Fantasy with discussion of gender roles

[C.T. Phipps]

On a more feminist positive note, does anyone have any fantasy or urban fantasy series they credit for improving their lives in perception of different gender roles?

 

Obviously, RL is the best teacher but I was benefited from growing up in a very traditionalist household that, through fiction, girls were not so terribly mysterious or different like the way I was raised to think they were.

 

In large part because of fantasy.

 

 

ETA (by Kat): This was split from the Feminism thread in Gen Chat. In order to keep it true to its roots, please abide by the following guidelines from the original thread:

 

1. If you don't believe in feminism, then start a thread about that. This is for the discussion of feminist topics

2. If you have questions of what feminism means or why you should believe/be a feminist, try one of the introductory 101 FAQ pages This is not rudeness, it's just to avoid sidelining the discussion with basics.

3. Politely framed questions will generally be answered even if they pertain to "basics"

4. Feel free to post examples, links, youtube videos or suggested reading if you have stuff you think could be interesting

[Salome the Persian Witch]

On a more feminist positive note, does anyone have any fantasy or urban fantasy series they credit for improving their lives in perception of different gender roles?

You know, one author I've just recently come to like is Patricia Briggs and her Mercy Thompson series. From my feminist perspective she doesn't make me want to hurl or roll my eyes, and I find her books interesting enough to want to read more but not too intelligent that I need to concentrate too heavily. She's a good balance for my summer reading!

[C.T. Phipps]

You know, one author I've just recently come to like is Patricia Briggs and her Mercy Thompson series. From my feminist perspective she doesn't make me want to hurl or roll my eyes, and I find her books interesting enough to want to read more but not too intelligent that I need to concentrate too heavily. She's a good balance for my summer reading!

 

I love the books but was rather horrified by the events of Iron Kissed. They were highlighted about as maturely as possible, though.

[Lyanna Stark]

On a more feminist positive note, does anyone have any fantasy or urban fantasy series they credit for improving their lives in perception of different gender roles?

 

Obviously, RL is the best teacher but I was benefited from growing up in a very traditionalist household that, through fiction, girls were not so terribly mysterious or different like the way I was raised to think they were.

 

In large part because of fantasy.

 

 

UF, then no. Most UF is somewhere between vaguely problematic to outright bad. The only series I've seen so far that doesn't raise many red flags is "Generation V". Particia Briggs has too many snarling controlling alpha dudes for it to pass any sort of thought through feminist analysis. (That does not mean you cannot enjoy the novels, just that to pass them off as "feminist" is plan wrong.)

 

I am also not sure "traditionalist" generally means "egalitarian" as this normally mean adherence to traditional gender roles, not to progressive styles of thinking or acting.

 

 

I was just called a cunt on someone elses status because I asked a neckbeard not to make comments about women being harmed and called him out on his misuse of what a metaphor is. And he comes in telling me to shut the fuck up 'you self righteous cunt'. This status was about how shitty some feminists can be. Lol. What a charmer.

 

Can always trust neckbeards to be both wrong and offensive. Stay safe.

[A wilding]

Most UF is somewhere between vaguely problematic to outright bad. The only series I've seen so far that doesn't raise many red flags is "Generation V".

 

Out of interest, what is wrong with "Rivers of London"? From my perspective it has several strong female characters, even if many of them are not strictly human ...

[Kalbear]

 
Out of interest, what is wrong with "Rivers of London"? From my perspective it has several strong female characters, even if many of them are not strictly human ...

strong female characters are not what makes a story feminist or even pro feminist. Having one-note men is just as bad.

[C.T. Phipps]

strong female characters are not what makes a story feminist or even pro feminist. Having one-note men is just as bad.

 

For me, I find that feminist is not a big hurdle to achieve and the idea it's anything but an absolute minimum expectation of a story is a strange one. A story is feminist, for me, is the male and female characters are shown to be equal and fully realized.

 

There should, however, be another word I suppose for those works which exceed and excel beyond.

Also, there's different types of ways a book or media can be feminist as well. Succeeding in some ways but failing in others.

 

George R.R. Martin deserves credit for recording the experiences of Cersei Lannister, Catelyn Stark, Arya, Daenerys, Brienne, Asha, and other women who all bring something different to the table.

Even if I think he can be criticized for other things.

 

Because no one's perfect. :)

[A wilding]

strong female characters are not what makes a story feminist or even pro feminist. Having one-note men is just as bad.

 

Of course. I was not intending to imply anything other than necessary though not sufficient. Just thought I would give Lyanna something to work from rather than just a direct question :leaving:

[Lyanna Stark]

For me, I find that feminist is not a big hurdle to achieve and the idea it's anything but an absolute minimum expectation of a story is a strange one. A story is feminist, for me, is the male and female characters are shown to be equal and fully realized.

Really? Because your definition of what entails a "feminist story" is not correct. It needs to deal with gender politics in some ways, as per kalbear's post.

 
 

George R.R. Martin deserves credit for recording the experiences of Cersei Lannister, Catelyn Stark, Arya, Daenerys, Brienne, Asha, and other women who all bring something different to the table.
Even if I think he can be criticized for other things.

This doesn't make much sense. Do you mean he deserves credit for writing female characters, in general? Or believable ones? That, in itself, is again not feminist. Where it *becomes* feminist is where these characters run into gender politics, which they do. Especially perhaps Sansa, Dany, Brienne and Cat are up against restrictions based on gender a lot, and it is portrayed as something they struggle with and something which is not right. This is when it becomes feminist.
 
 

2.  Lyanna, for UF, what's your definition of "problematic?"  I can find lots of problems if I nitpick enough, but, for instance, Seanan McGuire's books (October Daye and Incryptid) have lots of strong women characters (that is, the heroine is not the exceptional character) and while there are strong men in the books as well, the women do not rely on them in a way that I find problematic.  I feel much the same way about Jacqueline Carey's Agent of Hel series.  But, to be fair, when I'm reading UF, I'm not looking for deep social commentary.  I'm looking for a good time  :)

I've only read one of the InCryptid novels, which I was fine with, although I was somewhat disappointed in it in general since I think I went in with too high hopes. I have no read the October Day ones yet. However, looking at Jim Butcher, Kim Harrison, Patricia Briggs, Ilona Andrews, Kelley Armstrong etc. they all manage, to a larger or lesser degree, to include problematic relationship dynamics between male and female characters. As a rule, it is overly controlling men that is seen as "romantic", in similar vein to Edward of Twilight fame.

In Paranormal romance it's so much the norm it's difficult to find something that isn't at least fairly problematic.

 

I agree with you on that it's not social commentary one normally looks for when reading UF. :) As a rule, I can kind of breeze through most things, but once you start thinking about it, it's much harder to un-see!

[C.T. Phipps]

Really? Because your definition of what entails a "feminist story" is not correct. It needs to deal with gender politics in some ways, as per kalbear's post.

 

To me, feminism is an article of basic gender relations which shouldn't need to be equivocated. The invisibility of women in fiction save as trophies, supporting foils to male driven stories, victims, and motives (like gold or a dragon's treasure, the virgin is nothing more than a prize), plus eye-candy means that any story which forwards the narrative of women as equal and important to men is one which I think needs to be applauded.

 

Especially in the still-a-long-to-go fields of fantasy, speculative fiction, military science fiction, and video games.

 

 

This doesn't make much sense. Do you mean he deserves credit for writing female characters, in general? Or believable ones? That, in itself, is again not feminist. Where it *becomes* feminist is where these characters run into gender politics, which they do. Especially perhaps Sansa, Dany, Brienne and Cat are up against restrictions based on gender a lot, and it is portrayed as something they struggle with and something which is not right. This is when it becomes feminist.

 

The presence and believability of the female characters in George R.R. Martin's world is less important to me than the simple fact that he chose to give those characters a voice in the narrative. Whether the women engage or not with restrictions based on their gender, their very presence inside the story makes a statement which goes above and beyond anything they actually choose to do in regards to patriarchal struggles regarding the system.

 

If I may step over to comic book land, Storm of the X-men was a character who did not ever engage with the fact she was black or female in her time under Chris Claremont. They were important parts of her background but there was never a time when Cyclops or Professor Xavier had difficulties with her status as leader of the team due to either her gender or ethnicity.

 

However, the very existence of Storm as a character who was a black female character of importance in comic books had an effect not only on the comic book world she lived in, suddenly much more realistic and vibrant than it was with the presence of Jean Grey and five dudes living at the X-men, but it also had a larger effect on the publishing industry and audience.

 

Women of color could look at Storm and self-identify as well as engage with her as a character. Indeed, one of the greatest moments of comics for me as a growing adult was when Storm engaged with Cyclops and defeated him despite being depowered, challenging the white male character and defeating him for leadership of the X-men.

 

Which she did a MAGNIFICENT job of, mind you.

 

One of the biggest problems I've felt afflicting video games is Female Erasure which is easy enough a concept to grasp. Women in video games matter very often only in the context of being in Ganon or King Koopa's dungeon. Lara Croft, for all of the embarrassing sexualization she went through, remains one of the few major female characters of gaming. A fact which is something which needs to be addressed.

 

Part of why I liked the Witcher 2 in spite of its many-many flaws was that we had characters like Saskia, Triss, Philippa Eilhart, and Cynthia all acting on political and military and social justice motivations which had absolutely nothing to do with Geralt as a lover or protagonist. He was a character in their stories, not the other way around.

 

For me, the patriarchy in our culture is so inherent that when Katniss Everdeen gets a movie about her. The statement isn't whether Katniss has to deal with patriarchy in the movie's text, the fact she's a female character with her own movie is a statement against patriarchy.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Lyanna, completely agree on Kim Harrison (they started out ok but then, OMG, got worse and worse and worse) and Ilona Andrews, and Patricia Briggs (exceptional woman FTW there).  Haven't read either Butcher or Armstrong.  Problematic relationships aren't themselves and issue - it's whether they are presented as normal and right, IMO. 

[C.T. Phipps]

Lyanna, completely agree on Kim Harrison (they started out ok but then, OMG, got worse and worse and worse) and Ilona Andrews, and Patricia Briggs (exceptional woman FTW there).  Haven't read either Butcher or Armstrong.  Problematic relationships aren't themselves and issue - it's whether they are presented as normal and right, IMO. 

 

Jim Butcher is an author I truly love the writing of but is somewhat trapped by his earlier format. Basically, he envisioned the Dresden Files as works which were going to do something of a Noir format which is, amongst other things, characterized strongly by The Dangerous Woman. The Dangerous Woman is a very-very common creature in the Dresden Files with dozens of characters, literally, being absurdly sexy females who want to either have sex with, eat (literally), or both Harry.

 

By the 12th book or so, it becomes a bit...noticeable.

 

On the plus side, it has Murphy, though.

:)

 

My opinion on Jim, overall, is he's a B on the feminist range, maybe B- when we have things like Murphy's screw up in Skin Games and Harry being stalked by a demonness for "cheating" on her which all get resolved by male heroes. There are much-much worse examples, IMHO, many by female writers. I also give Jim a cookie for having somehow managed to avoid sexual violence as a plot device the entire run of his books (albeit, not child abuse).

 

Given the prevalence of that in urban fantasy and fantasy, I shouldn't have to feel the need to give him high marks for that but I do.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Lyanna, completely agree on Kim Harrison (they started out ok but then, OMG, got worse and worse and worse, and I'm still not sure why I choked through the travesty of that last book) and Ilona Andrews, and Patricia Briggs (exceptional woman FTW there).  Haven't read either Butcher or Armstrong.  Have found UF tends to really suffer from the exceptionalism problem.  Even where they start with more than one female character they tend to write those characters basically out (*I'm looking at you Kim Harrison*) so that one is left with the heroine and her revolving (or not) set of snarling, fanged bad-boy boyfriends.  I personally find that worse than the "snarling love interest" issue  Problematic relationships aren't themselves an issue - it's whether they are presented as normal and right, IMO. 

[Lyanna Stark]

To me, feminism is an article of basic gender relations which shouldn't need to be equivocated. The invisibility of women in fiction save as trophies, supporting foils to male driven stories, victims, and motives (like gold or a dragon's treasure, the virgin is nothing more than a prize), plus eye-candy means that any story which forwards the narrative of women as equal and important to men is one which I think needs to be applauded.
 
Especially in the still-a-long-to-go fields of fantasy, speculative fiction, military science fiction, and video games.

Representation is one thing, but it is not the end all and be all of feminism. This is the equivalent of claiming that when women got the vorte (representation) in our world then men and women are equal. Women having a voice is of course good, it's a positive thing. Women having representation is also good, but it is still not in any way feminist in that it is not pushing any feminist issues current day feminists are grappling with. It is also not inherently feminist, since if we look for example at WoT, which has lots of female characters (representation) and female viewpoints, it is an absolute cesspit of failure when it comes to feminism. Another frequent offender is romance novels. Many are extremely reactionary despite featuring female leads and being written by women for women. Claiming representation in itself and women as not eye candy making it feminist is false, since that means the entire romance genre has auto-qualified for a feminist award. And trust me, it should not. Besides, this puts us at what was progressive in the early 20th century.  
 

The presence and believability of the female characters in George R.R. Martin's world is less important to me than the simple fact that he chose to give those characters a voice in the narrative. Whether the women engage or not with restrictions based on their gender, their very presence inside the story makes a statement which goes above and beyond anything they actually choose to do in regards to patriarchal struggles regarding the system.

The fact that they struggle with the patriarchal system and how this is constantly brought up and used to define these characters is what, de facto, makes these characters "feminist". This I cannot stress enough. Your assumption here is incorrect. What you are missing here is the definition of a feminist character and a feminist narrative. It is exactly this that is the point, how the characters grapple with a patriarchal system. Cat who doesn't get to inherit because she is a woman, and then gets faced with her daughters not being traded back by Robb because they are female, and how nobody listens to her advice because she is female. Brienne who is constantly told she cannot be a knight, because of her gender. Sansa who is married off against her will, promised to several other men and she realises that she is a piece of flesh only, that she does not wish to be married ever again, since nobody will love her for herself, only take her to get her inheritance. Asha who cannot rule the Iron Isles because of her gender, Cersei who is an amazing take on internalised sexism, and her rant to Sansa about how Jaime got a sword and she was taught to dance and to please, and was married off to some man to be ridden like a horse and discarded for a younger filly is brilliance. 
 

One of the biggest problems I've felt afflicting video games is Female Erasure which is easy enough a concept to grasp. Women in video games matter very often only in the context of being in Ganon or King Koopa's dungeon. Lara Croft, for all of the embarrassing sexualization she went through, remains one of the few major female characters of gaming. A fact which is something which needs to be addressed.

Representation is good yes, but it is not the only cure.
 

Part of why I liked the Witcher 2 in spite of its many-many flaws was that we had characters like Saskia, Triss, Philippa Eilhart, and Cynthia all acting on political and military and social justice motivations which had absolutely nothing to do with Geralt as a lover or protagonist. He was a character in their stories, not the other way around.

Saskia's leadership abilities are constantly undermined by her objectification both visually and within the narrative. It's mentioned as a "fun joke" that Iorveth only supports her since he likes to look her her boobs and want to do her. Phillippa Eilhart has one of the most egregious lesbian titillation scenes I have ever witnessed in a video game ever. Triss is objectified and damselled in short succession, which undermines any credibility she has as a powerful character.
 

For me, the patriarchy in our culture is so inherent that when Katniss Everdeen gets a movie about her. The statement isn't whether Katniss has to deal with patriarchy in the movie's text, the fact she's a female character with her own movie is a statement against patriarchy.

Most of the stuff I read about it was that Peeta was shorted than her, and that they were basically a role reversal of the classic boy hero/pretty girlfriend narrative, although I agree with your general point that it should not be a strange thing.

[Lyanna Stark]

Lyanna, completely agree on Kim Harrison (they started out ok but then, OMG, got worse and worse and worse, and I'm still not sure why I choked through the travesty of that last book) and Ilona Andrews, and Patricia Briggs (exceptional woman FTW there).  Haven't read either Butcher or Armstrong.  Have found UF tends to really suffer from the exceptionalism problem.  Even where they start with more than one female character they tend to write those characters basically out (*I'm looking at you Kim Harrison*) so that one is left with the heroine and her revolving (or not) set of snarling, fanged bad-boy boyfriends.  I personally find that worse than the "snarling love interest" issue  Problematic relationships aren't themselves an issue - it's whether they are presented as normal and right, IMO. 

 

Zabzie,

 

I have still avoided the last two Harrison novels! Perhaps when they come down in price more, but I just cannot motivate spending the time and money on them when I know the magically ret-conned elf-love is going to make me want to hurl. :ack:  So yes, completely agreed on that one.

 

Good point on the exceptionalism. Armstrong's "Bitten" (and the sequels) is to be avoided if you don't like that, since it features the only female werewolf in the world, so the uniqueness thing is pretty overwhelming. Not to mention it features some "it's not rape if you like it" sort of things which is just...no thanks. Also agreed on the relationship angle. I find they are often explained away with "but he's so into her he just can't help snarling at any other man who comes within a square mile" and then the controlling becomes a sign of devotion instead of a sign of a bad relationship. That's not to say I don't like reading about problematic relationships, since I am actually a big fan of some Bad Romance, but as you say, it's when this sort of stuff is portrayed as normal and right it becomes creepy.

[TerraPrime]

 

That's not to say I don't like reading about problematic relationships, since I am actually a big fan of some Bad Romance, but as you say, it's when this sort of stuff is portrayed as normal and right it becomes creepy.

 

So.... the whole series of Twilight? :-D

[Kalbear]

If I may step over to comic book land, Storm of the X-men was a character who did not ever engage with the fact she was black or female in her time under Chris Claremont.

Sorry, this bugged. This isn't actually true at all. Claremont wrote a story where she saved Black Panther from racist thugs. 

[Xray the Enforcer]

 Phillippa Eilhart has one of the most egregious lesbian titillation scenes I have ever witnessed 

 

What happens at WorldCon stays at WorldCon, yo. 

 

(seriously, I cackled inappropriately when I read that sentence the first time)

[Lyanna Stark]

 

So.... the whole series of Twilight? :-D

 

:lol:  Don't remind me. I got through the first novel on willpower alone. :P

 

I'm actually really loving "Penny Dreadful" which has both lots and lots of really bad romance, lots of sex and lots of feminist stuff.

 

 

What happens at WorldCon stays at WorldCon, yo. 

 

(seriously, I cackled inappropriately when I read that sentence the first time)

 

 

:love:   :commie:

 

is all I can say to that. Apart from that, I plead the fifth!

[emberling]

I've only read one of the InCryptid novels, which I was fine with, although I was somewhat disappointed in it in general since I think I went in with too high hopes. I have no read the October Day ones yet. However, looking at Jim Butcher, Kim Harrison, Patricia Briggs, Ilona Andrews, Kelley Armstrong etc. they all manage, to a larger or lesser degree, to include problematic relationship dynamics between male and female characters. As a rule, it is overly controlling men that is seen as "romantic", in similar vein to Edward of Twilight fame.

One of my favorite progressive-book anecdotes is about the Toby novels. I'm sure I've posted this at least once in the UF thread, but not this thread... So Seanan McGuire is bisexual. And in Toby's universe, the fae don't discriminate based on gender for their romantic partners. They do discriminate with respect to their version of marriage, because it is essentially a procreation/inheritance contract and I guess they aren't big on the idea of adoption. And there is an implication that the bisexuality is a result of immortality. So it's maybe a little problematic, but on the whole that is a lot of bisexual representation, built straight in to the world as a matter of course. So pervasive that, to the characters, it doesn't bear mentioning.

So she forgot to mention any of it in the first book, and as far as anyone could tell, it was yet another world where queer people don't exist. To top it off, Toby herself is straight (though again, it's implied that she'll grow out of it in a century or two. Toby/Luidaeg OTP?) So ... Oops, basically. As far as roles for women: it's really good, by memory. Lots of powerful and interesting women, little to no controlling alpha BS on the part of the strong men. One of Toby's romantic partners is up there with Carrie Vaughn's Ben as basically the opposite of the trope.

But overall I wouldn't say the series is likely to be transformative, like Phipps' first post described. It's representation, and it's good, and that's good. But I don't see representation as individually good; it's aggregate. Representation isn't for getting one hero I can identify with, it's for getting heroes, plural, and villains and support and passersby; it's for reaching a point where characters can be something (strong women, black, trans, whatever) without being totalized and tokenized into a statement about that identity. It's for reaching a point of saturation where a group of half women, for example, isn't seen as a threatening overrepresentation of women, and groups with more women are seen as natural variance balancing other groups that have more men, not as PC gone mad. Thus, I don't see any individual books as positive inspiring examples. I think it's much easier to find inspiration from negative examples, either because the bit that was inspiring was an accident mired in a sea of horribleness (for me, this was Piers Anthony when I was too young to know better) or because the handling of e.g. romance in Twilight is just so wrong that you get motivated to do what you can to fix the harm it causes.

Anyway. I do credit Seanan's webseries Velveteen for a bit of representation that was ... the second last straw, I think, though a fairly minor one, towards figuring out that I am a girl. So there's that. (I remember the final four straws. One of them was on this board!)