Multiple POV story - Lack of female leads

[Mythopoet]

If I had said this, I would have been reported and had every poster here jump on calling me who knows what...

I don't see why that would be. This has never struck me as the kind of community where that would happen.

Let me ask a question, if someone wrote a story that had a main cast of all female characters with only male characters in side roles or perhaps no male characters at all, and someone else suggested that one of those main female characters should be swapped out for a male characters, how do you think the community would react? And not just this community, but the general internet community interested in books and writing. I don't think it would go over well. I think that suggestion would likely be called sexist and misogynistic.

And that's why I get tired of the whole literary feminist bandwagon. Because it tends to be very hypocritical.

 

[Nimue]

Seriously? You can't understand why that might be? Maybe because good female representation is much scarcer on the ground? Perhaps because a guy seeking a reflection would only have to look to literally the next book or franchise over to find a male hero who's powerful and central to his world?

I saw Xitra's post and firmly disagree with it, but I didn't think this thread needed to be revived to repeat things that have already been said. But that's the great thing about the revolving-door arguments on the internet--you can keep asking people to defend the same basic points about gender equality over and over until they get sick of it. Then you stand uncontested with the last word! Enjoy the feeling, because I really have better things to do with my time.

 

[Russ]

Seriously? You can't understand why that might be? Maybe because good female representation is much scarcer on the ground? Perhaps because a guy seeking a reflection would only have to look to literally the next book or franchise over to find a male hero who's powerful and central to his world?

Bingo.

People seem to forget that the whole point of feminism in general, is a recognition that females, as a group, have been discriminated against and disempowered in many complex ways and steps need to be taken to eliminate that discrimination and assist the disempowered community.

The reason people promote diversity and ask questions about if they should add it to their story or not, is because people think diversity can add value and strength.

 

[Mythopoet]

Seriously? You can't understand why that might be? Maybe because good female representation is much scarcer on the ground? Perhaps because a guy seeking a reflection would only have to look to literally the next book or franchise over to find a male hero who's powerful and central to his world?

I didn't say I didn't understand it. But I don't agree with it. And personally I don't care if female representation is scarcer at the moment. The only way to gain true equality going forward is to treat both genders as equal going forward. You can't even the scales of what has come before. You have to focus on the future. Treating female representation as more important than male representation is NOT the way to achieve equality.

 

[Fyle]

Bingo.

People seem to forget that the whole point of feminism in general, is a recognition that females, as a group, have been discriminated against and disempowered in many complex ways and steps need to be taken to eliminate that discrimination and assist the disempowered community.

And...

It is not the job of a creative writer to save women from being disempowered. This is a political issue which has little to do with the topic of actual creative process. Plus, it's just a fact of life that men and women have differences and play different roles in society.

Its obvious to any intelligent person who follows market trends and popular entertainment that for years female representation has been more scarce than male in the past, and that has changed over the last 10-20 years quite a bit.

I have to argue that this fact is becoming out dated. There are a TON of female leads in movies, books and TV shows these days. Because the playing field is leveling out I take the liberty to argue in favor of writing what you want. Are things 50/50, probably not. But its getting to the point where women have roles as MC or important characters in most major released movies (as far as books, there are just too many for me to say, but I would guess publishers like diversity for the sake of selling to wider audiences in a similar way movie companies do). So, you are fighting a battle which is already won to a large extent.

Again, off topic. This thread is about changing existing characters to female because you have all males.

 

[cupiscent]

To be honest, I've been ignoring this thread because it wasn't going anywhere useful. But ho hum, once more around the buoy.

Women are 50% of the population. Until they are 50% of the significant characters in literature, I don't see how there can possibly be an argument against including more.

There are a TON of female leads in movies, books and TV shows these days.

Are there? An all-female version of a beloved all-male franchise is announced, and scant months after that announcement, an all-male version is also announced, because apparently having two movies to one in the male:female ratio is just not enough. Not to mention the list of genuine female-led movies is perilously short, especially in a speculative-fiction space. Off the top of my head, in recent years it's Hunger Games, and Jupiter Ascending (which everyone is having fun reviling, so how many more of those do you think are going to be made?).

It is not the job of a creative writer to save women from being disempowered. This is a political issue which has little to do with the topic of actual creative process. Plus, it's just a fact of life that men and women have differences and play different roles in society.

I think it's the job of a creative writer to write a society that shows, considers or discusses something about our own. And nothing about the ostensible different roles of the genders in society (which is a societal construct and not the same in all societies) stops you from telling stories involving a variety of genders. Even if you didn't have any characters breaking the expectations on them - and how boring would that be? - that are still a lot of stories and characters to be explored.

 

[Jabrosky]

Are there? An all-female version of a beloved all-male franchise is announced, and scant months after that announcement, an all-male version is also announced, because apparently having two movies to one in the male:female ratio is just not enough. Not to mention the list of genuine female-led movies is perilously short, especially in a speculative-fiction space. Off the top of my head, in recent years it's Hunger Games, and Jupiter Ascending (which everyone is having fun reviling, so how many more of those do you think are going to be made?).

You forgot Divergent and its new sequel.

Whatever may be said of movies, I am pretty sure there are whole shelves stuffed with fiction written by and for women, especially in certain genres. If you think about it, the whole "paranormal romance" subgenre is simply romance (itself a female-dominated genre) married to spec. fiction. Of course the male:female ratio may reverse for more action-packed, militaristic fantasy (e.g. Conan or LotR), but only because we've narrowed our parameters of fantasy to fixate on themes more stereotypically targeted at male readers (and even then, lots of male-targeted media still have Red Sonja or Lara Croft-type heroines). You might as well claim sexism in video games without counting any video game that isn't Call of Duty or God of War.

 

[Gryphos]

It is not the job of a creative writer to save women from being disempowered.

Again, it is not the job of a writer to do anything other than write. No writer has to do anything — that's freedom of speech. However, freedom of speech is not freedom from criticism. A writer can write an all male or all female cast if they want, or a story which perpetuates gender roles and stereotypes, but I will criticise them for it.

Plus, it's just a fact of life that men and women have differences and play different roles in society.

Don't you dare get me started on this.

Any differences that exist between men and women exist only in statistical averages over large populations, and almost all are due to social conditioning from being raised different and having different societal experiences. I could point you to several studies which have shown how the very mechanisms of the brain are influenced by our environment. As to 'different roles in society' that's just flat out sexist to men and women. If anyone tries to defend the idea of restrictive gender roles, they are sexist, it's as simple as that.

You might as well claim sexism in video games without counting any video game that isn't Call of Duty or God of War.

Sexism is a major issue in the video game industry , as is racism and homophobia. Anyone who disagrees, I will gladly argue against.

 

[Fyle]

Don't you dare get me started on this.

Any differences that exist between men and women exist only in statistical averages over large populations, and almost all are due to social conditioning from being raised different and having different societal experiences. I could point you to several studies which have shown how the very mechanisms of the brain are influenced by our environment. As to 'different roles in society' that's just flat out sexist to men and women. If anyone tries to defend the idea of restrictive gender roles, they are sexist, it's as simple as that.

Your heart is in the right place, but I for one think its impossible to say men and women are exactly alike and fill the same exact roles. I have thought about this for a long time, and look at things from a non-bias point of view concerning the long run of life. Sad as it is, everything is a number in the end. Numbers say there is a difference, it's more simple than conditioning of the brain.
Is there a BIG difference, no. But there are subtle differences both physical and mental that are undeniable.

That conversation is impossible to carry on and respect the subject matter of this forum.

...and please quote my thoughts in a less fragmented fashion. You skipped over a very important point I was getting at about how the times are changing.

@ On video games real quick, my guess is due to the fact that guys play video games more than girls (or admit and show interest in them), most marketing has been geared to what guys like.

A lot of this is about money, just like Tauriel was about money, not sticking to the classic tale that helped built the foundation for fantasy writing, but money to sell the maximum amount of ticket stubs and do scribble in crayon on it's pages. The excuse is "oh, there weren't eonugh women in Tolkien's writing. $o let's add in a hot elf!" I mean, lets keep some thing sacred. Works on a scale this grand are part of history...

 

[Russ]

And...

It is not the job of a creative writer to save women from being disempowered. This is a political issue which has little to do with the topic of actual creative process. Plus, it's just a fact of life that men and women have differences and play different roles in society.

So your argument is that the creative writer is above basic social responsibility? And good work does not reflect on society and its problems? Let's extend your logic to the business owner. It is not the job of the business owner to...and so on. That means that discrimination just carries on because it is no one's job to confront it. The idea that the creative writer has less or no social responsibility or gets exempted from social responsibility is kind of facile isn't it?

Its obvious to any intelligent person who follows market trends and popular entertainment that for years female representation has been more scarce than male in the past, and that has changed over the last 10-20 years quite a bit.

Try reading some studies and seeing how many lead roles women get, how many speaking roles women get etc. There is plenty of data out there and it contradicts your idea. While there has been progress, if we have moved from women having 10% of the speaking roles to 28%, it is not time to put up our feet and call it a day.

I have to argue that this fact is becoming out dated. There are a TON of female leads in movies, books and TV shows these days. Because the playing field is leveling out I take the liberty to argue in favor of writing what you want. Are things 50/50, probably not. But its getting to the point where women have roles as MC or important characters in most major released movies (as far as books, there are just too many for me to say, but I would guess publishers like diversity for the sake of selling to wider audiences in a similar way movie companies do). So, you are fighting a battle which is already won to a large extent.

Well that TON is about 12% of protagonists for women in movies. And that number has been trending down over the last decade:

Women in Hollywood: Study Finds Fewer Lead Roles for Females | Variety


So it simply appears that your opinion is not based on fact. So if women being grossly underrepresented in lead and speaking roles and being ignored as they age, and portrayed simple as sex objects means the battle is over...I think you missed the whole point of the battle.

I thought the original question was a good one. How does diversity fit into the writing process.

One is perfectly entitled to put their head in the sand and ignore real social issues when one writes. I don't think it makes for good or relevant writing though.

 

[Mythopoet]

So your argument is that the creative writer is above basic social responsibility?

If "social responsibility" equates to "conforming to other people's viewpoint on gender" then yes.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

This debate always heads down this same road because participants forget or ignore two main points:

1) No one is telling any other what they must do in their writing.

The OP questioned whether they should add a female, which shows a level of concern on a societal issue. If that concern exists, it's certainly worth consideration. That's all I've seen from proponents of inclusion, in this thread.

2) Gender stereotypes, like any other, deal with assumptions about the whole. They're never accurate, especially when applied to individuals.

In this case, the individual is a hypothetical character. Anyone can point to gender differences, like strength & physical endurance, across a whole. Yet, that may not apply to individuals.

I'm quite certain Rhonda Rousey could crack the ribs of most of the male members of Mythic Scribes. She's likely stronger, faster, & certainly more skilled in fighting than any of us. She is not the norm, and therefore she is interesting. She's an individual.

Whenever you generalize the individual, you do a disservice to the whole. It's a flawed argument.

 

[Russ]

If "social responsibility" equates to "conforming to other people's viewpoint on gender" then yes.

They don't.

Same way I don't think social responsibility means you have to conform to other people's view on race.

You are more than welcome to believe that society treats women and men equally, or believe that society treats members of different racial groups equally.

But that does not make your belief a reality, nor does it abrogate either society's or the individual's responsibility to help solve such problems.

 

[ascanius]

I've been lurking around this topic for a while, maybe I should have kept lurking. We should just create a dedicated subforum for this topic so people can argue without changing anyones opinion.

Has anyone else noticed that people want diversity in writing but they are the same people who claim that men and women are the same with no pysical or psychological differences. Doesn't seem diverse to simply pay lip service to vocabulary. Wouldn't arguing for diversity mean by default that men and women are different? I mean if we take what some belive to be true that men and women are pretty much exactly the same with trivial small differences and should be written the same, I don't see how adding another women makes it more 'diverse' or gives 'strong female characters.' The whole idea seems counter productive.

Just a thought.

 

[Jabrosky]

If "social responsibility" equates to "conforming to other people's viewpoint on gender" then yes.

The fact of the matter is that no matter what anyone chooses to write, someone out there is going to take offense to it. This is doubly true if your story's theme represents a belief of your own that not everyone out there agrees with---and considering the amazing variety of beliefs people can think up, any stance you take on anything is going to step on someone's mine no matter how maneuverable you think you are.

And it's not just "politically correct" liberals who can take offense at themes in certain books. Any time you have an interracial couple in a story, it will offend racial separatists. Likewise, gay couples will offend homophobes, strong female characters will offend misogynists, and so on. Racism, sexism, and homophobia are still widespread points of view in the larger world even if most people here don't endorse them, and people subscribing to them can take just as much umbrage to contrary opinions as we do to theirs.

Mind you, I am not saying readers don't have the right to dislike your work, or even declare their dislike on an Internet review for all the world to see. Free speech flows both ways. On the other hand, that very same principle of free speech means you don't have to appease or apologize your critics if you don't agree with their criticism. If you earnestly don't believe that your action heroine's skimpy outfit is necessarily "objectifying", or that likening her svelte figure's color to dark cocoa is necessarily racist, then let the trolls whine isolated within their little echo chamber and carry on writing.

 

[Nimue]

God, I can't imagine why anyone would object to comparing a black character's skin to an edible commodity linked to centuries of slavery in a stereotype so common that it's become cliche. The women of color who are so sick of it that they're written essays about that specific phrase must be trolls, of course.

No, go on drawing exclusively sexualized black women in leopard-skin bikinis making out with white men. You're earnest about it, so it can't be fetishizing.

Don't worry, guys, ethics and social responsibility are optional. If you're feeling threatened, take a look at the real world. People get away with all kinds of stuff!

 

[Jabrosky]

God, I can't imagine why anyone would object to comparing a black character's skin to an edible commodity linked to centuries of slavery in a stereotype so common that it's become cliche. The women of color who are so sick of it that they're written essays about that specific phrase must be trolls, of course.

No, go on drawing exclusively sexualized black women in leopard-skin bikinis making out with white men. You're earnest about it, so it can't be fetishizing.

Don't worry, guys, ethics and social responsibility are optional. If you're feeling threatened, take a look at the real world. People get away with all kinds of stuff!

The thing is, I've seen plenty of black writers describe their own characters as "cocoa" and "cinnamon", and not just the "sexualized" female ones either. I've even seen black women use "swirling" (in reference to chocolate/vanilla swirl ice cream) for interracial dating. Just because a few bloggers on tumblr say food metaphors are taboo for color descriptors doesn't mean their specific opinions represent the "black consensus" (if such even exists) any more than Robert Mugabe or the Nation of Islam. Non-Europeans can have diverse opinions after all.

Though to be fair, "cocoa" references a foodstuff originally from Central America rather than Africa, and I'm all for employing non-cliched descriptors anyway. But then the problem is more overuse than inherent offensiveness.

 

[Tom]

Did you not read the page that Nimue linked to? It is not offensive when PoC writers describe their PoC characters that way because they're PoC themselves. You're not.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Has anyone else noticed that people want diversity in writing but they are the same people who claim that men and women are the same with no pysical or psychological differences....Wouldn't arguing for diversity mean by default that men and women are different?

I understand your logic, but I think you're missing the point.

You write the character as an individual person with unique traits, abilities, ideas, and so on. Does gender have an effect on that character's make-up. Yes, of course it does. However, it's one aspect of many that make a person an individual. Are you totally defined by your gender? I hope not.

Diversity doesn't always mean 50% women & 50% men. It means writing a varied cast where each character is a distinct individual with motives and agency of their own. That doesn't mean you have to include a female POV, or gay, or ethnic, or any other. It simply means that you don't limit your cast to narrow stereotypes and acknowledge that the reality of the world is diverse. If you choose to write a story with similar diversity (or any diversity) you should approach your characters as individuals, not characters confined to certain roles because of their genitalia or sexual preference.

To many readers, living stories through characters different from themselves, in fantastic settings, under momentous events is the lure of fiction. Diversity offers interesting opportunities to expand on just that.

You the artist, doesn't have to do anything. But, if you're considering a varied cast, write the individual, not the mundane, uninteresting stereotype.

The are only two things a writer must do:
1) Be clear
2) Be interesting

Diversity in your character cast can be a tool to achieve #2.

 

[Gryphos]

I've been lurking around this topic for a while, maybe I should have kept lurking. We should just create a dedicated subforum for this topic so people can argue without changing anyones opinion.

Has anyone else noticed that people want diversity in writing but they are the same people who claim that men and women are the same with no pysical or psychological differences. Doesn't seem diverse to simply pay lip service to vocabulary. Wouldn't arguing for diversity mean by default that men and women are different? I mean if we take what some belive to be true that men and women are pretty much exactly the same with trivial small differences and should be written the same, I don't see how adding another women makes it more 'diverse' or gives 'strong female characters.' The whole idea seems counter productive.

Just a thought.

From the standpoint I take that psychological differences between men and women are negligible or the result of social conditioning rather than genetics, diversity is still massively important, and I'll explain why.

It's all about social conditioning and subliminal influence. Imagine a young black girl, who grows up being exposed to fiction and media filled with white dudes. White dudes are always the hero who saves the day, white dudes are always the strong one who can fight the forces of evil, white dudes are always important people. This will have an effect on her. She'll grow up thinking, even just subconsciously, that she's not meant to be the hero, that she's not meant to be strong and powerful, that she's not important, all because of her sex and the colour of her skin. That is why diversity is important, to make people feel as though they actually matter in the world, because they do!