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

[Miskatonic]

The OP was this:
>Is it unfair to dislike characters because they are "strong" female characters?

The answer is: yes.

And you base this on what exactly?

 

[AElisabet]

Kate Elliot has a good article here on writing female characters:

Writing Women Characters as Human Beings | Tor.com

She touches on pretty much everything in this thread, including how to avoid using stock female characters as a replacement for genuine character development (which is what is at the heart of the issue many people have with the Strong Female Character).

She also covers the problem of claiming pseudo-"medievalism" - relying on uninformed and preconceived notions of "life back then" as opposed to engaging the possibilities and complexity of pre-industrial societies - as a poor excuse for limiting the roles of female characters written into in those settings. Saying "but it's realistically medieval" is a common way to dismiss or resist varied female characterization, or to justify overly violent treatment of female characters, and almost never has a solid basis in the realities and possibilities of living in a pre-industrial society.

What it comes down to is no matter what kind of characters and/or setting you have, think them out, be creative, and don't fall back on easy tropes or preconceived notions of what is "realistic", because what is perceived to be "realistic" is generally far more limited than actual reality. Characters of all genders and types should have complex motivations, from action girls to mothers to sexy love interests to brooding male warriors. And created worlds should be complex enough to incorporate at minimum the many and often crazy variations of "realistic" that show up in our own world and history. I think this becomes especially true when writing about women, who often bear the brunt of stock characterization (the "Strong Female Character") and the limitations of poorly imagined "medieval" settings that ignore the actual complexities of real pre-industrial life in the name of "realism".

 

[Miskatonic]

What I don't understand is why asking these types of questions is even necessary. Are you afraid you are committing some kind of thought crime? Who cares what other people think. You don't owe anyone an explanation in order to defend what you like and don't like.

 

[Guy]

What I don't understand is why asking these types of questions is even necessary. Are you afraid you are committing some kind of thought crime? Who cares what other people think. You don't owe anyone an explanation in order to defend what you like and don't like.

I, too, am utterly baffled by this as well as why so many people find writing female characters so difficult.

 

[glutton]

I think the criticized dichotomy between 'strong' and 'feminine' often implied by depictions of 'strong female characters' is at least in part an artifact of pseudo-realism where writers think a character needs to eschew traditionally feminine traits in order to come off as a credible warrior/action girl etc. It's not necessary, deeds speak louder than having a 'male-like' attitude.

The princess in my current WIP wears dresses, a bunch of jewelry, high heels and cosmetics, spends a long time fixing her hair, goes on day-long shopping trips, expresses a desire to ride a horse-drawn cab just to go a few blocks because her heels are hurting her feet, etc. but in her prime (she's pretending to have become complacent now), Gregor the Mountain would probably be intimidated from being in the same room with her if he knew who she was. The Ogre-Hime nickname given to her by a foreign diplomat isn't meant to be ironic... she also dislikes it because it draws attention to her less conventionally attractive traits.

She does have massive arms and shoulders for her height that make it hard for her to find clothes that fit comfortably during those lengthy shopping trips, but that doesn't preclude being feminine either. She's a girly monster lol.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I, too, am utterly baffled by this as well as why so many people find writing female characters so difficult.

It's fascinating.
I think it says a lot about both people in general and about our culture and the world we live in. I'm not entirely sure what it says, or if my understanding is right or wrong, but it's still interesting to muse on.

I think that understanding things like this can be really helpful for us as writers - and in general as well.

 

[FifthView]

Kate Elliot has a good article here on writing female characters:

Writing Women Characters as Human Beings | Tor.com

She touches on pretty much everything in this thread, including how to avoid using stock female characters as a replacement for genuine character development (which is what is at the heart of the issue many people have with the Strong Female Character).

She also covers the problem of claiming pseudo-"medievalism" - relying on uninformed and preconceived notions of "life back then" as opposed to engaging the possibilities and complexity of pre-industrial societies - as a poor excuse for limiting the roles of female characters written into in those settings. Saying "but it's realistically medieval" is a common way to dismiss or resist varied female characterization, or to justify overly violent treatment of female characters, and almost never has a solid basis in the realities and possibilities of living in a pre-industrial society.

What it comes down to is no matter what kind of characters and/or setting you have, think them out, be creative, and don't fall back on easy tropes or preconceived notions of what is "realistic", because what is perceived to be "realistic" is generally far more limited than actual reality. Characters of all genders and types should have complex motivations, from action girls to mothers to sexy love interests to brooding male warriors. And created worlds should be complex enough to incorporate at minimum the many and often crazy variations of "realistic" that show up in our own world and history. I think this becomes especially true when writing about women, who often bear the brunt of stock characterization (the "Strong Female Character") and the limitations of poorly imagined "medieval" settings that ignore the actual complexities of real pre-industrial life in the name of "realism".

That's a great article and it speaks to the point about a mindset that allows and promotes thinking of varied roles for women in fantasy and how giving them agency is one of the key considerations.

It also discusses what I think is an accurate stumbling block to doing this: pre-conceived and incorrect notions about "life back then" in the name of being "realistic."

But what it DOESN'T do is address motherhood in a complex way; i.e.,

Be cautious with the popular Mother Figure, for as I once described the film Immortals: Men can aspire to be divine. Women can aspire to have sons who can grow up to be men who can aspire to be divine.​

Yes, the stereotypical view that the only significant role for women is being a mother (and, mother of heroes) is a ridiculous limitation when all women are shoved into that role.

Otherwise, the article is mostly about female characters in general and not much about motherhood.

When discussing incorrect notions about "life back then," she gave this, which is NOT about motherhood per se:

Consider discussions of age of marriage in the European Middle Ages and what some readers consider realistic in fiction set in a “medieval-like” fantasy. I occasionally see the vociferously argued position that back in those days all girls married at 14 to 16 and therefore if a fantasy world shows women getting married in their 20s it is nothing more than a sop to modern sensibilities.​

I would not conflate incorrect notions about the age of marriage with what it means to be a mother. Naturally, the idea that all women were married at 14 and mothers at 14/15 would say something incorrect about motherhood by extension; but it doesn't address the complex roles of motherhood, the extra hardships and limitations mothers would experience, and so forth.

And get this: In supporting her example about fallacious ideas about the age of marriage for women in medieval times, she quotes someone she believes to be an authority on the matter who says, among other things, the following:

There were many many single women and men, i.e. people who never married (in part for economic reasons). ​

This is an acknowledgement that, as in our own world, raising a family would be expensive.

She also mentions elsewhere that "As always, everywhere, working class and poor women have to work, to haul water, to run businesses, to sell in the marketplace. No matter what other constraints these women live under, they partake in the tasks that make society function." One of her primary points in mentioning this and other examples is important: Regardless of role, women could have agency. That means even under those constraints, they could think and act. But this is addressing women in general. This is not saying that motherhood is in no way, shape or form a constraint.

As for your comment that,

Saying "but it's realistically medieval" is a common way to dismiss or resist varied female characterization, or to justify overly violent treatment of female characters, and almost never has a solid basis in the realities and possibilities of living in a pre-industrial society.

I would agree that such an argument can be used to dismiss serious thought about the many roles women can fill in a fantasy novel. But it is not always such an argument. I will give you examples directly from Kate Elliott's essay about using "realism" (my bold):

"Women and girls talk to other women and girls A LOT. If you are writing a hard-shelled patriarchal society, this is going to be even more true rather than less true, and in such a case your story will be less realistic if the female characters in the narrative only ever talk to or interact with men."

"In virtually all societies historically there have been both women and men present. Really, it’s true."

"As always, everywhere, working class and poor women have to work, to haul water, to run businesses, to sell in the marketplace."

"Furthermore, people with fewer direct avenues to power and influence have always had ways of digging around obstacles, cobbling together leverage, or acting privately through the public agency of others. "

"extensive land-holding by women in the ancient world, a woman running a business, or a king’s daughter fighting on the battlefield [all attested in the historical record]"​

So as you see, Kate Elliot can freely make statements about "life back then" (or indeed, about "always, everywhere.")

What she's arguing against is a simplistic, stereotypical and incorrect understanding of "life back then."

Bringing up fallacious use of "life back then" as if it means every use of historical realities is a vile constraint on would-be writers is not helpful.

My own personal opinion is that a mother character from a poorer class would be far, far more interesting if those responsibilities (personally assigned by herself, and/or cultural expectations) and difficulties are actually considered when creating that character. It would make a more textured, multidimensional characer—"How does she overcome these things? How does she feel about these things? What are the significant forces or motivators that prompt her to take on new, vital responsibilities on top of her role as mother?" That's potentially so much more interesting to me than not even asking those questions.

 

[Miskatonic]

I, too, am utterly baffled by this as well as why so many people find writing female characters so difficult.

The problem is the way in which these questions are framed. It's always in some sort of sociopolitical context instead of the context of telling a story as a creative medium. Take the "strong female" character for example. It's focused less on creating the character and more on trying to adhere to some set of rules established by group x,y,z.

I'd rather just focus on how to create interesting characters and not automatically associate aspects of the character with sociopolitical topics and discussions. The readers are the ones who will ultimately form an opinion about the character based on their own values and viewpoints.

 

[glutton]

The problem is the way in which these questions are framed. It's always in some sort of sociopolitical context instead of the context of telling a story as a creative medium. Take the "strong female" character for example. It's focused less on creating the character and more on trying to adhere to some set of rules established by group x,y,z.

I'd rather just focus on how to create interesting characters and not automatically associate aspects of the character with sociopolitical topics and discussions. The readers are the ones who will ultimately form an opinion about the character based on their own values and viewpoints.

People also seem more overly focused on 'realism' when it comes to female characters as opposed to male characters, you'll see plenty of questions about how one can make even an unexceptionable female warrior 'believable' while there are tons of male characters who can take a small army single-handedly and very few questions about how to make such a character believable when that is just as unreal.

I like the term 'unapologetically strong' ie. free to be just as unrestrained as the more over-the-top male characters and without being bound by 'rules' like having to act masculine or not overshadow a male hero.

 

[Nimue]

Bringing up fallacious use of "life back then" as if it means every use of historical realities is a vile male-dominated hegemonic voice constraining would-be writers is not helpful.

Certainly, when you take it to that extreme. However, is it really incomprehensible to you that someone, encountering a dismissive remark about how an adventuring mother character couldn't realistically be done, might be inspired to say "F**k it, it can be done and I'll do it"? I think that's a pretty natural response and one that leads down some interesting creative avenues.

To be honest, I've seen a hundred narrower hoops jumped through to get a peasant boy on a world-saving adventure than those you would need to put a traveling mother of two on the page.

So here you are, feeling mightily insulted that your authority on medieval life has not been accepted to its full breadth, and more than one person on the other side is feeling dismissed and belittled by the idea that mothers cannot realistically achieve things besides mothering. Is it impossible to understand the emotions and reasoning at work? Do tone and implication only work one way?

Of course they do, on the internet. But I kinda thought better of you, Fifth.

My own personal opinion is that a mother character from a poorer class would be far, far more interesting if those responsibilities (personally assigned by herself, and/or cultural expectations) and difficulties are actually considered when creating that character. It would make a more textured, multidimensional characer–"How does she overcome these things? How does she feel about these things? What are the significant forces or motivators that prompt her to take on new, vital responsibilities on top of her role as mother?" That's potentially so much more interesting to me than not even asking those questions.

This is a better statement than how you came across before. But I don't believe people weren't asking those questions. I think they were saying that in the end, the answer to those questions can be, at least one time out of a myriad of situations, setups, and cultures, yes, it's possible.

 

[FifthView]

No Nimue, I'm mightily insulted that my many explanations of my views, my many comments about how, yes, mothers in fantasies can do something other than stay at home, and so forth, are considered to be irrelevant signs of some subterfuge utilised by someone wanting to limit what others may write.

There is a forum guideline somewhere about handling volatile topics which says we should strive to see and acknowledge the views of others even if we disagree. I have bent over backwards to do this, and what I get in return is a continual accusation that my goal is to tell people how they must write their fictional mothers when that was never my intent, as I've said repeatedly.

 

[glutton]

On another note, I think this kind of stuff is often handled fairly well in anime and video games. In those you'll often have female characters who are very strong (not 'strong'/'strong for a woman' but actually impressive in the overall context) without the creator jumping through hoops to try and justify it (by making them act like a man with breasts for example). So they are 'unapologetically strong'. There are still plenty of examples of them not being allowed to overshadow the male hero but then again, male supporting characters often aren't allowed to overshadow a female MC either. And even then it's not too uncommon for them to outshine the male MC in gameplay, 'unrestrained' style XD

 

[Miskatonic]

People also seem more overly focused on 'realism' when it comes to female characters as opposed to male characters, you'll see plenty of questions about how one can make even an unexceptionable female warrior 'believable' while there are tons of male characters who can take a small army single-handedly and very few questions about how to make such a character believable when that is just as unreal.

I like the term 'unapologetically strong' ie. free to be just as unrestrained as the more over-the-top male characters and without being bound by 'rules' like having to act masculine or not overshadow a male hero.

When it comes to the idea of a strong female I would first like to know what is it about her being strong (or weak for that matter) that is necessary for the story the person is trying to tell? Why is that factor important above any other? The fact that she's "strong" doesn't really tell me all that much about the story itself or her place in it.

After you've finished reading the book is the time when you can look back and reflect and say "Wow she really was a strong person to go through so much and make it out alive", or whatever the impression was the character made on you.

 

[glutton]

When it comes to the idea of a strong female I would first like to know what is it about her being strong (or weak for that matter) that is necessary for the story the person is trying to tell? Why is that factor important above any other? The fact that she's "strong" doesn't really tell me all that much about the story itself or her place in it.

After you've finished reading the book is the time when you can look back and reflect and say "Wow she really was a strong person to go through so much and make it out alive", or whatever the impression was the character made on you.

Well most of my stories are meant to be cathartic fun action stories first and foremost (like many anime and most video games as mentioned above) and being concerned with keeping the heroines more 'restrained' than male heroes would often be an unnecessary complication to that in my view. Plus not as subjectively fun.

 

[Heliotrope]

My own personal opinion is that a mother character from a poorer class would be far, far more interesting if those responsibilities (personally assigned by herself, and/or cultural expectations) and difficulties are actually considered when creating that character. It would make a more textured, multidimensional characer–"How does she overcome these things? How does she feel about these things? What are the significant forces or motivators that prompt her to take on new, vital responsibilities on top of her role as mother?" That's potentially so much more interesting to me than not even asking those questions.

I know this post has sort of cooled down now, and I hate to revive a dead horse, but because I have a ton of respect for FifthView, I wanted to come back and re-read and try to understand his posts, and I wanted to respond to his posts publically, again, because I have a lot of respect for him and he and I have had some pretty solid conversations.

@FifthView, this quote, I think, sums up everything you are saying perfectly. And I think you actually have a lot really interesting feminist view points in this entire post... because what I get out of this is that you are totally respecting the 'mother' and how she is different than 'man with boobs' or 'man with baby'. You are respecting that there is some serious extra work that goes into mothering, and to include this in the character would be rounding her out, showing that women (especially mothers) have different things that they must deal with than men do. I actually applaude you for this post! Thank-you!

So in essence, what I think you are saying is that "look, obviously women are different then men, and obviously mothers are different then kidless women, and obviously fathers are different than kidless men, and obvoiusly adopted parent are different again, and grandparents are different again... why not celebrate those individual differences and hardships and struggles instead of glossing over them?" - I think this is what you are saying and I love that so much, because it is true.

Sometimes I do feel like the feminist movement has made a mistake in saying that women are just "men with boobs" and should be treated as such. It's not true. We aren't. We have something distinct about us that is very different than men, and we make different choices and have different opportunities. We do. And I think you are saying that that needs to be respected, and I agree with you.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I would say pretty much all advocacy groups/movements will do harm while doing good while having even better intentions, in part because they tend to be headed by like-minded people involved in groupthink (beware the echo chamber) and because of the "lumping" of large, diverse groups together... and because politics and power gets involved, that's the ultimate kicker. But that is for a much different conversation, LOL.

I know this post has sort of cooled down now, and I hate to revive a dead horse, but because I have a ton of respect for FifthView, I wanted to come back and re-read and try to understand his posts, and I wanted to respond to his posts publically, again, because I have a lot of respect for him and he and I have had some pretty solid conversations.

@FifthView, this quote, I think, sums up everything you are saying perfectly. And I think you actually have a lot really interesting feminist view points in this entire post... because what I get out of this is that you are totally respecting the 'mother' and how she is different than 'man with boobs' or 'man with baby'. You are respecting that there is some serious extra work that goes into mothering, and to include this in the character would be rounding her out, showing that women (especially mothers) have different things that they must deal with than men do. I actually applaude you for this post! Thank-you!

So in essence, what I think you are saying is that "look, obviously women are different then men, and obviously mothers are different then kidless women, and obviously fathers are different than kidless men, and obvoiusly adopted parent are different again, and grandparents are different again... why not celebrate those individual differences and hardships and struggles instead of glossing over them?" - I think this is what you are saying and I love that so much, because it is true.

Sometimes I do feel like the feminist movement has made a mistake in saying that women are just "men with boobs" and should be treated as such. It's not true. We aren't. We have something distinct about us that is very different than men, and we make different choices and have different opportunities. We do. And I think you are saying that that needs to be respected, and I agree with you.

 

[Guy]

The problem is the way in which these questions are framed. It's always in some sort of sociopolitical context instead of the context of telling a story as a creative medium. Take the "strong female" character for example. It's focused less on creating the character and more on trying to adhere to some set of rules established by group x,y,z.

I'd rather just focus on how to create interesting characters and not automatically associate aspects of the character with sociopolitical topics and discussions. The readers are the ones who will ultimately form an opinion about the character based on their own values and viewpoints.

Agreed. Like I said, strong females are among my favorite characters, but when I write them, social or political statements are the farthest from my mind. I'm just trying to tell a good story with well-developed characters. Just because she's strong doesn't mean she doesn't mourn or cry, and it doesn't mean she can't enjoy her lover sweeping her off her feet, or wearing nice gowns. In other words, I try to make them actual human beings. I never got why that was so hard.

 

[AElisabet]

My own personal opinion is that a mother character from a poorer class would be far, far more interesting if those responsibilities (personally assigned by herself, and/or cultural expectations) and difficulties are actually considered when creating that character. It would make a more textured, multidimensional characer—"How does she overcome these things? How does she feel about these things? What are the significant forces or motivators that prompt her to take on new, vital responsibilities on top of her role as mother?" That's potentially so much more interesting to me than not even asking those questions.

But this we all can agree on - if this had been your first post, there would have been no heat. We all want to ask these kind of questions of every character.

I can be intemperate myself, and I could have phrased some of my responses better. But phrases like "Motherhood is time consuming" frequently get used to dismiss women, particularly professional women. "Because it is Medieval" and "realism" is a very common way to dismiss variety in the portrayal of female roles in fantasy (as has been noted in many other places), along with justifying gratuitous violence against women, while absolving the writer of responsibility for their imagined setting. And "return to our regular programming" - yikes, I don't even know how to interpret that but with hackles. Especially in the larger context of a genre that has historically had a tense relationship with issues of gender and sexism. I'm not saying you are sexist, or that anyone else here is, but that sexism exists in spades in fandoms, sometimes very openly, and so when someone says something like that with no other context, it should be understandable that the gut reaction is visceral - even if you did not intend it as an insult.

I know, I know, being PC is a pain. But it is really just about considering words, knowing how those words are frequently used to marginalize people, and engaging ideas rather than dismissing them. (And I know I can be a failure in "using words" department as well - everyone can always get better at it). That isn't an angry agenda driven thing to say, or a particularly unique thing, to say; it's something both women and men in the context of fantasy say all the time.

So that is why I responded the way I did. Re-reading some of my posts, my tone was not always the best, and some of my words were written quickly and not clearly, and I can see where they were misconstrued and found offensive. Many of them were directed at writers and fiction in general and not at you personally, and written out of frustration as a reader. So I am sorry for that. I hate internet arguments.

I think everyone wants the same things; well thought out characters and settings, and the openness to be creative.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Personally, I don't think twice about how any character is portrayed, they are who they in the story. They all have strengths, they all have weaknesses... that said, death to PC... heh heh.

 

[Devor]

Me: "I don't like cake. Yeah, sometimes, if it's nice and creamy and is really well done it can be good. But most cakes are tasteless puff bread with wet sugar spread on top. Give me a pie any day."

My Wife: "I love cake. But it's got to be good cake. I'm a total cake snob. There's nothing better than a good cake. I can't believe he doesn't like cake. Who doesn't like cake?"

Our actual taste preferences: Nearly identical, especially proven when we were taste-testing cakes for our wedding.

Sometimes you just have to see past the conversation.