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

[Russ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Russ]

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

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

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

 

[valiant12]

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

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

 

[Annoyingkid]

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

That's not my position. No, she can have a child. However, in any game of chess, you don't just take the queen off the board without preparing for it first. You prepare your defences, then you can take her off.

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

If on the other hand if she had the attitude that it's all just gonna work itself out and people are just being paranoid, I'd wonder how she even survived this long. I would dislike her probably.

Now there are varying degrees in between those, but the bottom line is I don't want to see the character behave as if they know the author will save them.

----------------
ascanius

Men with breasts because the only thing that makes the character feminine are breasts, otherwise they could be a male character for all intents and purposes. Thus they lack any sort of femininity aside from breasts. Really, I don't see why this needs explaining again. We were saying the same thing just differently.

Being feminine doesn't make you a woman, so I don't follow you. Could they be a male character for all intents and purposes? I would say no. A woman performing a masculine action has different subtext to a man doing the same. By default. Because the sexes are perceived differently in our society.

I'm not interested in going back and forth with semantics. You believe that being a legit female is something a character must earn by being feminine enough. That is fundamentally not true.

Russ. said;

This same logic pretty much applies to men then doesn't it?

Maybe. The difference is of course that Men don't bear children, so men wouldn't be compromised physically as a warrior by the reproduction process.

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

I wouldn't say any one human warrior has ever been vital historically. In reality there's a clear separation between leaders and fighters. Leaders are vital, but no one warrior is, so why would they ignore their urges? Leaders are just there for their brains, so it doesn't matter if they ignored their urges or not.

---

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

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

Under my reckoning, if they've progressed to the point that they're vital and renowned, or powerful to the point that kids are safer in a battle with them then at home, than Ima assume that stuff has been tried and hasn't worked. That's a reasonable assumption to me. If I was a villain it's not like I left her alone up till now and suddenly I'm going to attack. No. I would have tried many methods beforehand, and if this warriors a persistant pain in my ass that won't die, why wouldn't i attack when she's pregnant? As long as she's off the field being pregnant I'm happy, cos I can more military gains against her allies. If she actually comes on battlefield pregnant, I'll be all thank you! I'll take that! Total gift. I finally get to kill this person.

Back to the chess analogy. If the queen isn't able to come after me, I can make greater progress elsewhere on the board.

People will fight harder to defend a pregnant woman or a woman with a child than they might otherwise.You seem to think about real people as chess pieces or if they are in video game, they are not.

Of course. That's why they call it "war-games". Second, I don't buy it. It's a stretch to think her being pregnant is gonna make them fight notably harder than they otherwise would. They already have families and loved ones of their own to fight for. I don't see her pregnancy having an impact that way. But in terms of morale, if I was a bad guy and you're asking me to choose between her actually present at the battle and in fighting condition vs her not there and pregnant, Or there but not fighting, that's a no brainer. Any of the latter.

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

They may have attended the battles. But they were not literally at the front. They acted as generals and tacticians. And they certainly didn't send the women who they wanted an heir from to the battle. which was mentioned in his post.

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

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

The US military is active 24/7. Soldiers are rotated on leave, and of course these soldiers are not vital as individuals, but that doesn't make it peacetie. The military is monitoring and stamping out small scale conflicts all the time. We think it's peace because we don't see it. It's a false analogy to think of a vital fantasy warrior special character as comparable to one real human soldier elite. It's much more accurate to think of that warrior as comparable with an entire branch of the US military. That would be classed as a vital part of the army. So unless you reorganize the military to compensate, you can't just have that branch cease activities. Even during what a civilian would call peacetime.

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

There are different levels of villains. Some can't hurt Superman others can. It's not really an issue.

In my story, the bandits just stay out of her state, work on the other states, keep your crimes on a level that they're beneath her notice and won't rouse her to war, but do so many of them, that you still destabilize society and one person can't do much about it. A bandit could outright murder someone and as long as it's not someone of very high rank that won't get her to react.

Unfortunately for them she has a brother. But that's off topic.

 

[glutton]

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

 

[skip.knox]

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

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

 

[ascanius]

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

 

[Annoyingkid]

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

That's an outright lie.

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

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

If on the other hand if she had the attitude that it's all just gonna work itself out and people are just being paranoid, I'd wonder how she even survived this long. I would dislike her probably.

Now there are varying degrees in between those, but the bottom line is I don't want to see the character behave as if they know the author will save them.

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

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

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

 

[glutton]

That's an outright lie.

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

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

If on the other hand if she had the attitude that it's all just gonna work itself out and people are just being paranoid, I'd wonder how she even survived this long. I would dislike her probably.

Now there are varying degrees in between those, but the bottom line is I don't want to see the character behave as if they know the author will save them.

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

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

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

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

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

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

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

 

[Russ]

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

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

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

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

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

I could go into more detail, but why bother?

 

[FifthView]

If on the other hand if she had the attitude that it's all just gonna work itself out and people are just being paranoid, I'd wonder how she even survived this long. I would dislike her probably.

Now there are varying degrees in between those, but the bottom line is I don't want to see the character behave as if they know the author will save them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[glutton]

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

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

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

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

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

Under my reckoning,

than Ima assume that stuff has been tried and hasn't worked.

That's a reasonable assumption to me.

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

 

[FifthView]

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

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

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

 

[Russ]

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

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

Like saying historical leaders didn't lead from the front

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

or suggesting that for real warriors there is no peace time

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

I could go on.

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

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

 

[glutton]

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

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

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

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

 

[skip.knox]

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

 

[Reaver]

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[fantastic]

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

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

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

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