needs clarification: Feminist Fantasy

So what is this supposed to be? because I can't understand what the main point is from the description?

I get the trope- works that very strongly/overtly feminist in reaction to the dominance of male writers and the male-focussed works they create, but literature example list is awful (almost no explanations).

"You want to see how a human dies? At ramming speed." - Emily Wong.

Laconic: "Fantasy and Sci-Fi with explicit feminist themes."

I feel like some aren't so much "explicit[ly] feminist" as just "gender-indifferent", but I guess the latter could still be considered a "feminist" decision on the author's part. YMMV on whether there should be a distinction there.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And even if it is broke, just ignore it and maybe it'll be sort of OK — like the environment."

Well, I could consider myself a feminist due to wanting gender equality...but I see two problems with that. One, a lot of people think feminist = Straw Feminist. Two, it's not even equal in the name ("feminist" excludes men, doesn't it seem? Kinda like masculist excludes women...) Anyways, the reason I bring this up here is because it's possible a lot of people will think "Feminist Fantasy" = Straw Feminist Fantasy. So maybe we need another name or trope to distinguish "feminist" (As in, gender equal) fantasies vs. Straw Feminist fantasies.

I totally hate my avatar. Just saying.

I don't think we should cater to the people who don't understand what "feminist" means. They could go and have a look in a dictionary.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

That or our useful notes on Feminism

The first impression that I got from the name was something that was feminists' fantasy (i.e., their dream or detailed inner desire) rather than a story in the Fantasy genre with feminist themes. However, since reading the laconic description cleared up that confusion, I'm not sure how significant it is.

I pretty much agree with Falco about what the trope is actually about. However, in order to deal with the issues that darkclaw brought up, I wonder if it might be a good idea to rename Feminist Fantasy to something like Female Focused Fantasy. I think that even if people know what the word "feminist" means in terms of a dictionary definition, it has quite a few different connotations that people may read into it.

Still, I do not think the trope needs a rename per se. I am fine with the current name to some extent and I am not sure the description really needs much clarification either.

edited 26th Aug '11 12:14:36 PM by LouieW

"irhgT nm0w tehre might b ea lotof th1nmgs i dont udarstannd, ubt oim ujst goinjg to keepfollowing this pazth i belieove iN !!!!!1 d

Although few feminists will agree on ultimate goals, the overwhelming majority want more power in the hands of women, so overall goals don't really matter when describing this trope.

But Female Focused Fantasy isn't an accurate description for this subgenre (or subgenres, since it's common in science fiction as well). Feminist Fantasy is.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

The trope obviously works, but a lot of the examples are horrible. I say axe the ones that just list the title and author. Axe ones that seem to be more about general equality than actual feminism. Whether or not you like Twilight, having an equal amount of male and female characters does not make a work feminist. Having one strong female character is not a Feminist Fantasy. Feminism should be an overarching theme for it to count.

Examples are there to give you an idea of how this trope plays out in media. Simply saying "This book" does absolutely nothing for that.

My only (mild) objection to axing X Just X examples is that I frequently come across those on various pages, recognize what they're talking about, and flesh them out. Most of the time, it never would have occurred to me to add that example in the first place, so the end result is much better than it would have been if there hadn't been an X Just X.

(Not that I want to encourage adding X Just X examples in the hopes that someone like me will fix them later. I'm just saying it can happen.)

Still, I suppose that in a case where there's a lot of misuse, axing the X Just X examples may be the wisest choice, so I'll remain neutral in this instance.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

As the person who added most of the just-a-name-and-title to the literature section, I wish to apologize. I got it from online sources such as this and many others; for example, there was a blog that had an entire week devoted to the subject with lots and lots of interesting discussion, which I can't find right now. But anyway, I'd be happy to flesh out some of the entries that I've actually read; is it allowable to write longer entries based on research rather than reading? I won't be able to do it right away, though, I'm busy at the moment.

I'm not a huge fan of that (putting up examples without having read/seen/consumed the work), but anything is better than X Just X examples.

"You want to see how a human dies? At ramming speed." - Emily Wong.

Yes, as long as you don't get possessive.

Fight smart, not fair.

Ok I'm actually having a few issues deciding what needs to go in there and what doesn't. Is portraying women and men as essentially equals in every respect enough? Mass Effect for example?

Stripped out Twilight though

"You want to see how a human dies? At ramming speed." - Emily Wong.

I think the real question are we talking about things that merely show off stuff that could be considered feminist, or is this for message fantasy?

Nous restons ici.

I don't think requiring a "message" is necessarily right, but I definitely get the impression that it requires a female main character/set of main characters in which girls or women are strongly represented, and a decent spread of strong (in the sense of well-written and not shallow/clichéd) female characters.

We don't get to decide whether or not a character is well written or clichéd. Those are YMMV.

I do see your point, and as such that was a silly inclusion for me to make, but at the same time, isn't that essentially the reason why Twilight was cut? Because despite the protagonist being female, most of the agency goes to the male characters who save her?

I cut Twilight because the justification given was an equal number of male and female characters. That's NOT enough to be a feminist fantasy, and we'd have the longest page in the wiki if it were the case.

I also think it should explore some gender dynamics/subvert some gender tropes etc. But that's just my sense of the trope (which is explicitly called YMMV in the description- should that be changed?)

edited 29th Aug '11 9:56:09 PM by Falco

"You want to see how a human dies? At ramming speed." - Emily Wong.

From what (admittedly little) I know about this genre (which I'm more familiar with as "feminist SF" rather than "fantasy"), it is about using a speculative setting to explore gender, gender roles and feminism. In other words, doesn't matter how many strong female protagonists the work has, if it's not about those issues it shouldn't go on there. Twilight is right out.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

From what I understand the best way to describe this is a subversion or an aversion of Female Success is Family, which are each listed on FSIF's playing with page.

No I don't think its as narrow as that. This is a genre of speculative fiction where the setting or world has changed in such a way that it is a lot more power or status or whatever to women. It holds up a mirror to our world by showing one where the status quo for gender politics and status is completely different.

"You want to see how a human dies? At ramming speed." - Emily Wong.

This thread has been active for a while. Is there some sort of outside expert or authoritative source we can bring in to settle this?

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And even if it is broke, just ignore it and maybe it'll be sort of OK — like the environment."