Female Protagonists on the Hero's Journey

I think that first, we have to consider our own stereotypes as writers. First, what is our stereotype of a hero? And second, what is our stereotype of men and women in that role? Do we actually know people, men or women, who have been heroes, or done heroic things? If we don't, then have we read of such actual people? Without understanding them, it is going to be hard to write about them without our own stereotypes showing through.

I would like to take a minor character in one of David Poyer's Dan Lenson series as an example of a well-portrayed heroine, even though this character is actually a minor character in Tipping Point and Onslaught. That character is Operations Specialist Second Class Terranova, nicknamed "The Terror", a weapons system operator on the Aegis cruiser USS Savo Island. This young woman is aged about 25, came into the Navy either out of high school, or with a year or two of community college. Or maybe she worked in McDonald's or Walmart's for a year. After boot camp she chose to become an OS, which is a radar and weapons system operator, and went through the "A" school training for that rate. Assigned to an Aegis cruiser, she would go through additional specialized training on that specific weapons system, including simulated air defense against an aircraft and missile attacks, at Fleet Training Centers in Norfolk or San Diego. In short, she is like hundreds of other sailors in that rate, male and female, on real ships like the Ticonderoga.

Now what does she do? As one of the lead operators of the Aegis weapons system, she is called on to defend the battle group against a potential onslaught of cruise and supersonic missiles that come in batches of 20 to 40, some of which may be nuclear. Note I said she has to defend the battle group, which means she may have to choose between defending her ship, and defending the carrier and other high value ships. She does not operate alone, but as part of a team. The Captain's station in combat is in the combat direction center with her, and there is a Tactical Action Officer (I was qualified as one) who has the authority to order "weapons free" or "tight", there is a chief petty officer in her section, and a team of junior sailors participating in tracking and calling alerts. But she is the one with her fingers on the trigger. She is the one that will set up the intercepts, announce "ready", deploy chaff, employ jammers, all without instruction as there is no time to give any detailed orders. And if she misses an intercept, there will be an explosion, dozens of her friends and shipmates may be dead, repair parties are called away, and the ship may be damaged to the point of sinking, emergency lighting coming on... and she must focus on the next intercept, not the one she just missed.

Did I mention she is just 25, has no superpowers, and just broke up with her boyfriend? There is nothing extraordinary about her.

There is nothing in the world that sends chills up my back than the alert "Multiples Vampires, Multiple Vampires, Track 2323, Multiple Vampires, bearing 030 range 30 miles, ETA in thirty seconds." I have only done that in practice. In those two books, Terror lives it for real. Fortunately, we have not yet fought a war against a peer adversary since WWII. When that day comes, and we square off against Russia or China, for good reason or bad, those hundreds of sailors will experience for real what David Poyer displays so well in those two books.

And yet, she would never describe herself as a hero.

 

Yes. Like how some men are interested in and capable of being fighters and other men are not, whereas some women are interested in and capable of being fighters and other women are not.

That's completely different.

Or how some men are interested in and capable of being homemakers and other men are not, whereas some women are interested in and capable of being homemakers and other women are not.

In all seriousness, the lead hero of the Doctor Who story in my signature is an American woman who'd converted to Islam as a girl. Only 4% of the people in the world are Americans, and only 1% of Americans are Muslims. This means that only 0.04% of the people in the world are American Muslims. Should I have not written that character because 99.96% of the people in the world are not like her?

 

Um, @Simpson17866 can I ask a question? (I'll only be asking about the MC part of your post, as this is a writing forum and I don't really care to get into real-world politics here). From a bit of searching, it appears that a majority of writers are white, perhaps that could be the reason that a lot of MCs are white? I may be wrong, but maybe they're just writing what they know and subconsciously going to the MC being the same race they are because they're more focused on writing good stories than worrying about what race that character is. I mean, the race of the character doesn't matter nearly as much as who they are, right?

I dunno, I'm just trying to figure out a less... accusatory of an answer for this than what some might default to. It's just, if you worry too much about what your character is, then you'll lose who your character is and just end up with a walking stereotype. I mean, would the Harry Potter series be better if Harry were a minority? Would Iron Man be a better hero if he were a minority? Would Black Panther be a worse hero if he were white? The point is, unless a major part of the plot is that the MC is a certain race, race doesn't matter, so why worry about it? Besides, from what I've seen, a lot of people actually don't care what race the MC is, what affects whether or not they'll identify with that MC depends on who they are, not what they are.

 

I think this is a really important point, and it applies to all kinds of things.





Charts like these can be made for all kinds of difference between men and women, such as interest in people vs. things, propensity for violence, IQ (variability differs despite having the same average - men are more likely to be either an idiot or a genius according to Stephen Pinker) and so on. Even though most women are interested in people over things when compared to men, some women are only interested in things. Imagine a female doctor of chemistry with no interest in socializing, politics, or people and who spends all of her time in the lab. I've met people like that. It's not even strange. It's the logical consequence of traits resting on bell curves.

Men who are very interested in people don't get a lot of representation. It's hard for a lot of us to even conceptualize what it would look like. Half the time, male psychologists in movies treat people like things (often villainous) because writers can't imagine that some men are just straight up interested in people.

So when you have a story about any character with traits that are within the realm of possibility for human beings, however rarely appearing, there will be some consumers that identify with it and may be thankful to have that representation.

Here is Stephen Pinker talking about this:

 

Getting back to the original topic, I think this has the same problem that a lot of discussions about gender or feminism run into. It keeps talking about "the feminine", but doesn't actually define what "feminine" is. The author just kind of assumes that their definition is both correct and obvious.

I guess there's pregnancy & childbearing, which are uniquely female, but the majority of heroines don't do either. Trying to pin it down outside of "things biologically impossible for one sex" often just ends up in circular logic. Feminine things are feminine because women do them. Except not all women do those things, and some men do them as well.

 

I don't really know what to say about this. I kind of get where you're going with it, but it doesn't really conflict with what I was saying.

I'm discussing roles from the point of view of biology, not culture, so, again, I fail to see how this is relevant. Do I personally think your character is right for the role? I don't know anything about your story, so I wouldn't know.

 

And things are masculine because men do, except when women do those things, but that also doesn't count. LOL

 

You were saying that a female lead wasn't right for a story about a character being a fighter.

Biologically: the strongest man is stronger than the strongest woman, and the average man is stronger than the average woman. Do you see how this is different from the "the weakest man is stronger than the strongest woman" argument you were making?

 

Did I? I don't recall, I was talking about the hero's journey in its "base" form, not about fighters.

I never made that argument. The post was never about someone being stronger or weaker.

I'm usually really bad at expressing myself, so if I implied any of these things in my post, I didn't mean to.

 

If the only characters you write are exactly like yourself, then clearly it does matter to you.

Ever notice that people never say that about the stories with straight white males as the leads?

Again, ever notice that when a story stars a straight white male as the lead, nobody complains "you should've written a well-developed character instead of writing a demographic"?

And what is it about women who fit into these stories that makes their existence "unrealistic"?

 

Agreed, I'm not a very strong man and I have seen plenty of women who could kick my ass, most of them are in uniform.

You leave Red Sonja out of this, she's a badass character!

 

If they fit, they fit, and it's not unrealistic. What are you trying to say? All I'm saying is that there are reasons - which I presented - why these things are seen the way they are, and why, usually, women aren't seen as fitting a hero's journey narrative (note the word USUALLY); of course there are going to be exceptions, but still, it is my opinion that the best of these exceptions do not dismiss the norm as something silly, and instead use it to create a better story.

I've honestly read my post like 4 times, and I do not see where you're getting these things from.

 

That's not what you said. You said

 

If the only characters you write are exactly like yourself, then clearly in does matter to you.
Missed my point. I was asking if you honestly thought that what a character was mattered more than who a character was. The question you are responding to, however, would go something like:

"Do you think it matters to me that all my characters are exactly like me?" (Not true, by the way)

Ever notice that people never say that about the stories with straight white males as leads?
Okay, on this one you just ignored my point. Why? I don't know, but you did. I was saying that characters who are written around the fact that they are a certain race/gender/sexuality end up as stereotypes, no matter what race/gender/sexuality they are, as evidenced by the fact that I did not mention those three things in that section. But, for some reason, you're trying to counter my statement with a question that has nothing to do with my statement. I would suggest calming down and focusing on what people are saying to you before responding.

Again, ever notice that when a story stars a straight white male as the lead, nobody complains "you should've written a well-developed character instead of writing a demographic"?
Okay, can you at least try and answer my points instead of defaulting to "Oh but what if I suddenly add gender and race and sexuality to you're argument for them not mattering? CHECK FUCKING MATE SHITLORD"? You're trying to argue against someone who does not care about these things by trying to get me to answer for people who care about these things.



I was advocating for gender/race/sexuality not being important when making a good character, but you can't look passed your own obsession with this perverse, forced version of equal representation to just agree with statements I've made that, based on what you've said earlier, you should be agreeing with. So I'll give you one more chance to prove that you actually thing all races/genders/sexualities are equals with this question, a simple question:

Does the race/gender/sexuality of a character matter more than what kind of person that character is?

 

I think we can all agree that we're well meaning writers with different amounts of practice talking about delicate issues. We might even be multiculturalists, nativists, or cosmopolitan liberals, but that doesn't make us bad people.

I know this topic is triggering, but I think it's well within the realm of possibility to keep cool heads when talking about this stuff, because the goal is to flush out biases that threaten our art or corrupt it by tricking us into saying things that aren't true.

For example, if I'm wrong about something, I'd rather it come out on this forum rather than in a piece of art.

 

The industry standard would say "Yes," while the pro-diversity crowd would say "No."

 

There are many kinds of stories that lend themselves better to a female protagonist, and these aren't the same stories that lend themselves well to male protagonists, since, trigger warning here, females and males are different.

If a female character lends itself well to a traditionally male "journey" then it fits, and I can't really say it doesn't, since it does. I don't get it. I don't get what the problem is.

Lets get this straight: if you're saying that every story lends itself naturally to both genders, I'm going to have to disagree, because, once again, the female condition is not the same as the male condition; however, this does not mean that the character or situation can't be modified in such a way that it fits the story well. So no, don't slap tits on Conan and call it a day, please.

 

So which one is it? Do you believe your first statement or your second one?

 

They are not conflicting, as I clarified in the third paragraph.

Edit: so both, if that wasn't obvious.

 

What makes you think that race/gender/sexuality are not a part of what kind of person a character is? Or, to ask differently, what defines in your opinion what kind of person a character is, if it's not race/gender/sexuality?

And is it really so hard to understand that especially in underrepresented minorities the characteristic that makes them a minority - which is often race/gender/sexuality - plays an especially important role in forming their personality? You can't deny that socialisation as a minority person is usually fundamentally different than as part of the majority.

 

Yeah, you're right. Sorry about that, I'll be calmer from here on in.

Okay, I know that. I was wondering what you're thoughts were on the subject.

It is hard for me to understand. I mean, race/gender/sexuality aren't choices, they're just characteristics that a person has no control over. I admit that I should've been more clear earlier, I see that now. The way I see it, what a character is depends on characteristics they had no control over (Race, Gender, Sexuality, parents, etc.), and who a character is depends on characteristics that they chose for themselves (how they handle people, what kind of things they say, what they want to do with their life, etc.). Hope that helps clear up my opinions on these kinds of things.

 

They're things they have initially no control over, that's true. But they affect how their environment deals with them and in an endless feedback loop of course also determine how they deal with their environment. Apart from that, nowadays one has definitely some influence over their race, gender and sexuality.

See above - this is how they deal with their environment. To believe that, for example, "what they want to do with their life" is something we are fully able to choose for ourselves, independent of upbringing, origin and, yes, race/gender/sexuality is pretty naive, to say it bluntly. Not only doesn't everybody have the same choices in the first place, the actual decisions are vastly different and very much dependent on the background, which means on factors we can't influence.

 

This conversation has multiple facets that are clashing together -- what makes a story something we can relate to, the nature of people, do men and women have different natures, how important is representation, and is representation linked to exploration of social issues. We also have our own view points on ethnicity such as multi-culturalism, nativism, and cosmopolitan liberalism, those three being the main view points I've heard western writers have.

One failing of the conversation is a disagreement on what we mean when we say a story is male or female centered. Some people think that each character is a social commentary on the shared nature by all men or women, and some people think that every trait rests on a bell curve so no individual thing can be pointed at and called a male or female way of being -- unless that thing is being 7'6" tall or pregnant. If we accept that some personality and cognitive traits are different on average between men and women, but the actual values of those traits are on overlapping bell curves, then it is possible to have a female with many traits associated with males, and vise versa, without straining believably.

It's still possible to focus on the individual traits of a character, while forgetting the larger context of the social environment that the character comes from. That's a part of why the phrase, "I don't see color," started off as a liberal belief, but is now seen as problematic, because people in our society are affected by the social framework their ethnicity and ancestry is situated in.

This problem is further compounded by the fact that many stories are set in times and places where the social fabric is different: not on Earth, far future, alternate history, and so on. In such settings, it's possible to ask is representation even appropriate or possible? Does having the appearance of a character from a real world ethnic group in a fantasy setting with it's own history and culture count as representation? To that last question, I think the answer is yes. Some writers only write stories set in the real world, while others only write stories set in not-Earth, but when they talk about these issues they might fail to mention where they are coming from.

How can we negotiate the landscape of all these issues:

1) Shining a light on our unconscious biases and clearing them away so we can have an unfiltered view of the story we want to tell, while avoiding discredited tropes: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DiscreditedTrope

2) Avoiding equating "average," "typical," and, "normal." This can be accomplished by asking if a trait falls on the natural bell curve, and if it does, not necessarily drawing attention to it unless that trait is treated equally by the author in relation to other characters.

3) Placing characters in the context of their own history and culture, if that culture exists in the real world or not. This might involve learning from and listening to real people.

4) Bravely writing characters with different traits, ethnicity, genders, and backgrounds, which makes most stories more believable.

If you do all these things, you might be able to pen a story that is both artistically satisfying and unobjectionable to people on either side of most of these issues.

To close: this comes back to the hero's journey. I still believe, as pointed out by others in this thread, that it is a descriptive framework applicable to many sorts of stories. Even if certain aspects of the hero's journey as it appears in popular fiction (such as extreme risk taking or violence) are more likely mirrored in one of the genders, that fact neither invalidates the use of the hero's journey for other kinds of stories, nor prohibits people not of that gender from identifying with it if they are inclined to.

If I'm wrong, please tell me how.

 

Yeah, I guess I'm a bit naive, but I still believe that people, no matter their background, are strong enough to become what they want to be.

Look, let's just agree to disagree, okay?

 

Does being male or female have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with who you are?

Do your ancestors, your family, your culture, have absolutely nothing to do with who you are?

Your status in society (which in our society is heavily affected by race and gender)?

Your profession (which in our society is heavily affected by race and gender)?

Where you grew up (which in our society is heavily affected by race)?

Your level of economic privilege (which in our society is heavily affected by race, and in adults heavily affected by gender)?

Who you can love versus who you want to love (which in our society is heavily affected by race and gender and sexual orientation)?

It would be different. We have Harry Potter. Harry Potter is great. Does that mean that there can't possibly be anything interesting about the differences between Harry Potter and other possible magical-kid protagonists?

And who you are is affected by every element of your life. And many elements of your life are affected by race and gender and sexual orientation and all sorts of things.