Women in fantasy

[Feo Takahari]

I think you're drastically--hell, I'll say it, offensively--underestimating the competence and capability of male tacticians. Soldiers follow orders to allow the entire army to function under one strategy, but a good tactician knows that captains in the field may see opportunities he didn't expect, and gives them leave to take advantage of them. He also knows that acting unpredictably, in ways the enemy can't foresee to counter, gives him a massive advantage.

P.S. How on Earth is a system where soldiers work together under a single strategy not "collaborative"?

 

[Mindfire]

Unless you luck out and hit something really good with your stab, your foe is likely to be able to keep fighting you for LONGER than if you slash him. If you get some good slashes, he will start to bleed out. That will weaken a person and make them lose consciousness and die within a few minutes if they're really gushing. Stab wounds often don't bleed much (outwardly, at first). Many people don't even realize for a decent while that they have in fact been stabbed. Additionally, it's much harder to keep ahold of your weapon and- er- remove it from the target.

As far as the long-term fate of that person- especially without modern medical care- yeah, the stabs (even if you didn't hit anything vital) are probably going to do for him sooner or later- infection if nothing else. But I'm assuming that most people are going to be far more concerned with the *immediate* viability of their opponent.

I'm not convinced. It seems to me that, unless you hit a critical blood vessel, slashes will wear down your opponent over time, whereas a few good stabs to the intestines, or if your blade is shaped right, between the ribs and into the chest cavity, is pretty much game over. And as I mentioned, the thrust is quicker, more efficient, and harder to block or avoid than the slash is.

 

[Mindfire]

I think you're drastically--hell, I'll say it, offensively--underestimating the competence and capability of male tacticians. Soldiers follow orders to allow the entire army to function under one strategy, but a good tactician knows that captains in the field may see opportunities he didn't expect, and gives them leave to take advantage of them. He also knows that acting unpredictably, in ways the enemy can't foresee to counter, gives him a massive advantage.

P.S. How on Earth is a system where soldiers work together under a single strategy not "collaborative"?

I think what Scribble is trying to do is imagine some sort of system that is both collaborative and non-hierarchical. I don't see it happening, but points for creativity I guess.

 

[Scribble]

The problem with this whole idea is simply this: where do the energy weaves come from? If you're saying that this style of fighting has been evolving ever since the race's inception that's fine, but once you really think about it you realize that things like energy weaves aren't going to be readily accessible to a primitive civilization. So there's nothing for these tactics to evolve from. There's no root or plausible anthropological source. See, modern weapons evolved from ancient weapons, which evolved from prehistoric weapons, which were made of things you could find lying around: sticks and rocks that could be sharpened and lashed together into primitive spears and such. What is the "ancestor" of the energy weave? Rope? Rope is good for building traps, but makes for a very poor weapon. Unless making these "weaves" is an innate talent of their species or a form of magic that their race discovered very early on in history, I see no reason they would not have developed the weapons and fighting styles that we view as conventional.

This is fantasy, we can make up whatever we like. Think primitively of a fishing people. Ropes, nets, bolas. Maybe some kind of fly fishing. Maybe they used some kind of semi-sentient vines. Barbed nets?

If I put some time thinking about I am sure I could come up with some more ideas, this is off the cuff.

Perhaps they never invented the bow. Maybe they have short knives (or claws) in close combat.

This had to develop from hunting or fishing strategies. Which then became elaborated with culture, with advancing technologies, but the core idiom remains the same.

 

[Scribble]

I think you're drastically--hell, I'll say it, offensively--underestimating the competence and capability of male tacticians. Soldiers follow orders to allow the entire army to function under one strategy, but a good tactician knows that captains in the field may see opportunities he didn't expect, and gives them leave to take advantage of them. He also knows that acting unpredictably, in ways the enemy can't foresee to counter, gives him a massive advantage.

P.S. How on Earth is a system where soldiers work together under a single strategy not "collaborative"?

I'm over-simplifying for the sake of creating the idea. I don't want to get caught in the weeds comparing men. The exercise is to imagine how a very different system can arise if the roots are different. We bootstrap on top of the old. The end result isn't necessarily the best, it's simply the best we can do based on what we had before.

 

[Mindfire]

What I am imagining (and I am kind of hijacking someone else's story with my ideas....) these are women not lining up in ranks like men would. Ranks remove individual identity from men. This is done to make them subject to orders. Also, that kind of organization works when you have things in your hands to hit people with.

Ranks are used to make sure each soldier knows what his job is and to make group organization and direction more efficient. When the enemy comes charging over the hill, there simply isn't time to take a vote. Also, soldiers don't sacrifice their identity. Things like callsigns, nicknames, and spray tags on fighter jets are evidence of that. Instead a soldier simply recognizes that his identity is a small part of a larger identity. You take care of the group, the group takes care of you. It's like a family in some respects.

Women would keep their identity, and work collaboratively rather than sacrificing the first line. The weapon I imagined are weaves of energy, used as shields, as webs, as killing fields, to funnel enemies, to capture, immobilize, weaving, taunting, luring, and then killing. It's fantasy combat with weapons and people who don't exist, but I think the principles can hold. Not hive mind, but something like it. How do lionesses hunt? How do spiders weave? How does the black widow mate?

I would imagine something more... organic. Clusters of women operating in a very different mode of combat. They would be subtle, seemingly chaotic at times to the eye of a man, but actually working in tight concert, only in patterns that are iterative. I am talking about a style of combat that rises out of womanliness, and not evolving from the roots of maleness.

Woman... slow and subtle building, increasing pressure and tempo, and then crashing waves, and then receding waves. Repeat as many times as you like.

I believe the phrase you're searching for is "guerrilla warfare".

 

[Mindfire]

This is fantasy, we can make up whatever we like. Think primitively of a fishing people. Ropes, nets, bolas. Maybe some kind of fly fishing. Maybe they used some kind of semi-sentient vines. Barbed nets?

If I put some time thinking about I am sure I could come up with some more ideas, this is off the cuff.

Perhaps they never invented the bow. Maybe they have short knives (or claws) in close combat.

This had to develop from hunting or fishing strategies. Which then became elaborated with culture, with advancing technologies, but the core idiom remains the same.

Interesting ideas. Okay, so this race would have to have originated in a place where they were the unchallenged apex predators- no large animals to fight off or hunt and force them to develop conventional weapons. There would also be no trees or rocks nearby to provide materials for making spears, bows, or arrows. But there would be plenty of grasses to weave rough clothing and ropes. So they would have developed in a savannah area with some rivers, or perhaps a marsh or delta. Presuming they're omnivores and not vegetarians, their main source of meat would have been fish and small animals they caught in snares or traps. Early on in their development they discovered magic, which they started using to make weaves because that's the kind of technology they were familiar with. Now, if you want this to be a group-focused culture, then staying with the group has to offer more survival options than striking out alone. In an area with no natural predators, your best bet will probably be the elements. Perhaps regular bad weather that's easier to cope with as a group than as an individual.

 

[Mindfire]

Something else that comes to mind. What made this society develop into a matriarchy? One possibility is that females are physically stronger than the males of this race, but that mirrors humans too much for what you seem to be aiming at, plus physical strength is a moot point survival-wise in a culture that's developed a place where it's largely irrelevant (no big animals to bring down or fight off, no heavy objects that need lifting). Their discovery of magic and complex traps so early in their culture's development would imply that they're very intelligent. Perhaps females of the species are naturally cleverer and more artistic? In this case, intelligence and artistic ability are also the culture's chief values. Intelligence and artistic ability would also be how an individual makes expresses their identity within the group and make their unique mark on the world. In order for this not to develop into a hierarchical structure, you have to have them value variety more than quantity or quality: not "who can make the most" or "who can make the best" but rather the idea that "everyone's is different, and these different pieces together make something better than the sum of its parts"- a sort of tapestry or quilt-like mindset that would also find its way into their government.

Now, how do females select mates? In humans, men usually select for beauty, which signals fertility, while women counter-select for physical strength or other resources that demonstrate ability to provide. In a female-dominated species where intelligence and artistic ability are chiefly valued, how does mate selection work? Do males pursue females? Do females pursue males? Or did they never develop the pursuit-response model and instead take some kind of third option? What does each sex select for?

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Interesting ideas. Okay, so this race would have to have originated in a place where they were the unchallenged apex predators- no large animals to fight off or hunt and force them to develop conventional weapons. There would also be no trees or rocks nearby to provide materials for making spears, bows, or arrows. But there would be plenty of grasses to weave rough clothing and ropes. So they would have developed in a savannah area with some rivers, or perhaps a marsh or delta. Presuming they're omnivores and not vegetarians, their main source of meat would have been fish and small animals they caught in snares or traps. Early on in their development they discovered magic, which they started using to make weaves because that's the kind of technology they were familiar with. Now, if you want this to be a group-focused culture, then staying with the group has to offer more survival options than striking out alone. In an area with no natural predators, your best bet will probably be the elements. Perhaps regular bad weather that's easier to cope with as a group than as an individual.

You two boys are good, Scribble and Mindfire. I should leave you alone to play more often! Yes, you both hit the race dead on. They are basically big desert/savannah cats that are omnivores with a STRONG preference for meat (though a massive interstellar population means that they are often pressed into consuming substitute protein). They are predators who enslave what they consider prey races - though they usually don't eat things that talk and have hands. Their technology is biotech based, from basic day-to-day to star ships, and their elite military caste wear genetically engineered armor that is in fact a shape-changing symbiotic organism keyed to the individual warrior and bonded for life.

Their genetic code is, as I like to say, open to suggestion, so when they conquer other races with traits they find desirable such as superior speed or intelligence they will breed them in, which means the race does not appear much as they did originally.

Love you guys! You are coming up with wonderful ideas!

 

[Scribble]

Interesting ideas. Okay, so this race would have to have originated in a place where they were the unchallenged apex predators- no large animals to fight off or hunt and force them to develop conventional weapons. There would also be no trees or rocks nearby to provide materials for making spears, bows, or arrows. But there would be plenty of grasses to weave rough clothing and ropes. So they would have developed in a savannah area with some rivers, or perhaps a marsh or delta. Presuming they're omnivores and not vegetarians, their main source of meat would have been fish and small animals they caught in snares or traps. Early on in their development they discovered magic, which they started using to make weaves because that's the kind of technology they were familiar with. Now, if you want this to be a group-focused culture, then staying with the group has to offer more survival options than striking out alone. In an area with no natural predators, your best bet will probably be the elements. Perhaps regular bad weather that's easier to cope with as a group than as an individual.

This sounds very reasonable. I think there was mentioned a feline aspect to the race. Lions provide the best comparison, except perhaps in this race, they ended up more like hyenas with the female becoming dominant. The males would be smaller. Size is adaptive, and large males are costly in terms of food consumption. We have large males because there was competition and large males were selected for. Males who don't hog food resources would be selected for in this case.

I like this idea of them becoming seafaring as well as land-hunting. It gives a different aspect to using nets and lines. It also lends itself well to the idea I had proposed where they "grow" calcium carbonate shell structures. It would be so pretty to see a shell city by the sea, plus it has the Aphrodite allusion.

 

[Scribble]

Something else that comes to mind. What made this society develop into a matriarchy? One possibility is that females are physically stronger than the males of this race, but that mirrors humans too much for what you seem to be aiming at, plus physical strength is a moot point survival-wise in a culture that's developed a place where it's largely irrelevant (no big animals to bring down or fight off, no heavy objects that need lifting). Their discovery of magic and complex traps so early in their culture's development would imply that they're very intelligent. Perhaps females of the species are naturally cleverer and more artistic? In this case, intelligence and artistic ability are also the culture's chief values. Intelligence and artistic ability would also be how an individual makes expresses their identity within the group and make their unique mark on the world. In order for this not to develop into a hierarchical structure, you have to have them value variety more than quantity or quality: not "who can make the most" or "who can make the best" but rather the idea that "everyone's is different, and these different pieces together make something better than the sum of its parts"- a sort of tapestry or quilt-like mindset that would also find its way into their government.

Now, how do females select mates? In humans, men usually select for beauty, which signals fertility, while women counter-select for physical strength or other resources that demonstrate ability to provide. In a female-dominated species where intelligence and artistic ability are chiefly valued, how does mate selection work? Do males pursue females? Do females pursue males? Or did they never develop the pursuit-response model and instead take some kind of third option? What does each sex select for?

It could be that males culturally became very good weavers, crafters, etc... It could be intelligence that was the selective feature for males, rather than size. If we think about lions, big tough male lions have one primary use: fighting off other male lions. If they developed technology, then it's triumph of the nerds. So, we have a society where males are technologists, and teachers, caring for the young, while females are more warlike - not necessarily larger, because their fighting style was not relying on might, but bright! So, brainliness would be the selective value. I can see a lot of sand-in-the-face nerds seeing this as a smart man's utopia

So, males have artistic and technological peacock tails, while women wield that technology.

There would be no reason for sexual dimorphism, they would be equal.

 

[Mindfire]

This sounds very reasonable. I think there was mentioned a feline aspect to the race. Lions provide the best comparison, except perhaps in this race, they ended up more like hyenas with the female becoming dominant. The males would be smaller. Size is adaptive, and large males are costly in terms of food consumption. We have large males because there was competition and large males were selected for. Males who don't hog food resources would be selected for in this case.

I like this idea of them becoming seafaring as well as land-hunting. It gives a different aspect to using nets and lines. It also lends itself well to the idea I had proposed where they "grow" calcium carbonate shell structures. It would be so pretty to see a shell city by the sea, plus it has the Aphrodite allusion.

That's good thinking, plus it fits in nicely with what I said above. In humans, males select for fertility via beauty while females counter-select for the socially "dominant" or chiefly valued trait: strength/resources/ability to provide. In this alien culture, females would select for willingness to share (resources) and emotional openness, while males would counter-select for the "dominant" trait: creativity and intelligence. Since nobody selects for fertility, we'd have to assume that for whatever reason, fertility isn't a problem with their species. Perhaps both males and females have an infinite supply of reproductive cells, rather than just males as is the case in humans.

EDIT: You ninja'd me Scribble! Lol. I like your ideas. Perhaps we can blend our approaches to mate selection somehow? As an aside, with females being dominant, I'd see them being the innovators while employing males to do the more tedious, low-skill, or repetitive tasks. Incidentally this means they might also select for higher attention span and more patience in males.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Something else that comes to mind. What made this society develop into a matriarchy? One possibility is that females are physically stronger than the males of this race, but that mirrors humans too much for what you seem to be aiming at, plus physical strength is a moot point survival-wise in a culture that's developed a place where it's largely irrelevant (no big animals to bring down or fight off, no heavy objects that need lifting). Their discovery of magic and complex traps so early in their culture's development would imply that they're very intelligent. Perhaps females of the species are naturally cleverer and more artistic? In this case, intelligence and artistic ability are also the culture's chief values.

Now, how do females select mates? In humans, men usually select for beauty, which signals fertility, while women counter-select for physical strength or other resources that demonstrate ability to provide. In a female-dominated species where intelligence and artistic ability are chiefly valued, how does mate selection work? Do males pursue females? Do females pursue males? Or did they never develop the pursuit-response model and instead take some kind of third option? What does each sex select for?

Females ARE physically stronger than the males, nearly massing half again their size. A good size female tops out at about 7 feet, whereas a male is much more delicate and gracile. We are not, I repeat NOT, going for a "utopian" matriarchy with this. Rather we're taking our human societal norms and twisting them every which way.

So, basically, what happened was the original feline culture was fairly egalitarian, with a generally female dominated social structure rather like a lion pride, only the lions didn't get to eat first. They advanced to the point of developing weapons of mass destruction, and blew themselves back to the stone age, rendering their world a desolate wasteland. The population eventually bounced back, but fertile males were in short supply and became a hot commodity, leading to their basically being horded by the most powerful females and encouraging that those aggressive and powerful females would pass on those traits.

Enter the space prospectors, who recognized a world still rich in mineral resources with a ready-made slave population - that had, as I said above, a genetic code "open to suggestion." Pretty soon, the two species were interbreeding, and the feline's genes won out, creating a new race of slaves who were highly intelligent, aggressive, and really liked their master's shiny ships. They rebelled and headed out to the stars, eventually becoming first pirates, and then establishing a civilization based on conquest.

As for mates, females select same as we do, based on youth and beauty, with fertility being paramount. A female must earn the right to breed (though she can own as many slaves as she can afford and with them as she pleases), and only citizens can get licenses to have legal children. She can earn citizenship through military service, or by proving herself to be a valuable, contributing member of society - and be able to afford a husband, of course. Then she has to contract with another woman, usually a friend or associate, to buy her son as a husband. Are illegal children born? All the time. But it's a cultural no no. A male is property and does not have a say in his wife. He is not a citizen, and cannot own property or inherit. No male legally born would approach a female, and one illegally born would be hoping for financial compensation for his limited time.

 

[Scribble]

That's good thinking, plus it fits in nicely with what I said above:




In our society, males select for fertility via beauty while females counter-select for the socially "dominant" or chiefly valued trait: strength/resources/ability to provide. In this alien culture, females would select for willingness to share (resources) and emotional openness, while males would counter-select for the "dominant" trait: creativity and intelligence. Since nobody selects for fertility, we'd have to assume that for whatever reason, fertility isn't a problem with their species. Perhaps both males and females have an infinite supply of reproductive cells, rather than just males as is the case in humans.

+10 points for understanding evolution and stuff.

We could get into weird biology - why not, they are aliens. Female bears young from her body. If we move away from that, and they have fur, the femininity starts to become vague. Not saying it's not doable, just making that point.

I think the really interesting bit comes with the social interaction. There could also be the distant cultural memory of when males were dominant. There could be the equivalent of cave paintings of those savage times. I described what appears to be a utopia, but for males who are second class, there could be some rumblings. Maybe there are male liberation movements.

I don't know if this where they want to go with this, but the desire for equality is something to be expected.

 

[Mindfire]

Females ARE physically stronger than the males, nearly massing half again their size. A good size female tops out at about 7 feet, whereas a male is much more delicate and gracile. We are not, I repeat NOT, going for a "utopian" matriarchy with this. Rather we're taking our human societal norms and twisting them every which way.

So, basically, what happened was the original feline culture was fairly egalitarian, with a generally female dominated social structure rather like a lion pride, only the lions didn't get to eat first. They advanced to the point of developing weapons of mass destruction, and blew themselves back to the stone age, rendering their world a desolate wasteland. The population eventually bounced back, but fertile males were in short supply and became a hot commodity, leading to their basically being horded by the most powerful females and encouraging that those aggressive and powerful females would pass on those traits.

Enter the space prospectors, who recognized a world still rich in mineral resources with a ready-made slave population - that had, as I said above, a genetic code "open to suggestion." Pretty soon, the two species were interbreeding, and the feline's genes won out, creating a new race of slaves who were highly intelligent, aggressive, and really liked their master's shiny ships. They rebelled and headed out to the stars, eventually becoming first pirates, and then establishing a civilization based on conquest.

As for mates, females select same as we do, based on youth and beauty, with fertility being paramount. A female must earn the right to breed (though she can own as many slaves as she can afford and with them as she pleases), and only citizens can get licenses to have legal children. She can earn citizenship through military service, or by proving herself to be a valuable, contributing member of society - and be able to afford a husband, of course. Then she has to contract with another woman, usually a friend or associate, to buy her son as a husband. Are illegal children born? All the time. But it's a cultural no no. A male is property and does not have a say in his wife. He is not a citizen, and cannot own property or inherit. No male legally born would approach a female, and one illegally born would be hoping for financial compensation for his limited time.

So basically, the culture Scribble and I are describing is what they were like before the apocalypse?

 

[A. E. Lowan]

So basically, the culture Scribble and I are describing is what they were like before the apocalypse?

Yes, pretty much! I'm loving reading what you two are coming up with. You're not only intuiting our original ideas brilliantly, but you're taking them and running with them is wonderful new directions. This is why I like collaboration.

 

[Feo Takahari]

A few days late, but I found this on another forum, and it seems relevant:

 

[A. E. Lowan]

OMG... I love you so much right now, Feo.

 

[Mindfire]

Okay, that made me lol. Incidentally, all of those are pretty inefficient weapons. Except for the chakram ("throwing anus") those things are surprisingly effective. They're like frisbees of death.

 

[Nameback]

Man, so I know the Bechdel test is hardly the end-all, be-all of measuring the feminism of writing, but I was shocked recently to find that my book doesn't pass!

I've already written 31,000 words, and yet I don't have a single scene with two women that doesn't include at some point talking about a male character! This, despite the fact that of my POV characters thus far, four are female and three are male, and I have an explicit goal in writing this book to explore some feminist themes (among other themes).

Now, of course, I think the book is well represented with female characters who have agency and impact on the plot (including the protagonist), and it seems that part of the 'problem' here is that I have very few scenes that feature characters of only one gender. Interestingly, my book wouldn't pass an inverse-Bechdel test, either. I have only two scenes between male characters, and both times they're talking about female characters.

Still, for something as simple and (often) reductive as the Bechdel test, it was really surprising for me to look at my own work and see that I didn't have any scenes that met the threshold.