What YOU dislike seeing in female fantasy characters

[Ban]

That's true Sheilawisz. My interests tend to be political, historical or scientific in nature so that's the point of view i operate from.
However, if it is not specifically stated that this can be a fictional world than i consider it standard to see this hypothetical world from our point of view. Besides, if it can be wildly outrageous fantasy than there is no point to this discussion, because each statement can be refuted with "Not my world".

 

[Russ]

We need to see and feel our characters as people.

It does not matter really if they are men or women, because after all there are so many types of people, motivations and personalities. As Storytellers we should get into contact with our characters and portray them as who they really are, without worrying so much about stereotypes and cliches.

Also, I have observed in this thread something that has been repeated over and over again in many other similar threads:

Most people see these issues exclusively from our world's point of view, and it happens that we tell Fantasy stories. If I want to write a story about a medieval world in which all women are normal height but all men are two feet tall, I can... And that would result in armies composed by women only, because the men are too small and weak to fight.

The women in that world would be trained to fight and defend their countries, it would be normal for them and they would have a culture quite different to the Medieval Europe of our world.

We can also write stories about other species, not only ours! Why do you keep seeing everything from a human-only and realistic point of view? We can have great fun imagining worlds very different to this one.

Above all, the truly important thing is to Tell Stories and tell them well.

While fantasy does give us this thought experiment opportunity, I would suggest that all good writing tells us something, directly or indirectly about the human condition. And at the end of the day, as far as I can tell, both the writer and the audience are human.

In fact, I would argue that there should be a reason, related to your story and its message for the men to be two feet tall and the women then the warriors. A good writer does not make stuff up just for the heck of it and throw it on a page.

 

[Guy]

Do we hate awkward, passive male characters the same way we hate timid, passive female ones? Do we really hate wish-fulfilling male characters the same amount that we hate wish-fulfilling female characters?

Yes.

And when you're referring to them as an "obnoxious broad" or a "cast-iron bitch"... The line between critiquing fictional women and disparaging real ones is getting kind of blurry.

Is this also a concern when male characters are referred to as arrogant asses or smug bastards?

 

[Russ]

Is this also a concern when male characters are referred to as arrogant asses or smug bastards?

Should there be? Is there a lengthy history of using such pejoratives to keep men down?

 

[Sheilawisz]

All of the good and well told stories have a message and a special meaning indeed, but that does not mean that we have to be strictly realistic regarding the worlds and the species that we describe in our stories. The freedom to engage in other-worldly elements is the greatest and most valuable part of Fantasy, at least for me.

I am against this current fashion for being realistic in Fantasy.

My love for the unrealistic and the fantastic is very strong, and I will always go against the trend of realism in Fantasy even though I admit that having at least some realism is always good and necessary.

The explanation for the tiny men in that story (which I doubt that I will ever write, it was just an example) would be that there is a special Genetic code in this species that makes them different to us Earth people. I could also explain that they have two hearts, and that they live for three hundred years... Whatever that I want.

I do not consider myself a writer, I am a Storyteller =)

 

[Russ]

All of the good and well told stories have a message and a special meaning indeed, but that does not mean that we have to be strictly realistic regarding the worlds and the species that we describe in our stories. The freedom to engage in other-worldly elements is the greatest and most valuable part of Fantasy, at least for me.

I am against this current fashion for being realistic in Fantasy.

My love for the unrealistic and the fantastic is very strong, and I will always go against the trend of realism in Fantasy even though I admit that having at least some realism is always good and necessary.

The explanation for the tiny men in that story (which I doubt that I will ever write, it was just an example) would be that there is a special Genetic code in this species that makes them different to us Earth people. I could also explain that they have two hearts, and that they live for three hundred years... Whatever that I want.

I do not consider myself a writer, I am a Storyteller =)

I am all for the unrealistic and the fantastic as long as they serve a purpose. I don't even care whether or not there is a quasi-scientific explanation for them, but they just need to earn their place in the story.

And, I also suspect that the storyteller's audience is as human as the writers. =)

 

[Guy]

Should there be?

If the standard is equality, yes.

 

[Steerpike]

If the standard is equality, yes.

I think it reflects differences in reality, is all. If such comments about men don't have a history of use in oppression of men or talking down men, then it's really not an "apples to apples" comparison, so I don't think equality is implicated here. When you treat similar remarks about similarly situated groups in a different manner, then I think you have an equality issue. The determination has to be made in a broader context in cases like this, because the same or similar phrases can have entirely different levels of power and meaning in the real world depending on the historical context.

 

[Sheilawisz]

There are certain traits that I dislike a lot in characters.

I find it very annoying when a character is a super good person. You know, some type of bright and pure soul that is incapable of performing any dark or evil action. Those characters that are loyal and gentle and all good things to the very end, all the way from their exterior to the deepest of their hearts.

At the same time, I dislike those villain characters that are all evil, like super evilness concentrated!

I prefer to read about characters that have a dark side despite being the good guys, and others that have a positive side buried somewhere even though they are the villains... From my point of view this applies to both male and female characters, I just don't want them to be like that.

About the other topic:

It's true that using highly non-human characters (like sentient gas clouds floating in outer space) would result in poor stories, because the readers want characters and adventures that they can relate to. Good stories need relatable characters, and you need to be very realistic if you are writing Historical Fiction or Contemporary stuff.

In Fantasy, it's not necessary to be realistic about everything.

We are a unique literary genre because we are free to describe other worlds and the people and creatures living there. Why would the readers expect those people to be exactly like people here in Earth? Why would they have a similar culture and similar gender roles to the ones we have?

We can do so many things with our stories, so when Fantasy authors decide to limit themselves to the most realistic style they are closing the door to many other possibilities out there.

The other-worldly elements are an integral part of Fantasy, because without them we would be writing Historical Fiction or just Contemporary. There is no need to justify or give a purpose to every non-earth element that shows up in a Fantasy story, because it's Fantasy after all.

If I want my world to have a purple sky, three moons made of transparent diamond and a society dominated by female Mages, then I simply move ahead and do it because that's what I want my Fantasy world to be like.

Then, somebody realistic would read a story set in that world and tell me: "Oh, that society cannot work because women this, and women that..."

Well, their Earth views are not valid in my world simply because it's not Earth and they are not human, at least not precisely human as we are in this world. What makes me sad is that now your world and your story are viewed as flawed if they do not reflect humanity and our world in every detail...

How did this come to happen to Fantasy?

 

[Miskatonic]

I think it reflects differences in reality, is all. If such comments about men don't have a history of use in oppression of men or talking down men, then it's really not an "apples to apples" comparison, so I don't think equality is implicated here. When you treat similar remarks about similarly situated groups in a different manner, then I think you have an equality issue. The determination has to be made in a broader context in cases like this, because the same or similar phrases can have entirely different levels of power and meaning in the real world depending on the historical context.

No they just make men the villains nearly all the time. Villains tend to oppress people, so it paints men as the main source of oppression. Give them blonde hair and blue eyes if you want to take it up a couple notches.

There is no grey area where equality is concerned. You either agree that all people, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standard or you are essentially a hypocrite, and an intellectually dishonest one as that.

I'm always wary of people that throw around the word equality whenever the opportunity presents itself.

 

[Miskatonic]

Should there be? Is there a lengthy history of using such pejoratives to keep men down?

So we make exceptions because it has happened less often to men?

Sounds like a double standard to me. Not all that surprising.

 

[Miskatonic]

In other words: Female characters! We hate 'em when they're shy and when they're spunky, we hate 'em when they fight and when they don't fight, when they're emotional and when they're cold, we hate 'em when they're powerless and when they're powerful, too!

To back down a little--I think the effect in this thread is mainly unintentional, but it's a good moment to take a step back and acknowledge that we may be enforcing higher standards of likeability on female characters than male ones. Do we hate mercenary male characters the same way that we hate gold-digging female ones? Do we hate awkward, passive male characters the same way we hate timid, passive female ones? Do we really hate wish-fulfilling male characters the same amount that we hate wish-fulfilling female characters? (There's an entire huge trope about that--the Mary Sue. You really don't see the Marty Stu label being thrown around half as much.)

That's not arguing that female characters haven't been written poorly in the past, or that characters with those traits haven't been given them because of tired stereotypes. Far from it. But I'd really like to point out that the point of objection should be with the author writing these characters and the cliches that give rise to them--not the idea of women with these traits. And when you're referring to them as an "obnoxious broad" or a "cast-iron bitch"... The line between critiquing fictional women and disparaging real ones is getting kind of blurry.

A scumbag is a scumbag, it doesn't matter what gender they are.

There are probably a lot more male characters that I dislike than female.

I dislike Jaime Lanister as much as I dislike Cersei Lanister. And I dislike their son far more.

 

[Miskatonic]

Hi Nimue, I'm out of thanks for today ;( but this needed a comment.

Thank you.

I noticed the same thing in the post you quoted (again, probably not the intention of the poster) but I'm glad you brought it up.

We hate female characters.

And this is what I was trying to say with my 'diversity' post. I just want to see diversity. LIke KennyC said, women who are people. Some women are shy, some aren't, some are wildy passionate, some aren't. Some are beautiful, some aren't. Some are fighters, some aren't. Some are leaders, some aren't. Yet they are all women, and they can all be represented.

It kills me that we are still trying to shape some idea of the 'perfect' woman… whatever that is. And that we are trying to recreate some new ideal of what that should be in writing…

Who is we?

 

[Russ]

If the standard is equality, yes.

So I notice you choose not to answer the second question.

By the by, the first of the pejoratives you used as an example is not at all gender specific. The second, being a "bastard" is more than a tad outdated and pretty irrelevant.

Do you think calling someone an ass is a gender insult? Do you think men as a gender have been harmed and repressed by society and culture?

And if you believe that the use of the term "bastard" really is causing harm to men or specific men, then by all means, speak out and do something about it. By using it in this context it makes it look like you are just trying to stop people who think certain terms are harmful to women, rather than protect men.

 

[Russ]

So we make exceptions because it has happened less often to men?

Sounds like a double standard to me. Not all that surprising.

As I pointed out above the first pejorative is not even gender specific, so it doesn't bear at all on the conversation.

The term bastard actually refers to men born out of wedlock, which while gender specific, does not apply to the whole gender.

I guess in your analysis calling a black person the "n" word or the "k" word is the same as calling a man a bastard.

It is not treated differently because it happens less often (although rationally speaking there is nothing wrong with that analysis either) it is treated differently because a gender has been victimized by the use of those and similar terms.

If you think men have been victimized by modern culture as a group, I think you are just plain wrong and would be happy to show you the statistics to prove it.

 

[Guy]

So I notice you choose not to answer the second question.

There's a reason for that. With all the comparisons of men to women, I was under the impression the standard we were going for was equality, so I wanted to see your response. If we were indeed going for equality, then I would address the second point with two responses, though Miskatonic already did: if we are truly going for equality, the second question is irrelevant. If we say we're going for equality but then apply different standards to different groups, we're hypocrites.

By the by, the first of the pejoratives you used as an example is not at all gender specific.

In my 45 years, I have only seen those insults applied to men.

The second, being a "bastard" is more than a tad outdated and pretty irrelevant.

I don't understand what you mean. I hear that label used often enough, and I've only seen it applied to men.

Do you think calling someone an ass is a gender insult? Do you think men as a gender have been harmed and repressed by society and culture?

And if you believe that the use of the term "bastard" really is causing harm to men or specific men, then by all means, speak out and do something about it. By using it in this context it makes it look like you are just trying to stop people who think certain terms are harmful to women, rather than protect men.

My point was simply anyone who says they're for sexual equality should actually be for sexual equality, and anyone who says they're for sexual equality but then defends one sex while making excuses for disrespecting the other is a hypocrite. If someone thinks one group should get preferential treatment, fine, but they should have the integrity to say so and not claim they support equality. Furthermore, I would argue that any adult who thinks being called a name is genuinely doing them harm is probably too fragile to make it in life. Yes, it hurts and no, it isn't fun, but you deal, then move on.

Really, though, I think we're blowing this out of proportion. Let's remember that in this discussion we're talking about applying these terms to fictional characters (people who don't actually exist), so let's try to keep a little perspective.

 

[Russ]

Furthermore, I would argue that any adult who thinks being called a name is genuinely doing them harm is probably too fragile to make it in life. Yes, it hurts and no, it isn't fun, but you deal, then move on.

So spic, kyke, kaffir, cracker, wetback, wop, the "n" word, chink, etc all good for adults who are not too fragile?

 

[Steerpike]

No they just make men the villains nearly all the time. Villains tend to oppress people, so it paints men as the main source of oppression. Give them blonde hair and blue eyes if you want to take it up a couple notches.

There is no grey area where equality is concerned. You either agree that all people, regardless of gender, should be held to the same standard or you are essentially a hypocrite, and an intellectually dishonest one as that.

I'm always wary of people that throw around the word equality whenever the opportunity presents itself.

This doesn't make sense in terms of an equality argument. Everything exists within a context. If your interpretation of something relies on a purposeful disregard of historical and cultural context and you're making judgments as if those things don't exist, then you're not arguing for equality but something else. You're arguing for a fictional ideal that could exist, perhaps, if the world wasn't the way it is or has been. You're arguing for the wolf of privilege in the sheep's clothing of inequality. It has deceptive attraction because it is so simple, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Miskatonic]

As I pointed out above the first pejorative is not even gender specific, so it doesn't bear at all on the conversation.

The term bastard actually refers to men born out of wedlock, which while gender specific, does not apply to the whole gender.

I guess in your analysis calling a black person the "n" word or the "k" word is the same as calling a man a bastard.

It is not treated differently because it happens less often (although rationally speaking there is nothing wrong with that analysis either) it is treated differently because a gender has been victimized by the use of those and similar terms.

If you think men have been victimized by modern culture as a group, I think you are just plain wrong and would be happy to show you the statistics to prove it.

Ah yes the wonderful world of stats. What shall we start with? The wage gap stat? Or how about the stat showing the lack of women in STEM fields? Or other stats that have been proven to be false over and over again.

If you don't think men have been attacked in society as a group then I'd say you are delusional at best.

To keep myself from wasting a ton of time, I'll let this gentlemen do the work for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mzYKWDx6YI

Watch it if you want, ignore it if you want, I really don't care.

I've learned from past mistakes to not waste time talking to feminists or any other emotionally driven idealist, regardless of what gender they are. It's about as productive as trying to fill a bottomless jug with water.

What is so ironic is you are a shining example of what Guy is talking about.

Your ideals and bias are painfully obvious.

 

[Heliotrope]

Who is we?

I wasn't trying to start anything. Sorry. I was just saying, based on Banten's list, apparently we just don't like female characters in general. I was being facetious. I wasn't trying to make a serious blanket generalization about us in general. I was going specifically off of Banten's list.