Non feminist fantasy?

[dietl]

two things: how much does a hauberk or byrnie with chausses weigh? how much strength is necessary to penetrate the aforesaid with the pointy end, if that's even possible?

A hauberk weighs about as much as a baby, depending on how big the rings are and it's not that hard to penetrate as it is more about protecting from cuts.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think you're misremembering that. Frodo is very much in charge of the Scouring, albeit attempting to keep bloodshed to a minimum throughout. But he still commands the action.

What I meant was that during the battle, Frodo does not draw sword, and tries to stop the hobbits killing those who surrendered: unlike Merry, Frodo isn't into martial values. He even demands that Saruman be set free afterwards.

[Galactus]

I think you're misremembering that. Frodo is very much in charge of the Scouring, albeit attempting to keep bloodshed to a minimum throughout. But he still commands the action.

He really isn't, Merry & Pippin are. Frodo tags along and tries to minimize bloodshed, but does little.

[Altherion]

No, but that's not what I was saying. I was pointing out the absurdity of the idea that biological differences must necessarily mean that any fantasy setting that has women warriors is lacking credibility.

It's perfectly open to authors to have their society set up in a way that denies women the possibility of becoming warriors, and indeed doing so is often a very valid way to examine and explore social prejudices in our own history and/or our modern society. But the idea that it's just credibility-shattering (even just a 'black mark') to take any other option is absurd. We happily handwave away all kinds of other incidental setting issues: I pointed out language, and absolutely nobody seems to consider that a 'black mark' against any setting, despite it being arguably a much larger issue.

I don't think anyone in this thread (even the OP) is arguing against having women warriors per se, just against the overabundance of them. Suppose we have a truly meritocratic fantasy society: anyone who wants to be a warrior can apply and the best of these are selected. If combat requires strength and the humans are the same as those from our world, then there will fewer women than men selected and even fewer of them among the elite (the latter is just the nature of a normal distribution). So yes, it does strain credibility a little when there are as many female warriors as male and nobody even comments on it when one or more of them happen to be among the best warriors in the setting.

Regarding language: I agree with you, this is also problematic. I suspect it's not as noticeable because it's difficult to get a world's scale across.

[Altherion]

Perhaps so, but he still leaves it to a woman to carry that particular banner - there is no such rejection of martial values in any of the male warriors.

There's no rejection because they never espoused them in the first place. Before she disguises herself and rides off to war, Eowyn has a speech about wanting to do ride with Theoden and do great things, so it's necessary to point out that she is not interested anymore. The hobbits never wanted to go to war (they wanted an adventure which mainly consisted of going to Rivendell and then wound up in a couple of battles either by accident or by trying to stick together) and the other great warriors (e.g. Aragorn, Faramir) fight only because they have to.

And yes, she is pretty clearly shown to be a good warrior. She kills the flying beast that the witch-king rides without any assistance (that critter is pretty nasty in and of itself) and then proceeds to kill the witch-king (who is easily in the top five of the assorted nasties in the three books) with Merry's help. That's a lot more than most of the people in that battle accomplished.

[TrackerNeil]

Wheres the evidence that she is a good fighter. All she does is stab the witch king.

Yes, all Eowyn does is kill the monster that prophecies say no man can kill. That's hardly memorable or noteworthy.

[Arthmail]

fabioO12: I'm getting the sense you are drawing your information from DnD. Honestly.

[Larry of the Lawn]

A hauberk weighs about as much as a baby, depending on how big the rings are and it's not that hard to penetrate as it is more about protecting from cuts.

some quick googling seems to suggest that a hauberk would weight between 22 and 55 lbs. that's one big baby.

[dietl]

My quick googling suggests that authentical hauberks weight 10-30lbs (average being around 22lbs) which matches the average weight of a baby from one/two month (about 10lbs) til two years (up to 30lbs).

[Gneisenau]

Women soldiers carry alot of stuff today and unlike armor which is nicely spread out around your body, the modern gear is mostly in your backpack.

[Kalbear]

Wearing chainmail isn't so bad because it's distributed. It's not like you're xarrying it in your arms - like actual babies.

[Wise Fool]

Clearly what we need is chainmail-shaped babies, so they're easier to carry.

[Darth Richard II]

Wearing chainmail isn't so bad because it's distributed. It's not like you're xarrying it in your arms - like actual babies.

I love you man. I laughed so hard at this I almost choked.

(Now, will anyone else understand the joke here)

[Starkess]

One of the projects I'm working on right now actually stems from this very issue. Basically, if you have a land where only women can use magic, what kind of societies would result? It's been a lot of fun to write, actually. One main character is the youngest husband just taken into the harem of a wealthy lady. He is anxious to please her, but ends up forming a much closer relationship with one of his brother-husbands, and eventually having a romantic subplot with his "daughter"--one of his wife's older children who is his age. The big political force is the high priestess, who has conquered most of the known world over the past 1000 years. Men are considered ornamental, of some use in the production and raising of children, but little value overall. Brute strength is considered low class and shameful--men hire out for their strength for menial labor in a manner somewhat analogous to prostitution.

It's been quite fascinating and difficult to write, actually. It's hard to realize that many of the words I want to use don't make sense in the context and how to make the men believable as second-class citizens. Not sure it'll ever be a work I polish up, but it's definitely an interesting exercise for me as both an author and a woman.

But as far as women being soldiers, I certainly don't find that unbelievable at all. One example that comes to mind is Robin Hobb's Farseer and Liveship trilogies. In Farseer, we see a country where women are routinely considered equal to men. There are somewhat defined gender roles, but no one really bats an eye at women in the guard or such. Then in Liveships, we see a different country that is somewhat farther along in development. Here we see women in the process of becoming marginalized. The more egalitarian society up north is seen as barbarian, and in Bingtown it is becoming fashionable to prove that you don't need your women to work as a sign of wealth and class. I just thought it was a really interesting way of exploring the different roles of women in society and how values change over time and place.

[Datepalm]

Women soldiers carry alot of stuff today and unlike armor which is nicely spread out around your body, the modern gear is mostly in your backpack.

No it isn't.

[Richard]

@ Datepalm

Excellent - the voice of experience, I'm guessing, via the IDF?

Any insights from there into the whole women-as-warriors dispute, especially on a psychological level? Would be very interested to hear.........

[mormont]

I don't think anyone in this thread (even the OP) is arguing against having women warriors per se, just against the overabundance of them.

Then I kind of wonder which books they have in mind. I can't think of a single fantasy novel that genuinely has an 'overabundance' of female warriors. Assuming, of course, that we agree on what an 'overabundance' is. More than 50%? More than 1%? Or somewhere in between?

Suppose we have a truly meritocratic fantasy society: anyone who wants to be a warrior can apply and the best of these are selected. If combat requires strength and the humans are the same as those from our world, then there will fewer women than men selected and even fewer of them among the elite (the latter is just the nature of a normal distribution).

Suppose strength is useful, but not actually a requirement? (In fact, we don't have to suppose this - this is actually true of combat with most medieval weaponry.)

The reliance on physical strength as the basis for this whole argument tends to mean its importance is exaggerated. Medieval women, after all, were used to a lot of physical labour. The discussion of the relative weight of maille and children is useful here. If a woman is strong enough to carry a child with her while she does her daily work, she's strong enough to wear armour. If a woman can work all day with a rake or hoe, she can wield a spear on the battlefield. You don't need prodigious strength and fitness to be an ordinary warrior. To be elite, it helps, but so do other things - training, experience, speed, balance, reach, good diet and conditioning amongst them. In many ways, it's no more or less unrealistic to have common-born men as elite fighters than it is to have women as such.

[fabio012]

fabioO12: I'm getting the sense you are drawing your information from DnD. Honestly.

Swords arent lightsabers you have to hit plate armor and shields its kinda like boxing in how its fought. You need to be strong and most women arent strong enough to do this and out of those that are strong enough most wont be skilled enough.

[fabio012]

Then I kind of wonder which books they have in mind. I can't think of a single fantasy novel that genuinely has an 'overabundance' of female warriors. Assuming, of course, that we agree on what an 'overabundance' is. More than 50%? More than 1%? Or somewhere in between?

Suppose strength is useful, but not actually a requirement? (In fact, we don't have to suppose this - this is actually true of combat with most medieval weaponry.)

The reliance on physical strength as the basis for this whole argument tends to mean its importance is exaggerated. Medieval women, after all, were used to a lot of physical labour. The discussion of the relative weight of maille and children is useful here. If a woman is strong enough to carry a child with her while she does her daily work, she's strong enough to wear armour. If a woman can work all day with a rake or hoe, she can wield a spear on the battlefield. You don't need prodigious strength and fitness to be an ordinary warrior. To be elite, it helps, but so do other things - training, experience, speed, balance, reach, good diet and conditioning amongst them. In many ways, it's no more or less unrealistic to have common-born men as elite fighters than it is to have women as such.

I feel like women are just less skilled than men in stuff that is physical as well as also being less strong. Just look at the men and womens snowboarding slopestyle event in the olympics that just happened for an example.

[Datepalm]

@ Datepalm

Excellent - the voice of experience, I'm guessing, via the IDF?

Any insights from there into the whole women-as-warriors dispute, especially on a psychological level? Would be very interested to hear.........

I'm wary of extrapolating anecdotes of a particular group of people in particular circumstaces to anything more universal, but in general, my view is...nuanced. Physical fitness clearly has a different upper bar for men and women, but what the overlap is is...kind of mysterious. There are a lot of social aspects to fitness and training that all serve to keep women, well, weak. My experience is that there's an assumption of womens fragility that means that training is dialled down, on a personal and even institutional level. (We were confidently informed by a professional sports instructor that there was no point in women trying to train for pullups, because the joints of the elbows simply don't allow it.)

The brigade I was in was considered to be at the limits of the kind of training and specializations (snipers, machine gunners, etc) women could possibly undertake, and since then it's moved past all of them with no particular hurdles, just because it was an obvious next step in terms of sending the best people out for more and more difficult courses and types of training. (for example, women weren't allowed into sniper training when I was in the army. Since then one of my commune-mates became the first woman to train snipers.) There's a limit somewhere, but reaching it is honestly seems to be some kind of a trial and error process no one has figured out yet. :dunno:

Psychologically, I think there was a bit of a tendency at the beginning on the part of men to be more protective of women, and more...careful, less physically demanding. Back in training, guys would - I think mostly unconsciously - step in to take on the brawnier physical stuff. A couple months of actual service killed all that dead with no fuss whatsoever. When everyone is at the end of their rope, it tuns out that that kind of "extra effort" just wasn't something the men could afford. I've seen a 55kg, 1.40 m girl step in to take up the load from the 1.90 meter guy, sometimes because he couldn't anymore, and sometimes just because it was her turn.