"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!?

[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."

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.