Do you view Male vs. Female Characters differently?

Shoot, I'm a 5'-6" woman and I can draw a bow! It's not that hard. Just getting the right poundage.

 

I never mentioned sexism. I was mostly referring to the fictional trope, not the real life, historical one, of characters preferring the bow because they are not strong enough for close combat. That's why I mentioned elves in fantasy who are often portrayed as being physically weaker than humans and thus favoring the bow and they certainly use longbows as often as they do the easier to draw short bows.

Historically speaking, I would imagine that people would kill in whichever way was most efficient and most likely to keep them out of harm. And the idea of poison as a "woman's weapon" most certainly stems from sexism as historical stereotypes portray them as conniving and vicious, like snakes (even in mythology they are blamed for the woes of the world from the Garden of Eden to Pandora and even ancient Babylonian myths). But I'm willing to bet that a male assassin would be just as willing to use poison or any other method they deemed effective enough to get the job done.

Sure a big show was put on by "honorable warriors" who would kill their enemies in "honest combat" but human nature dictates that it might be better to do what one must to live and then lie about the honor part later. I'm sure you can give me examples of when this was not true but I would say that those are the exceptions, not the rule. Even if I were the greatest melee combatant in the world, I'd rather drop my opponent at 50 yards if given the chance. I'm willing to bet that a soldier who wants nothing more than to return to the safety of their home would agree, even if not openly.

Anyways, I was specifically responding to this line by @Iain Aschendale :

"Katniss is weak, hence dependent on a bow rather than a broadsword or a maul or something." (Sorry, I don't know how to properly quote just part of a post.)

Also, not sure why I might not like that much of our modern literature is inspired by Greek literary theory (at least in the West). It's the classic Greek stories and myths that originally inspired me to tell my own stories. And did the Amazons actually cut off one of their breasts? I'm pretty sure that the idea of cutting off a breast in order to better use a bow was debunked as breasts wouldn't really stop one from using a bow effectively. Now whether or not the Amazons actually did cut off a breast (for whatever reason), I'm not sure, but I thought that was considered a myth, too.

You're absolutely correct about the Medieval longbow. However, I did mention that large, muscular archers being needed depended on the type of bow. However, I wasn't taking into consideration modern, compound bows. Now that I think about it, is that the sort of bow that Katniss used in the Hunger Games? I've never seen the movies or read the books (I'm not much a fan of YA novels so there are a lot of popular stories that I haven't read). But even a short bow isn't something that should be given to someone just because they are physically weak because it still requires a person to have decent strength, especially if they are using it regularly and as their primary weapon.

Really? Similar in size? Maybe it was a work of the camera or something but Lucy Lawless just looks so much bigger. Maybe it's because she looks more toned? And standing next to Gabriella (I think that was the character's name), she looked so big.

As you said, Xena was played as being a character who was not typical of the women around her. She was often portrayed as being just as strong, if not stronger, than the men she faced off against. It's been a real long time since I've seen it, though. I tried watching a few episodes a couple of years ago and I just couldn't get through them. Same thing with Hercules. They were just so 90's.

Still, when it comes to fiction, the actor's real life size is often times ignored for the sake of the story and for the sake of depicting the character in a more action-oriented way. And that doesn't just go for women but men, too. Personally, my suspension of disbelief extends to characters doing things that they shouldn't be physically capable of, so long as that character's feats remain consistent.

 

Actually it stems from FBI statistics. While there are a fair number of women who use knives and blunt objects, when we look at premeditated murder, it's pretty much poison. So even that, comes from somewhere. But you know, facts... whatever. Who cares about those?

 

No need for sarcasm. You started off talking about historical instances. I hadn't realized you transitioned over to modern statistics. Forgive my confusion.

 

The reality is, as a woman and I'm confident enough to be okay with facts, even if they are not favorable by certain people's standards. That's just me.

As a martial artist for over 25 years who mostly trained with men, there is a huge combative difference between men and women. And part of my writing is studying the female warrior throughout history. We've sort of romanticized them and made them way less interesting than they really were. They've become men with boobs, so to speak.

The only time you'll see women warriors whether it be Japan, the Vikings, or the Celts, seems to be as a last ditch effort at defense. Boudica was an exception, but it is uncertain if she ever personally engaged in combat. But Komatsuhime of Japan, basically defended her castle by intimidating her father in law. And the Amazons are so marred in myth, who knows what their deal was?

 

You know, I have to laugh at myself in this, because I'm the guilty party here. Am I seriously having an argument (at least in my mind. ) over who is better at the art of killing people in terrible ways? Again, that's me, not you. You're probably like, "Dude, I'm not arguing with you, WTF. Chill!"

 

I'm aware of the combative differences between men and women and I assure you I am as capable of getting my butt kicked by one as the other. And I agree that female warriors are made less interesting than they were historically though my knowledge on the subject isn't near up there with your own, but what I do know is that they played a more prominent role than what is portrayed in media or taught in history classes (if it is taught at all). The show Vikings did a pretty good job of portraying this, I think although from the episodes that I saw, the female warriors were fewer in numbers than they likely were historically.

Perhaps I am misreading but are you under the impression that I am not aware that men and women are required to approach something like combat differently due to their biological differences? My original post had more to do with the myth that bows are for people who are too weak to be useful in any other form of combat which is historically ridiculous because someone who is fit enough to learn archery is fit enough to learn other forms of combat, with varying degrees of efficiency, of course.

And fiction, especially fantasy fiction, has a history of giving female characters a bow due to them not being capable warriors in other forms of combat and that's ridiculous because if someone, man or woman, is an ineffective warrior due to a lack of physical prowess then they're not likely to be that efficient of an archer, either. Again, I'm not referring to skill. A person good with the bow could very well be lacking in skill with other weapons but it's not going to be because of some physical ineptitude or else that would translate to archery as well.

If you're physically capable of using a bow in combat then you're just as physically capable of learning how to use a sword, even if your skill with it would be less than your skill with the bow (in which case, just draw and drop 'em from a distance and let the silly boys with their phallic weapons risk getting stabbed up close).

Anyways, I think I'm spent on the subject. My apologies if I haven't been clear in my meaning. My poor writing skills aren't limited to fiction. Should the time come that I need some tips on women and combat, I'll remember your name. Have a good night.

 

That would depend on the poundage of the bow.

 

Bwahahaha! It's nothing I haven't been guilty of myself. And if it's of any consolation, I feel like I've been on the receiving end of mansplaining. A previous job I had that involved driving a truck, I broke down and was being talked down to over the phone by the guy who was trying to explain to me where in the engine the belt was located and he said something along the lines of, "C'mon dude, even my wife knows where it is."

As if my having a penis somehow amounts to me knowing a damn thing about cars. Does that count as mansplaining? Or just condescending chauvinism?

 

I don't actually care for the idea of mansplaning. I think it's a rude and sexist way of saying "Sit down and shut up" to someone who doesn't deserve to be told to do so. Just like I find "Okay Boomer" so rude. Let them speak and you can dismiss or accept their comments on their own merits, not on the basis of their sex or ageism. Don't tell me that because I'm a woman, I'm the only one who can speak about women's suffrage in a room full of men. What the hell would I know more about women's suffrage then any of the men in the room? I didn't live in a time when women couldn't vote! That is pure disrespect to the women who fought for the right to vote to claim that my experience is somehow equal to theirs just because I'm a woman. (It's not like men always had the right to vote either.)

But then again, I don't care much for the idea of modern feminism either. I love many of the historical feminists like Susan B Anthony and Abigail Adams. And I certainly admire and respect all the female pioneers who had the courage to take the first step into the unknown often at severe opposition. But modern feminists don't resemble those noble roots so much. Lately it's just about "See? See? I made a movie. Look, it's a movie about female warriors. Don't you want to go see this movie about strong females. If you don't, you're sexist." Or looking for little things to nitpick at.

Seriously, do we really want a movement that had such a wonderful stood for progress and equality to stoop to nitpicking on how many lines a woman got to speak versus the male counterparts? Is that where we're at? If that's the case, why don't we just call it mission accomplished?

 

Right, this thread needs to be restarted in the Debate Room if anyone is still interested.