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

[Peat]

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

Sometimes Sometimes I want dumb mindless entertainment and these things can be more of a hindrance then. That's more of a film thing mind, but then so's the 'strong' female character, and I'd say her natural home are those films. Or maybe the comics that inspire so many of such films these days. Either way, she's a product of media types where frequently the capacity for violence is the most important measuring stick of the character's worth. 'Strong' female characters are the result of trying to give female characters agency in incredibly macho environments; either she's just as macho as the guys, or she's decoration. (Or they can put a bit of thought into it and find a middle way, but hey, this is dumb generic entertainment and thinking time cuts into time spent planning explosions).

The problem arises when it spreads beyond that to more considered, more ostensibly family-friendly action-adventures. Or maybe when dumb action movies become ostensibly family-friendly. One of those. Something. My brain ran out halfway through this post.

As pointed out, these sort of films rarely give men great characterisation either. But given macho men have better stereotypes than macho women and get to share them, its not such an issue. Someone needs to do an action movie script based around Valkyries. Or Amazons. Or the Amazons of Dahomey. Or something.


*pause* I do think these conversations are valuable though. I don't think its as simple as 'Just write the characters you want, it'll be fine'. Because

a) We pick up a surprising amount of biases and its good sometimes to sit back and have a bit of talk about the biases to see if it strikes any resonances. Although these 'strong' female character threads are a little more than sometimes at the moment.

b) Playing with tropes is a good way to manipulate one's audience and Hollywood's female leads shape expectations around Action Girls. And Fantasy literature has a fair amount of stories where Action Girls are the biggest proportion of non-decorative female roles.

 

[Miskatonic]

If the themes of the story revolve around analyzing questions such as "what constitutes a strong person?", in the context of a society, then getting into the more political/philosophical side of things makes plenty of sense. If the aim of the book is to analyze how women fit into the society you are creating then by all means ask these types of questions. If that isn't the focus or not even a remotely relevant theme then I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about it. You'll get plenty of feedback on the quality of your characters from the readers. Unless you are writing extremely stereotypical characters and are completely oblivious to this fact, you should be OK.

In my stories women are players on the big stage, just like men, and seldom (if ever) is their existence completely based upon what sex they were born as. Societal attitudes towards women will be present, varying from place to place, but that's because it's a realistic expectation when creating different cultures to demonstrate these things to some degree. I have physically dominate women, physically weak women, compassionate women, conniving and vindictive women, etc.

I don't think we should entirely avoid the political discussions about sex/gender, but just try and identify when it's actually relevant, because it can potentially have an adverse effect and perhaps keep people from writing a character a certain way because of a potential backlash.

 

[FifthView]

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.

Seems this post belongs in the "Developing a distinct character voice?" thread. :insertevillaughhere

It would fit great as an example of how to reveal information to a reader without revealing it to the 1st person narrator.

He'd been speaking a long time before I thought to pay attention. "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." He hates cake? Why was he telling me this. All I could think about was the fact that my best friend in the world had been murdered, I couldn't find the killer, and here he was talking about cake as if my friend's death wasn't important. The nerve. I couldn't care less that his wife had taken him to taste-test wedding cakes, and instead of telling her that he hated cakes, he was now telling me.

[Meanwhile, the reader will remember that two chapters earlier, the police inspector had mentioned to our 1st person narrator, among many other things, that pie crust crumbs had been found at the murder scene....]​

 

[Annoyingkid]

I agree with this 100%. Somewhere along the way writers forgot that female characters are actually female and not men with breasts.

Well no, you don't agree 100%, because AElisabet, never called these characters "men with breasts", whatever that's supposed to mean. She was criticising the typical disdain of femininity in the strong female character trope. That's all. Masculinity =/= a man.

I could imagine a good scenario for a mother taking her child on a dangerous adventure - she is an extremely powerful warrior to the point of being vital for success, but doesn't trust anyone else to care for her child in case the bad guys decide they want to kidnap or harm the child to get to her. Maybe have some paranoia and/or hubris thrown in there... xd

I don't understand why you would have a child if you were vital. I mean disciplined enough to become an extremely powerful warrior, but not disciplined enough to ignore baby cravings?

 

[glutton]

I don't understand why you would have a child if you were vital.

She might not have known the country or whatever would be direly threatened when she had the child.

I mean disciplined enough to become an extremely powerful warrior, but not disciplined enough to ignore baby cravings?

Is there something wrong with having a child during peacetime just because you are a powerful warrior?

 

[glutton]

Well no, you don't agree 100%, because AElisabet, never called these characters "men with breasts", whatever that's supposed to mean. She was criticising the typical disdain of femininity in the strong female character trope. That's all. Masculinity =/= a man.

Pretty sure it wasn't meant to be literal.

 

[Annoyingkid]

She might not have known the country or whatever would be direly threatened when she had the child.

The conversation for most of the topic has been about the everywoman mother who has a child as part of daily life, has the sudden call to adventure and goes of with the kid cos she has to, which is understandable. But now we're talking about a professional warrior who's at such a high level she's vital to a war effort. It's her entire job to be prepared for the possibility of war. Surely.

Pretty sure it wasn't meant to be literal.

He specifically said writers forget that female characters are not men with breasts. That's literally saying female characters are not legit females if they "act like a man."

Is there something wrong with having a child during peacetime just because you are a powerful warrior?

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.

 

[glutton]

The conversation for most of the topic has been about the everywoman mother who has a child as part of daily life, has the sudden call to adventure and goes of with the kid cos she has to, which is understandable. But now we're talking about a professional warrior who's at such a high level she's vital to a war effort. It's her entire job to be prepared for the possibility of war. Surely.



He specifically said writers forget that female characters are not men with breasts. That's literally saying female characters are not legit females if they "act like a man."


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.

There are plenty of super powerful/skilled characters in fiction who aren't even employed by a specific nation or major faction, or are the head of their own faction and might just want to have a kid. Thinking this singlemindedly about it is just strange.

 

[Annoyingkid]

There are plenty of super powerful/skilled characters in fiction who aren't even employed by a specific nation or major faction, or are the head of their own faction and might just want to have a kid. Thinking this singlemindedly about it is just strange.

How many of those characters are female and how many are vital to a war effort out of presumably thousands of guys?

 

[glutton]

How many of those characters are female and how many are vital to a war effort out of presumably thousands of guys?

The original mention of this was about an adventure not specifically a 'war effort involving thousands of guys', and this is truly one of the weirdest arguments I have encountered lately.

 

[Annoyingkid]

The original mention of this was about an adventure not specifically a 'war effort involving thousands of guys', and this is truly one of the weirdest arguments I have encountered lately.

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.

The original quote.

I could imagine a good scenario for a mother taking her child on a dangerous adventure - she is an extremely powerful warrior to the point of being vital for success.

If she's vital for success on any adventure that means she's a better candidate than thousands of guys. If her children are actually safer with her in a battle than with other people who aren't, that means she is the big gun. My point stands.

actually back up your argument and explain why it's weird.

 

[glutton]

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.

The original quote.
I could imagine a good scenario for a mother taking her child on a dangerous adventure - she is an extremely powerful warrior to the point of being vital for success.

If she's vital for success on any adventure that means she's a better candidate than thousands of guys. If her children are actually safer with her in a battle than with other people who aren't, that means she is the big gun. My point stands.

actually back up your argument and explain why it's weird.

It's weird because the only way she is obligated to follow your very specific notions is if she is a knight or member of a military that will enforce your idea. If she's a mercenary, freelancer adventurer, queen or princess of her nation, outlaw etc. then who is likely to make her act in the way you describe? Even if she is in a military they would not necessarily refuse to let her have children, only if they are as draconian as you wish. This is about as singleminded a devotion to your own idea as it gets.

 

[Annoyingkid]

It's weird because the only way she is obligated to follow your very specific notions is if she is a knight or member of a military that will enforce your idea. If she's a mercenary, freelancer adventure, queen or princess of her nation, outlaw etc. then who is likely to make her act in the way you describe? Even if she is in a military they would not necessarily refuse to let her have children.

I don't see how profession is relevant. If the person's available to be hired than that's a deterrent. If they're heavily pregnant and they're not, they can't interfere with my plans so that's when I'm attacking.

It only comes down to if this warrior cares about the nation within which they live.

 

[glutton]

I don't see how profession is relevant. If the person's available to be hired than that's a deterrent. If they're heavily pregnant and they're not, they can't interfere with my plans so that's when I'm attacking.

It only comes down to if this warrior cares about the nation within which they live.

They can care about it without caring so much and being so paranoid about opportunistic enemies that they force themselves not to have children throughout the entirety of their career, which would probably also include all of their childbearing years. If nothing else, they might also want to pass down their awesome warrior genes.

Plus if they're a princess/queen/noble some people just MIGHT want them to help continue the family line...

I just don't understand why you are so adamant about your idea being the 'only' way to do things.

 

[Annoyingkid]

They can care about it without caring so much and being so paranoid about opportunistic enemies that they force themselves not to have children throughout the entirety of their career, which would probably also include all of their childbearing years. If nothing else, they might also want to pass down their awesome warrior genes.

Plus if they're a princess/queen/noble some people just MIGHT want them to help continue the family line...

I just don't understand why you are so adamant about your idea being the 'only' way to do things.

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.

 

[glutton]

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.

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

I think maybe I should back off on this and see if you are this forceful about all your opinions on 'the one right way' characters/stories should be written, or only fixated on this particular issue.

But really this is probably the strongest suggestion of 'One Right Way' I've seen on this site.

 

[Queshire]

From a story telling perspective, the type of high level warriors you seem to be talking about could be considered effectively Human Weapons. However the thing with Human Weapons is that you need to remember the human part, if you just treat them as only weapons... Well, that's a good way to get a pissed off uber warrior aimed at you.

Now, if the warrior herself or her culture decides to avoid having any children out of a sense of duty, hey! That'd make an interesting character or culture in a story! Presuming that every one of them everywhere would choose that is completely unrealistic.

I mean, wasn't this thread started about a dislike of the stereotypical real-women-don't-wear-dresses style "Strong Female" character? It's sweeping generalizations like that which lead to such generic character types being created. =/

 

[Sheilawisz]

Hello Annoyingkid.

First of all, Welcome to Mythic Scribes. This is a place in which we try to be as friendly and civil as possible, something like an island of peace in the sea of hostility that the Internet has become.

When new members post at the Introductions Forum before engaging into discussions or arguments, we appreciate it a lot.

You are new, so I wanted to ask you to please check out the Mythic Scribes Forum Guidelines that can be found right here.

Have a great day!

Sheilawisz

 

[ascanius]

Well no, you don't agree 100%, because AElisabet, never called these characters "men with breasts", whatever that's supposed to mean. She was criticising the typical disdain of femininity in the strong female character trope. That's all. Masculinity =/= a man.

No, sorry I meant exactly that 100%, fine she didn't say men with breasts, big deal. The idea is the same, disdain of femininity in strong female characters, and me (men with breasts bit) lack of femininity in strong female characters. 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.

He specifically said writers forget that female characters are not men with breasts. That's literally saying female characters are not legit females if they "act like a man."

Again no.

definition of Literal
1.
in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical:
the literal meaning of a word
2...

Literally
1.
in the literal or strict sense: She failed to grasp the metaphor and interpreted the poem literally.
What does the word mean literally?
2....

You literally said, and I quote. 'That's literally saying female characters are not legit females if they "act like a man."'

The 'men with breasts' is a metaphor for a lack of femininity in the strong female character trope.. so I never literally said anything that you have construed. Now, I think the word you are looking for is implied, as in. that's implying female characters are not legitimate females of they "act like a man." This makes more sense....yet it doesn't. It doesn't because based of the context of the thread and everything else I have posted it would be more logical to come to the conclusion that I am implying that the sole presence of breasts is not sufficient for a 'legit' female.

 

[Russ]

I don't understand why you would have a child if you were vital. I mean disciplined enough to become an extremely powerful warrior, but not disciplined enough to ignore baby cravings?

What an interesting, if sexist approach. This same logic pretty much applies to men then doesn't it? For a powerful woman warrior, the period of "vulnerability" due to pregnancy might last say 9 months more than for a man? A male parent is just as vulnerable to an attack on his children as is a female parent in a purely utilitarian sense is he not?

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.