Need help from women, or those who are knowledgeable, about female characters

Unless you have heavy armor on yourself (and any mount you may have), that slow rate of fire will see you die under a hail of arrows. See English longbowmen versus the Genoese crossbowmen the French hired during the Hundred Years' War.

My point is that there doesn't have to be a reason other than cultural attitudes for women to fight. One only needs to look at our world to see that. I don't know why this is hard to understand.

You lost just about all credibility when you called horse archers "quite uncommon". Any tactical system that saw millennia of use from the Ukraine and North Africa to China isn't "quite uncommon". Horse culture spread rapidly amongst the Plains tribes in North America, and they'd lived millennia without horses.

It's true that cavalry only armies can't take fortifications, but they may not have to. If your enemy is foolish enough to turtle up in their cities and forts, you can pillage the countryside at your leisure. See how long their people tolerate that. And of course, horse archers don't need to be the only troops in an army. The Mongols for example forged a combined arms force that had horse archers as its centerpiece, but they made use of infantry and siege equipment as well.

It's possible to defend points with them, you just need to begin that defense further from the point you wish to protect.

I'm sure the Romans at Carrhae would be relieved to know that those Parthian horse archers couldn't fire with any kind of density. Oh wait, those horse archers battered the Romans until their formation began to come apart, and then the cataphracts mopped up. The Romans fought so many people who used horse archers that they ended up creating auxiliary units of them as a counter. Horse archers went on to be a major part of the Byzantine military.

If foot archers are so superior, do explain why Alexander didn't rely on his Cretans, the best foot archers in the Greek world, as the primary counter to the Scythians at Jaxartes River. Later foot archers, like the vaunted English longbowmen, probably could've beaten them, but not anything in the ancient world. That was my point.

Few nations wielded the masses of archers you're talking about here. The Achaemenid Persians are probably the closest...but that didn't stop Queen Tomyris from defeating Cyrus the Great, lopping off his head, and stuffing it in a wineskin full of blood.

Not everyone used them because of cultural and practical reasons. Terrain could limit their effectiveness. You had to have swift horses. The Romans and Greeks and Western European barbarians all focused on infantry. The stirrup brought heavy cavalry to the fore. Even in the face of defeats at the hands of a different tactical system, forcing change can be hard.

I never claimed that gender ratio was the rule. But its mere existence is enough to put down the realism argument you seem to be advancing.

All of this, however, involves you focusing on only one of the examples I noted earlier. If you don't like horse archers, we can look at the N'nonmiton. They were basically a West African equivalent of line infantry, and made up a third of Dahomey's military at their peak. They also wielded considerable political power. I hope you aren't going to try arguing that line infantry are rare.

 

I'm sure we have a premise for a Douglas Adams novel where someone decides to travel back in history to enforce the 'standards' that is expected of them.
Standard Enforcer to Boudicca: "Sorry, you can't do that."
Boudicca: "Do what?"
S.E: "Defeat a Roman army. It's not up to standard."
Boudicca: "But, I just did it."
S.E: "Why, we can't what you can do decide that, can we? That is why we have standards."
Boudicca: "Oh, well. Sorry about that."

 

There's also the matter of the award-winning essay "We Have Always Fought." I think my favorite part (out of very very many) was the part sbout Shaka Zulu's all-female impi force.

@Phil Mitchell Let me see if I understand your position:

Let's say that the average man's "strength" (to be defined very loosely) is 5 and the average woman's strength is 3. Now let's say (purely for the sake of argument) that it's just as hard for anybody to go up 1 strength as it is for anyone else: a woman with strength 4 is as common as a man with strength 6.

If I'm understanding you correctly, then you're saying that the problem with having men and women in the military who are both strength 7 is that for every woman strength 7, there is also a man strength 9, and two men strength 7 and 9 would be more effective than a man and a woman both strength 7.

What's wrong with having a man who's strength 7, a man whose who's strength 9, and a woman who's strength 7? Wouldn't having more soldiers be more effective than having fewer?

Why would allowing a woman to fight require stopping somebody else first?

 

Secretary: "How do you write women so well?"
Melvin Udall: "I think of man...then I take away reason and accountability."

Just write them like any other person really. They have differences from men,
but not entirely something different. Women are more emotional than men,
but that does not mean don't have emotions. They are just stronger in women
than in men, typically. It just depends on their state of mind at any given point,
but for the most part they are pretty similar.

Physically, men have more muscle mass and do the heavy lifting. That does
not mean that a woman cannot build up her own body to be just as strong.

IDK, I think you get the picture. Good Luck Starfox.

 

Well, stereotypically women and men are assigned different groups of emotions. They both have plenty.

 

Oh, I suspect it goes back a LOT further than that!

 

@X Equestris
Thanks for mentioning examples of military forces with strong female representation (I just read that Scythian warriors were described as bald... both men and women! I also found another interesting nomadic tribe called Sarmatians). In one WIP that's now on the back burner, I'm writing a city state that's matriarchal and employs women in combat roles. So I'm definitely going to look into all these examples you've given. In my story, horses play a big part (because if I have an excuse to write horses into any given story... I will. ) and while I've only recently discovered archery is not one of those sports I'm naturally inclined to master, I'll try my best to portray it realistically as well.

Anyway, just wanted to extend my thanks.

 

I've met men that are far more emotional than women...in fact, most men are at least as emotional, if not more so. Depends more on situations, but people don't recognize male emotion the same way, which is part of the misunderstanding. Women are much more level-headed in 80% of situations at least. As leaders, they make less decisions based on their feelings, and more based on reason and fact, this has been proven in several countries already who have female leaders. It takes a lot more training and self control to teach a man to not think with his genitals, and to not make decisions because he's mad or got his ego threatened. I've personally seen this, and been guilty myself in some cases when I was younger. Ego and manhood are things that set men off at all ages though, I've had to learn to keep it in check, whereas most women I've known did not have that struggle.

Yes, I've also met a handful of women that are unreasonable and kinda irrational, but there's less of them overall compared to men. All men have had anger, or ego, or sexuality, or something holding them back, but our brains are so misguided and misinformed, that if we see even one woman act up, we lump them all together into that one person...mostly to save face and keep ourselves feeling better about the myriad of mistakes and embarrassments we make at any given moment because we can't keep our emotions in check. Oh, and as a general rule...women are typically smarter in a lot of cases. Most men are one track minded, they can't reason in more than one way.

Probably does, I think it's been happening in most cases from the very beginning. There's some civilizations that have been more open minded, but it's mostly the exception rather than the rule...

 

I love the character of Melvin Udall. And, that is one of my favorites quotes from the movie. That said, I've always understood the deeper meaning of Udall's statement is he is writing about himself.

 

I get it you want to "defend" us ladies here, but this is actually starting to read a little sexist to the other direction... You don't want to end up in a situation where male characters are stereotypes who can't control their ego or sex drive while women are nuanced, for example exhibit inflated egos and emotion-based decision making in equal measure (I'm exaggerating, but hopefully you get my point).

There are differences between male and female brains, but I'm doubtful how much bearing they will have on your characters since these are generalizations and become pretty pointless on an individual level. I know male and female bosses, and their abilities to do their jobs seem to have very little to do with their genitalia and a lot more with their experience, education, and personality. While socialization plays an important part in how we "turn out" and both men and women can exhibit traits that are gendered e.g. in work environments (egotistical men and catty women as examples), if you want to write non-stereotypical characters, you shouldn't look at these attributes as "female" and "male" or "feminine" and "masculine". As others have advised, a personality centered approach is much better than gender centered.

 

Yes, I think it has more to do with conditioning that actual responses, though. What is emotion? Fear, love, sadness? Anger, aggression, jealousy?

For too long, the first three have been attributed to women. It's been perfectly okay for them to 'express' these emotions in public. On the other hand, if they express the other three, they are usually condemned. Yet these last three traits are often encouraged in males. (Or rather, the opposite is usually discouraged—if a male fails to exhibit these characteristics, if provoked, they are termed 'wimps' ...or whatever word is current to express that idea.)

I think both males and females are equally able to feel all these emotions and more, but they are conditioned to exhibit them (or not) based on their gender. I think some of that still holds, although we're slowly making progress. It's now okay, in most circles, for men to be seen crying if they are sad or upset. I remember back when that was just NOT on. And I'm only 67 years old.

 

There are also cultures where crying is NOT on, no matter what your gender. I'm talking about Finns... Do not show strong emotions here. Like ever.

 

I was just making a point to the somewhat sexist post I was quoting. I certainly don't consider myself emotional, as much as I used to be at least. I've seen all sides to both genders, but it's easier for me to recognize male emotions than it is female. A lot of men that would be considered respectable in social circles, behind closed doors and in male only groups, they are much different...I would suspect the same for a lot of women too, but when it's only a group of men, and they all feel comfortable speaking their mind, you'd be shocked at some things I've heard. Men are very disgusting, and if you think one is respectable, give it another thought once you've heard them in private conversation among other men. There's a reason I don't have many friends, mostly because I can't deal with other men so much, and I can't hang out with women because I'm in a faithful relationship. More than just being misogynistic though, we just become better at hiding our emotional decisions with age.

Obviously I'm not aware of how women act in private, but in public I can see when men are being emotional and irrational, mostly because I recognize those things in myself that I struggle to control. No, I'm not going to just write men as misogynists and emotional wrecks filled with anger and rage and bruised egos, I just can't agree with anything that says women are more emotional than men. Different emotions, yes, but I can see the hidden emotions in men as well, which is not so easily detectable. I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just stating my experiences.

Actually, it's still a huge problem, as far as I know, men are not allowed to cry...at all. I'm damaged to the point where it's hard for me to do so unless I'm really, really hurt. I also have PTSD so it depends if someone triggers certain responses. In some cases I'll even just shut down and turn blank. Maybe in some younger generations they're learning it's okay to cry, but I haven't seen many examples. Back when I was a teen, males that cried were called some very inappropriate things, and I'll leave it at that. I'm not a afraid to cry anymore personally because I've grown up, I just have trouble doing it physically because of the conditioning. This is just my experience though...stereotypical "female emotions" are not allowed to be expressed by men, despite the fact that we experience all emotions the same way, we just have to hide them, which creates a whole bunch of mental disorders that we never go and get help for because seeking help means you're "weak". It's a vicious cycle.

I've been damaged though by my fellow men, so maybe on some level I'm a bit biased, I kinda resent my own gender. I'm trying to write a story though that will appeal to both men and women, so I'm not about to put any grudge I may hold into my novel, don't worry. It's taken me many, many years to admit though that I have a mental disorder...it's not even been a full year yet, but I've healed a lot too.

 

I seriously doubt it.

Yeah, women can be crude too. But it really depends on the kind of sense humor present in the group. Women can be just as gross, offensive, and out of line as men when they are amongst themselves. There's a stereotype of women being polite, demure, and softly spoken little angels. You can go against the grain with some of your characters and show that women are actually really good at objectifying men and making jokes so bad and dark they'll give you cancer.

 

Back in high school, I remember the class being a bit miffed when a boy signed up for home ec, because the conversation definitely turned less interesting.

(I also prize the moment when the very polite teacher, who simultaneously condoned and didn't condone the conversation during independent work periods by pretending to be deaf to it, one day burst into laughter. I don't think she even looked up from her desk; there was just the laughter, and then there she was, soberly looking down at her papers as usual.)

 

Sorry, I haven't been feeling too good lately, doing better now, but I think my mood affected some of my responses on here...

Yep, I've actually been present for some of it, had some first hand experience with women being offensive. That's a really good idea too. haha I just think it's really disturbing when some men think it's okay to grope and molest, like it's "their right" to do so because they're "Just women". Not my crowd, and there's a lot that think this way in private...

 

I don't have any pointers but I'm told that that both the male and female characters in this piece break stereotypes well. It's not finished and I kinda doubt it's relevant to you but here you go.


It was to be a very simple robbery. A carriage containing two noble women, lightly guarded, would head down the north road. They would jump it, take anything valuble and be on there way. That was the plan.

Once the carriage was in position two men ran towards the front. This panicked the horses. Then he swung into the carriage to take the valuables from within.

However it appeared they had collectively misjudged the women as one drew a dagger and sliced his torso. It wasn't deep but it was enough to shock him a little. She took this opportunity to push him out of the carriage and onto dry dirt.

To the dismay of the woman, he managed to pull her with him and they fell out of the carriage and down a steep decline.

Once opon some flat land he held her down and placed a knife against her throat.

"Hand over your valubles" he said firmly yet still attempting to catch his breathe and hide his accent.

She did not follow his instructions and, instead, pulled of his mask and hood revealing his dark skin and sharply pointed ears. He attempted to jump away from her but she swung around and pinned him down before he could escape.

She looked at him. An unreadable expression upon her, he now realised, outstandingly beautiful face.

"An elf" she giggled suddenly. "A Goddamn elf!" She burst out in laughter while he lay there motionless and confused. She tossed back her thick, brown hair, which smelled like lavender. "Not a bad looking one either" she said "you should hear what people think you are".

He tried to escape again but was unable.
"Not so fast" she warned twisting his dagger in her hands.

"What do you want?" He asked in a voice of pure exasperation, making no attempt to hide it.

She then explained that if he would have his "men" return what they had stolen plus extra, she wouldn't tell a soul who, or what, he was.

While he resisted at first he soon realised that there would be no reasoning with this woman. So he accepted.