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

[FifthView]

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

 

[Chessie]

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

Huh? wtf ever, really.

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

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

 

[glutton]

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

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

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

 

[FifthView]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chessie]

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

 

[Heliotrope]

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

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

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

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

So why don't we complain about that?

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

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

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

 

[Chessie]

Because dark is all the rage now.

 

[AElisabet]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[FifthView]

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

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

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

 

[Heliotrope]

^^

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

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

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

I just couldn't leave my little girl.

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

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

 

[FifthView]

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

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

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

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

 

[Nimue]

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

 

[AElisabet]

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

I think this is the real issue.

 

[cydare]

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

 

[AElisabet]

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

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

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

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

Really stepping away now.

 

[FifthView]

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

And yet, what I actually said was this:

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

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

 

[FifthView]

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

Really stepping away now.

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

 

[Chessie]

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

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

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

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

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

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

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

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

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

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

EW. NO.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

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

Ever heard of a 'strong male character?'

Didn't think so.