You Can't Write The Perfect Feminist Novel And How Its Mostly Some French Guy's Fault

[foeofthelance]

So, for the past couple of weeks my data feeds have been blowing up with the latest fiasco in the greater realm of Science Fiction and Fantasy fandoms, in this case whether or not Johnathon Ross was a good choice for hosting the Hugos, which basically boiled down to whether or not you thought a late night comedian has the ability to tune his act to his particular audience or whether you thought that Ross was going to re-enact Macfarlane's hosting of the Oscars and spend his entire time on stage making offensive jokes at the expense of the nominees and winners. This only a few months after the SFWA got up in arms over whether or not it is impolitic for its editorial staff to mention that someone they knew looked good in a swimsuit, Just How Exactly Offensive Is That Fur Bikini On the Cover? (Picture a psychologist holding up a paper cut out, asking, “Have you had it up to here? What about here? A little higher? A little lower? Why, yes, I did do my doctoral thesis on Freud, how could you tell?”) and not-really-arguing over who is responsible for preventing sexual harassment at conventions. (As far as I could tell the argument was between people screaming, “Sexual harassment is bad!” on one side, and people on the other side getting slammed for saying, “No shit, and that's why it is the convention's responsibility to police itself, could we go back to figuring out why people are getting screwed in their contracts?”)

If that seems like an odd intro for what amounts to an opinion on criticism, understand that there's a common theme behind all the complaints being filed – representation. The argument goes that if there were more feminist heroes, more feminist storylines, more feminism in general, that all these problems would go away, or at least be forced into such a narrow space that the offenders would become more a sort of historical curiosity, as if their actions and beliefs were the sort of thing one might see posted on a plaque in a museum exhibit on ancient superstitions, right next to the bits about frogs being spontaneously generated from mud and cats being servants of the devil.

As authors, our job is to keep these sort of things in mind as we craft our characters. Problem is, I don't think its a viable strategy, at least not in and of itself, because the same people advocating this strategy are the same people sabotaging it.

Let's go back to the titular Frenchman for a moment. At some point in the 1960s Roland Barthe got up on his soapbox and pronounced the Author had died. According to Barthe no matter who the writer was, what their background knowledge of the materials, or what their intent with the narrative, the meaning of the text lay solely in the hands of the reader. Critics around the world rejoiced as they discovered a power over their texts that really wasn't all that new but gave them something to debate about endlessly, and gleefully spread this message to the masses, where it quickly became entangled with everything else being flung down from the ivory towers of academia. Nor was it any coincidence that it quickly got adopted by the various civil rights and social equality movements that were undergoing their own renaissance at the time. People now had the ability to decide for themselves whether or not a work fit their individual ideology.

So now let's bring it back to feminism. What is feminism? Well, to paraphrase Anne Bishop, “She's a feminist, dear, so anything she does is feminist.”

No? Not helpful? Well, that's sort of the point. Feminism isn't any one thing, but a collection of ideals that individuals and groups are striving to bring about. There are a few solid, concrete objectives such as equal rates of pay, but those are few and far between. Most objectives are broad, such as access to medical care. You can get general agreement that womens health is a thing and that it needs to be handled properly, but try to decide what “handled properly” means and you'll start seeing factions form around different solutions. From there everything sort of tail spins as people decide what feminism means for them...and that anyone who disagrees therefore can't be feminist. That's where a lot of problems will start for you as an author. We live in a world where the general mentality is that if you do not agree with someone wholeheartedly, that if you do not march in lock step with them and do everything exactly the way they want it done, then you are not simply someone who disagrees with them but someone who is Other, and the Other is the Enemy of Progress, and the Enemy must be defeated At All Cost.

Take, for example, the two characters of Barbara Everette and Janea from John Ringo's Special Circumstances series. The first is a soccer-mom-turned-demon slayer. Master of half a dozen schools of martial arts and is good with a gun. When the big, burly FBI agents run into trouble, they run to her for help. Sic her on anything supernatural, and you know who is going to walk away the winner. Oh...she's a devout Christian who doesn't support abortion? True feminists support abortion! Not a feminist character!

Ok, well, Janea then! Asatru warrior, called to do battle. High Priestess of Freya, wields a mean battle axe, and almost as powerful as Barb. And hey, no problem with abortion! Oh...she's a high priced stripper/call girl? Never mind the fact she is the priestess of a fertility goddess! She only serves to fulfill the sexual desire of men! Not a feminist character!

Is your character a nurturing mother and housewife juggling seven kids and a crack pot inventor husband? Well, obviously she should be more modern and be making her way through the workplace! Not a feminist character! Is your character an engineer who finds herself doing battle with creatures out of nightmares in claustrophobic spaces? Well, she doesn't act womanly enough, so not a feminist character! Are you writing a top tier forensic anthropologist? Well, better hope you didn't give her a minor social impairment or otherwise she, too, won't be a feminist character! You could write about a high powered corporate executive who is also a single mother trying to juggle a girlfriend with her presidential campaign and still not end up with a feminist character because she put cream in her coffee when real women take it black.

Oh, and don't be surprised if real world associations come back to frag your feminism. Prime example is Baen books. Baen has a reputation for being “that publisher”, as in they publish a bunch of rather politically outspoken authors including a bunch who don't so much lean to the right as they have to built fortified bunkers from which they can take all comers. So it isn't unusual to see someone like David Weber openly criticized for his lack female and colored characters. This despite:

- His best known series stars an Asian/Irish/Hispanic woman.

-The most powerful nation in those books is led by a Queen who is black.

-The second most powerful nation is also led by a woman.

-The primary spin off series stars a black woman.

And that is just the primary-major characters. Going through the full cast would take multiple pages, just like the appendixes attached to the back end of most of his books. And Weber isn't even that politically outspoken. But since he shares a publisher with Larry Correia (author of the Grimnoir Chronicles, which co-stars a teenage Oakie girl in 1930s magical America) Tom Kratman (Amazon Legion, State of Disobedience, which features a woman governor of Texas running a revolution) and John Ringo (Special Circumstances, Black Tide Rising, Troy Rising post-Live Free or Die all of which center on female leads) he gets lumped in with that bunch of thuggish devotees to the hetero white man. This isn't a problem limited to Baen, though. If you support someone who says the wrong things or who has an alternative viewpoint, then be prepared to take a bit of collateral damage.

So what does this mean to you, the socially conscious aspiring author? Well, basically you're fucked. On the other hand, you were going to be fucked anyway, because trying to please everyone at all times is a futile task. Even Frozen got slammed as being, alternately, anti-feminist or not feminist enough because of something Anna or Elsa did that someone somewhere didn't like. Trying to write the “perfect” feminist character according to the Social Justice Warrior types is like trying to follow the directions of a hundred different chefs, each speaking their own language, half of whom have religious objections to some of the ingredients, half of whom are allergic to some of the ingredients, and half of whom just don't like the taste of the rest of the ingredients. And if you think that is too many halves, they don't.

What you should do is write strong characters, regardless of type. Don't be afraid to kill of a woman because you are afraid of being accused of stuffing people into fridges, just make sure their death has actual meaning and they don't go out like a chump. Don't be afraid to write a spiteful bitch if that is what the character calls for, just make sure that all your women aren't spiteful bitches and keep in mind that while everyone has flaws, they also usually have a redeeming quality or two. Don't be afraid to lock the princess up in the tower, just make sure she isn't doing so passively. She doesn't need to be running around judo chopping guards in the back of the neck while scaling sheer stone cliffs by her fingernails, but ask yourself, “If I was a prisoner in her position, how would I go about making myself the biggest pain in the ass possible?” Don't ask people what they want to see; instead watch them, and then model your characters off their behaviors.

I'll end by noting this isn't a problem limited solely to feminism and the desires of its adherents, but applies in general to most topics of identity. As authors, we have no control over the experiences and demands of our readers. On the other hand, and arrogant this may sound, they are coming to us for entertainment. They can no more force us to write outside of our capabilities than we can force them to read what we write, and while we should always be challenging ourselves as creators we should not let that be used as an excuse to be blindly led down paths we would not be able to navigate ourselves. A good story demands diversity simply because the world is a diverse place, but trying to follow a checklist to get there results in a bland, cookie cutter product identical to everything else following that same checklist. Instead simply accept that there will be people unhappy with the worlds you create, acknowledge their arguments where appropriate, and continue to delight those who enjoy what you write.

[BronxWench]

This...

What you should do is write strong characters, regardless of type. Don't be afraid to kill of a woman because you are afraid of being accused of stuffing people into fridges, just make sure their death has actual meaning and they don't go out like a chump. Don't be afraid to write a spiteful bitch if that is what the character calls for, just make sure that all your women aren't spiteful bitches and keep in mind that while everyone has flaws, they also usually have a redeeming quality or two. Don't be afraid to lock the princess up in the tower, just make sure she isn't doing so passively. She doesn't need to be running around judo chopping guards in the back of the neck while scaling sheer stone cliffs by her fingernails, but ask yourself, “If I was a prisoner in her position, how would I go about making myself the biggest pain in the ass possible?” Don't ask people what they want to see; instead watch them, and then model your characters off their behaviors.

::applauds:: You, sir, are my hero.

[moss gypsy]

Okay, my two cents is random and, at best, unrelated to writing. As far as writing goes, however, I will agree w/ Wench in agreeing with Foe in that heroic characters, regardless of gender, should be written to be strong people with strong convictions.

However, I have no use for feminism. Then again, I suppose you might, too, if you were raised by a feminist who also explored her bi-curiosity on and off throughout your life. "Women can do anything men can do," my mother said, right after she asked me to give a message to my (male) fiance to come and fix her car. And yes, she has automotive experience--she was the only female in her college class back in the '70's.

[BronxWench]

I came of age in the 70s, and honestly, the term feminism has been abused, mutated, morphed, and Photoshopped into something Gloria Steinem and Bella Abzug would poke gingerly with a stick before calling for a tactical strike (delivered by a completely kick-ass woman fighter pilot).

I have no use for the SJW terrorists who run rampant waving plagiarized banners and trying to earn their metaphoric balls on the back of someone else's sacrifice. You want cred with me? Grow up and become Rosa Parks, or Marie Curie, or Hedy Lamarr. BUILD it up, don't tear it down and think you deserve praise, because you don't, not until you contribute something more than being a cyber-bully.

[JayDee]

I've never encountered those Social Justice folks. I'm sure they'd not have any problems with my seminal story, "Mike Rapes A Dyke."

[moss gypsy]

Hey, I have mad respect for ppl who lived during the 70's, feminists, masculanists, eunuchs (why is spell check saying this is the correct spelling of eunichs? whatevs.) I just think 'feminism' means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The word carries a lot of connotations based on one's own experience with this...abstract idea. This is one of the "younger generation's" opinions and experiences. Maybe it didn't always mean that. I'm not saying it ever did or does to anyone else.

You know what I'm sick of? People who think they still have to fight for these labels. It's 2014--you know why kids of my generation don't "Fight for the right?"

Because we thought we were past that. We thought the older generations were past it. Young ppl don't see color anymore. And we don't really see gender, either--anybody wanna discuss gay marriage, for example, and why it's happening now and not back then? Because the youth have evolved beyond these arbitrary and relative labels and ideals. We don't see in 'black and white.' Hell, a lot of 'em see in rainbow, now days. It doesn't matter who marches on what for the right to participate in the purely participatory act of 'voting.' Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that females haven't participated to history in major, event altering ways that were important to humanity. Obviously that would be facetious lying.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. Mostly because I'm an argumentative bitch, but also because I get tired of hearing that people are STILL having this eon's old debate. Who cares what some idiot bigot has to say about anything? But don't tell me I have no experience with discrimination/sacrifice, or am too young, and therefore have no right to speak on the matter. At the end of the day, I'm an equal opportunity descriminator--and if you think that's bad, you can go tell it to my gay sister, my feminist mother, or my half black, half indian father.

I just don't like the word 'feminism' or it's connotations. What I'm saying is, let's look past these stereotypical adjectives in an attempt to find the heart of a person and their ideals.

[BronxWench]

And I'm not targeting any particular age, gender or orientation. Based on what you've said, we're not that far apart. But I will tell you this. You don't have to like what I have to say, but you will damned well accord me the right to say it. THAT'S what "being past it" means. I also think it's naive to think we're past the old battles because a small percentage of younger people believe in gay marriage. Read history. Read history voraciously. We repeat it over and over. Read Aristophanes. Read Socrates. Read Marcus Aurelius. Read Dante Alighieri and Machiavelli and Chaucer. Nothing is new.

And the correct spelling of eunuchs is indeed "eunuchs."