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

[Russ]

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.

Two quick thoughts:

1) the whole idea is to make things hard for the protagonist and obstacles can be internal or external

2) did anyone suggest that a pregnant woman fighting is not affected by it?

 

[FifthView]

I don't believe that positing a female warrior who maintains readiness by avoiding pregnancy, in order to be able to fight at any moment's notice in top form, necessarily springs from a sexist POV. But I do believe that's only one type of warrior and one type of situation (being "always ready"), and may be a very narrow consideration that ignores other potentials. Within that situation, sure, the avoidance of pregnancy might make great sense. (And surely she could make such a decision for herself.)

I don't believe that asking the question, Why would this pregnant female warrior be chosen to fight rather than a thousand available male warriors? is a sexist question. I actually think it's a very good question that ought to be answered. It's like asking Why would this young teenage wizard be chosen to fight and defeat the Big Bad Guy when so many older, more proficient wizards, and probably more powerful wizards exist to take on that task? There's Harry Potter; and yet, there's Dumbledore. Asking the question is important, because then we can approach an answer that will make sense to the reader. (Harry has a connection to Voldemort; Harry is a horcrux; a prophecy has already determined it's Harry or Voldemort at the end; etc.) So asking the question, Why this pregnant warrior? will lead us to the answers that will make the story more interesting. (Maybe there aren't any male warriors left; they've already been killed in 25 years' worth of war. Or maybe her bloodline is the only bloodline able to kill the villain who is immune to attack from any other source. Or maybe no one else sees the threat; every man and other woman laughs at her; and she takes up the task herself. Or any number of reasons.)

 

[glutton]

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.

It's besides the point that the prince is favored by default with no other details, it's disingenuous if I make up extra stuff to support the prince.

Also the idea was originally about a woman with children who fights not a woman who fights while actually pregnant.

 

[glutton]

I don't believe that positing a female warrior who maintains readiness by avoiding pregnancy, in order to be able to fight at any moment's notice in top form, necessarily springs from a sexist POV. But I do believe that's only one type of warrior and one type of situation (being "always ready"), and may be a very narrow consideration that ignores other potentials. Within that situation, sure, the avoidance of pregnancy might make great sense. (And surely she could make such a decision for herself.)

I don't believe that asking the question, Why would this pregnant female warrior be chosen to fight rather than a thousand available male warriors? is a sexist question. I actually think it's a very good question that ought to be answered. It's like asking Why would this young teenage wizard be chosen to fight and defeat the Big Bad Guy when so many older, more proficient wizards, and probably more powerful wizards exist to take on that task? There's Harry Potter; and yet, there's Dumbledore. Asking the question is important, because then we can approach an answer that will make sense to the reader. (Harry has a connection to Voldemort; Harry is a horcrux; a prophecy has already determined it's Harry or Voldemort at the end; etc.) So asking the question, Why this pregnant warrior? will lead us to the answers that will make the story more interesting. (Maybe there aren't any male warriors left; they've already been killed in 25 years' worth of war. Or maybe her bloodline is the only bloodline able to kill the villain who is immune to attack from any other source. Or maybe no one else sees the threat; every man and other woman laughs at her; and she takes up the task herself. Or any number of reasons.)

It was originally about a woman with children who fought, a currently pregnant woman who fights is a step beyond that in temrs of difficulty to justify.

 

[fantastic]

It's besides the point that the prince is favored by default with no other details, it's disingenuous if I make up extra stuff to support the prince.

Also the idea was originally about a woman with children who fights not a woman who fights while actually pregnant.

It is not besides the point. One requires you make up extra stuff, the other does not.

That explains some things. But even so, it requires a much better explanation than a woman who is not with a child.

Two quick thoughts:

1) the whole idea is to make things hard for the protagonist and obstacles can be internal or external

2) did anyone suggest that a pregnant woman fighting is not affected by it?

That is true. But if the woman needs to fight opponents, there already exists an obstacle. Making her pregnant is not necessary just to create more obstacles.

Maybe nobody said it directly but many compared woman who is not pregnant with woman who is pregnant. But the clear difference is that one situation is far more plausible. Having a female fighter that is not pregnant requires much less explanation. Keep in mind, it is much harder to suspend disbelief if a woman fighting is also pregnant. It is even harder if she seems to be the strongest and the most important person in terms of defeating her opponents.

Fifthview said it very well. If you make her pregnant because the story needs it, then you need to explain why she fights even though she is pregnant.

 

[glutton]

That is true. But if the woman needs to fight opponents, there already exists an obstacle. Making her pregnant is not necessary just to create more obstacles.

Maybe nobody said it directly but many compared woman who is not pregnant with woman who is pregnant. But the clear difference is that one situation is far more plausible. Having a female fighter that is not pregnant requires much less explanation. Keep in mind, it is much harder to suspend disbelief if a woman fighting is also pregnant. It is even harder if she seems to be the strongest and the most important person in terms of defeating her opponents.

Fifthview said it very well. If you make her pregnant because the story needs it, then you need to explain why she fights even though she is pregnant.

The debate I was in was about whether it's okay for a powerful female warrior to get pregnant at some point, not about someone going into battle while pregnant. I don't know where the latter idea is coming from.

 

[glutton]

It is not besides the point. One requires you make up extra stuff, the other does not.

But if I actually do make up extra stuff to further strengthen the prince's argument, I am being disingenuous either way. That's why I said it was besides the point, because extra stuff has been made whether or not it was actually 'needed' to make a case.

 

[fantastic]

The debate I was in was about whether it's okay for a powerful female warrior to get pregnant at some point, not about someone going into battle while pregnant. I don't know where the latter idea is coming from.

I don't see a problem if she becomes pregnant. There already are many female characters that become pregnant at some point. Even in Harry Potter, Ginny and Hermione were probably pregnant at some point, probably.

But most people were talking about pregnant woman fighting.

But if I actually do make up extra stuff to further strengthen the prince's argument, I am being disingenuous either way. That's why I said it was besides the point, because extra stuff has been made whether or not it was actually 'needed' to make a case.

I agree that there was no need to make more assumptions than what was talked about.

 

[glutton]

But most people were talking about pregnant woman fighting.

Not really, I suppose it could have been misread that way but the debate at least for the last few pages was about whether a powerful female warrior should risk getting pregnant when there might be opportunistic enemies waiting to attack her, not her getting pregnant and then going onto the field while with child.

Edit - Fifthview introduced the idea of a pregnant woman fighting being no different from a non-pregnant woman or a man fighting as a sarcastic exaggeration of what was being discussed.

 

[Russ]

I don't believe that positing a female warrior who maintains readiness by avoiding pregnancy, in order to be able to fight at any moment's notice in top form, necessarily springs from a sexist POV. But I do believe that's only one type of warrior and one type of situation (being "always ready"), and may be a very narrow consideration that ignores other potentials. Within that situation, sure, the avoidance of pregnancy might make great sense. (And surely she could make such a decision for herself.)

I don't believe that asking the question, Why would this pregnant female warrior be chosen to fight rather than a thousand available male warriors? is a sexist question. I actually think it's a very good question that ought to be answered. It's like asking Why would this young teenage wizard be chosen to fight and defeat the Big Bad Guy when so many older, more proficient wizards, and probably more powerful wizards exist to take on that task? There's Harry Potter; and yet, there's Dumbledore. Asking the question is important, because then we can approach an answer that will make sense to the reader. (Harry has a connection to Voldemort; Harry is a horcrux; a prophecy has already determined it's Harry or Voldemort at the end; etc.) So asking the question, Why this pregnant warrior? will lead us to the answers that will make the story more interesting. (Maybe there aren't any male warriors left; they've already been killed in 25 years' worth of war. Or maybe her bloodline is the only bloodline able to kill the villain who is immune to attack from any other source. Or maybe no one else sees the threat; every man and other woman laughs at her; and she takes up the task herself. Or any number of reasons.)

In this context those questions were not sexist, they were straw men, because nobody was suggesting those things.

Sexist was the suggestion that a female who chose to become a warrior should, inter alia, have the discipline to remain "not pregnant" because she had the discipline to become a warrior. This, of course, flies in the face of the thousands of examples of male warriors who have children despite their discipline.

It also flies in the face of the fact that male warriors, despite their vast discipline, have been known to do many, many "unwise" things that put themselves at risk or cost them their lives. Getting drunk, having affairs, crossing a river in full armour, getting obese etc.

This is simply placing a higher standard on the female character's conduct simply because she is female. IT becomes more traditionally sexist by its message that women have a special duty to protect their virtue, or remain chaste.

 

[Russ]

So on the question of pregnancy and fighting the issue evolved out of a suggestion that female warriors with discipline who are "vital", should would not get pregnant:

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?

and then this:

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.

It then digressed into a bunch of other badly thought out stuff, but that was the origin of the issue on this thread.

The original discussion was not about a pregnant women fighting, it was about a woman with a child taking the child on campaign/adventure, and the objection to this (noted above) is that any warrior who was "vital" would be disciplined enough not to have children, to which I say "hogwash" and why can't women warriors have sex when nobody bats an eye at male warriors doing so?

Pregnancy is also a short term disability in terms of fighting. The disability probably lasts about 8 or 9 months. A broken arm or leg, a bad infection, a eye problem, all can cause disability that impairs fighting ability, but history is rife with men fighting with significant disabilities.

The problem with AK's position, was not that "he was asking questions" (which I think fifth view is putting his position far too high or simply changing it), it was that he was trying to construct an argument against women warriors in fiction based on straw men arguments, counter-factual assertions and sexist reasoning.

 

[FifthView]

The original discussion was not about a pregnant women fighting, it was about a woman with a child taking the child on campaign/adventure, and the objection to this (noted above) is that any warrior who was "vital" would be disciplined enough not to have children, to which I say "hogwash" and why can't women warriors have sex when nobody bats an eye at male warriors doing so?

This is simply placing a higher standard on the female character's conduct simply because she is female. IT becomes more traditionally sexist by its message that women have a special duty to protect their virtue, or remain chaste.

Russ, is it sexist to assume that women only have sex in order to become pregnant, so avoiding pregnancy means protecting their virtue and remaining chaste?

I have not found anywhere in A.'s comments where he suggested these things. They seem to have come entirely from your own mind. You read something about avoiding pregnancy ergo you read something about remaining chaste.

The discussion turned from this,

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,

To the issue of pregnancy because A. seems to have taken a particular view of what the latter half meant. She is vital precisely because she's an extremely powerful warrior. Being so vital (as a warrior, not for some other reason like those I gave in my earlier comment) means, presumably, that she would hold a special position within a society and also that she would maintain preparedness and be available to fight at any moment. (If there are others who can successfully defend their society during her 9 months of pregnancy, then why aren't they the "vital" ones later, but only her?) That's a narrow view of all possibilities for women warriors–but I don't think A. was speaking of all possibilities for women warriors nor for every potential case of a woman warrior in fantasy fiction. For example, A. also wrote this:

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.

This signals a very specific case, not a broad swipe at all women fighters. Additionally, when asked this,

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

A. said this:

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.

–in which it is stated that, yep, sure enough, by golly gee, he can see warrior women deciding to have children. So, again, A. is not broadcasting something sexist about women but only is addressing a very specific case of a woman warrior who his vital in a very specific (and, I think, extreme) way and who would want to maintain preparedness.

We can argue that a multitude of other types of woman warrior are possible, as well as many types of scenario for them, but I don't think we can argue that A. is sexist merely because so many comments have been made about only one narrow case.

Sexist was the suggestion that a female who chose to become a warrior should, inter alia, have the discipline to remain "not pregnant" because she had the discipline to become a warrior. This, of course, flies in the face of the thousands of examples of male warriors who have children despite their discipline.

It also flies in the face of the fact that male warriors, despite their vast discipline, have been known to do many, many "unwise" things that put themselves at risk or cost them their lives. Getting drunk, having affairs, crossing a river in full armour, getting obese etc.

In the first paragraph above, you seem to be suggesting that a woman in the process of having a new child (going through pregnancy) is identical to the process of a man begetting a child. Basically, women are men with boobs. The consequences, the ramifications of pregnancy for women and men are identical. I don't know if this is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of the sexes or some type of sexism.

In the second, you seem to be arguing that women, in general, can do foolish things and shouldn't we make our women characters just as dumb, irresponsible, etc., as male characters? Perhaps if we were speaking in very general terms and not about a specific case–of a professional warrior who has decided to maintain constant readiness–that would make sense. Unlike you, I do not believe A. is attempting some grand statement on all women or even all women warriors.

 

[Nimue]

Oh for f*ck's sake, Fifth, let's not pretend that all these statements don't have overtones of that old sexist chestnut--"Women can't do this job because they might get pregnant" or the variant "women shouldn't be paid as much because they'll take time off to raise children."

And how exactly is a woman supposed to avoid pregnancy completely in the classic medieval fantasy, if not by abstaining from sex? When you say of a character that it would be incredibly irresponsible of her to have a child, exactly what barriers are you putting on her in the world you're working in? And why are those so different from the mistakes male characters are permitted to make, as Russ pointed our?

This entire conversation seems to be made up of digressions and straw men, but when that straw stinks of something, are we really going to pretend it doesn't?

 

[FifthView]

This entire conversation seems to be made up of digressions and straw men, but when that straw stinks of something, are we really going to pretend it doesn't?

No, Nimue, the discussion from one side seems to center on the idea that the mere suggestion that women are not merely men with boobs is somehow a sexist statement.

Also, a lot of people are so sensitive to the topic, they seem to read sexism where it doesn't exist and are very quick to label others sexists.

 

[Nimue]

Gee, maybe it's possible that there's an emotional component to this. Can't imagine why, though. Almost as though this borders on issues that affect people in real life?

Also, nice fat red herring there. Women aren't men with boobs. Everyone agrees with that. *throws up hands*

 

[FifthView]

Gee, maybe it's possible that there's an emotional component to this. Can't imagine why, though. Almost as though this borders on issues that affect people in real life?

Also, nice fat red herring there. Women aren't men with boobs. Everyone agrees with that. *throws up hands*

Yeah, Russ suggesting that a man going out and begetting children has identical repercussions for the man as a woman faces when becoming pregnant: Women are just men with boobs.

 

[Russ]

Yeah, Russ suggesting that a man going out and begetting children has identical repercussions for the man as a woman faces when becoming pregnant: Women are just men with boobs.

Which is not what I said. If you are going to discuss my arguments could you do me the courtesy of accurately characterizing them?

 

[glutton]

Yeah, Russ suggesting that a man going out and begetting children has identical repercussions for the man as a woman faces when becoming pregnant: Women are just men with boobs.

Russ did not say women getting pregnant has identical repercussions as men having children, I suspect the reason you defend AK is because like AK, you are fond of baseless leaps of logic, extrapolations and distortions.

 

[Nimue]

If you read the post, and I think you did, he makes a very clear point: the limiting factors of pregnancy can be compared to illness or injury, that it would take a warrior off the field for a certain amount of time (not likely to be a full nine months, barring early complications). Male warriors are permitted to break legs and become ill, but pregnancy is somehow unforgivable?

And then, past the point of actual pregnancy, why is it so different for a female warrior to have a child than a male warrior? These are two separate points--not contradiction.

 

[Russ]

In the first paragraph above, you seem to be suggesting that a woman in the process of having a new child (going through pregnancy) is identical to the process of a man begetting a child. Basically, women are men with boobs. The consequences, the ramifications of pregnancy for women and men are identical. I don't know if this is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of the sexes or some type of sexism.

In the second, you seem to be arguing that women, in general, can do foolish things and shouldn't we make our women characters just as dumb, irresponsible, etc., as male characters? Perhaps if we were speaking in very general terms and not about a specific case—of a professional warrior who has decided to maintain constant readiness—that would make sense. Unlike you, I do not believe A. is attempting some grand statement on all women or even all women warriors.

Again, you are mischaracterizing what I have said on this issue. Why are you choosing to represent my arguments so dishonestly?