Character Question: female characters in a male-dominated world

[Rath Darkblade]

So ... I'm a bit worried. (Wouldn't be the first time).

The novels I've written so far (all historical fiction) have been set in ancient civilisations, i.e. ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon and so on. One thing I couldn't help noticing was that all these places were - well - patriarchal. (Sigh ... patriarchs gonna patriarch).

I've noticed in recent years that women warriors are represented far more, especially in fantasy fiction. They also tend to reflect modern-day social values like gender equality, cultural diversity etc. This is fine as far as it goes, except that it's less historical and more fiction. Yes, there was certainly cultural diversity in ancient times (and also -- much less so -- gender equality), but ancient civilisations were not anywhere as tolerant as ours.

As for me: I've always tried to write ancient civilisations the way they were, not the way we might wish them to be. I'd also like to treat my male and female characters equally, of course, but that's not how (say) ancient Rome or Greece worked.

To solve this, I made my female characters strong and independent, with goals of their own. They work to fulfil these goals, but within the strictures of the societies they are in; and after much struggle, they prevail.

So that's my question: am I worrying over nothing? Or do I need to change my approach?

 

[twiget]

The goal is to tell a good story that appeals to modern readers, right? The ancient Greeks or Romans aren't going to read your stories, it's going to be modern people with modern sensibilities. With that in mind, I think that historical accuracy may have to yield to the story you're trying to tell.

 

[Banespawn]

Patriarchies exist because men are physically stronger than women. In most societies, a matriarchy can only exist if the men allow it, say for religious or ideological reasons. I suppose it's possible to have a matriarchy if women significantly outnumber men, but there would need to be story reasons to support that imbalance.

So, no, you don't need to change your approach, especially when writing about actual historical cultures. Be true to what they were.

All characters, regardless of gender, should have goals of their own, and they should all be strong in their own way. That doesn't mean women should be able to do all the things men can do, or vice versa. Men and women have different strengths. It also doesn't mean that they have to be independent. A man isn't weak because he's part of a team. The team is made stronger by working together. A woman can be in a team with a man and still be strong.

As a man, I enjoy writing female characters. I don't typically write them as warriors, because physically, most aren't going to be able to compete with men. But I try to make them strong in other ways, ways that often make up for what their male counterparts might lack.

In my Blood Oath story, for example, the MC is book-smart but not street smart. The FMC, while educated in the arts by way of her current profession, spent much of her formative years on the streets. She has no knowledge of politics or trade, subjects that the MC was taught at a young age.

Equal doesn't mean same. People can be equal while bringing different strengths to the table.

 

[Naomasa298]

There's no reason you can't write a female historical protagonist AND remain accurate, on the proviso that you understand that they were the exception, not the rule. Making them warrior-women is so passé. A woman didn't need to be a warrior to gain power, but a leader. There are examples in every culture.

Zenobia of Palmyra
Wu Zetian
Himiko
Hojo Masako
Boudica
Queen Ranavalona I
Empress Matilda
The Rani of Jhansi

etc. etc. With the exception of Boudica and maybe Zenobia, these weren't warrior woman, and some of them gained initial power through their husbands.

If you're writing a character like Red Sonja, you're writing fantasy, not history. And no, don't cite Tomoe Gozen at me - she was almost certainly fictional.

 

[Homer Potvin]

They also tend to reflect modern-day social values like gender equality, cultural diversity etc. This is fine as far as it goes, except that it's less historical and more fiction.

Yeah, that's a thing, particularly in Hollywood. Not much that can be done about it if you want to engage modern readers. I wouldn't worry.

 

[Louanne Learning]

ancient Rome, Greece, Egypt, Babylon and so on.

Of course, that wasn't the whole world, and I think you might enjoy researching the ancient Celtic cultures, especially of Ireland, where women could "match men in word and deed." The quintessential strong and independent woman was Queen Medb of Connaught, who set out on a cattle raid for no other reason than her husband should not own more than her.

This epic is recorded in the Tain Bo Cuailnge (Cattle Raid of Cualnge - pronounced Cooley) - written almost two thousand years ago. You can read it online for free at the link. It will give you an alternative perspective of women in an ancient culture.

Another good read to help you understand the attitude towards women in the ancient Celtic culture was written by Sharon Blackie:

If Women Rose Rooted: A Journey to Authenticity and Belonging​

It's my guess that you will enjoy these reads.

 

[Luxuria]

Without reading other people's posts, here are my thoughts.

I like how you are writing female characters in your historical fiction work. It annoys me when writers shove modern-day words, thoughts, etc. into a historical character. I have historical female characters and they work within the structures of their society. Agrippina the Younger is NOT going to become a modern day feminist, by any means. But she can certainly insist on knowing all that is going on politically, because her son Nero is too busy attending plays, training for the Olympics, and doing singing lessons to care about the Empire.

So, I would have the senate relent as they realized Agrippina's right. Nero doesn't care about pollical matters. So, they strike up a deal with Agrippina, because at least someone cares about political matters. But she can't step foot in the senate building, because only men can do that. But she can send memos and thoughts for consideration while the Emperor is off on his 3rd honeymoon.

This to me is having the female character gain power in the structure of society and it's way more believable to the reader. I think something that annoys me about some historical fiction is that the writer tries to make things FIT modern standards. But I am not here to read about a time-traveler. I am here to read about real people who lived in this setting as imperfect or 'problematic' as it may be.

So, I believe your approach is correct. Female characters can be driven to break the norms in their society, but also should not become a mouthpiece for modern thought. Sure, a US Colonial woman in the 1700's might be like, 'hey, why can't I vote, too? Didn't the founding fathers think of their wives?' and then laugh at herself for thinking she should even dream of the right to vote. Then, go back to preserving meat for the winter. I think this is how all progress has been made. Someone thinks a crazy thought and then, others begin doing so too. You can always plant seeds of the future in character's heads. But don't send them on a wild-time traveling adventure for the sake of modern standards.

 

[Montecarlo]

Serious question—have you done any market research that shows readers overwhelmingly prefer modern values over historical accuracy? And with society as divided as it is, do you really think there is a universal standard there?

It sounds to me like you prefer to portray things as they were, warts and all. I suspect, but don’t know, there are many readers who prefer that over whitewashed fairytales.

 

[DLC]

am I worrying over nothing?

Yes.

 

[Trish]

While I definitely do think you're worrying over nothing, I also wanted to add to @Louanne Learning recommended research by adding the suggestion that you research the structure of the Iroquois, Cherokee, and Lakota indigenous tribes for a start.

There is more than one form of 'strength' and a *lot* of current writers seemingly forget that, writing women with shocking arcs that go from weak and pathetically naive girl to warrior woman ruler over the course of a book or two. There's a reason it's called fiction/fantasy. Of course, they do it with men too, but the women are ugh. It hurts me. There's nothing wrong with being realistic.

 

[Qvortable]

Begin with an individual, and before you know it you find that you have created a type; begin with a type, and you find that you have created—nothing. That is because we are all queer fish, queerer behind our faces and voices than we want any one to know or than we know ourselves. When I hear a man proclaiming himself an 'average, honest, open fellow,' I feel pretty sure that he has some definite and perhaps terrible abnormality which he has agreed to conceal—and his protestation of being average and honest and open is his way of reminding himself of his misprision.

Fitzgerald's The Rich Boy.

Character reigns supreme for me. As long as they ring true, it's good.

 

[Rath Darkblade]

Thank you all for your thoughtful replies! And yes, I completely agree that "equal doesn't mean the same". None of my male-and-female characters are.

Making them warrior-women is so passé. A woman didn't need to be a warrior to gain power, but a leader. There are examples in every culture.

Fair enough! And I agree: my current MC/FMC isn't a warrior-woman, but she's young and impressionable, and thanks to her parents indulging her (up to a point) wants to be one. (Why can't I do what my brothers do? I'm strong too! Etc.)

The setting (I think I mentioned it?) is medieval Iceland, so I've done my research on its history, geography, clothing, food, and sagas (especially the Saga of the Greenlanders and Erik the Red's Saga).

You mentioned leadership, and this is something that tripped me up while planning this: how is leadership defined? How does a character 'learn' how to lead (especially in a society where physical strength is praised above everything else)? I think I found a way through that maze.

There is more than one form of 'strength' and a *lot* of current writers seemingly forget that, writing women with shocking arcs that go from weak and pathetically naive girl to warrior woman ruler over the course of a book or two. There's a reason it's called fiction/fantasy. Of course, they do it with men too, but the women are ugh. It hurts me. There's nothing wrong with being realistic.

I couldn't agree more! My MC starts out thinking that physical strength is paramount, but -- as you say -- strength comes in many forms. She overcomes her own misconceptions, and becomes a better person for it.

I like how you are writing female characters in your historical fiction work. It annoys me when writers shove modern-day words, thoughts, etc. into a historical character. I have historical female characters and they work within the structures of their society. Agrippina the Younger is NOT going to become a modern day feminist, by any means. But she can certainly insist on knowing all that is going on politically, because her son Nero is too busy attending plays, training for the Olympics, and doing singing lessons to care about the Empire.
... etc.

May I just say - I love what you're doing with Agrippina the Younger. I've seen (e.g. in Susanne Alleyn's excellent book "Medieval Underpants and Other Blunders") so many examples of what not to do - e.g. a historical character becoming a proto-feminist, or (god help us) "feisty" ... or worst of all -- a Mary-Sue.

Agrippina works with what she has, in the setting she's in, is very smart! It's just what Livia (Augustus's wife) is reputed to have done.

Of course, that wasn't the whole world, and I think you might enjoy researching the ancient Celtic cultures, especially of Ireland, where women could "match men in word and deed." The quintessential strong and independent woman was Queen Medb of Connaught, who set out on a cattle raid for no other reason than her husband should not own more than her.

This epic is recorded in the Tain Bo Cuailnge (Cattle Raid of Cualnge - pronounced Cooley) - written almost two thousand years ago. You can read it online for free at the link. It will give you an alternative perspective of women in an ancient culture.

Another good read to help you understand the attitude towards women in the ancient Celtic culture was written Sharon Blackie:

If Women Rose Rooted: A Journey to Authenticity and Belonging​

It's my guess that you will enjoy these reads.

Of course not, and I agree! It's only that I'm far more familiar with the ancient Mediterranean than the ancient Celts.

I'm well-aware of some famous ancient Celts on both sides of the channel, e.g. Boudica, Vercingetorix, Brennus, Galagacus etc. I've also read a book or two about Celtic myth, one on Celtic fairy-tales, and one or two on Irish history. I'm sorry, but I found Celtic myth difficult to understand. :-\ Maybe it's me? I loved the stories of Queen Medb, and tried to understand The Morrigan, but it was very tricky.

I'm so sorry, also, but I read through the stories of Cu Chulainn ... and after a while, they became simply overpowering. *shrug* Single-handedly slaying hundreds, single-handedly defending Ulster from the army of Queen Medb, etc. I understand the need to build him up as a mighty hero, but this simply struck me as too much.

Lastly, I was hampered by the unfamiliarity of the names. The more I delved into Irish myth, the more confusing it seemed. Maybe it just needs time and research? I'll look up Dr Blackie's book. Thanks, Louanne!

 

[Luxuria]

May I just say - I love what you're doing with Agrippina the Younger. I've seen (e.g. in Susanne Alleyn's excellent book "Medieval Underpants and Other Blunders") so many examples of what not to do - e.g. a historical character becoming a proto-feminist, or (god help us) "feisty" ... or worst of all -- a Mary-Sue.

Agrippina works with what she has, in the setting she's in, is very smart! It's just what Livia (Augustus's wife) is reputed to have done.

Thank you. What I wrote about Agrippina here was merely an example. But yes, I let female characters work within the boundaries of their world/time era as much as possible. And ugh. I am tired of the 'I'm clumsy and feisty female lead'. Women can be anything they want to be- including boring, lazy, pessimistic, etc.

And again, thank you so much and yes, she is very smart. One of the arguments I would use is that Agrippina knows all about the political issues in the Empire, because she was Caligula's sister, Germanicus' daughter, so grew up knowing what most would not. Also, she was married to Emperor Claudius. Whereas Nero is not the brightest and lived away from a lot of the political matters, so does not understand them as well.

 

[Louanne Learning]

but I read through the stories of Cu Chulainn ... and after a while, they became simply overpowering.

But very telling of the culture at the time. I love the description of Cuchulainn in battle in the Tain:

The first warp-spasm seized Cúchulainn, and made him into a monstrous thing, hideous and shapeless, unheard of. His shanks and his joints, every knuckle and angle and organ from head to foot, shook like a tree in the flood or a reed in the stream. His body made a furious twist inside his skin, so that his feet and shins switched to the rear and his heels and calves switched to the front... On his head the temple-sinews stretched to the nape of his neck, each mighty, immense, measureless knob as big as the head of a month-old child... he sucked one eye so deep into his head that a wild crane couldn't probe it onto his cheek out of the depths of his skull; the other eye fell out along his cheek. His mouth weirdly distorted: his cheek peeled back from his jaws until the gullet appeared, his lungs and his liver flapped in his mouth and throat, his lower jaw struck the upper a lion-killing blow, and fiery flakes large as a ram's fleece reached his mouth from his throat... The hair of his head twisted like the tangle of a red thornbush stuck in a gap; if a royal apple tree with all its kingly fruit were shaken above him, scarce an apple would reach the ground but each would be spiked on a bristle of his hair as it stood up on his scalp with rage. The hero-halo rose out of his brow, long and broad as a warrior's whetstone, long as a snout, and he went mad rattling his shields, urging on his charioteer and harassing the hosts. Then, tall and quick, steady and strong, high as the mast of a noble ship, rose up from the dead centre of his skull a straight spout of black blood darkly and magically smoking like the smoke from a royal hostel when a king is coming to be cared for at the close of a winter day.

That's how heroes are born.

 

[Mr Mononoke]

So that's my question: am I worrying over nothing? Or do I need to change my approach?

I maybe a little late to this conversation but wanted to share a few thoughts.

There is a frustration when I see these 'historical fictional dramas' that lean heavily on modern thinking and it makes you see that the language maybe twisted a little, the set and costume set in a historical period, but they act like people today. Petulance, anger, disrespect, even the mad rush and lack of patience of characters depict this world and were not common in times before.

If someone doesn't reply to a WhatsApp when it is urgent, it may annoy us today, but there was no such case in a time when there wasn't even a phone. If someone didn't make an engagement different thoughts permeate about whether their message reached the person, whether it was intercepted, whether a plot was discovered and their friend killed...

For me it is absolutely fine to have a modern-day female set in a historical world, with a thinking and attitude to get things done rather than a passive 'I don't know' type... but, I feel, it is the modern attitudes that can be carried into an ancient world but this attitude is tested in that setting and that world. I think that is what draws a reader, or a viewer to a story... because if a person today can relate to that character, it is literally throwing them into this strange world and you ask the reader, what would you do?

 

[Rath Darkblade]

But very telling of the culture at the time. I love the description of Cuchulainn in battle in the Tain:

The first warp-spasm seized Cúchulainn, and made him into a monstrous thing, hideous and shapeless, unheard of. His shanks and his joints, every knuckle and angle and organ from head to foot, shook like a tree in the flood or a reed in the stream. His body made a furious twist inside his skin, so that his feet and shins switched to the rear and his heels and calves switched to the front... On his head the temple-sinews stretched to the nape of his neck, each mighty, immense, measureless knob as big as the head of a month-old child... he sucked one eye so deep into his head that a wild crane couldn't probe it onto his cheek out of the depths of his skull; the other eye fell out along his cheek. His mouth weirdly distorted: his cheek peeled back from his jaws until the gullet appeared, his lungs and his liver flapped in his mouth and throat, his lower jaw struck the upper a lion-killing blow, and fiery flakes large as a ram's fleece reached his mouth from his throat... The hair of his head twisted like the tangle of a red thornbush stuck in a gap; if a royal apple tree with all its kingly fruit were shaken above him, scarce an apple would reach the ground but each would be spiked on a bristle of his hair as it stood up on his scalp with rage. The hero-halo rose out of his brow, long and broad as a warrior's whetstone, long as a snout, and he went mad rattling his shields, urging on his charioteer and harassing the hosts. Then, tall and quick, steady and strong, high as the mast of a noble ship, rose up from the dead centre of his skull a straight spout of black blood darkly and magically smoking like the smoke from a royal hostel when a king is coming to be cared for at the close of a winter day.

That's how heroes are born.

A very effective depiction! *nods* As I read this, I couldn't help thinking of the Barbarian Hero trope (i.e. the Barbarian Hero flies into a Rage, and so on). It reminds me quite a bit of Norse berserkers.

For me it is absolutely fine to have a modern-day female set in a historical world, with a thinking and attitude to get things done rather than a passive 'I don't know' type... but, I feel, it is the modern attitudes that can be carried into an ancient world but this attitude is tested in that setting and that world. I think that is what draws a reader, or a viewer to a story... because if a person today can relate to that character, it is literally throwing them into this strange world and you ask the reader, what would you do?

Fair enough; I think there's a genre for modern-day people thrust into a historical setting. (Outlander is a good example, where a World War II nurse travels back in time to 18th-century Scotland during the Jacobite rising). There's nothing wrong with that per se, but that's either fantasy or science fiction, not historical fiction.

 

[Kiraann]

While I definitely do think you're worrying over nothing, I also wanted to add to @Louanne Learning recommended research by adding the suggestion that you research the structure of the Iroquois, Cherokee, and Lakota indigenous tribes for a start.

And other Native American tribes, like the Navajo.

For that matter, look further into Celtic tribes. As I recall, a Celtic king had to be married to a child of a previous king, as in Boudicca’s case.

 

[Brandon S. Pilcher]

I'm a sucker for strong warrior heroines, so I usually write settings in which they're not unusual or unheard of. I know there are more ways for a female character to be "strong" than to be a warrior, but my stories are generally action-packed, so I feel that a warrior character is best suited for them. Either that or a battle mage.

 

[DLC]

Outlander

I watched some of that with the wife. I called it Under the Kilt.