I have a question for you all.
One of the characters in my fantasy trilogy is a woman highly skilled in the arts of combat (in the European tradition; no "Trinity"s here). Her particular expertise is the longbow, but she can fight with sword and knife as well as most of the men of her race (who are themselves much stronger than ordinary men). She is no Eowyn or Brunhilde, however, but a very feminine character without any death wishes or bloodthirstiness. Nevertheless--because I am a man--I face some inevitable limitations exploring the ramifications of femininity in a physically powerful woman who is one of the few strong and skilled enough to defend a land torn by widespread war and harried by numerous enemies.
I have posted on this subject in a forum specific to the books themselves, but I would like to ask here about the general principle (though I seek advice mainly for this particular character). The Bible clearly defends self-defense and even tactical involvement in war on the part of women: Jael lures Sisera into her tent (promising him that he need fear not) and drives a tent spike through his head, a bloody affair that must have taken considerable nerve to execute; and Rahab lies through her teeth to keep the Israelite spies safe, an ancient version of modern techniques like radar-jamming, fake radio messages and dummy minefields. C.S. Lewis seems to find a rear-line supportive role acceptable (Lucy and Susan both ply their bows at various points in the Chronicles of Narnia, Lucy at least on the field of battle itself in The Horse and His Boy). Now, none of these sources support front-line combat for women, and neither do I. My character is not a soldier, professional or volunteer, and she does not accompany the men in the front lines. She does defend her city (actively) from attack, and when an important character is placed in serious danger she does not hesitate to join the small band of friends that sets out to rescue that character (and fight unrelentingly to defend herself and others in the process).
Still, I would appreciate the input of others on this issue. I want this character to reflect true femininity, since one of the major purposes of my trilogy is to have my chief characters represent, at least in the long run, characteristics that I believe to be ideal. I want my "ideal characteristics" to conform to the Bible, of course, whence all ideals arise. So, any of you, but especially ladies: how can one be feminine in a war? If a woman possesses the strength to fight, to what extent and in what circumstances ought she to engage in combat? What is the proper ratio between leaving the fighting to the men and doing one's share? Is making a woman so strong and well-trained in combat a negation of femininity of itself in the first place? Go for it. I shan't get rid of the character (I enjoy writing about her too much for that, and she's quite integral to the story), but as I go through the editing process I would value your advice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
It’s interesting that you’ve brought this up, as I’ve recently been considering this myself, for reasons similar to your own. I’m not sure I’m really qualified to answer this question, but I have a few theories that I’ll share.
My view is that a woman can certainly fight and still be feminine. This is not entirely applicable perhaps, but I should probably point out that in medieval society the idea of women being actively involved in warfare was not really a very novel one. Long before Joan of Arc (who actually neither physically fought nor accomplished much of any real strategic value) women engaged in warfare, especially during the Crusades. In fact a noblewoman was expected to know at least how to command a castle garrison under siege. While doubtless some of these women were not exactly ideals of femininity (Boadicea, for example) it would be unreasonable to assume none were. One must take into account the fact that war was always a more apparent and immediate danger in those days than now, and knowing how to fight was vital for almost every man, at least. I’m sure you know me well enough to understand that this is not a sweeping endorsement of women in battle. I’m just saying that it wasn’t nearly as unheard of as one might think.
I think the trouble with an issue like this is that we often tend to look at things backwards. I think we tend to deem femininity the byproduct of feminine behavior, and not the other way round. I also think there is a subconscious tendency to think of femininity and masculinity as opposites. In my view, femininity and masculinity are positive elements, if you will. Perhaps virtues would be a better term. The absence of the one doesn’t necessitate the presence of the other. I would consider femininity to be more a condition of the mind, or perhaps of the soul, or both. Doing something generally considered masculine does not make a woman any more masculine than raving like a lunatic makes one insane. Take my family as examples. My younger brother greatly enjoys cooking and cleaning, but is not feminine in the least. My youngest sister enjoys (to a degree) swordsmanship and archery, and loves battle scenes in movies, but is in no way masculine. It’s kind of like Christianity, I think. The believer does many things that unbelievers do (for the sake of the discussion, I’m only referring to non-sinful things), but that does not make him an unbeliever. Neither does godliness in behavior make one a Christian, but rather is the outward sign of Christianity. The Christian may do many things that don’t appear to have anything to do with Christianity, but his motivations for doing so, and his attitude when doing so, will be vastly different from those of an unbeliever. I think femininity and masculinity are the same way. This could be misinterpreted to say that if a woman is feminine by nature, then she can behave however she wants and still retain that quality. Logic, however, would dictate that if a woman is truly feminine, she will behave accordingly. Her actions are dictated by her nature. She may have to fight, but would not be naturally inclined to do so. In other words, her reasons for and attitude toward battle will be different from those of a man.
This is even evident among animals. Both sexes fight, but their reasons are different. Generally speaking, male animals fight over dominance, territory, food, possession of females, the protection of their herd/pack/group, etc. Females are more inclined to fight either to defend themselves or their offspring. This of course varies from species to species, but you take my meaning.
I’m not quite sure how you would convey this idea in writing. I also have no reason to believe my ideas are accurate, but there they are all the same.
~David
Connor, I am always impressed with how carefully you think through things.
I think what you have described is good. Your character does not lose any femininity in knowing how to fight; rather, she gains it in knowing when it is proper.
Wonderful thoughts, David, and very helpful. I will answer your comment at more length later--I very much appreciate it!
Thanks, Han! I think that's a good point.
We have our very feminine daughter enrolled in, of all things, Mixed Martial Arts. Anyone who knows me must think this is amusing. I, who wouldn't have her in basketball or softball because of all the masculine girls involved, and I, who have an aversion to a girl doing all that sweating, I, am willing to watch my little princess, my girly-girl, work on her Muay Thai knees, punching combinations, the Rear-Naked Choke, and the Arm Bar. I look forward to the day she perfects the Triangle.
It is an ugly world. A dance class would be lovely for her but we want our daughter to be skilled at protecting herself. Her four brothers may not always be there.
So, why I'm writing is this: I have seen that proper form, even in an fierce hand-to-hand fighting match, has a beauty and grace to it that rivals ballet. I don't mean with weapons, that is a more obvious beauty, but the proper form of a perfect kick, for example.
I used to think it was strictly a male kind of beauty, if you know what I mean, and that the female performing the same moves would look out of place. Well, she does when it comes to a nasty hair-pulling brawl, but for your character who is highly skilled, the beauty, grace, and inherent discipline of the art can be emphasized to accentuate her femininity and mental strength.
I didn't find Eowyn to be unfeminine, in spite of her hardness. Her sturdy spirit made me think of the hardships woman have endured over the centuries.
I agree with you that war is not for women, but there are also desperate times when a woman must fight.
One mom's perspective.
Teri
http://www.artpassions.net/cgi-bin/dore_image.pl?../galleries/dore/crusades_florine_of_burgundy.jpg
My link didn't work. It's Florine of Burgundy, from Dore's Crusades collection. Great picture!
Teri
David: You are certainly right when you say that women were very prepared to do their share in a fight in medieval times. They had to, really. My character is in much the situation--a medieval society beset by war.
I think your causal argument (if that is the term I want) really reveals something important. I like how you bring up the issue of Christianity, with which femininity and masculinity are closely linked, since the reasons for being masculine or feminine are grounded in how God made the sexes. Doing a good deed, for instance, does not make one a Christian; rather, a man does good deeds because he is a Christian. One might say that being a Christian makes one do the good deed. A very good point, and I think it is something I can easily bring out more in this character. So far the issue of direct combat has only come up once, as I recall; up until now it has all been self-defense or a mission far removed from the front lines. I think your post will greatly help me as she enters a stage in the story where she must choose how much to commit herself to the war. In fact, I might incorporate some of your ideas into my dialogue, if you don't mind. :-)
Mrs. Field: I think it's great your daughter is learning martial arts. My good friend Kristoff (LaJuana Decker's son) takes taekwondo and has been teaching me some of the methods therein. One of the benefits of the martial arts is that they take advantage of an enemy's weak points and do not always focus on physical strength.
As a side note, if you are willing to enroll her in a martial arts class, you may want to teach her how to use either a snub-nosed revolver or a small semi-automatic pistol. Of course, one can't carry them concealed until 21, but it never hurts to start early. I'd be happy to make some suggestions as to models if you want. ;-)
Anyway, I am always in danger of going on too long about guns. One would think from your post that you had already sent a secret spy into our living room to copy down my story! It is certainly true that I have tried to instill a beauty into the way my character fights. For example:
"[Character name] flashed past me, hair and dress trailing behind her with the speed and force of her attack. She gripped her sword with both hands and attacked a Cendeni head-on, compensating for her slight disadvantage in strength with the fluid deadliness of her motions."
See? She even fights in a dress. ;) I think that you, like David, hit on an important point: there are places and circumstances in which combat can actually accentuate femininity. Perhaps it is a kind of extreme manifestion of the protective, motherly impulse (mixed with an ideal version of graceful feminine movement), though you would know both of those aspects better than I. Anyway, thanks for post. I appreciate your mother's perspective very much.
I think the art of combat has a definite level of beauty to it, but in practice, beauty is not the thing that comes to mind when describing hand-to-hand combat. While a perfectly executed palm heel to the face is beautiful because of the skill and strength required to perform it, the fact is, upon contact with a person’s face, a perfectly executed palm heel will break the bone of the nose clean off your attacker’s face, force it through the gap in his skull, and impale it in your attacker’s brain. I’m sure I don’t need to go into a description of what that would look like. Suffice to say the person’s face would be seriously deformed and there would be blood spurting everywhere. When it comes to combat, the more brutal, the more effective. If I have to stab someone in the throat repeatedly with a pen to survive, I’m going to do it. So, on one hand, yes, it might be beautiful, but it’s mostly brutal, and I think that the brutality comes before the beauty of it. (This is not to say it isn’t impressive. Or that good fighting technique is not beautiful.)
Now, combat is also sometimes necessary. I think it’s wise for women to know at least some combat skills, both unarmed and with weapons. And if they have an interest in it, I think it’s great for them to get a lot of training in whatever area interests them most.
I do not think that self defense in practice can be in any way feminine. And honestly, I don’t think it matters whether or not it’s feminine. It’s brutal, and it’s ugly, and it’s necessary, and that’s all. It’s our basic animal instinct to survive—if any woman is going to ask if it’s feminine or not to slam someone’s nose into their brain when that person is strangling her, then she has seriously misplace her priorities.
However, combat and self defense are two different things. Self defense is a matter of survival, whereas combat is a choice to put yourself into that situation, knowing you will be killing people when you get there. I do think that a woman in combat is unfeminine. And personally, I can think of few things that would sicken me more than being attacked by a woman in combat. It seems wrong to me.
So—to sum up my opinion, I think that knowledge and training in self defense skills, both armed and unarmed, is not unfeminine at all. And I think those skills in application are not unfeminine. Although I don’t believe they are feminine either—but neither is being raped or killed. However, I do think that when a woman is choosing to go into combat, as a warrior, that is very unfeminine.
Wow, this is a very long comment. It's long mostly because I wanted to elaborate on my opinion, not because I think you disagree with the majority of it. :-)
--Kristoff
First girl to post here. Thought I've already given my thoughts on the character herself, here's my thoughts on the discussion presented here.
I'm a girl. Obviously. *grin* I do believe that a knowledge of self defense is important for ladies to know, but on the other hand, look at the examples given. With the exception of Deborah, I believe, they all functioned behind the lines of the battle. I think that use of force and strength in a battle/attack situation when ones family, loved ones, or country is in mortal danger in itself is not a de-feminizing act, as long as carried out properly.
I agree with Kristoff. Whether to defend oneself when one is attacked is not something that femininity should be based on. Hey, if somebody tried to kill me, I'd definitely fight nail and tooth (literally) to get away. Not that I would win, though, but that's because I've never practiced. The knowledge is not the thing that takes away from her femininity, but the way that that knowledge is carried out.
The desire of this certain character to be active in a campaign doesn't truly reflect what I see as her character. Instead, I see an internal conflict as detailed on the forum.
I agree with you, Kristoff; well written. I only meant that if Connor is determined to put this character in the war (which he says he is), she can be shown to be lovely in her movements instead of being a butch warrior, minimizing the breech of roles. True, in reality the combat would get disgusting, but in literature as in film, he has the luxury of making the battles ideal for her, minimizing the ugly and accentuating the beauty of form.
But as I think of it, perhaps it's the grace of the girl that makes the form appear feminine, not so much the moves themselves. A clumsy girl couldn't do the same kick and make it pretty.
Doug Wilson recently compared women in battle to "seething a kid in his mother's milk", using that which was meant for life, for death. I thought it was interesting.
Connor, I enjoyed the little snip you posted!
T.F., off to teach her little warriors
Kristoff: Thank you! It's helpful to see your thoughts all in a long post like that. I think I agree with you on virtually all points. One might say that combat is not even inherently masculine, since it's only necessary because of the curse, although when necessary (in the offensive way) it is certainly a masculine job. Even in self-defense, as I think we've discussed before, it should be a masculine job: a father, brother, husband, etc. is falling down on is job if he's not protecting his female family members or friends, and a woman is foolish to go out jogging or whatnot alone.
I wonder, though, what you would think of my character traveling to enemy territory, not as a front-line combatant, but as a kind of forward defendant. I don't want to give too much away, but that is the main decision I'm facing. Is it right for a woman (or rather for this woman in particular, who could give valuable help to the cause) to put herself in a situation where combat is likely, as long as any combat she engages in is defensive? Just a thought. Because she kind of needs to do that for the plot to work. :-P
Elisabeth: Thanks for adding a second comment to the discussion. ;-)
"The desire of this certain character to be active in a campaign doesn't truly reflect what I see as her character."
Well, perhaps I became so caught up in that character's skills that she lost a wee bit in my mind as a result. I think your right, though: someone as wise, virtuous, graceful and kind as she wouldn't choose combat unless it were necessary.
Mrs. Field: I'm not so much insisting on keeping her in the war (she's not really in it, per se, except in planning strategy and protecting the home front), but in moving closer to the front line. Moving to the reserve trench, so to speak--or maybe the H.Q. bunker.
Mr. Wilson has a good point. I'm going to bring something a bit like that up in either my next novel or the one after that, so this discussion has helped me for other writings as well. :-)
Thanks, all!
Post a Comment