Too few female characters?

[Legendary Sidekick]

If gender is an issue in your world, your character's gender will be a facet of who they are and how they relate to the world.

I think GRRM does a nice job with this.

I don't know if he's a sexist, a feminist, or if he's as gray in this area as some of his characters are in the between-good-and-evil sense. But just on the merit of his writing...

His world (in ASoIaF) is a very sexist world, horrible for either gender, really, but women are definitely objectified there. The expectations are different for each gender, and even crime and punishment is different. ("Take the Black" vs. "Walk of Shame")

You see clear physical differences that are often as expected for each gender, but you have characters that beat those odds: Arya outperforms boys her age in skilled combat, and Brienne is stronger than most men and highly skilled. Her trainer taught her to use male pride (as in "I can't lose to HER!") to her advantage.

Tyrion is a strong character, but not physically strong. A non-dwarf/non-cripple who lacks "manly muscle" is Sam, who is not only out of shape but also has an internal battle with cowardice. The world expects Sam to be strong because he is male. Another expectation of a man is seen when a virgin prince wants to marry a widow. His bodyguard warns him that he'll look weak, since the widow is obviously experienced. So of course the prince finds a way to look "strong."

I don't know if GRRM is overrated or really just that good, but where his writing fits in with this conversation, I think he's a writer to emulate. He has a decent gender mix of strong, weak, good, evil and "gray" characters. Gender is an important part of the character, whether it's biological or societal, and those "explanations" do eventually show up (like Brienne recalling her trainer's advice on male pride), but it isn't really needed to sell the character...

What I read in his books aren't gender-bent characters successfully explained.

I read about interesting characters with interesting arcs.

 

[glutton]

Okay, I'm being deliberately silly here, but...

I don't think 15% here or there would make much difference for this guy - and I can't even quite tell if it's a man or a woman.

There is no way in hell a man or woman is beating that without going beyond realistic human limits, whether due to magic/magical gear or just plain superhuman skill/strength/speed/toughness. It's like a mouse with metal claws trying to attack a human.

 

[Guy]

Much as Trick noted, yes. (Sorry, Trick, I seem to have run out of "thanks" today, courtesy of this wild rampaging thread. )

a) Not everyone does it your way, Guy. Gender can be an assumed non-choice (or unthinking default-choice) earlier in the character or story creation process than you've suggested is the case for you.
b) Presumably at some point, your character gets a gender regardless of the importance of genitals or otherwise. Whenever the decision takes place, I'm just advocating for a consideration of all options (hey, yeah, all options; I'm all for thinking beyond the notion of two genders as well, but baby steps).
c) Gender has a role in your worldbuilding - even if gender is a non-issue in your world, that contrast with the highly gendered world of your readers is interesting and the delivery of the world to the audience in that regard should be thought about. If gender is an issue in your world, your character's gender will be a facet of who they are and how they relate to the world.

I wish gender was irrelevant to who people are. I wish we could just ignore it as storytellers. But it isn't, and I don't think it does any justice to characters, stories or readers to ignore it.

Okay, I think I see what you're saying, and I don't dispute any of it. Maybe I'm reading things wrong, but it seems to me some people get too hung up on it and make gender the main influence on their character and my earlier post was in response to that. The idea of not having a female character do something because, well, she's a woman and a woman would never do such-and-such, or the character must do something or feel a certain way because that's what women do or feel. It's an idea I just find downright silly, particularly in a genre like fantasy.

 

[Valentinator]

I guess the original trope about knights fighting dragons suggests that dragons weren't the size of Godzilla. Otherwise, there is no way a dragon can catch a princess without turning her into a bloody pulp. In this case individual physical abilities matter.

 

[Steerpike]

Well that's a nice substitution you made. Now I have to compare male linemen to male quarterbacks. How about comparing male linemen to female linemen and male quarterbacks to female quarterbacks? It's slightly more logical, don't you think?

This reply makes no sense whatsoever. You should think about what you're reading instead of being in such a hurry to argue that you simply post the first thing that comes to mind. The comment was only about the relationship between speed and strength, not about gender. I think that is exceedingly clear on the face of the post, and since it was written in plain English, and this is a site full of writers who presumably have at least a basic competency with reading and writing the written word, I can only conclude you're either not reading before you reply or you aren't engaging your mind in your rush to argue.

 

[glutton]

BTW typically in my writing I default to having high end female warriors being 10-20 percent weaker than high end males, so there is some sexual dimorphism retained but not to the same degree as real life. However if the character has 'Exceed Human Limit MAX' lol, then she'll probably be 95-100 percent as strong as top end males. It's pretty easy to identify which characters have that in a given story XD eg. the 17 year old girls who are battling 100 ton dragons with their nonmagical sword and running through stone melting fire breath because they're just that awesome.

 

[Valentinator]

This reply makes no sense whatsoever. You should think about what you're reading instead of being in such a hurry to argue that you simply post the first thing that comes to mind. The comment was only about the relationship between speed and strength, not about gender. I think that is exceedingly clear on the face of the post, and since it was written in plain English, and this is a site full of writers who presumably have at least a basic competency with reading and writing the written word, I can only conclude you're either not reading before you reply or you aren't engaging your mind in your rush to argue.

It's not my fault that you are deviating from original idea I was trying to convey. I was talking about speed and strength in relation to gender, not about intricate relationships between strength and speed. You comparisons of athletes of the same gender have nothing to do with that.

 

[Steerpike]

It's pretty easy to identify which characters have that in a given story XD eg. the 17 year old girls who are battling 100 ton dragons with their nonmagical sword and running through stone melting fire breath because they're just that awesome.

They should form a guild called The Axis of Awesome. It could be a series (despite the fact that the name is stolen from a comedy band).

 

[Steerpike]

It's not my fault that you are deviating from original idea I was trying to convey. I was talking about speed and strength in relation to gender, not about intricate relationships between strength and speed. You comparisons of athletes of the same gender have nothing to do with that.

Valentinator:

I don't know if you're just trolling at this point, but it is clear you aren't putting even the most basic level of thought into things before replying. If you were, you'd see very well how a comment on the relationship between strength and speed was precisely on point with respect to the prior comments you made. I'll leave others who have time to waste to argue with you, and I'll confine my responses to those who show the desire and ability to think before hitting the reply button. Carry on.

 

[Valentinator]

Valentinator:

I don't know if you're just trolling at this point, but it is clear you aren't putting even the most basic level of thought into things before replying. If you were, you'd see very well how a comment on the relationship between strength and speed was precisely on point with respect to the prior comments you made. I'll leave others who have time to waste to argue with you, and I'll confine my responses to those who show the desire and ability to think before hitting the reply button. Carry on.

Oh I see. You analyze all my comments separately while all of them are interconnected. You thought subject the changed while I was discussing new subject within the previous topic of discussion. Anyway, I admit that I'm reading the thread quite superficially since I'm a little bit busy right now. Perhaps, it affects the quality of my replies.

For the sake of clarity, I'll summarize my point:

IMO, in real life the best female knights have no chance against the best male knights in fighting in 99% of the cases. The best male fighters are stronger, there is no reason to believe that they are at the same time slower or somehow less skillful. Better fighting ability is derived from biology like higher percentage of muscles per body weight, bigger size, higher level of testosterone etc. Comparison of sport records only confirms it. Female knights can definitely surpass the male knight in a single fight, but it is just more unlikely and therefore less realistic. Female knights can still easily win in multiple less straightforward ways. Enhanced fighting abilities actually help to slay dragons of the reasonable size (not MMORPG boss size).

I want to emphasize that that's my personal opinion based on long-term experience in combat sports. It' fine with me if you have other opinion.

 

[glutton]

Oh I see. You analyze all my comments separately while all of them are interconnected. You thought subject the changed while I was discussing new subject within the previous topic of discussion. Anyway, I admit that I'm reading the thread quite superficially since I'm a little bit busy right now. Perhaps, it affects the quality of my replies.

For the sake of clarity, I'll summarize my point:

IMO, in real life the best female knights have no chance against the best male knights in fighting in 99% of the cases. The best male fighters are stronger, there is no reason to believe that they are at the same time slower or somehow less skillful. Better fighting ability is derived from biology like higher percentage of muscles per body weight, bigger size, higher level of testosterone etc. Comparison of sport records only confirms it. Female knights can definitely surpass the male knight in a single fight, but it is just more unlikely and therefore less realistic. Female knights can still easily win in multiple less straightforward ways. Enhanced fighting abilities actually help to slay dragons of the reasonable size (not MMORPG boss size).

I want to emphasize that that's my personal opinion based on long-term experience in combat sports. No reason to insult me if you have other opinion.

You said something before about how a female knight defeating a dragon with hack-and-slash would make the dragon seem like a weak dragon and thus the battle is less impressive... if it's less likely for a female knight to be able to do so, couldn't it just make the knight more impressive - for a female knight - than a male knight doing it? Why would the dragon necessarily be weak especially if it's already established that it has killed many male knights for example?

If a main antagonist who's established to be one of the strongest guys in the world engages the female love interest only to be tossed around and knocked down for a fair bit of time, then hits her with a massive combo attack with another powerful character right in the face and fails to even knock her out, that doesn't make him suddenly weak... what it means is that she is just. that. AWESOME lol

 

[Trick]

Also if we accept the existence of stuff like magic without question in most fantasy worlds why does anyone have an issue accepting that women may be closer to men in strength in a given fantasy world than in real life?

I have no problem with it if it's established. My issue lies in having a character who, to my knowledge as the reader, is exactly like an earthling and does something off the wall and it breaks the immersion. A woman fighting a man, and they have similar training and experience, is fine with me as long as she doesn't show superior strength to him; again, unless it's been made clear that she's an exception (which in real life is rare but doesn't have to be in a book) like Brienne in ASOIAF.

EDIT: To enforce my point, my current WIP having mostly male characters started this thread; luckily that problem is solved. The sequel will have one character from the first book become a major POV, the original MC's little sister, all grown up. She will be a magically enhanced person just like her brother becomes in book 1 and though he'll have more experience, they'll basically be physical equals. The sequel's villain will be a queen from another nation who is also magically enhanced. She will be the original MC's superior in every way. It will be his sister who tips the balance. At the same time, the sister is shaping up to be a terribly interesting character. And yes, terribly is the right adjective.

 

[Valentinator]

You said something before about how a female knight defeating a dragon with hack-and-slash would make the dragon seem like a weak dragon and thus the battle is less impressive... if it's less likely for a female knight to be able to do so, couldn't it just make the knight more impressive - for a female knight - than a male knight doing it? Why would the dragon necessarily be weak especially if it's already established that it has killed many male knights for example?

Well, based on the previous post that would mean that the dragon slayer wasn't the best of the best. It's kind of lowering the stakes. Of course, if we apply some real life rules to the book. Otherwise, definitely any princess wearing chain-mail bikini can be the toughest warrior in the world.

If a main antagonist who's established to be one of the strongest guys in the world engages the female love interest only to be tossed around and knocked down for a fair bit of time, then hits her with a massive combo attack with another powerful character right in the face and fails to even knock her out, that doesn't make him suddenly weak... what it means is that she is just. that. AWESOME lol

Sure. It's awesome if it's explained.

 

[glutton]

I have no problem with it if it's established. My issue lies in having a character who, to my knowledge as the reader, is exactly like an earthling and does something off the wall and it breaks the immersion.

Well, when you have the female fighters usually being not as much weaker than males as in real life but still slightly weaker, there isn't really an easy way to convey that as a trend beyond showing it in the battles and/or dialogue involving said characters. Personally I just rely on the overall tone of my stories in that if you're going to worry about female fighters only being slightly weaker than males, there are other things that will probably bother you more... like the non-massive girl who hurls a boulder knocking down a giant dragon, but outright admits to being weaker than another (male) character lol.

 

[glutton]

Well, based on the previous post that would mean that the dragon slayer wasn't the best of the best. It's kind of lowering the stakes. Of course, if we apply some real life rules to the book. Otherwise, definitely any princess wearing chain-mail bikini can be the toughest warrior in the world.

Sure. It's awesome if it's explained.

If a female character is established to be one of the best of the best straight up fighters in the world, I would tend to infer from that that women in that universe are physically closer to men than in real life.

 

[Valentinator]

If a female character is established to be one of the best of the best straight up fighters in the world, I would tend to infer from that that women in that universe are physically closer to men than in real life.

Yes, and that would require some additional world-building.

 

[glutton]

Yes, and that would require some additional world-building.

Not really, if men are still on average stronger than women - plus the whole childbirth thing - then the majority of warriors would still be male and no further explanation would be needed within the story. There just might a few uber female badasses walking around XD

 

[Valentinator]

Not really, if men are still on average stronger than women - plus the whole childbirth thing - then the majority of warriors would still be male and no further explanation would be needed within the story. There just might a few uber female badasses walking around XD

OK, approaches could be different.

 

[cupiscent]

I think GRRM does a nice job with this.

I absolutely agree! He cops some feminist backlash because nasty things happen to his women (and because in Cersei and Mellisandre there's an aspect where female sexuality is shown as evil), but while they are obviously and definitely living in a patriarchy, nasty things happen to everyone in those books, and I agree that he does a great job of having layered, honest, real characters with motivations, actions, agency and significance to the story and the reader, regardless of gender or other physical feature.

 

[Trick]

If a female character is established to be one of the best of the best straight up fighters in the world, I would tend to infer from that that women in that universe are physically closer to men than in real life.

Forgive my curiosity but, being a man, I can't answer this question for myself. This may not be the right spot but since this thread has been all over the place: Are there any women on here who, being of average build and strength, wish they were bigger and stronger (closer to the average man)? I'm curious because I think it will help me in writing characters in general. I know several men who were simply born smaller and weaker than average and the majority of them resent bigger guys to some extent and some of them even workout obsessively to become "more manly." I know there are female body builders so some women definitely value strength and muscle mass but it has not been my impression that most women do.

I would also ask, are there any women on here who are above average in strength and build who wish they were not?