"Men With Boobs"

[serria]

I was reading a fantasy trilogy, and was reminded about how much the genre apparently struggles with women. The first book was an impulsive purchase at the bookstore, because I liked the cover artthought the description looked interesting. And I enjoyed it, more or less - not the greatest thing I've read, but relatively entertaining. The story was about a who boy gets trained as an assassin, and his adventures thereafter. Two other characters include his somewhat dry female love interest (kind of in the ballpark of stereotypical damsel in distress, not particularly captivating character to me) and another female character who is also an assassin. This character, though has a bit of a femme fatale entrance and follows kind of an "evil badass woman" trope throughout the second book, was still kind of interesting. I enjoyed a lot of her scenes, at any rate.

Anyway, I finished the second book, and there was an interview included at the end of it. One of the questions was about the whole "strong female character" thing, and the author (who is a man) gives quite a rant. He feels, apparently, that most "strong female characters" in fantasy are really just "men with boobs" but he is very excited about the direction his female assassin character is taking in the third book. He feels his portrayal is, I guess, very true to femininity and rounds out the character, etc.

So what happens in the third book? The female assassin falls in love with the male protagonist and spends the majority of the book crying and being emotional. As, you know, women do. :P

Fantasy and science fiction are my favorite genres, but I wonder if they tend to be more sexist than other genres. For the record, I don't think a female character falling in love with a male protagonist is sexist, nor is a previously cold character suddenly becoming emotional. But juxtaposed with the mindset of the author, that any "fighting female" character who isn't emotional or in love is a "man with boobs" - I think there's a reality here with how many female characters are portrayed.

I brought this up because I am writing a fantasy story which stars a female warrior. She has a female love interest. More than that, the leading male character is the one who has to be saved. I wasn't thinking about social issues or anything when I wrote this, but that's how it turned out. It was an unintentional subversion of gender roles. Of course, I am female myself, but I wonder if my protagonist is a "man with boobs." She is certainly not demure, emotional, or romantic. This accusation, though not (yet) directed at me, bothered me because my protagonist is really not at all defined by her female gender - by fantasy genre cliches, she should just be swapped into a male character. When I started overthinking it, I was even beating myself up over having a lesbian romance - does that (unintentionally) mean that she is taking the "male" role? Does that mean she is a "butch lesbian" (she's not, she's bisexual)? Is my story suddenly about gender roles when I never wanted it to be? What if I make her love interest male, is that better or worse? What if I have no love interest - does that also make a statement about a "masculine" female character?

Blah. I hate the phrase "men with boobs." I also hate the phrase "strong female characters." Like, what do they even mean!

Comments

[siofrabunnies]

I think the problem boils down to the fundamental obstacle of equality. Firstly, men are usually seen as the default, and, secondly, there is a "men versus women"... rivalry, I suppose. Now, I'm not going to say that there are no differences between men and women. Biologically and socially, men and women are very different. But when you take those differences within the "men are default" thing, it leads to "women are different from men" instead of "men and women are different from each other". We're all writers; I think we all know how important such a subtle distinction is. That's what leads to femininity being seen as weak/gross/etc, masculinity as good/strong/powerful/etc.

I've heard the "men with boobs" thing before. It's kind of telling that I've never heard of "a woman without boobs" to describe a man, non-pejoratively, at least. Maybe someday characters will be people first, and women or men (or gay, trans, Chinese, blonde, sick, whatever) second. Those are the characters I end up enjoying to read more.

It sucks, a lot, and is one of the reasons I don't read much spec-lit anymore. I've been burned too many times with Gorean knock-offs, madonna-whore complexes, and the like. Maybe that's why I stick to short stories.

It also really sucks that there's always going to be something in your work you didn't intend, especially something as huge as gender politics. I would say go ahead and write as you have been. People are always going to read more into it that you mean them to: Do the blue curtains signify the character's depression? Are they an allegory for the writer's drug problems? Are they cornflower or azure? Write a four-page paper on the blue curtains. Maybe they're just goddamn blue!?

[serria]

That reminds me of English classes I took. One teacher in particular was adamant that everything in literature always means something, that a cup can't just be a cup. I got the same in art classes. In fact, one art teacher said that if things don't have meaning, the art is just a photograph, and there's nothing artistic about a photograph. I don't think he meant that literally photography is not an art or anything, just that if I paint a realistic picture of someone's face, it's not really art. If her expression, her clothes, who she is, if that has meaning, then it is art. The same might be said of writing. If I write just a biography of something, is it art? If it lacks a climax, a conclusion, and so on.

I don't really know. In art and writing both, I don't think it's possible for absolutely everything to have meaning, or it will just become nonsense. To be honest, I really like storytelling. To me, especially in genre writing, it's all about the story. It isn't that I dislike symbolism or anything, but I like authentic stories, that are thrilling to tell and read both. In fact, I tend to be turned off from stories that are really preachy and too full of messages. Characters and events can definitely have meaning, but a message? I don't know.

Which relates to my problem. I don't want my female warrior character to be the literary embodiment of a social agenda. At least, not at the core. I want to tell the story I see in my head, and I'm not writing it to prove that women can take on male roles - it's just who this character is. That being said, I'd love if my story could remind even one person that women shouldn't be associated with a single stereotype, and female characters can kick ass - but that is totally secondary.

I guess, I'm comfortable with what I write and why. But when I see criticism of female characters, and female authors for that matter, and knowing how sexism still persists in our society, I wonder if my story could be criticized like that, or if readers would make assumptions about my intentions.

[inkdust]

I find that so frustrating. Given, I don't read much scifi/fantasy (sort of funny, since most of my ideas fall at least slightly in that realm) but I think one significant reason for that is that the lack of female characters bores and aggravates me.

I love female characters who are "not demure, emotional, or romantic" and have written a couple myself. I do think the robot trap is very real for those, but I think the "man with boobs" is a concept invented by the combination of writers who can't actually write from a female perspective and readers with rigid ideas of how men and women should be.

I say write the character as the woman she is, as real as you can make her. If you're interested in advice, I'd say for the romance you can easily push back against the hetero gender role mapping by making it clear that the love interest isn't the damsel type either. And if she happens to be a more stereotypically feminine girl, just make it clear how awesome she is in ways unrelated to your protagonist. I bet you can create a great story with great female characters.

And I think the phrase "strong female character" is something trying to work for equality but falling into its own trap. We need more "strong character who's female" and "strong character who's male."

[serria]

Strangely, I get the impression that there are more female authors who are successful in the fantasy genre than in science fiction. Maybe I'm only saying that because several of the fantasy authors I grew up on were women. Not that I'm oblivious to the very normal sexism in the genre, or at least, tired old gender roles. And I don't know if this can be blamed entirely on the author, or if it's the cover artist, too. But when a female character is a protagonist (or more likely secondary character) who fights, she is almost always in a very sexual pose. Like, hips jutting to the side, boobs out, incredibly inappropriate clothing... of course, this IS fantasy, so it's not that I think that's inherently bad. But that's most of what we have in this genre.

I think my problem with "man with boobs" is that to me, it implies that a female character is unrealistic because she acts too much like a man. I guess there are two possibilities, both likely: first, that maybe these female warrior characters aren't actually well written, and are really nothing more than a damsel in distress who has a sword and curses more, or second, that some people just can't envision that a woman would be "strong" without being equally emotional, sexual or romantic.

Thanks for the advice. The love interest isn't a damsel type either, though she is a lady (who ends up instigating civil war because she wants to rule as queen). I guess there is a contrast between the two, in terms of the traditional feminine and the... not. I just truly don't want to send a message about anything there, especially not in regards to the more "masculine" protagonist - not a critique on femininity, not a man with boobs, not anything but a person who falls in love with another person. I guess all I can do is keep writing and do my best to make it genuine, and let potential future readers think what they like.

I agree completely with your phrasing, too! Just as we're people before we're men and women in real life, characters are characters before they are male or female in literature.

[splinteredstar]

....just gonna pop in to say that your love interest sounds amazing. That's badass, just in a different way that doesn't involve punching people.

[serria]

Thank you!! Not surprisingly, that was what I was going for. :P Hopefully the contrast between physically powerful and politically powerful doesn't seem too obnoxiously cookie-cutter.

[sarillia]

I think the thing that the "men with boobs" complaint was originally trying to address was that femininity is looked down on. Women are now often allowed to do things that are considered traditionally masculine, but feminine things are still considered lesser. See how women have come to wear pants all the time over the last several decades but men still can't wear skirts because that's girly and thus degrading.

So now there's a problem with writing female characters. If you write them as more traditionally feminine, you get misogynists looking down on them, but now you will also get a certain brand of feminist disparaging them too because the writer is obviously basing the character on stereotypes (insert an eyeroll here, if you please). So often the only female characters who are allowed to be considered "strong female characters" are the ones who act more traditionally masculine because they're defying the stereotypes. You know, the stereotypes that have been defied thousands of times since the start of the feminist movement.

The problem with the term "strong female character" is that some people interpret the "strong" is "well-made" as in an compelling character that you can empathize with (not necessarily sympathize and want to succeed but empathize and understand), but other people interpret the "strong" as being more like physical strength and the sorts of things that would come to mind if you called a real person strong.

I hate that everyone is expected to be strong all the time, both in real life and in fiction. This is one of my soapboxes that I step onto a lot. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and I hate that people aren't allowed to show their weaknesses except in certain, limited acceptable ways. I hate that some strengths are treated as superior to others. That some are treated as though they cancel out weaknesses while other, particularly ones that are considered more feminine, aren't given the same kind of praise.

Basically, I think there is a very real problem that the whole "men with boobs" complaint is trying to address, but I think it's going about it in the wrong way.

[inkdust]

This is on point.

[splinteredstar]

There's one line in a Discworld novel (Feet of Clay, which I just finished rereading and love a lot) where one female police officer says to another who is new in the department, "You can be any sex you like in the Watch, as long as you act like one of the lads."

A lot of people still operate under a male-based power system. Power means masculinity means appropriate behavior. A woman acting like a man is grudgingly tolerated, as someone who is at least trying to rise above the natural weakness. Whereas acting feminine (In any form, though normally means "showing any emotion or caring about other humans beings whatsoever") is weakness and thus derided as worthless.

Because it's not strength unless someone gets punched in the face with it, and if you're not strong you don't deserve to exist.

[serria]

I don't think that's what the author in the interview I mentioned was referring to, but I definitely get this definition. Though I kind of scoff at anyone, feminist or misogynist alike, who claims that certain traits or details are "feminine" or "masculine" - like, if female character A doesn't wear dresses she is hating on everything that makes up womanhood or something. But I understand some validity in the argument, too. Whether I like it or not, there are things that stereotypically define women, or at least are associated with them - and these traits are often considered weak or inferior, or just... feminine. If a character embraces stereotypically masculine things and despises stereotypically feminine things, that could - and might - have a message about gender roles.

And, as I think you're saying, there really isn't anything inherently revolutionary about the badass woman trope, because she does masculine things. Though I feel like, to be honest, most of these characters are rarely totally "masculine" and don't necessarily escape femininity - they often still fall into negative female tropes, like having to be saved, being hopelessly in love, etc. I don't feel most "badass woman" characters are necessarily all that "masculine."

But I agree passionately with your point about strength, too. There's nothing wrong with, say, a female character needing to be saved - it's just a bit of a stereotype. But a character, male or female, who is strong all the time just isn't realistic. Or particularly likeable, in my opinion. I think the important thing is that a character is authentic and real, and the author tries his or her best to treat them like genuine people. And there are many types of strengths, after all. Even in the fantasy genre, strength shouldn't really be reduced to ability to kill people with a sword. We need to expand our definition of strength, I think.

"Men with boobs" just seems dangerously apt to fall into grounds of simplifying what traits are acceptable for women and men, either from a feminist's perspective or a misogynist's. But I think the argument you've presented is an important one, too. Bearing in mind the reality of society more or less accepting that strong women act, dress and behave in a more "masculine" way, but if a man does the opposite, we see that femininity is still characterized as weak, disgusting and undesirable.

[sarillia]

Yeah my argument probably isn't the only one that the "men with boobs" thing is meant to address. Some people really believe in a strict binary where women are x and men are y and that's the end of it.

I realized I forgot to address your problem with your own writing. I think it goes back to what we've talked about before. There should be lots of female characters with lots of different personalities who are all treated with respect. It's harder to claim that you're making a statement about women when you do that.

But I think every writer who is writing for an audience needs to accept that there will be people coming up with theories that you disagree with. That's just how it goes.

[ljwrites]

Everything sarillia said because word. (New member and first-time commenter by the way, hi! *waves nervously*) Additionally, I don't think the issue is about upholding or inverting gender essentialism but about how interesting the character is as her own person--as so aptly said above, a character who is female or male, not a female or male character.

Because while I do see the concern about any character being a flat stereotype of whatever gender, since the stoic action hero type with no inner life is awfully boring. However, the solution is not to make them a stereotype of the "right" gender but to let the character be their own person. Female stereotypes are no more interesting than male stereotypes and vice versa.

[inkdust]

Hi! We're so glad to have you :D And you're absolutely right. It's really about being interesting, in the end.

[ljwrites]

Thanks for the warm welcome! ^.^

[serria]

Hi there, thanks for joining the community! :D

I'd definitely agree, and hope any writer would see the wisdom of that. Characters shouldn't be defined by their genders, or even their roles (professions, etc.) Characters should be first and foremost human, and every writer's goal should be to strive to create authentic people, no matter how fantastical the circumstances you place them in. Maybe this is a common failing of the fantasy genre - authors can get so preoccupied with the magic of the world and the epic backdrop to the story that they neglect to make their characters interesting. As for me, characters are always the most interesting part of any story, and they should remain genuine no matter the setting of the story.

[splinteredstar]

I think you're right, with that being a problem of fantasy - it's more about the world than the people. Science fiction, too. (Asimov's Foundation is wonderful at sweeping social forces - utter failure with individual people.) I think that's part of why I don't like Traditional Fantasy - people are just there to move the cameras around while we stare at the world.

Basic rule: people are people, and they should act like people. Even if they're on the moon/middle earth/the bottom of the ocean.

[serria]

See, I do like traditional fantasy - the atmosphere, the worlds, the magic. And I have loved books with sub-par characters before. But to be honest, what really makes a story for me is the characters. It's like the difference between playing Elder Scrolls or Dragon Age, if you've played them - one is a silent protagonist running around a beautiful world doing missions. The other is a character drama set in a fantasy world.

I really would love to read fantasy that's written like non-genre stuff, with aims at ~real people~, but put in a fantasy world. Even out of my favorite fantasy books, I'm not sure how many of them have a full cast of three dimensional characters. There are definitely fantasy books that are better than others in that regard, though.

[ljwrites]

Another good thing about truly three-dimensional characters is that they often overcome the gender stereotype issue altogether. It's almost impossible to have a fully-fleshed character who doesn't have some characteristics from both genders, to say nothing of characters who don't fit into the gender binary.

Maybe this is a common failing of the fantasy genre - authors can get so preoccupied with the magic of the world and the epic backdrop to the story that they neglect to make their characters interesting.

You reminded me of a test presented by a Youtube review of the Star Wars movies, to describe characters independently of externals like their powers and positions. The reviewer argued that the original trilogy passed this test, while the prequels did not. Maybe applying that test is one way of making characters interesting, since it's true that the trappings of genre can prop up characters who can't stand on their own otherwise. Assuming one wants to make Dragon Age rather than Elder Scrolls of course, to use your very clever analogy. :) There's a market for both, but I personally find character drama more satisfying than a plot-driven story.

[sarillia]

Welcome! I'm glad you commented. I love to see new people. And I'm glad you appreciated my comment too.

I agree with you about worrying more about how interesting the characters are than about what statement they are making. The best way to avoid stereotypes is to remember that you're creating a bunch of individuals. So no deciding that a character is female so that means she must have x, y, and z traits. And, like you said, the same goes for male characters. They don't often get scrutinized as much but they have just as many boring or annoying stereotypes.

[ljwrites]

Thank you! It's great to be welcomed. :D Your comment was great, and touched on many of the concerns I've had that some "strong" female characters were being used as a subtle form of misogyny, as in "She may be a girl but she's manly, so she's awesome!" And even worse, "Eeeew, this guy and that girl are girly, so they're inferior/awful (especially the guy)."

It's crazy-making that female characters receive more scrutiny than male ones, as though male were the default and female characters somehow have to justify their existence. I think the author in the OP was trying to say that a boring male stereotype doesn't become any more interesting in a female form, though unfortunately he himself ended up using a boring female stereotype instead.

The best way to avoid stereotypes is to remember that you're creating a bunch of individuals. So no deciding that a character is female so that means she must have x, y, and z traits.

Quoted for truth. That's an excellent guideline for all "different" traits like race, sexual orientation, disability and so on.

[splinteredstar]

Arg, you're only worried because I flailed everywhere with worry, I'm sorryyyyy.

And yeah, that sounds familiar. A lot of the advice you gave me applies - as well as everything that's been said already.

And that author sounds like a jerk. What book, so that I'm not tempted?

[serria]

Haha, I did think of your post, but this had been on my mind long before that. I struggled particularly with my character's (Serria) sexuality for a long time, because if she has a straight romance, a gay romance, or no romance, it's going to inadvertently mean something to people who are looking for it. She could have gone any of those three ways, and I considered them all, until finally it was like, fuck it, I want her with the Queen, because I like lesbians. and I am a lesbian, so. :P

It's the Night Angel trilogy by Brent Weeks. To be honest, I probably wouldn't recommend it, sexism aside - it's all right, but it borders on ridiculous at times. Looking back, I'm not sure how much of it I actually liked, though I somewhat enjoyed reading them. The world building is okay, but the villains are terrible caricatures of evil. There's maybe one or two characters I thought were interesting, but meh. Also invokes Shock Factor Horror - same reason I am not a Game of Thrones fan, feels like the author tries to be edgy by being as ridiculously dark and disgusting as possible. I like dark, to be honest, but I don't like feeling like it's not there for a purpose.

So yeah. Not a recommendation. At least don't pay for it. :P I wish I didn't, I am so over randomly buying books unless I'm relatively positive I'll like them. Yay libraries. At least buying e-books means you don't feel bad about wasting a physical copy if you want to delete it.

[caecilia]

maybe we should start calling male characters "women without boobs" except not really because there are plenty of women who don't have boobs, everybody knows that

I'm totally biased when I say this but -- keep the lesbian romance. We need more. We especially need more lesbian romance where it's more "these two characters are in love, and they happen to be women" than "I am writing a story about lesbians because I want to be progressive". Also don't trust anyone who talks about a "male role" in an f/f relationship, that is my life motto.

[serria]

Well, male characters who act "feminine" are basically called that, but in a more derogatory way. So I guess it's fair... cough.

Thanks for the input! I don't want to have any social agenda, but you know, when it comes down to it - I'm gay myself, and I prefer reading gay romances (whether male or female) to straight romances. I want to write what I like, too. Not that I couldn't enjoy writing a heterosexual romance or whatever, but I would probably enjoy it less than a gay one. The fantasy genre could probably use more gay characters, anyway. And in my story, I struggle to make at least a few characters straight so it won't seem totally unrealistic... but hey, my world, I'm god. :P

[caecilia]

Same. I mean, there are plenty of straight romances that I enjoy, I just want to see more gay ones. And there are a lot of plotlines that I think actually would have been better if the writer had had the guts to pair the girls together. And ff, "realistic". Stories don't always have to be "realistic". If you can pull it off and say, "The theme of this story is tied to queer issues/it's a story about gay romance." or something, I think it can work. Like if someone asks "Why are there no straight people?" say "Because it's a story about gay people."