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

[glutton]

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

He is Distortion Lord hence confusing Fantastic by bringing in the idea of women fighting while pregnant being the same as a non-pregnant man fighting.

 

[Nimue]

But of course, other people are too sensitive, not you. Other people are being illogical. Other people are misquoting and building straw men. And any allegations of sexism are far worse and more objectionable than the presence of sexist rhetoric. They must be defended against at all costs!

God, this is the picture of a circular internet argument. I'd say I thought we were better than that, but, well... I know that's not true.

 

[glutton]

I kind of overlooked this before, but this is the definition of a strawman when nobody suggested that having a family makes no difference -

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

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

 

[Steerpike]

I don't know how many times the community has to be asked to dial it back a notch in this thread, but lets hope that this post represents a realization of that number.

This issue can be discussed without personal attacks. I know this first hand, having done so many, many times in social settings. And whatever view you take, if you believe that viewpoint is deserving of serious consideration, personal attacks only undermine your goals.

In any event, sorry for the lecture, but I hope I don't have to point out that there shouldn't be a need for a further warning here.

ETA: I'm not singling anyone out, so don't feel singled out

 

[glutton]

This issue can be discussed without personal attacks. I know this first hand, having done so many, many times in social settings. And whatever view you take, if you believe that viewpoint is deserving of serious consideration, personal attacks only undermine your goals.

Is pointing out strawmen and distortions disallowed as a 'personal attack'? If so then it might be easier just to block users of distortions and strawmen.

 

[Steerpike]

Is pointing out strawmen and distortions disallowed as a 'personal attack'? If so then it might be easier just to block users of distortions and strawmen.

No. Pointing out what you perceive as errors, logical or otherwise, in another person's position is fine. That is the nature of debate, and a natural consequence of these types of discussions. Doing it in a manner that belittles other members, attacks the person rather than the argument, name-calls, or what have you, is a problem. It's a particular problem in threads like this because the issues tend to raise emotional responses for good reason, and injecting posts of the type described above into a discussion that may already be hitting people on an emotional level is a recipe for the thread going down in flames.

Feel free to disagree. Just be cognizant of the fact that there's a person on the other end of computer screen and try to be nice (or at least civil) to them.

 

[Nimue]

Yeah, I have to say that it feels great to have female members and/or people defending women's issues being repeatedly told they're sensitive and overreacting. Not only here but in earlier conversations about motherhood. I'm going to be optimistic and assume that's part of this reprimand. Feel free to correct me, I suppose.

 

[FifthView]

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

This:

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.

You are building a false equivalence, as if the repercussions of becoming pregnant are identical to the repercussions a male would face when he begets children. A male warrior maintaining a constant state of preparedness can have children, so why can't a woman warrior maintain a constant state of preparedness while also getting pregnant? The discipline required is the same because the repercussions are the same, presumably. I.e., the importance of the discipline in these two cases is identical.

 

[Steerpike]

Nimue, I hope I can make it more plain by referring to the forum rules, which encapsulate this better than I have, and which state:

"When discussing sensitive issues, all members participating in such a discussion (post originator and respondents) are required to take extra care and treat the topic with the appropriate gravity, making certain they exhibit open-mindedness, understanding, respect, & empathy for their fellow scribes."

Everyone in the thread is entitled to a viewpoint. What people are not entitled to do is attack (using the term broadly) other forums members as opposed to their arguments. Yes, that includes telling someone they're over-sensitive, because that's a characterization of the person and has nothing to do with their argument.

You can boil it down to avoiding making statements about the other person (i.e. an ad hominem argument), and instead directing opposing arguments at the points people are making. The post above is an attempt to keep the thread on track and within the boundaries of the forum rules. There's no reason why that goal can't be accomplished.

The post I made was also a reminder to everyone discussing here and not directed at any specific person. I just don't want the thread to head in directions I've seen them go before and have to be closed, because I do think these are interesting as well as important topics to fantasy literature.

 

[Nimue]

So, then, a woman taking ~4 months of time away from the battlefield for as important a purpose as having a child is guilty of a lapse in discipline. Ignoring the idea that she would probably plan to have children during peacetime--because apparently we've decided to ignore that--the pregnancy may have been accidental, highly likely at a low level of medical technology, or driven by something like the desire to have a child before she dies in battle. And, according to some, this "irresponsibility" cannot be justified by the reward, apparently. Therefore...what? Women should not be warriors because they cannot be prepared for battle 100% of the time? A female character who wants to have a child is unfit to be a warrior? People cannot have multiple priorities in their lives? Because absolute biological equality cannot be possible, female warriors must always be sidelined or sexless?

These are the arguments you are facing! This is what you're looking at, and claiming nothing under the moon is sexist! What is your point?

Is it: write these characters, have a ball, but of course they will face difficulties when pregnant, maybe something that could strengthen the conflicts of a story? If so, great. However, that's not what you're saying. You're digging a deeper and deeper hole that makes inroads on the sexist arguments outlined above. If you can agree that female warriors and mothers can be great protagonists, without feeling compelled to say in the same breath that they would be flawed by their nature, then say so. But you're so fixated on the drawbacks of these characters rather than their possibility that it continues to be discouraging and off-putting. What is your point? What are you arguing against--not one of the straw men you've offered?

 

[Steerpike]

Was there not a warrior in one of the Norse stories (related to Leif Eriksson maybe?) who battled while pregnant? Fought off skraelings, I believe. And it wasn't early in her pregnancy. Of course, we don't know the veracity of these types of tales, but it does show that the conception of a female warrior also having children isn't something that is unknown. Also, Boudicca had daughters, and while she had them before the events that are most often associated with them, she was already queen of the Iceni and a warrior in her own right, from what I've read.

 

[Russ]

You are building a false equivalence, as if the repercussions of becoming pregnant are identical to the repercussions a male would face when he begets children. A male warrior maintaining a constant state of preparedness can have children, so why can't a woman warrior maintain a constant state of preparedness while also getting pregnant? The discipline required is the same because the repercussions are the same, presumably. I.e., the importance of the discipline in these two cases is identical.

That simply misrepresents what I have said in at least two regards.

Firstly, and let me make it clear, I never suggested that the physical repercussions of having children is identical for men and women. If I said that why don't you show me where I said that.

Secondly I clearly rejected the "constant state of preparedness-there is no peace" argument for warriors of either sex (see my comments about "sharpening the sword").

I did make it clear that pregnancy is a potential disability in combat, but that a disability has never seemed to stop men from engaging in combat in fiction and wondered why AK, and perhaps you, think it should stop women.

What is sexist is AK's argument that if a female has the discipline to become a skilled warrior that she should have the discipline to avoid all disabilities and especially ignore

baby cravings

(a pretty crappy term) where the argument is not advanced to say male warriors should avoid

baby cravings

, adultery, alcohol, hunting, swimming etc.

It is remarkable how many times and what lengths you go to to try and mischaracterize what I have said.

 

[FifthView]

Secondly I clearly rejected the "constant state of preparedness-there is no peace" argument for warriors of either sex (see my comments about "sharpening the sword").

The comments that were made about "peace time" were metaphorical, and in context with the whole argument being made were indeed about a state of maintaining constant preparedness. Even if the society was at peace, the warriors (in the given hypothetical scenario) would not be, because functionally they'd always work to remain prepared to fight at any moment.

You rejected the scenario as being a-historical. But we are talking about fantasy worlds and fantasy scenarios. And I'm not sure I'd buy arguments about counterfactual claims either, given that you've seemed to suggest that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops to fight harder might be a viable military strategy. Perhaps an outlier case of that could be found, I don't know; but it's surely a great rarity in world history if so–I mean, using that strategy.

I did make it clear that pregnancy is a potential disability in combat, but that a disability has never seemed to stop men from engaging in combat in fiction and wondered why AK, and perhaps you, think it should stop women.

Again, a false equivalency. As if all disabilities are identical, and as if avoiding accidental bone breaks or severed arms is identical to being able to avoid pregnancy. The issue is about avoiding pregnancy for a purpose; and, I believe a woman warrior surely could do so if she chose.

Also, I'd find it refreshing if you would acknowledge any of the points I've made concerning the fact that a) A. (and I) have been discussing a narrow scenario and specific type of warrior, and b) I'm not making claims about every possible scenario imaginable. "why...it should stop women." I've never said this, I think? Avoiding pregnancy, for advantageous reasons, is not equivalent to never fighting while pregnant.

 

[FifthView]

Nimue,

Part of the confusion and conflict in this discussion is the assumption that talking about a very narrow scenario and saying things relevant to that scenario is equivalent to talking about all potentials. I personally do not see why a woman can't choose to avoid pregnancy in order to maintain preparedness; nor do I see why saying such a potential exists must be construed as describing (or limiting) all other potentials as scenarios.

I believe we can look at the narrow scenario A. gave, and discuss it, without assuming outright that A. meant to describe every possibility, all women, all women warriors, and so forth.

I think it's fair to others who come to Mythic Scribes to try to understand their points of view, see where they are coming from, what they are really saying, and not jump to conclusions about any sort of imagined baggage they might be bringing. (Imagined, because we don't really know them.) And I do believe that the arguments that were given in the earliest part of this most recent debate can be understood, and in fact make sense, from an understanding that they were addressing a very particular, narrow scenario.

 

[glutton]

given that you've seemed to suggest that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops to fight harder might be a viable military strategy.

Yet another distortion as Russ never suggested putting pregnant women on the front lines, he said the pregnant woman's allies might fight harder to defend her if she was attacked.

If you want to be taken seriously, stop twisting other people's words.

 

[Russ]

You rejected the scenario as being a-historical. But we are talking about fantasy worlds and fantasy scenarios. And I'm not sure I'd buy arguments about counterfactual claims either, given that you've seemed to suggest that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops to fight harder might be a viable military strategy. Perhaps an outlier case of that could be found, I don't know; but it's surely a great rarity in world history if so—I mean, using that strategy.
.

You have again misrepresented why I have said and taken it grossly out of context.

Show me where I suggested that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops might be a viable military strategy.

 

[glutton]

You have again misrepresented why I have said and taken it grossly out of context.

Show me where I suggested that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops might be a viable military strategy.

About time to block Fifthview methinks, seems pointless to continue engaging in a debate against such disingenuous arguments.

 

[FifthView]

You have again misrepresented why I have said and taken it grossly out of context.

Show me where I suggested that putting pregnant women on the front lines to inspire the troops might be a viable military strategy.

Here is my reference:

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

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

He was referring to, and had quoted, a comment made about sending the pregnant warrior into battle, including on the front line.

 

[FifthView]

disingenuous arguments.

Do you know that terms like disingenuous, dishonest, sexist and so forth, when describing arguments, are really a form of ad hominem argumentation?

Saying, "please block" or the equivalent, rather than addressing the points being made, are another form of attacking the person, not the argument.

Although I'll admit enough (too much) of it has gone around.

 

[Russ]

Unfortunately I am again forced to correct you on misrepresenting my argument. And since you appear to have read the post recently and chosen not to quote it, one can only conclude you are misrepresenting my argument yet again (which does not even deal with the fact that no where did I suggest that sending pregnant women to the front line was a viable tactic).

Here is what annoying kid (his choice of name) said:

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.

I was responding quite clearly to his assertion that he would launch an all out attack when she was 8.5 months pregnant. This was made clear when I also commented that it would be unlikely he would know when she was 8.5 months pregnant and it would be no simple thing to gather the resources and launch such an attack.

You have now, at least twice, intentionally misrepresented my position. I could point out a number of other places in this thread where you have chosen to do so as well.