Are female characters in Fantasy subservient to their male counterparts?

[Mouse]

Well yeah, but that goes both ways. I don't like reading about really butch, masculine men!

 

[Parson]

Are you saying he'd have to be a bit weird to like my books, Parson?

I think that boys are perfectly happy to read about female heroes in books. Look at Philip Pullman's HDM. Lyra is the hero and lots of boys happily read the books. Same with Garth Nix's Sabriel books.

You know better than that.

My point was not about the enjoyment of the reading but actually taking the time to write a book review that was not required. Most of my cohorts of that age, and my students of that age would not be write a Review that wasn't necessary. Only the "weird" ones would do such a thing.

 

[Ackernon]

I have very much enjoyed reading the conversation on the topic I posted. Thank you all who have posted your comments. As a film maker and a fantasy/Scifi enthusiast, it's nice to read people's points of view on a topic that is near and dear to me. In the current project I'm working on it was actually a stated goal in the scripting to have 3 dimensional, real women characters who could believably function in the Joseph Campbell defined hero or mentor roles. We also wanted to have them to deal with issues in a fantasy world that are valid issues in ours such as "office romances", sexual orientation, and sexism. Some issues are just timeless to any universe I suspect.

I agree with the statement that good female characters do not have to be female versions of Conan. There are lots of tools at their disposal that can be effectively used. Biologically women have faster reflexes and some would say a higher pain threshold than men, both a certain advantage depending on the situation. And one shouldn't discount the use of sex appeal after all. Male hero characters use it so why shouldn't females. All in all, it has been great fun to read the responses. Thanks.

 

[Laura Olson]

Hi- new to this thread. Great stuff. So Parson, your cartoon study makes that case that female superheros stopped being leads because little boys wouldnt support those shows without a male lead. So does that mean that little girls also expected to see males in these leads? Or do females just tend to watch less tv period. OR do young girls want to still secretly have that strong hunky guy swoop you up rescue you.
We still even in america have a culture where women are less truely independent and expected to survive on their own. Own their home, start and run their own business, fix their own toilets and cars, cut down their own trees, have their own good credit score all without the aid of a man. (you get my meaning?) I think we are getting there but still not there yet. Are women watching fantasy because they are wanting to viscerally particpate in what the lead is doing, or is it because they want to fantasize about the lead male? I personally would love to see more fantasys where I as a viewer can do both. Have a strong female that I can pretend is me AND a hunky guy I can fantasize about!

 

[Parson]

Laura,

As I recall it, your question would be beyond the scope of the survey. The survey noted that over time boys would not support female leads, but that girls would support either female or male leads. I do not remember it delving into any of the why questions, and I would suspect that this would mean someone speculating more than offering evidence.

The result is of the survey is that it is very hard to get a network to buy into a female lead in an action/adventure cartoon. My observation, limited as it is, would be that when boys become too old for Dora the Explorer, they are much, much, more likely to migrate to Transformers than to Barbie.

 

[Quokka]

Still if a show is well written it can still find an audience, Kim Possible was a very successful cartoon with a female lead and from what little I could find a demographic of both male and female fans. If Pixar's Brave turns out to be more than a disney princess story it will be interesting to see how it's received.

Unfortunately rather than risk something new it's too easy to try and repeat what has worked before and the more it gets recycled the further back it goes and the more certain it is to be a male lead.

 

[Ackernon]

Unfortunately rather than risk something new it's too easy to try and repeat what has worked before and the more it gets recycled the further back it goes and the more certain it is to be a male lead.

I think you have nailed the past decade of the entertainment industry philosophy on the nose. Is it because audiences expect bigger explosions and wilder chase scenes that demand such huge budgets that the money people are no longer able to take the risk? Or would more engaging stories and writing satisfy an audience just as well? LOTR had a pretty big budget but also an excellently crafted screen play from the original format so it's hard to tell from that one.

 

[Robert Kelsey]

I think the world despite its progress in certain countries for equality for all, is still in its traditional way of thinking. That a man is in the lead role of guiding and safeguarding others. That its his duty to do so. The world isn't ready to break from the stereotypical macho lead. There have, are and will continue to be great women as leaders. Take Queen Zenobia from history for one. As well for over a decade a women ruled the church by putting in popes she could control. But in the world of SFF typically I think you will continue to see more male dominated characters than female ones.

 

[Anne Lyle]

In the hands of a good author a female lead hero will be liked. Trouble with fantasy of certain type is that there isnt many good writers writing Ripley/Xena/Buffy type ass kicking heroines. There are bad writers writing them like the writer of Sword of Truth....

And there are plenty of women readers who are equally bored by the Xena/Buffy kickass leatherclad eyecandy that's frankly not much less of an adolescent male take on women than the braid-twirling stereotypes in WoT.

At the same time I don't want to read about female characters whose main interests are domestic, because that's too close to the role that real life tries to force us into, TBH. I wasn't into all that when I was five, and I'm not now!

The main protagonist of my own book is a guy (for the reasons of historical realism discussed earlier), and the main female character is just an ordinary girl trying to make her way in a male-dominated world. She learns to fight well enough to defend herself, but she leaves the serious arse-kicking to the ex-soldier protagonist who is far better equipped to do so, by both biology and upbringing.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

This is based on the author, really, though I've noticed that for the most part, authors do seem to be getting away from the sexist views you have mentioned and are giving female characters more solidity.

This is not to say that every lead protagonist/antagonist should be female. But neither should they be solidly male and the females simply token characters like what had been represented in 1950s science fiction movies. A good example of the "eye candy" female character would be, unfortunately, from Piers Anthony's Visions of Tarot series, and to be honest, the first few Xanth novels as well. That being said, he had become more sophisticated as the seventies went on by and provided more realistic, independent female characters in novels such as Being A Green Mother, And Eternity, Under A Velvet Cloak (again, the main character was female and while she was sexual, she was confident in her sexuality and was not second fiddle to any male), and some of the later Xanth novels, like The Dastard, Demons Don't Dream, and The Swell Foop.

Terry Brooks, again, seemed to have examples of the eye candy female with Willow from The Magic Kingdom of Landover series, but if what I had heard from the sixth volume onward, the daughter Misty was much more independent.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Just a thought. Have any of you considered that at least in traditional fantasy books, the hero is often a swordsman of some sort? Yes I am thinking Conan and Gor. Now not wanting to appear sexist, but the idea of a woman - even Red Sonja or Lara Croft - duking it out with men on that physical level, seems a little unrealistic. (And I liked both those movies, and while we're at it, Buffy).

My thought is that its hard to write a female fantasy hero who uses swords or weapons or any sort of physical attack, without 'butching?' if that's a word, her up. In short making her masculine. That in turn makes it hard to take the character seriously. In telly and movies, that's starting to be the case, and these kick ass women rock because in some way they appeal to men like me, since they're both hot and masculine in some (lord I hope not sexual!) way. I mean have you ever seen Lara Croft talking about her feelings? Did Keira Knight's character from Underworld go out and try on clothes or talk about pretty things? They don't because it would interfer with their perceived character, as women competing in a mans world - as men.

There are some exceptions of course, as there are with everything. But really for women to compete as fantasy leads on an even playing field I think they have to find their own place, and it can't really be as a warrior. Magic though seems a natural forte, and I so no reason at all why a witch shouldn't be both twice as deadly as a wizard, and feminine.

Cheers.

 

[Anne Lyle]

See, that's the problem with these "kickass warrior chicks" - they're basically men with boobs.

I deliberately shied away from the "guy gets the sword, girl gets the magic" cliché - in my book the girl is the creative thinker in the partnership and also a bit of a geek with a flair for mechanical stuff and making things. Sort of a thief-type character without the stealing part, if that makes sense!

(Not a self-insertion at all, no sirree... *cough*)

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Yet with the real life versions - Lady of Mercia, Elizabeth I, Boudicca, Empress Maude, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra etc their image isn't usually a butch one. Even Elizabeth II is all female despite knowing her way round a shot gun, being a talented horsewoman and knows her way round an old fashioned car engine.

I just gave my queen different weapons - a fan (I redesigned the Japanese/Korean weapons), and a bow. She has vulnerability, but the men around her do her bidding -- her fathers because she has them charmed, her husband, brothers and army because of a mix of coquetishness and they are concerned they will get a strategically placed arrow. Until next story she is fairly minor character though.

 

[sabolich]

Yet with the real life versions - Lady of Mercia, Elizabeth I, Boudicca, Empress Maude, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra etc their image isn't usually a butch one. Even Elizabeth II is all female despite knowing her way round a shot gun, being a talented horsewoman and knows her way round an old fashioned car engine.

I just gave my queen different weapons

None of those ladies was actually expected to fight. As you said, they could command the men around them to do the heavier lifting. This is part of what I liked about Raymond Feist/Janni Wurtz's "Daughter of the Empire" and the other two books in that series. No one expected her to fight; she rose to the occasion on brains, competence, and original thinking. She inspired loyalty which made everyone around her achieve their best as well, which is the mark of a leader.

The emphasis on sheer brute, kickass muscle power is a mistake, in my opinion, both because it is unrealistic for most women, and limiting in terms of expectations. Okay, so she drops the baddies with well-placed kicks and dead-eye shooting. Then what? Pretty soon we're tottering on the edge of Mary Sue territory as she demonstrates her superior brains, empathy, subtlety and come-hither hottiness. However much people might admire the "guys with boobs", they are rapidly becoming a stereotype and no doubt will soon become tiresome to read. Movies have an advantage in that you get this pretty visual with a constant stream of different women in the lead role for variety. I admire well-toned bodies, male or female, as much as the next person, but honestly, what's under the skin? Or does the majority of the audience not care? Puh-lease don't tell me the genre audience is really that shallow.

This discussion is interesting. The guys like watching hot chicks for the same reason women like watching hot guys. I don't feel threatened by a man's brains, so if he is smarter than he is muscular, that's okay by me. Guys, what do you say? Are women getting crammed into the guys-with-boobs role because nobody wants to snuggle up to the smart girl?

 

[Quokka]

Personally I don't think intelligence is the big issue, fiction has always had intelligent women and in general that doesn't challenge the stereotypes. Maybe this is reflected in real life to some extent with men not neccessarily finding an intelligent woman threatning or unattractive, even for many of those who don't recognise intelligence as increasing a woman's attractiveness?

But a woman who shows leadership? Someone who leads by natural talent and group consensus, where the surrounding males are not told by a higher authority as with royalty, prophecy or special bloodline that this person must lead but where people actively decide that a female shall lead because she is best skilled for the task. This is less common imo but is it also more threatning... or I suppose unbelievable, to someone with stereotypical views of gender roles?

 

[psychotick]

Hi Sabolich,

Sadly, speaking for myself as a mere male - yes I am that shallow. I will happily accept a kick ass warrior chick in a movie / tv series if she's hot.

But in my meagre defence the televisual media make it easy - not only do they make the women hot, but with special effects they make the action almost believable. Yes, when I see Buffy smash someone in the face I can almost believe its a bone crunching impact which could knock someone aroud a room, simply because its what I'm shown. As they say seeing is believing.

In a book though I have to try and imagine it, and that's not so easy. After all I know what my fist can do to an eighty pound bag, so if I can't hit someone and expect them to go flying, how am I expected to believe someone less then half my weight can? Uber warrior chick just adds another layer of incredibility to try and overcome for me as a reader.

As I say, if women are to be seen as equal(?) in fantasy lead roles in books at least, I think they have to fight on their own battlefield. Magic, strategy, cunning, range weapons, stealth, - all good choices, and lets be honest, women are naturally going to be seen as better choices for some roles such as the seductive spy / agent, or confident. After all can anyone really see Arnold as sneak thief or spy? How about Jean Claude as a harem dancer? (Ohh god just the idea turns my head inside out!).

Cheers.

 

[sabolich]

Mm, Quokka, yes! The whole woman as leader thing is often overlooked. I loved Marjorie Monahan's character (#1) on Babylon 5 because, yes, she was tough, but she was the head of the resistance because she could lead, not just kick ass. I like characters who have to claw their way up, rather than just having the top spot handed to them by birth or superior talent.

Psychotick, you gave me a good laugh. Hollywood is too good at making you believe the impossible. But boy, howdy, you're giving me ideas with that femme fatale stuff. James Bond actually plays this role to a certain degree, wrapped inside the suave, urbane action hero. Imagine a pretty boy spy in a female-dominated society worming his way into high society beds. A gigolo with a mission. Oy. It might be fun, actually, to invert these roles and see what happens.

Still, in the realities of Mother Nature, you are right that women generally need some advantage to overcome the fact that guys are born stronger. One hopes that just occasionally, it is brains and recognized superiority of the same character qualities we admire in men: courage, determination, loyalty, brains... Not just magic or whatever.

 

[Anne Lyle]

I loved Marjorie Monahan's character (#1) on Babylon 5 because, yes, she was tough, but she was the head of the resistance because she could lead, not just kick ass. I like characters who have to claw their way up, rather than just having the top spot handed to them by birth or superior talent.

One of the things I loved about Babylon 5 was that it showed a range of female characters, many of them strong and few of them kick-ass. Delenn was a leader and very feminine, Ivanova was funny as well as kick-ass and Na'Toth was...Na'Toth.

James Bond actually plays this role to a certain degree, wrapped inside the suave, urbane action hero. Imagine a pretty boy spy in a female-dominated society worming his way into high society beds. A gigolo with a mission. Oy. It might be fun, actually, to invert these roles and see what happens.

Who needs a female-dominated society to have a pretty-boy spy worming his way into high society beds?

But yes - I'm having fun at the moment, developing some strong female characters who are so not kick-ass...

 

[Toby Frost]

Most fantasy – at least the heroic sort – seems to be a cross between medieval and modern in outlook, with magical elements. Fortunately it’s not entirely medieval, because the medieval times were both disgusting and really quite alien in terms of the way people thought. The upshot of that is that a standard feminist (whatever the hell that means) outlook would be extremely unlikely in that kind of world. A woman wanting to run her own affairs would be up against not just men but other women and the Church, in which, being medieval, she’d almost certainly devoutly believe. So it wouldn’t just be men keeping her down, but the word of God. Although there were some female saints, they were usually chaste and suffered considerably, which few would want to emulate. That’s a lot to rebel against. (For a demonstration of medieval tolerance, see the death of Richard II).

So I’d have thought that to be credible in fantasy, a female character would have to have some sort of history to base herself on or at least ‘excuse’ her conduct. The Order of Joan of Arc, or something similar, could allow female fighters to operate. Wizardry would put an interesting spin on things, by making some women inherently very powerful, although religion being what it is they would probably be seen as something to be destroyed unless they were able to secure themselves.

And then there’s the practical problem of physique, especially when being pale and plump was seen as a sign of wealth. At the very least, I’d expect a female swordswoman to have the rather stringy, muscled physique Madonna had a few years back. I suspect most men find that unattractive: I certainly do. (That said, I did once know a girl who was about 5 feet tall, pretty and skilled in ninjutsu. But against a trained male fighter, who knows?). It’s possible, I guess, but don’t expect a lady swordsman to look that kind of fit.

Which brings us onto Mary Sue. I suspect the answer is just to accept that attractive girls who can fight in close combat are about as common as manly lone woodsmen who are actually kind to puppies, or anyone even slightly resembling Jude Law in a pre-moisturiser setting. Of course, fantasy does let writers do what they want, but it’s got to make some sort of sense. Oh, and wearing high heels in a fight is just plain stupid. I wish male artists would stop drawing them like that.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I do agree with Toby on a lot of points here; that being said, the slim-muscled female warrior should be able to still wield light weaponry like katanas, daggers, rapiers, throwing stars, whatever. And not to mention the fact that a small, slim figure could have an asset the larger, heavier opponents might not have: speed and agility.


I do find high-heel combat to be ridiculous. I tend to prefer my characters to use the standard basic leather boots, plate greave boots, or better yet, modern standard military combat boots.