Male Roles Vs. Female Roles in Fiction: Discussion/Analysis/Troperwank

I think I'm biased in this because I'm a professional writer and I write a lot of antiheroes.

I have both put a lot of my beliefs in some of my characters and also written characters who have been very much my opposite for a change.

It's a challenge to roleplay, essentially, characters unlike you and tell stories from their viewpoint.

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

I also am a writer, for the record. I also write a lot of morally questionable people. I see no issue with people trying to infer meaning from what I wrote, or questioning my use of said morally questionable things.

And while you can't always cold read the author based on one excerpt, there are authors we can have a rough idea on, due to how much they've written. It's not always accurate, but it's not infeasible. And it's not "They wrote a bad thing so they are bad" levels of analysis either.

Edited by MrAHR on Sep 4th 2018 at 1:45:38 PM

Read my stories!

As someone who's been watching this debate I have to say that I'm not fond of this argument, I haven't actually seen anyone claim that an author's positions should be determined by writing alone.

The arguments I've seen have just been that what an author writes can be telling about their assumptions and possibly their positions, which is hardly unreasonable and unlike your claim isn't really suggesting that we should assume an author's works always directly reflect their views.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 4th 2018 at 1:47:39 PM

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

At that point, we have probably stopped being human. Taking pointers from fictional stories has been around longer than the written word and probably as long as spoken language. I don't see it going away anytime soon. Of course everyone watching that scene thinks it's awesome - it's visually compelling, displays feats of prowess, and has that cathartic violence by the heroes. I think it's also worth thinking about why the heroes don't seem bothered by the fact that they just literally killed all those security guards, since the Matrix terminates and recycles people when they die in the simulation; as well as why the directors chose that particular selection of scenes to put into the film. Again, there are more options than just "don't publish this" that a creator can choose. If your themes are truly that atrocious, and you write them as a form of purging those impulses from yourself, there's nothing wrong with that - but as a creator, you should be aware that if you make them public, the people reading them might will not view your story the same way that you do. Some of them will be inspired to do the horrible things. This seems to be two points. So firstly, sure lots of people can engage with a piece of fiction just for pure entertainment, never think deeply about the themes or the meaning behind what happens with the characters and why. The author might even intend for it to be nothing more than simple popcorn-munching fare.

But you cannot say that the author won't have some of their biases in their work. Because that's entirely subconscious to most people. Even the most shallowly-intended piece of work is still going to reflect something that the author believes because human beings can't help doing it.

There is no meaningless fiction. Every piece of fiction has meaning. Hopefully, the meaning there is one that the author meant to include, rather than a subconscious intent that slipped through the editing process. I don't think that it's a bad thing, neccessarily, to create works that use immoral stances, and people. I don't think you always need to go and shun the people who create them, and who enjoy them. I do think that it's a good thing to be aware, when you're creating fiction, of how your more problematic themes and characters will be received by your audience. I think that, generally speaking, works do reflect the values of their creators - sometimes obviously, sometimes subtly. This is not a bad thing, generally speaking.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

It's strange too, because in a way, this is a good thing. Humans are amazing at digesting information and regurgitating it out in different forms. This is arguably one of the reasons we can be so unique, because of how much our internal biases affect us. Even simple ones like "I like music, so I include a lot of music metaphors in my story" are technically a bias. But in the best ways.

Read my stories!

People I've been in contact with have died for reasons closely related to this topic. I care about this kind of thing for a reason.

I'll PM you. Fine, screw it.

Edited by Corvidae on Sep 4th 2018 at 9:29:32 PM

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

Honestly I think bias gets somewhat of an unfair reputation, sure it can obviously be bad but it can just as easily be good or innocuous.

Like I'm strongly biased against racism and misogyny and I doubt anyone here views that as a bad thing

You'll have to elaborate, how exactly does the idea that an author's work can reflect their biases or values kill anyone?

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Sep 4th 2018 at 3:22:58 PM

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

People also die from stoves and bathtubs. That doesn't mean the entire thing is a bad idea that should be avoided at all costs.

I understand being passionate about it, and if people you know have been hurt from it, that is very gutwrenchingly stressful and sad. But at the end of the day, it's a tool to be used. It can be used to hurt people, yes, but so can most forms of discussion in the english language.

As an example, a very common tactic an abuser will take is saying they were the ones abused, and use the red flag checklist for it.

That doesn't mean red flags for abusers never work and we should never use it. It means we need to keep a close eye on the people who use it to further their agenda.

And like fourth spartan said, elaboration would be preferred because that sort of thing is a very vast topic.

Edited by MrAHR on Sep 4th 2018 at 3:24:20 PM

Read my stories!

I've mentioned it briefly in other threads before, but here we go:

I guess it's technically more related to the "fiction/fantasy vs real life morals" thing than writing or literary analysis as such, but there's a lot of overlap.

A person from another online community was bullied into committing suicide by his parents after they found out about his fetishes and assumed he had to be "evil". His brother told us about it afterwards.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

So I've been in that situation before actually. I have interests that aren't particularly kosher, and I've encountered online communities who espouse that very same thing, under the guise of "social justice".

I still do not see it as the fault of the lens, or the concept of social justice, and in fact support both heavily.

It's a fault of the people who use it to justify their beliefs. And if those words didn't exist, others would take their place to justify their beliefs in a different way.

There are healthy ways to participate in inferring literary meaning and unhealthy ways to do it. There are extremely toxic ways to mold it to fit an agenda and turn it into propaganda as bad as an original piece of literature.

But that doesn't make the entire concept toxic. It doesn't make it nonexistant. I would love to talk about the ways it can turn toxic, and the nuances thereof, but as it stands we're currently being forced to prove that the concept can exist at all in a mundane way. Which is very far behind being able to discuss the cultural execution.

Edited by MrAHR on Sep 4th 2018 at 3:38:54 PM

Read my stories!

Exactly this.

There is a massive difference between supporting the idea that one's work can be a reflection of values/biases and supporting bullying.

The former is a critical part of literary analysis and the latter is just unacceptable harm. There's no reason that they need to be connected.

"Sandwiches are probably easier to fix than the actual problems" -Hylarn

True, those are not the same thing. I'm not saying you can't analyze or criticize fiction. I do that all the time.

But considering that some of the comments here have included not-so-subtle insinuations about authors secretly supporting nazis and child abusers, I don't think it's unreasonable to get a bit defensive.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

BTW, another tabletop roleplaying story at the Vampire forums. We're discussing "The Gamemaster who sexually abuses Female Character story." It's a story which has happened at countless tables.

http://forum.theonyxpath.com/forum/main-category/main-forum/the-classic-world-of-darkness/vampire-the-masquerade/1250596-vampire-5th-edition-is-attacked-from-all-sides?p=1251427#post1251427

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Oh yeah, the typical Rape as Drama that is abused for male roleplayers. Is always disgusting, annoying and I really can understand why the Roleplayer would want to leave.

Watch me destroying my country

I wasn't sure what to expect, but... gods. To a player, with no warning, and followed by that reaction...

I guess the whole "discuss the elements you plan to include and make sure you get a grasp of everyone's comfort level" thing flew right over the guy's head?

Edited by Corvidae on Sep 4th 2018 at 12:26:55 PM

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

That is most certainly not something you just spring on someone and have the right to complain about if they are not into the idea happening.

That is the kind of scenario where both parties involved should be aware of rather than going "oh and your character is going to be assaulted sexually and thousands of spider eggs will be laid in her brain, have fun"

"When I offered to make Norea my third back-up girlfriend she just glared at me and started throwing things at me.." Renee Costa

The thing about this story is it's from the nineties.

And whenever it comes up, there's always someone who says it happened at their table or some variant of it. Not always just vampire or White Wolf either but Dungeons and Dragons.

Bleah.

One guy actually claimed he printed a flier for STs to handle female players with the rule, "Don't rape their characters." Other rules being, "don't sexually harass the players" and so on.

And was later told the document really helped.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 4th 2018 at 3:47:12 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

Thanks God for it. Too bad that it was needed, but still. Having it was good.

I've always wanted to roleplay to be honest. But no one close me do it.

Watch me destroying my country

Almost as fucked up as this.

Where people on WOW did the same thing on complete strangers.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mb7b9q/world-of-warcraft-has-a-rape-problem

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

That’s horrible, but the fault there lies with the abusive parents who killed their child because they had issue with his fetishes, not with the idea of any listing a person’s work to determine things about them.

Even in the rare cases where a fetish/attraction is harmful for a person/other people (which again is much less common than nutjob evangelicals think), the way to deal with it isn’t to kill the person, it’s to get them proper psychological help so that they can learn to recognise their harmful desires for the negative they are, then allow them manage/dismiss their harmful desires without harming anyone by acting upon them.

Now obviously certain protective measures sometimes need to be put in place to prevent people with harmful desires from harming innocents, but said measures should never be so cruel as to cause them serious harm or put their life in danger. Said measures should actully help said people by removing from them a constant source of temptation to act on said desires and harm innocents.

I have not read the fiction of anyone here (sorry guys), so all my statements are made as general statements about authors who write particular things. I’d hope that we don’t have any authors here who write Nazi or pedo proganda/apologia.

Edited by Silasw on Sep 5th 2018 at 10:30:24 AM

This is reasonable. I'll take it.

But I think we might have derailed the thread by this discussion for long enough. I'll send you a PM to clear up some final questions.

Still a great "screw depression" song even after seven years.

So there's a moment in Quantum of Solace, the second James Bond movie starring Daniel Craig as the lead that's bugged me for a while.

When Bond goes rogue in Bolivia, a female agent named Strawberry Fields (try to guess what the color of her hair is from that name) is sent by MI 6 to bring him in. As what happens often, Bond ends up seducing her and they have sex. While investigating the villains, Bond ends up separated from Fields.

When Bond returns to the hotel, he finds Fields dead having been drowned and covered in oil and placed on the bed in a homage to how Jill Masterson was killed in Goldfinger. M, who is present at the scene, proceeds to give a What the Hell, Hero? speech.

M: You might like to tell [Fields] your theory about there being no oil. Her lungs are full of it.

Bond: It was Greene.

M: No doubt. But why?

Bond: It's just misdirection.

M: I mean, why her, Bond? She was just supposed to send you home. She worked in an office, collecting reports. Look how well your charm works, James. They'll do anything for you, won't they? How many is that now?

Now this might seem like a moment of awesome for M but falls apart once you start thinking about it logically. M knew Fields wasn't a field agent. She knew about Bond's ability to charm the pants off any woman he sets his mind to. So why send someone who is not only unqualified for field work but is exactly the sort that would be vulnerable to Bond's charms? It sounds like the movie trying to lampshade Bond's treatment of women but fails because Fields wasn't some random woman Bond ran into and had sex with. She was put in that position by MI 6.

Edited by windleopard on Sep 5th 2018 at 9:31:04 AM

M probably isn't the one who sent her. I remind you at the start of the movie, she's just survived an assassination attempt in Barcelona. Bond is just beginning his career and this is literally like his third mission.

When M is referring to women, she's referring to Fields and Vesper who was also a government employee.

It's also not about Bond endangering them but the fact the women (and men) around Bond are always at risk because the people around him are horrible people.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Sep 5th 2018 at 9:41:35 AM

Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.

M was still active after her assassination attempt. If she didn't send Fields who did?