sheilawisz said:


> As you know, in the past I have replied to threads similar to this by posting a very different point of view. I believe that most of you concentrate too much on human characters, or at least characters that are heavily human in nature.
> 
> ...
> 
> Writing about human characters gets very complicated sometimes, Aylars are better =)



I know what you mean. I have no peoples in my world that are meant to be equivalent to humans. I don't even have any "races". 



glutton said:


> They tend to be pretty tanky in my works. The heroine of my main series is 6' 240-250 lbs depending on diet, most aren't quite that bulked up but they're never 'modelweight' and tend to be rather stocky with tons of 'aesthetic' scars lol. Thinking the main 'badass' girl of my new WIP will be around 5'9 170... considering having her wear lifts inside already thick-heeled boots to make her look 6' lol. Yeah it would make her kind of a 'tryhard' but she's legit beastly too of course.



Kudos to you for being willing to characterize your female warriors in a way very, very few writers are willing to.


----------



## glutton (Apr 20, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> Kudos to you for being willing to characterize your female warriors in a way very, very few writers are willing to.



An imposing appearance adds to their epic warrior aura lol.


----------



## ArenRax (Apr 20, 2015)

Girls can be awesome!!!
By all standards I am tall and broad shouldered and strong but my friend (who is female) has been around horses and developed a good amount of muscle along with fat and injuries but when she runs she is like a bull, you had better get out the way or your going to be flattened.
Badass women who can fight like any other man or even have the courage to fight are pretty darn cool, and when they make the egotistical sexist knight feel cheated and be pissed off for losing to a girl....Even better! 
It's always funny to see such scenes because the guy underestimates a women due to stereotypes.
So when someone says you fight like a girl(when your female or male or you know) take it as a complement because women can kick ass both in the fantasy world and in real life.


----------



## Devor (Apr 20, 2015)

I have zero combat experience and have no problem yielding to those who do.

I'm having trouble seeing past reach as a factor in a sword fight.  It just seems that, not only would women be shorter, but if swords are balanced against your height, they'd also be using shorter swords.  In a sword fight that strikes me as a tremendous disadvantage.

Of course, we're more fascinated with swords than history was.  Many women in Japan trained with a naginata to protect their home - that's the big polearm with a sword on the end.  With the naginata, if you have the better training, you're more likely to neutralize your opponent's other advantages.

Trying to consider all this, I'm wondering if women who fought alongside men used different weapons or different versions of the same weapon, or if they found ways to counter disadvantages like reach, or to how much they were just the bigger tougher women of their time, or if those things just didn't matter much in a full scale war (as opposed to the one on one skirmishes we like to think about).  Does anybody know any facts related to all that?


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 20, 2015)

Devor said:


> I have zero combat experience and have no problem yielding to those who do.
> 
> I'm having trouble seeing past reach as a factor in a sword fight.  It just seems that, not only would women be shorter, but if swords are balanced against your height, they'd also be using shorter swords.  In a sword fight that strikes me as a tremendous disadvantage.
> 
> ...



I'll admit I have no combat experience, with sword or otherwise, so anyone who knows from experience can feel free to prove me wrong, but thinking about it, I don't think height is as much of a factor as you're suggesting. I mean, sure, having longer arms would technically give you a small reach advantage, but unless you're literally a chimpanzee going up against a T-rex (ignoring the size difference), it won't have any noticeable effect. Certainly not enough of an effect to counterbalance that of skill. Also, were swords really balanced to a person's height? I've personally never heard of that. I would think a short person could easily use a big sword if they wanted to. Again, this is just my own logic, and I'm not an expert.


----------



## Devor (Apr 20, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> Also, were swords really balanced to a person's height? I've personally never heard of that.



I asked Anders a while ago in the sword thread, and he said that some swords were balanced against the length of your arm, which is more or less height.  I also don't think it was a coincidence that the Japanese were historically just about the shortest people on earth while at the same time the katana was traditionally several inches shorter than its European counterparts.

I'll refer you to the other posts in this thread about whether reach is a disadvantage in a sword fight.


----------



## Trick (Apr 20, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I don't think height is as much of a factor as you're suggesting. I mean, sure, having longer arms would technically give you a small reach advantage, but unless you're literally a chimpanzee going up against a T-rex (ignoring the size difference), it won't have any noticeable effect. Certainly not enough of an effect to counterbalance that of skill.



I can't speak for sword fighting, but reach in boxing or even just street-fighting is definitely an advantage if one knows how to use it. If an unskilled tall person fights a very skilled short person, you may be right but if they're relatively even I'd be betting on the one with reach - in boxing anyway.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 20, 2015)

Trick said:


> I can't speak for sword fighting, but reach in boxing or even just street-fighting is definitely an advantage if one knows how to use it. If an unskilled tall person fights a very skilled short person, you may be right but if they're relatively even I'd be betting on the one with reach - in boxing anyway.


I'm not sure, but wasn't Mike Tyson disadvantaged in reach every time he fought? And, in that case, we're talking about professional boxers.

Granted, Tyson was more of a brawler, but still....he won more out of pure meanness and power than anything else. Reach had little to do with it until he was on his way out of his physical prime.


----------



## musycpyrate (Apr 20, 2015)

> I'm not sure, but wasn't Mike Tyson disadvantaged in reach every time he fought? And, in that case, we're talking about professional boxers.
> 
> Granted, Tyson was more of a brawler, but still....he won more out of pure meanness and power than anything else. Reach had little to do with it until he was on his way out of his physical prime.



Agreed. Lets not forget his insane speed and footwork. That guy 'was' a perfect boxing machine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51090bGcoR8


----------



## Trick (Apr 20, 2015)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I'm not sure, but wasn't Mike Tyson disadvantaged in reach every time he fought? And, in that case, we're talking about professional boxers.
> 
> Granted, Tyson was more of a brawler, but still....he won more out of pure meanness and power than anything else. Reach had little to do with it until he was on his way out of his physical prime.



I think you're right but he's still the exception. I would even go so far as to say that his temperament in the ring was a skill that his opponents didn't have, tipping the scales in his favor. Size of the fight in the dog kind of thing. It doesn't eliminate the advantage of a longer reach though.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 20, 2015)

I just want to add one little thing to this thread again.  First an edit, in my original post about blade length, the guy I was talking about wields a pair of 45" blades, not 35", but I didn't catch the typo in time to edit it.  So yeah, he's a real reach-problem SOB.  Anyways, stamina plays a factor in war, more than it does in a brawl.  Brawls are over in relatively short bouts usually and strength plays more a factor than stamina.  As a rule, women have more stamina than men.  HOWEVER, if you're comparing two long distance runners, the man will beat the woman to the finish line (why aren't marathons different, I wonder), but what I mean is that women are cheaper to feed (taking less calories than heavier men) and perhaps have an advantage with rest?  I just think of the other tough elements of war and travel in general and many women I know balance careers, family, and loads more than most men I know, and they tend to be less impacted by the "expected" stamina they display.  

Now, I'm not trying to judge individuals, I'm just saying scientifically, I've heard it said from multiple sources that women have more stamina than men, but in professional sports, I rarely see it proven.  However, in normal stressful day-to-day situations, women carry a bigger burden and workload than most men.  I'm not talking about the Deadliest Catch guys, I'm talking about normal folks.  In many places around the world, women haul water.  I should say girls, really, because they start very young.  In Ethiopia, girls and women do the majority of the work, while men are fed the best fare.  Because of it, young women are often malnourished and it's one of the contributing factors to their higher mortality in childbirth.  Anyways, it stands to reason that if instead of hauling water from the age of eight or nine, girls are trained with weapons and to hunt (aren't the Inuit a culture where women hunt alongside men?), why couldn't they be as deadly as their male counterparts?

In our past, women worked hard, in fields and industry, and often, they had worse conditions than men, and lived on less food.  Also, a natural fat layer is not necessarily a bad thing.  While it adds to the curvy, soft physical features attractive to their menfolk, it also makes the body more durable and cold-resistant.  I'd think there are several reasons having a band of female hunters is an advantage.  We recently discussed menstruation in another thread, and it was suggested women might be hampered by their monthly cycles, but I just want to re-state, that women who maintain a certain muscle-to-fat ratio do not experience the negatives of fertility.  

Just a few more things to consider when writing female warriors.


----------



## Tom (Apr 20, 2015)

Devor said:


> I'm having trouble seeing past reach as a factor in a sword fight.  It just seems that, not only would women be shorter, but if swords are balanced against your height, they'd also be using shorter swords.  In a sword fight that strikes me as a tremendous disadvantage.



Actually, the issue of reach is not so much a major disadvantage as it is an extra challenge to work around. I'm 5'8", hardly short, but I've fenced people 6' and taller, so I've had experience with reach issues, and I've noted the styles of shorter people I've fenced who have had to compensate for my greater reach.

So, here are a few principles that need to be weighed when considering reach.

1) Greater reach can be a disadvantage if your opponent plays it right. Longer arms mean longer extensions, and it might take just a fraction of a second longer for a person with a long reach to pull their arm in for a parry. That fraction of a second is all a fencer needs to execute a clean touchÃ©.

2) Shorter fencers with shorter reach tend to fight in a more aggressive, close style. They know the limits of their reach, so they stay close, getting inside your guard so that your longer reach is rendered basically useless (unless you have rubber arms) and theirs is more effective.

3) Reach advantage means nothing if you don't use it. Pretty much speaks for itself. I've fenced a few tall guys with ridiculously long reach, and some of them just don't use it. They seem unaware of the fact that they don't have to engage me in the close, tight bladework attacks I prefer--that they could just reach out and stab me from like three feet away.


----------



## Reaver (Apr 21, 2015)

In my opinion the real question is why limit gender in any way in a fantasy world? It's fantasy. Size, shape, strength, gender... these concepts are malleable and shouldn't matter.

Fantasy that is deeply rooted in realism is boring to me. However, fantasy that is too fantastic is as well. I try to keep my stories balanced in both. It's not that hard.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 21, 2015)

@Reaver: I've heard that's how old myths tended to approach things. Tactics and talents weren't an issue, just a general concept of might, with the characters who were more mighty beating the characters who were less mighty. (See also 300, which references Spartan tactics, but shows the actual combat as awesome and fantastical, because that was how Spartans described it in their stories.)


----------



## Russ (Apr 22, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I'll admit I have no combat experience, with sword or otherwise, so anyone who knows from experience can feel free to prove me wrong, but thinking about it, I don't think height is as much of a factor as you're suggesting. I mean, sure, having longer arms would technically give you a small reach advantage, but unless you're literally a chimpanzee going up against a T-rex (ignoring the size difference), it won't have any noticeable effect. Certainly not enough of an effect to counterbalance that of skill. Also, were swords really balanced to a person's height? I've personally never heard of that. I would think a short person could easily use a big sword if they wanted to. Again, this is just my own logic, and I'm not an expert.



In Europe in the middle ages, custom swords were indeed fitted by height.  

I have fenced with a number of weapons simulating weapons from that period and a good fit does make a difference.

But, like with all complex systems, that is just one factor amongst many.


----------



## Tom (Apr 22, 2015)

It would be nice to have a custom blade. Because I'm a competitive fencer, all my blades are the standard #5's required at tournaments. They're just a little too long for me; the #5 is designed to be wielded by a person about 5'10"-6' or so, and I'm 5'8". Even that slight blade-height imbalance can and has thrown me off.


----------



## Guy (Apr 22, 2015)

Devor said:


> I have zero combat experience and have no problem yielding to those who do.
> 
> I'm having trouble seeing past reach as a factor in a sword fight.  It just seems that, not only would women be shorter, but if swords are balanced against your height, they'd also be using shorter swords.  In a sword fight that strikes me as a tremendous disadvantage.


Celts were typically taller than Romans and used longer swords, yet the Romans almost always won. Tall Celt swings long sword. Roman catches it on shield and stabs up into Celts belly and chest, rips blade off to the side as he withdraws and eviscerates Celt. Plan B was to reach behind the Celt's leg and hamstring him.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Apr 23, 2015)

One universal truth I learned in martial arts is: *flukes happen*.

No, that doesn't mean you write a 4'10" schoolgirl who outfights seven-footers because she's incredibly lucky. I just mean that the better fighter doesn't always win. Your job as the writer is to make it believable that the disadvantaged fighter won.



How NOT to do that: Advantage in reach? Well, f--- reach. Shorty thrusts her blade into the belly of Lanky McBadguy. Yay, Shorty!


How to do that: Advantage in reach? Oh, s---. Shorty lunges toward Lanky McBadguy. Just as she predicts, Lanky brings his blade down toward her skull. She raises her blade and deflects his…

So as I'm choreographing that second scenario in my head, I'm picturing where the two blades are. If Shorty's deflecting the blade away from herself and has her sword overhead, her blade is positioned between Lanky's arms. She can lop off an arm.

Lanky won't just stand there and let her maim him like that, so I'm also asking what can he do. I might narrate his attempted retaliation, or maybe he brings his knee into Shorty's chin. Or how about a role-reversal–the guy throws the emergency crotch kick at the girl? Does his attack landing mean her attack doesn't?

If you lack combat/training experience, use what you do know:
- sports
- adrenaline rushes (Ever see time appear to slow or stop? That is so cool!)
- hitting your sibling/friend with sticks when you were kids
- stuff you've seen in movies or video games
And of course,
- stuff you've read


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 27, 2015)

http://fashionablygeek.com/videos-2...mpetition-at-a-world-invitational-tournament/

I remember coming across this story a while ago.  Rather relevant to the discussion about fighters actually looking like they could fight.


----------



## BronzeOracle (Apr 27, 2015)

Guy said:


> Celts were typically taller than Romans and used longer swords, yet the Romans almost always won. Tall Celt swings long sword. Roman catches it on shield and stabs up into Celts belly and chest, rips blade off to the side as he withdraws and eviscerates Celt. Plan B was to reach behind the Celt's leg and hamstring him.



Weren't the reasons why the Celts lost to Romans (1) numbers (2) battle coordination and (3) Celt allies?


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 28, 2015)

BronzeOracle said:


> Weren't the reasons why the Celts lost to Romans (1) numbers (2) battle coordination and (3) Celt allies?



It was their terrible discipline, irregular equipment, and disunity.  Even when they did unite under competent leadership, like Vercingetorix, they still lost to the Romans, despite overwhelming numbers.


----------



## Guy (Apr 29, 2015)

BronzeOracle said:


> Weren't the reasons why the Celts lost to Romans (1) numbers (2) battle coordination and (3) Celt allies?


There were several reasons. My point was simply to show how fighters with shorter reach can beat fighters with longer reach.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Apr 29, 2015)

Guy said:


> There were several reasons. My point was simply to show how fighters with shorter reach can beat fighters with longer reach.





I think we can all agree that fighting has several elements to it. Athleticism and physical attributes, technique, fight smarts, and other things. But the question for writers is how to apply these attributes to make them believable. If your fighter is at a physical disadvantage she has to use her smarts or be a superior technician. Which, I think is a point we are all shooting at but on indirectly connecting with.


----------



## SeverinR (May 13, 2015)

I think a warrior can be smart, quick and strong, but if they encounter something they have never seen before or dealt with before, they might be hesitant to engage or might make a mistake.

If they have never faced a competent woman before, she has a skreiking Kiai he's not heard before, she gets in closer then other fighters, or she attacks like a chihuahua, fast and furious might set him off balance.  In a world of male fighting, fighting a female is different, physically and mentally.
Chivalry does place women on a pedestial, how can a chivalrous knight strike a woman?

Martial arts is a study of itself. Exploiting your opponents weaknesses, and minimizing yours, maximizing your strengths while minimizing your opponents.  In the martial arts, when dealing with life or death, you never give your opponent a break. One slip could mean its your head being smashed like a grape by a mountain.

Professional wrestling shows it in almost every match, the one on top gets cocky, the underdog comes back and wins the match. In "the Incredibles" they call it monologing.Bascially, the villain thinks the hero is defeated so they info dump thier plans, allowing the hero to figure out an escape or way to turn the tables on the villian.


----------



## SeverinR (Jun 3, 2015)

I did see a set of pics labeled with this title; Fight like a girl: a picture of Furiosa(Mad Max Fury Road), Brianne of Tarth(Game of Thrones) and two other tough women from hit shows.


----------



## Tom (Jun 3, 2015)

I just came back to note that "fighting like a girl" can mean a lot of things. For instance, I have three female warriors in Southerner (well, actually more than that--these three are just main characters). All of them have different builds and abilities, and individualized fighting styles to match. 

Eleha, leader of a rebellion, is a tall, heavily muscled woman who wields a longsword and a heavy shield, which she also uses as an offensive weapon. She can easily dominate an opponent using sheer brute strength, and often stuns and disarms her opponents with fast, furious bludgeoning attacks. However, she's also a cunning tactician--if facing an opponent who outclasses her in strength or skill, she'll start off weak, lulling him into a false confidence, then catch him off-guard and just hammer him into the ground. 

Ilaryu is a famous general, lauded for her genius strategies and cool head under fire. She's far shorter than Eleha, having a petite build, but still carries a lot of muscle on her frame. Her weapon of choice is a bastard sword, for its versatility. She relies on her speed, skill with a blade, and ability to read her opponent in a fight. Not at all an explosive fighter, her style leans more on logic, using psychological intimidation tactics and intricate attacks to erode her opponents' confidence. 

Aeyu is far younger than Eleha and Ilaryu, and much less experienced. She has some wiry muscle, but overall is kind of slim and willowy. She uses a shortsword and a dagger. To make up for her small size, she relies on agility and speed, and employs a fast, aggressive fighting style. To keep one step ahead of larger and stronger opponents, she's not afraid to fight dirty--she'll kick up dust, aim low blows, and use other traditionally dishonorable tactics. 

Three warriors of the same gender--three totally different builds, personalities, weapon preferences, and fighting styles. Variety is an important factor to remember when designing badass warrior women!



Maybe their names should have more variety then...hmmm. The naming conventions I came up with for their culture are very limiting.


----------



## fantastic (Jun 3, 2015)

Tom Nimenai said:


> I just came back to note that "fighting like a girl" can mean a lot of things. For instance, I have three female warriors in Southerner (well, actually more than that--these three are just main characters). All of them have different builds and abilities, and individualized fighting styles to match.
> 
> Eleha, leader of a rebellion, is a tall, heavily muscled woman who wields a longsword and a heavy shield, which she also uses as an offensive weapon. She can easily dominate an opponent using sheer brute strength, and often stuns and disarms her opponents with fast, furious bludgeoning attacks. However, she's also a cunning tactician--if facing an opponent who outclasses her in strength or skill, she'll start off weak, lulling him into a false confidence, then catch him off-guard and just hammer him into the ground.
> 
> ...



And if it is not something that would spoil the story, which one is the best and would win the fight? If they fought one on one in a place where there is no objects or places to exploit.


----------



## Tom (Jun 3, 2015)

fantastic said:


> And if it is not something that would spoil the story, which one is the best and would win the fight? If they fought one on one in a place where there is no objects or places to exploit.



All of them have different strengths, so I don't think any one of them would be better than the others. However, Ilaryu would probably win if they fought, since she is the best strategist of the three of them, and the most experienced in combat. Eleha can be rash and is too reliant on sheer strength, and Aeyu just doesn't have the skill yet to rival either of them. With training, she might be able to rival Eleha by playing her strength against her, but not Ilaryu.


----------

