Too few female characters?

[Mythopoet]

I think you're coming from it at a different angle here.
The basis of the story is still: The hero defeats the badness and claims their price.

It doesn't matter to the basis of the story who the hero is, or what the badness is or what the price is, it's still about the hero's struggle against the badness and then they get a reward in the end.

By changing up the hero, the badness, and the price you can get vastly different stories. Let's say it's about a dragon who's going to rescue her knight from an evil princess. That's a very different story from the knight rescuing the princess from the dragon, but basic idea is still the same.

And if you boil down all the stories in the world to their basic parts you'd only have a handful of different kinds of stories. It's by changing the details that new stories are possible. So what's your point?

 

[Svrtnsse]

I think you miss the part that most of the characters that we root against are also males. Dragon is the male. We root for male characters and we hate and despise male characters. IMO, that balances it out

Those are still characters that matter and that we care about though. They've got personalities and agendas and plans and they actually do something. The dragon captures the princess. The knight saves the princess. The princess is captured by the dragon and she is saved by the knight. She doesn't do anything, she's just a reward for the people who does do something.

Also, I should point out it would be the same if the roles were reversed. Let's say it's a female knight who defeats the dragon to save the prince. The story would still be about the (now female) knight, and the prince would just be a price for her to claim.

 

[Svrtnsse]

And if you boil down all the stories in the world to their basic parts you'd only have a handful of different kinds of stories. It's by changing the details that new stories are possible. So what's your point?

My point I was trying to make was that the story of "The knight saves the princess from the dragon." isn't a good example for showing that gender bias is equal.

 

[ascanius]

My point I was trying to make was that the story of "The knight saves the princess from the dragon." isn't a good example for showing that gender bias is equal.

What about a father figure being portrayed as a dope, usually well meaning but still idiots with regards to their family.

Or the greasy fat male gamer geek, you never see that portrayed as female. I'm totally thinking about the south park WoW episode so not sure this counts.

 

[Valentinator]

Those are still characters that matter and that we care about though. They've got personalities and agendas and plans and they actually do something. The dragon captures the princess. The knight saves the princess. The princess is captured by the dragon and she is saved by the knight. She doesn't do anything, she's just a reward for the people who does do something.

Also, I should point out it would be the same if the roles were reversed. Let's say it's a female knight who defeats the dragon to save the prince. The story would still be about the (now female) knight, and the prince would just be a price for her to claim.

I don't agree that it would be the same. I totally support proactive heroines but in this particular example it doesn't seem to work. Fighting as a metaphor for proactivity is only one aspect of the story. Another one is being realistic. "Hack and slash" action is a prerogative of men for a reason. They are biologically predisposed to fighting, they are bigger, stronger, have more muscles, more solid bone structure and they are more aggressive. Female slaying dragon would be completely different type of story, a woman would choose other less straightforward ways. I'm against adding female-berserkers to the story just for the sake of originality. For me, an author has to give some convincing reasons why all of a sudden female-knights surpass male knights in fighting. I'm speaking from personal experience, I do boxing and know lots of good female boxers. For sure top-level female boxers can beat average male boxers but they have no chance against top male boxers.

 

[Svrtnsse]

What about a father figure being portrayed as a dope, usually well meaning but still idiots with regards to their family.

Or the greasy fat male gamer geek, you never see that portrayed as female. I'm totally thinking about the south park WoW episode so not sure this counts.

They're both good examples of negative male stereotypes (am I using the word right?), but I'm not sure that their existence is proof to me that gender bias is equal between the sexes.
I'm not denying that it exists.

The point I was reacting against is that gender bias is equal between the genders. I don't believe it is.

 

[ascanius]

I don't agree that it would be the same. I totally support proactive heroines but in this particular example it doesn't seem to work. Fighting as a metaphor for proactivity is only one aspect of the story. Another one is being realistic. "Hack and slash" action is a prerogative of men for a reason. They are biologically predisposed to fighting, they are bigger, stronger, have more muscles, more solid bone structure and they are more aggressive. Female slaying dragon would be completely different type of story, a woman would choose other less straightforward ways. I'm against adding female-berserkers to the story just for the sake of originality. For me, an author has to give some convincing reasons why all of a sudden female-knights surpass male knights in fighting. I'm speaking from personal experience, I do boxing and know lots of good female boxers. For sure top-level female boxers can beat average male boxers but they have no chance against top male boxers.

I agree especially with regards to proactivity. Ursula K. Le Guin said basically the same thing about having female characters who are essentially men with breasts. If proactivity is dependent on using male stereotypes I think we need a new definition of proactive.

They're both good examples of negative male stereotypes (am I using the word right?), but I'm not sure that their existence is proof to me that gender bias is equal between the sexes.
I'm not denying that it exists.

The point I was reacting against is that gender bias is equal between the genders. I don't believe it is.

I guess it depends upon what you mean by equal? If your going by the quantity of bias then maybe your right, I don't know. I think in other terms there are some very bad male bias that easily rival female bias.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I guess it depends upon what you mean by equal? If your going by the quantity of bias then maybe your right, I don't know. I think in other terms there are some very bad male bias that easily rival female bias.

The original statement I commented on was this:

[...] My point is that male characters are biased as well. One bias balances out another bias.

My counterpoint was that this would only apply if the biases are equal, and I don't believe that they are.

I'm well aware that there are biases in both directions, but I don't feel as if you can balance them one for one against each other.

 

[Gryphos]

Female slaying dragon would be completely different type of story, a woman would choose other less straightforward ways. I'm against adding female-berserkers to the story just for the sake of originality.

This seems like a huge generalisation. It's one thing to say that there is a likelihood of the female knight choosing a different way of combatting the dragon, but here you appear to be saying that any woman would definitely not slay the dragon through typically 'masculine' means. Is there no room for diversity in this? Would there not be a portion of female knights (whatever size that portion is) that would go the 'masculine' route? And same vice versa with male knights going the 'feminine' route.

For me, an author has to give some convincing reasons why all of a sudden female-knights surpass male knights in fighting.

If all female knights somehow surpassed all male knights in fighting then something would be up, just like something would be up if somehow all male knights surpassed all female knights. But to scale it down to specific knights, the female knight beating the male is easily explained. What if the female knight happens to be better trained? Then they would easily beat the male knight, and the same vice versa.

 

[Trick]

So, this is is more in line with the original post but I think it applies still.

I just found out that Brandon Sanderson originally wrote Vin in Mistborn as a guy... He thought that the male version of her was a boring character based on how he thought about his life experience. He switched her to a girl and the rest is history.

My take on this is that he felt it as a writer, he wasn't told that it would be a better marketing strategy. This makes all the difference.

 

[Steerpike]

Does it really make a big difference in terms of how the story comes out? If his publisher had said "we want this character to be female for marketing purposes" would he have produced an inferior story? Interesting question.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Does it really make a big difference in terms of how the story comes out? If his publisher had said "we want this character to be female for marketing purposes" would he have produced an inferior story? Interesting question.

Potentially it might. I'd say it depends on how he as a writer feels about the change. He might agree with the theory and reasoning behind it, but if he's not able to muster up the same level of passion for the "new" version of the character, he might not do as good a job at it.

 

[Steerpike]

Potentially it might. I'd say it depends on how he as a writer feels about the change. He might agree with the theory and reasoning behind it, but if he's not able to muster up the same level of passion for the "new" version of the character, he might not do as good a job at it.

I think that's possible as well, though I think it is more likely with amateur writers. A professional writer should be able to do an equally good job in either situation, in my view. That's part of being a professional in a field.

 

[Gryphos]

To me what's most troubling is the genderisation (if that's even word) of psychological attributes. The way that anger, bravery, aggressiveness, etc. are labelled 'masculine' and sensitivity, passiveness, etc. are labelled as 'feminine'. Of course, with the genderisation of these qualities also comes the genderisation of activities that relate to them, how men are 'supposed' to fight and women are 'supposed' to care for the children. And yes, in terms of biology and statistical distribution, men will on average be more likely to exhibit these 'masculine' qualities and women the 'feminine' ones. Therefore, it is understandable why these qualities have become gendered by our society. BUT–

Even if these qualities are gendered biologically, should we really treat them like they are? Let me explain. Humans are exceptional because we have self-awareness. We have concepts of morality, rather than just being ruled by instinct. We have transcended the natural, darwinian world and built society. Hence, why the **** should we care what nature or evolution says we should act like, or how our society should function? I would rather build a society on moral truths than evolutionary ones. And a moral truth that practically everyone agrees on is that men and women should be free to pursue any path they want in life and shouldn't be constrained by gender roles imposed on them (If somehow you don't believe that, then... well... you're wrong).

So why is gendering qualities a problem? Because it creates gender roles! If you state that being aggressive is 'masculine', you're subliminally telling men and boys that their role in society is to fight. And you're also telling women and girls that they can't fight because 'they're not meant to'. By gendering qualities, you are restricting what people of both genders feel they can and cannot, should and should not do with their lives. Which is... well, bad. So we should stop.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

So, this is is more in line with the original post but I think it applies still.

I just found out that Brandon Sanderson originally wrote Vin in Mistborn as a guy... He thought that the male version of her was a boring character based on how he thought about his life experience. He switched her to a girl and the rest is history.

My take on this is that he felt it as a writer, he wasn't told that it would be a better marketing strategy. This makes all the difference.

I completely agree.

I can change my characters as I see fit. If someone else tells me to, well… that depends. If I just made the character up, I might not care. If I'm getting a don't-need-a-dayjob advance, I'm probably not going to complain or lose my enthusiasm.

But yeah, if a forced change takes away my passion, it might hurt the story.



I think my takeaway from what Sanderson is doing (regardless of how gender plays into it)…

As the writer, YOU are the first barometer measuring your story and characters for boredom (bore-ometer?) vs. passion. If you have the passion, then you're probably going about your story the best way, or the best way for you. Someone else's way might not work for you. On the other hand, if you're not feeling it, chances are neither will your readers.

 

[Valentinator]

This seems like a huge generalisation. It's one thing to say that there is a likelihood of the female knight choosing a different way of combatting the dragon, but here you appear to be saying that any woman would definitely not slay the dragon through typically 'masculine' means. Is there no room for diversity in this? Would there not be a portion of female knights (whatever size that portion is) that would go the 'masculine' route? And same vice versa with male knights going the 'feminine' route.

I guess slaying the dragon supposed to be extremely challenging. Surely, some women would choose 'masculine' route and they would face the dragon and show average fighting skill, therefore, the dragon would simply kill them like the rest of the contenders. Otherwise, you have a scenario where the female knight just gets lucky or the dragon isn't that scary after all. In both cases, it would be less exiting to read.

If all female knights somehow surpassed all male knights in fighting then something would be up, just like something would be up if somehow all male knights surpassed all female knights. But to scale it down to specific knights, the female knight beating the male is easily explained. What if the female knight happens to be better trained? Then they would easily beat the male knight, and the same vice versa.

I'm not saying slaying the dragon by a female is not feasible at all, I'm saying the author needs to provide some good explanation for that. IMO 'better trained' is not a good explanation. Why is female knight better trained? A male knight is basically a female knight on steroids. And the female still gets the advantage. How is it possible? If this kind of questions is left unexplained I think of sloppy writing. Simple straightforward gender replacement gives a really bad impression.

Personally, I like the idea of female warriors. In my WIP females and males have comparable fighting skills, but I did it by creating specific magic system. Without some applied phlebotium it looks unrealistic.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm not saying slaying the dragon by a female is not feasible at all, I'm saying the author needs to provide some good explanation for that. IMO 'better trained' is not a good explanation. Why is female knight better trained? A male knight is basically a female knight on steroids. And the female still gets the advantage. How is it possible? If this kind of questions were left unexplained I'd think of sloppy writing. Simple straightforward gender replacement gives a really bad impression.

Personally, I like the idea of female warriors. In my WIP females and males have comparable fighting skills, but I did it by creating specific magic system. Without some applied phlebotium it looks unrealistic.

Sheer nonsense, in my opinion, and you can find plenty of speculative fiction to the contrary that readers don't have a problem with. I think it is a mistake to write down to the prejudices of a subset of readers, and that's essentially what you're advocating here. The majority of the readers have, in my estimation, the requisite imagination and real world experience to realize that there are women out there who can perform physically on this level, in the real world where there is no magic or hand-waving explanation of how a woman could do so, and so wouldn't require an explanation of how it happens in a fictional world.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I guess slaying the dragon supposed to be extremely challenging. Surely, some women would choose 'masculine' route and they would face the dragon and show average fighting skill, therefore, the dragon would simply kill them like the rest of the contenders. Otherwise, you have a scenario where the female knight just gets lucky or the dragon isn't that scary after all. In both cases, it would be less exiting to read.

It seems to me like you're saying that reading about a female killing a dragon would be less exciting than if a male did it. Is that correct?

I'm asking, because if that's what you're saying, then I think we may have some fundamentally differing opinions about writing.
To me, it's up to the writer to make a situation exciting. If a writer isn't able to make a fight between a woman and a dragon as exciting as a fight between a man and a dragon, then to me that's a failure of the writer and not of the characters.

 

[Trick]

...there are women out there who can perform physically on this level, in the real world where there is no magic or hand-waving explanation of how a woman could do so, and so wouldn't require an explanation of how it happens in a fictional world.

I'm not strictly disagreeing with you but can I ask, why are sports for men and women separate then? Professional and olympic... The best female athletes could indeed best most men but not male athletes of an equal caliber. If a women is beating men in physical feats when they are of an equal athletic level, that seems a stretch. If she is, however, beating them in courage, determination and fortitude I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm not strictly disagreeing with you but can I ask, why are sports for men and women separate then? Professional and olympic... The best female athletes could indeed best most men but not male athletes of an equal caliber. If a women is beating men in physical feats when they are of an equal athletic level, that seems a stretch. If she is, however, beating them in courage, determination and fortitude I wholeheartedly agree.

1. Tradition; and
2. Sports deal with large numbers of individuals, where averages for something like strength matter more. We're talking about individual characters in a story, and statistical distributions don't define an individual person. Rather, they broadly define populations.