Women in scifi

[woodface]

There's discussion on the SW boards about the lack of women as heroes in scifi/fantasy. It made me think about a few things, although not all are as closely related to the subject.

I agree that there are a lot more men portrayed as hero than women. It seems natural too. Fact remains is that most societies are patriarchal and that human history is dominated by war and violence. For centuries a hero was a warrior/soldier/knight/hunter. Most legends and stories revolve around the stereotype of the warrior. Even today, a majority of entertainment still revolves around this character and war/violence remains the centerpoint or mainspring in the stories we tell. A few strong female characters are turning up in our stories though; Ripley, Janeway, Jadzia Dax, Aeryn, Sam Carter and Eowyn are just a few of them. Let's stand still on Eowyn for a moment. Eowyn seems to portray what is happening in our society. She is a woman who has to dress herself up as a male in order to be allowed to take her place in battle. Most female characters that could be considered "heroes" seem to be forced into the same position. Fact is, this is not likely to change any time soon. The majority of the world still thinks in terms of the classical male hero and in order for this to change, we'll need a few extra millenia of human history in which the woman can stand on an equal basis to man.

This made me think about the shippers amongst us. Recent developments in SG fandom have proven that even women still think in that classical way. Sam is often portrayed as submissive to Jack. Jack has to save her from violence and then woes her. Our idea of romance still walks the same fine lines as it did 50 - 500 - 5000 - ... years ago. Man is strong, woman needs to be saved. Sure, not everything and everyone thinks this way (thank goodness) but it is still very much alive amongst the fans. The outrage over recent developments in the show should confirm this.

So where does slash come in? What makes the female mind scratch the woman in the story all together and replace her with another man? Is this because suddenly our society is more tolerant towards homosexuality (let me insert a snort right here)? In some slash fics one of the men seems to be given a vagina and he is made to represent the emotional, female character. In others we have two warrior getting down and dirty, and other fics simply show the warrior getting in touch with his female side. I would be able to get slash better if it was written and read by gay men. However, the majority is by and for hetero women. Which puzzles me and makes my mind boggle because I really can't come up with a historical precedent or an explanation for it. Is it a matter of ascribing female characteristics to the warrior stereotype and thus softening the type and opening it up for female characters in the long run? Or is it just a sexual fixation that alienates the reader on a more personal basis but still allows the fantasy to be caught up in the romance?

I simply do not know.

ETA: Maybe it's a simple matter of penis envy.

Coming later today: Jara ponders over Weir/Sheppard

Comments

[debs7.livejournal.com]

That is a really interesting take on it.

I think that the reason why women are still seen as "submissive" is, it's because of our genetic make-up. For centuries and centuries and millenia upon millenia - the female has relied on the male and really when you think about it, the changes in the last (what) 50 - 100 years are just a blip in human evolution.

Will women ever become more warrior-like then men? Probably not by my guess. We just don't have it within us. At least not just yet.

[woodface]

Yups, we're conditioned and it's only normal after so many centuries. I do however not agree that women are not genetically not made for it. Don't forget that the female body can resist more pain than the male. Our technological evolution is changing so rapidly as well that the physical strength will probably become less important.

But perhaps our definition of hero will change sooner than that? Although I think that our western society is still an exception on the rule (and not a consistent one either).

[debs7.livejournal.com]

You're right - Woman can handle way more then men (otherwise we would have become extinct eons ago).

I don't know if it's a thing that has only been noticed lately but men are better at physical violence whereas I believe that women are more effective at emotional and verbal violence.

maybe that will be the way a warrior is in the years to come. Wars will be fought with words and not actions.

Or not.

[woodface]

Heh, my dad was complaining that his stomach aged yesterday. I told him to go whine to a man, he might get more sympathy there.

I don't know, I think it's a part of how you are raised. Girls are more taught to not get too physical, they are taught to express emotions, boys get more sucked into sports and a physical way of getting rid of emotions. That line is rapidly fading in our society but it still is present.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

...actually, I think women have it within them to be much more efficiently killer-like than men.

Is it going to happen while people continually make women who are tough out to be bitches, sluts, whores, ungrateful, scum, backstabbing, etc?

Maybe.

*shrug*

I just know *I* have a tendency towards violence.

[tafkarfanfic.livejournal.com]

During WWII, the German army feared the Russian female units WAY more than the male units, because they knew the women would give absolutely no mercy.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

huh. Now, *that* is really interesting... And something I didn't know.

[nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com]

I don't think it *is* natural. Because frankly if female submission was genetic, beneficial to all and 'just the way things are', we wouldn't get so riled up about it. But the belief's been around for so long that we actually believe it, which is insane. It's like blacks believing they really are better off as slaves or gays thinking it's better to repress it. I think my quote on this matter one time was "Gah, these people don't deserve to be emancipated" - of all oppressed groups in history women have done the most to support their own marginalisation. We can't just buy the male-supremacist propaganda. To go with Gramsci (and misuse him somewhat) oppression is best achieved by convincing the disenfranchised that their state is natural and unalterable.

As much as we've relied on them they've relied on us. Until they got that societal lie to kick in and we daftly went along with our own submission. Genetically speaking women always know their children are their own, but paternity is uncertain unless there's either enforced supervision or mutual trust and respect. And apparently that last one isn't "natural". But, hey, we're social animals. We haven't been solely hunters since... whenever. We kill, we gather, we grow. And it's indicative of how messed up we are as a society that history assigns all those innovations to the males. (Seriously, a barely stable primitive breeding population and one half just sit around cleaning things? WTF?)


As for the warrior thing... I don't think human society needs more warriors. (There's the odd bit of research to suggest that we've started breeding for pacifistic tendancies, but that could mean anything.)

[surreallis.livejournal.com]

Well, we know women are capable of violence, it's just that they have to go about different ways to accomplish it when the target is stronger than they are, physically. I read an interview with a police officer who said that in the past 10 years or so, the vast majority of fight calls he'd responded to at the local school were beween females, not males. I guess that may or may not say anything important.

And, I agree about Eowyn. I loved her character when I read LOTR. I loved that she was described in it as "martial". She's the one I latched onto and identified with, although of course Tolkien wasn't much for writing women and there wasn't much choice. And you can take it even further here because that particular female hero was made to give up all her cravings and notions for adventure in the end. How? She fell in love with a man and 'realized' her true place in the world. I mean, I realize how old the book is and all and Tolkien wasn't the most progressive thinker concerning race/sex, but that really disappointed me.

[woodface]

Heh, interesting. I'd have to ask An.

Hmmmm, I hadn't really thought about Eowyn's marriage like that. Oh man, that does suck. LOL

[nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com]

Same with Leia :P Actually, Han and Leia are scarily conservative - she "tames" him and he weds her so she gets a HUSBAND OMFG! Err... yeeees. Plus there's the smoothing over of Leia's own rough edges as the trilogy progresses, and if Amidala's how Lucas would write her now then... gah.

[woodface]

*laughs* I very much agree about Han/Leia being conservative. I still enjoy the pairing though. Amidala never really spoke to me as a character. *shrugs* The prequels just don't excite me as much as the trilogy does.

[nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com]

No! Women are nurturers! They could never kill!

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

...who are you and what have you done with the real nos'?

[nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com]

I killed and ate her, for I am a male.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

omgwtf! *gets out stick of beating*

Damnit. No killing nos'!

How am I supposed to have vicarious troll experiences?

[surreallis.livejournal.com]

But... but... we must nurture so they are trusting enough to drink the poison...

[nenya_kanadka]

Ahh, but this brings up a point someone made recently that resonated with me. *Why* do we assume that she was *made* to give up her fighting role? When I read the story, I saw someone who was saying, "I went to war; I did all these things that men do; I saw how horrible war was and I survived and I was a hero. But now, now that I don't HAVE to kill people for a living--I'll do something productive with my time. I'll be a healer."

Sure, it's possible JRRT was trying to fit her back into the 'submissive woman' role after letting her out for some fresh air. On the other hand, it's possible (and, IMHO, very consistent with themes elsewhere in his work) that what he was doing was challenging the idea that to be strong and to be a hero *equals* going out and killing people. Elrond, Galadriel, Sam Gamgee--all of them had been warriors and chose to become healers, whether of people or of the land. He's saying, "Kindness is a viable choice for strong people to make; it's not necessarily wimpy." *shrug* Personally, I like that.

I also like, for example, Kira Nerys--who is kickass and stunning and warrior-like, but who *also* goes through emotional development and gains hope and healing by the end, so that she learns that not *all* Cardassians are evil. Read an interview by Nana Visitor once, which I quote to everybody, that says that at first, Kira was hard on the outside but torn up on the inside; by the end, she was able to be a bit softer on the inside because she'd healed on the inside and didn't need the shell to protect her. That didn't mean she wasn't still kickass--she could still face down Romulans and take on Jem'Hadar.

Haleth for president, people! (Silmarillion chick)

[woodface]

I really need to finish reading Return of the King.

[nenya_kanadka]

Ack! I didn't mean that as a spoiler. Sorry if it was.

(And yes. Do!)

[woodface]

S'okay, I'm too lazy to finish reading at the moment.

[nenya_kanadka]

Sexy icon, btw!

[woodface]

Thanks =o) Wish I could say that I made it but it's by checkmate_.

[surreallis.livejournal.com]

It's a good point. It's not like Eowyn was the only one who had a sudden turn of heart. I read the book in my twenties and there weren't many books around with female characters in them where their whole lives didn't revolve around love and men. When I started reading LOTR, I found Eowyn to be very different, and yet similar enough with her pining for Aragorn, that she seemed almost the most human of the characters.

When she suddenly declared her love and that her "shadow" was lifted in one, abrupt moment, I was disappointed. Tolkien seemed to be saying that the only reason she was interested in the work of men and war to begin with was because of Aragorn. Now, the reason she was giving it up was because of Faramir.

Trust me, I love the book. I really do. That one part disappointed me, but it's his book. I can deal with it. ;) We all have our favorite characters that we'd write differently.

[nenya_kanadka]

Yeah, I do think the wrapping up of her story could have been done better, or at least differently. I read somewhere that at one point he was going to have her end up with Aragorn--who knows what it would have turned out like then? Better, worse, different...

When I read it I was like, "Whoa! I'm Eowyn! I have a crush on Aragorn too!" But I think it was more than that--I think the reason she went off to war was because she was so damn sick and tired of being helpless and useless--the darkness her uncle was under wasn't something she could really do anything about, so she just had to sit there "playing nursemaid" and watching someone she loved shrivel into a shadow of himself. Then this great warrior comes along, and she's like, "Oh, my God, I want to be like him! I want to go and DO something! I'm in love!" But as it says in the books, she didn't really *know* him--he was more of a symbol and an ideal. Which was why it was good for her to meet Faramir, who was the same sort of incredibly good and noble man that Aragorn was, but he wasn't this big high symbolic leader of everything--he was a normal nobleman, on her level, and they could talk and get to know each other. But I *still* think that the, what, three days they had together was a *little* fast. :) And sadly, yes, you can get stuff from it that's not positive for women. I hope that's not what Tolkien meant, but I guess everybody has to line it up against the rest of his stuff and decide what it looks like to them.

Anyhow--yay Tolkien! *does secret book-fan handshake* He's not perfect, but he's damn good. :)

[surreallis.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. I agree with everything you just said. And I had a really similar reaction to Eowyn. Kind of a "omg, what a GREAT character!" even though she was such a small part of the story.

No matter how one interprets his work or feels about it one way or another, it's nearly impossible to argue the importance of it on modern fantasy. I'm not a mythology expert so I can't speak to how much Tolkien created and how much he took from legends and such, but his books have nearly become the standard mythology that all else is built on. What an amazing accomplishment!

Oooo... there's a secret book-fan handshake? :D

(lol, now that we've kind of hijacked Jara's thread...)

[nenya_kanadka]

*nods in agreement*

Hey, we're still talking about women heroes, ain't we? Can't be *too* far OT.

Yep, there's a secret book-fan handshake! And I made it up just right now, all myself, I did! I think in involves attempting to grab and shake the other person's hand whilst reading something (preferably one's favourite book passage). ^_^ And possibly hopping up and down on one foot, or touching one's nose, or somesuch.

*tries it, stumbles, and has to be dragged out of Jara's thread after mildly concussing herself*

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

I am, btw, pondering all of this. And I have nothing to add to what I've already said (although I do think I'm mentally more violent than a lot of the men I come across--or maybe I only think I am. hrm)

*smooches*

[woodface]

Go you! Heh, I'm not complaining as you continue to have a smutty side.

*smoooooch*

[katie-m.livejournal.com]

*wandering in off of friendsfriends*

If you're interested in what slashers have to say on the subject, go google "why slash" or something like that. God knows there've been plenty of essays written about it, in response to questions very like yours. Er, which isn't meant to be snippy at you, if it sounds like it; just after the first few years, the arguments lose their novelty, you know? (I've never seen "penis envy," incidentally.) There's a collection of meta posts here (http://www.livejournal.com/community/virgule/24273.html) that has a bunch of LJ posts on the topic. This (http://www.livejournal.com/users/dsudis/66748.html?thread=340668#t340668) is actually the post that's come closest to making me sit up and go "huh, that makes a lot of sense," though obviously no explanation will Explain It All. (Well, that post and "one guy hot, two guys hotter. *shrug*)

[katie-m.livejournal.com]

...though upon going and actually re-reading that post of cesperanza's, I feel the need to point out that I don't subscribe so much to the gender-based stuff, as to the idea that slash is often an attempt to inject sexuality into a relationship so that the Good Friends aren't split up by another relationship that does include sex, and thus gets to take priority.

[woodface]

Yeah, that was the one argument that struck me as plausible. I just don't know. I'd think that sex would change the friendship either way.

[nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com]

I was pondering today the idea that slash has moved from "why" to "why not" now because it's so common. Hmm. I know I have, like, no interest in (male) gay fiction outside fandom. What thinkst thou, oh eval slasha?

[katie-m.livejournal.com]

(Whee, I'm evil! Though I'm not giving up my het pairings...)

I think it's tough to say. Certainly in my experience it's "why not," but I may just not be talking to the right people, you know? My fannish circle tends to be slashers and the slash-friendly. But yeah, I think there's something of a generational/cultural shift going on. More people seem to me to see slash pairings as just another unconventional/non-canon pairing.

[woodface]

I don't mind slash, it probably is just another sort of pairing. However in stargate fandom a lot of grievances seem to have latched unto the slash/ship difference. I have seen some downright stupid behaviour from slashers and shippers.

I'm just not interested in slash, not in the way that I read ship fics. I can get the smutty value of it sometimes but I can not emotionally relate to the fics. That's my problem, not the author's. On the other side, I'm perfectly happy to get into slash pairings that are canon. I admit that the only slashfic that I actively sought out to read was Ripley/Call and I gave up after a few chapters as I got bored with the fic.

[woodface]

Thanks for the links. Actually, this post wasn't really about trying to understand slash. I started out with a pondering about women in scifi and wondered if it had an influence on slash as well.

Must admit that that last post you linked to just made me raise my eyebrow. I might agree more if it defended femslash. Maybe, maybe not. Not that I have an explanation. *shrugs*

The penis envy wasn't serious, btw.

[katie-m.livejournal.com]

Heh. Sorry 'bout that--kneejerk reaction to previous "but slash is so weird!" conversations.

[woodface]

S'okay. I'm sure I have some kneejerks of my own =o)

[alliesings.livejournal.com]

Okay, I read this right before I left for school yesterday, and I didn't have all of the great responses to respond to. Now that I've gotten to read some other responses, I think I can add to this somewhat. Oh, and I've recently read two relationship books, one by a Jewish lady, and one by 2 Christians, so lucky you, you get to hear my theory.

First of all, I find the idea strange that women are naturally submissive or predisposed to submission. Even people for whom submission is part of their belief system don't find it easy or natural to submit. Perhaps someone who has been trained since childhood to be submissive may find it easier or it may seem natural to them, but it isn't human nature or womanly nature IMO.

Why is Sam submissive? She was raised and trained to be that way. With an AF father, she may have had a very disciplined childhood. At the very least, she learned obedience at the Academy. Jack is her CO, and obedience is part of that relationship. Ignoring fanfic and sticking to canon, both have strengths, and both have rescued the other. I don't think it's demeaning to Sam to recognize that Jack is stronger than her, nor is it demeaning to Jack to say that Sam is smarter. (Hmm. I think I'm wandering away from topic.)

I can't speak for anyone but myself about the appeal of the male hero, but here is my opinion on that. A story has to have a protagonist. Women like the idea that they can slay their own dragons, but why should they have to? If there is a big, strong, handsome action-hero-type around to take the risks because it is his instinct to protect, then why argue with him? So, sure the ideas of romance haven't changed much, but neither has human nature. As long as women are out there, longing for a man who can slay the dragon, bring in the crops, light a fire in the fireplace, and be their romantic ideal, women will keep writing about that.

And here's a stray thought about MiniOTP. At their age, Sam is probably taller and possibly a good match for Jack in strength. MiniSam is written as more agressive than we'd typically see ClassicSam. I haven't read, and I don't think we will see too much of the MiniJack saving MiniSam from anything. MiniSam is EmpoweredSam; she'll still follow Jack's lead, but I think we perceive her as less apt to instinctively obey Jack without his rank.

[woodface]

First of all, I find the idea strange that women are naturally submissive or predisposed to submission.

I agree with you, submission is all in the way we are raised.

Why is Sam submissive?

I don't think Sam is submissive at all. She might listen to her superior officer but she's not submissive about it by a long shot. Hence why mini!Sam (as you said yourself) is so empowered as you say. This is Sam who doesn't have to listen to Jack and can do whatever she wants. I think mini!Sam is proof that Sam everything but submissive.

As long as women are out there, longing for a man who can slay the dragon, bring in the crops, light a fire in the fireplace, and be their romantic ideal, women will keep writing about that.

*giggles* You know you can take it a step further and say women are just lazy and prefer to let the men sweat.

Seriously, the ideal of this sort of romance will probably stay with us for a long time. I can certainly understand it as well. On the other side, I'm aware of what it might imply if women keep holding true to that ideal. However, there seems to be a certain shift away from it at the same time.

[nostalgia-lj.livejournal.com]

First of all, I find the idea strange that women are naturally submissive or predisposed to submission. Even people for whom submission is part of their belief system don't find it easy or natural to submit.

Word. I mean, it's such a huge theme in Christian and Islamic theology - that to really and totally submit to one's God requires huge effort of will. It's just not in anyone's nature to want to be subservient. And to go to another place entirely, even the sexual submissive is involved in complex power games and control issues.

Oh, and if we're natural subservient and meek, why are there all those complaints about the wilful and uncontrollable nature of woman? ;)


I can't speak for anyone but myself about the appeal of the male hero, but here is my opinion on that. A story has to have a protagonist. Women like the idea that they can slay their own dragons, but why should they have to?

Sometimes I think it's that most culture has been and still is generated by men - if only because we still don't really have the confidence to try. So the pop-cultural mindset is still pretty male-oriented. Which is why Greer and others go on about how we don't really know what women want in art and film, because we woman have been trained to go with the male ideals. It's breaking a bit now, but it's still there.

And then I suppose there's the realism aspect - most of the 'heroic' stuff is still done by men.