has been banned for a repeated refusal to follow the rules, including repeatedly being unsupportive of the posted rage, engaging in minimizing tactics and transphobia, and arguing about it when this was pointed out by a mod, as well as for generally using this community as a debate space. Zie had been warned multiple times and ignored those warnings.
Please keep in mind: feminist_rage
is not a debate community. Engaging in debate, or otherwise failing to be supportive of a rage posted here, will result in warnings and/or banning at the mods' discretion.
Also keep in mind that if a mod has warned you for something, then it is time to back up and look at what you did. Arguing with us will make us more likely to ban you. You are welcome to email us with any concerns, but arguing in thread on someone elses rage, that came here for support, not to be flooded by you refusal to understand, is absolutely not how this community works.
I have been reading Fantasy written by English and American authors ever since I was fourteen. It is my favourite genre, and most of my favourite books are Fantasy books. This genre was my cure for sadness, loneliness, and boredom ever since I discovered it. And even though I love that genre and spend quite an amount of time defending its literary merits, most of the writers who do write Fantasy suck at the same thing, keep on sucking and make pots of money while doing so. Especially male writers are, when it comes to their few female characters, by and large, lazy, unapologetic morons uninterested in any kind of realism.
The only male Fantasy writers I can think of who manages believable female characters are Gregory Maguire and Terry Pratchett (and I'm grateful if any of you can point me towards others who manage to not fail). It never ceases to amaze me that it would be so bloody hard to write about human beings that, given that they easily comprise fifty percent of the population, one is certain to have interacted with at some point. Both do have strong female characters that are strong on their own terms without necessarily being eye-candy or supporters of male characters only. What is more depressing is that many female writers copy those parts of the genre that are hell-bent on turning female characters into brainless, decorative, supportive tokens (Anne McCaffrey ARFFF).
Even readers with a background in feminism seem so depressingly easily pleased and make a point of noting that there are female characters who are not decoration as soon as they are there at all.
As long as these characters are there
, as long as they do something at all, writers get kudos for including "strong female characters". I think that term has been used so often it has been rendered meaningless. If they do feature "strong female characters", one or two strong female characters that are included for whatever reason are really not enough to tip the balance for the rest of the book. If, throughout the story, female characters are treated as decoration, pieces of flesh or house elves, even the most bad-ass female will not rectify the fail when it comes to the other characters (looking at you again, Anne McCaffrey).
And fandom, which in many cases easily offers a break from canon fails due to the creativeness of readers, is no help here. Judging by a rough look at numbers of fanfiction submissions by pairing especially with regards to Harry Potter, most female readers don't seem to care as long as there are ~* hawt *~ male characters they can write trivial, character-exploring fanfiction about that centres on one taking care of the emotional and sexual needs of the other. Only
about male characters, mind, because "the female characters in that fandom are so uninteresting". A baffling excuse, given the creative self-confidence of fandom - fandoms that manage to write novel-length stories about characters that never spoke more than three sentences together in a novel ought not to have a problem with that and welcome the challenge.
But apparently, characters tainted by femaleness are not worth writing or thinking about, because there are no interesting stories to tell about women that aren't about the fact that they are women in a male world, and because fetishizing male-on-male interaction is just "more interesting"/"my personal preference".EDIT: You guys are awesome, thank you so much for all the recommendations!
I'll list them here so we have them in one place. ( List of SF/F book recs with convincing female charactersCollapse )
Let's talk about Season of the Witch
for a moment, shall we?
Now, I like sci-fi/fantasy. I like history. I especially like historical fantasy. What I do NOT like is when people take historical events which were caused by misogyny on a massive
scale and make a movie that's essentially saying "No they were right, women are EVIL, and they have to be destroyed!"
It's the same problem I have with all "real historical witches" stories- these women were victims of a gender-based genocide, and now they're casting the fears of sexist men as being in the right, and these women as being evil. They even use a textbook case of natural phenomenon ("she's summmoned wolves!-" what, like wolves are incapable of attacking travellers of their own volition?) being used as evidence against someone who did nothing wrong.
I'm so fucking sick of this. Stop trying to take real victims of very real misogyny, who were VERY REALLY MURDERED and trying to claim that they got what they deserved. Mark me down as someone who isn't going to see this- they've made it clear that they don't want my money anyway.
I'm going to keep this really short and really sweet.
This is NOT a debate space. When someone says something that violates the rules, makes the space feel unsafe, or bothers you, PLEASE email the mod team. DON'T argue with them. Its rude to the op, its rude to other commenters, and it is not the purpose of this space. This space functions best as catharsis, not as further frustration. This is why you have a mod team, we are here to maintain the integrity of this space for all of you, but we can't be here every second. We will find issues a great deal faster if you bring them to us, and then we can prevent them from turning into 100 comment clusterfucks.
Thank you, I will now step down from my soapbox and let you all go back to your regularly scheduled rages.
To be honest, I'm feeling a little-- a lot, actually-- queasy after having read this but I need
to know that this poster-- BostonIan-- will not get away with having posted one of the most disgusting arguments in favour of the subjugation of women I have ever read in a forum that's made up of mostly intelligent people. It's a long post and there are many pages following it, so I'll just give you guys the link and then post a few choice excerpts here.From BostonIan:
"Now, reality, according to me: The role and function of women in a population is to build the human, the flesh, the animal. They birth every the population, raise it, feed it, tend to its needs, install the feelings, and bind it together. That is the purpose of their emotions, the oxytocin, the estrogen, the endless chatting and empathetic problem resolution. Neither sex can exist without the other, but we are not equal.
In their natural environment, men are the leaders of society. In history, we are the kings, lawmakers, shamans, chiefs, judges, politicians, generals, lieutenants, captains, religious leaders, cult-leaders, business owners, scientists, God Himself. We've built every building, fought every war, explored every land, written every rule. What we consider a civilization is us. "
Later on, in response to an argument about historical perspective by a poster called eternaltriangle:"You're arguing at the margins, with the tactic of adding up a lot of margins to fill a paragraph.
An ancient Chinese tribe had woman leaders, while the majority of all tribes and civilizations had male leaders.
Viking women fought in battle, what gender did most of the fighting in most tribes?
Some British women wrote books, what gender wrote most of the books? Define a "great amount", give a percentage."
Notice how BostonIan conveniently forgets to mention that most women (including wealthy, privileged ones) were illiterate, uneducated and confined to the home because they were forced into prepubescent and pubescent marriages where they were raped by older men and became pregnant and confined to the home at young ages? Does that sound like an ideal environment for inspiring excellence? When many other posters challenge his ideas, he defends them with what "smells," (to use his own words) like bullshit and denial of reality."Firstly, the "less encouraged to do well in say, the sciences" smells like propaganda, along with the idea that encouragement supersedes inherent qualities. Prove that women are systematically less encouraged to succeed in science, and that the encouragement itself could dramatically affect academic performance and self-selection."
View the entire thread here: http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=16833
David Starkey says history has been "feminised"
. Among other things, he posits that Henry VIII was "emotionally incontinent" because he was raised surrounded by women, that Elizabeth I's status as a female icon is "ludicrous" ("During Victorian times her conduct was regarded as "perfectly deplorable", he added." Gee, maybe because the Victorians were repressed as all getout?), that seeing historical women as "power players" is falsification, and that all this is to blame on the female historians who write about women.
Here, have a clue: almost all of Henry's reign was shaped BY THE WOMEN IN HIS LIFE. The Reformation and the break with Rome? Anne Boleyn, and later Katherine Parr. The tensions with Spain? Catherine of Aragon. The Pilgrimage of Grace? Jane Seymour. So maybe they didn't sit at diplomatic tables or sign declarations of war, but they were every bit as important as the man himself, if not more. Henry was a spoiled brat, and that wasn't
the fault of the women who raised him. Mature people suck it up and deal, and the fact that he was maturity-challenged was his
fault, and no one else's. And as for Elizabeth I, if it weren't for her, you'd be speaking Spanish right about now.
There's nothing wrong with appreciating and celebrating the female leaders of history. Doing so is a way to reclaim our own power, and that of people who have been marginalised by male historians. And as for female historians writing women, does that apply to men only writing about men? If so, I suppose I should chuck all your books about Elizabeth I and Henry's wives. Clearly you can't write the opposite gender- I mean, if you want to write about someone, you should at least have some respect for them.
Dear everyone who has ever uttered this phrase in the existance of time, in any variation in any language,
Humor is not an absolute defense.
Racist is racist.
Mysognist is mysognist.
Homphobic is homophobic.
Biphobic is biphobic.
Transphobic is transphobic.
Ableism is ableism.
Etc, etc, etc. (Here you should think of The King and I.)
The rest of the world.