[ SECRET POST #1271 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1271 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

101.


__________________________________________________



102.


__________________________________________________



103.


__________________________________________________



104.


__________________________________________________



105.


__________________________________________________



106.


__________________________________________________



107.


__________________________________________________



108.


__________________________________________________



109.


__________________________________________________



110.


__________________________________________________



111.


__________________________________________________



112.


__________________________________________________



113.


__________________________________________________



114.


__________________________________________________



115.


__________________________________________________



116.


__________________________________________________



117.


__________________________________________________



118.


__________________________________________________



119.


__________________________________________________



120.


__________________________________________________



121.


__________________________________________________



122.


__________________________________________________



123.


__________________________________________________



124.


__________________________________________________



125.


__________________________________________________



126.


__________________________________________________



127.


__________________________________________________



128.


__________________________________________________



129.


__________________________________________________



130.


__________________________________________________



131.


__________________________________________________



132.


__________________________________________________



133.


__________________________________________________



134.


__________________________________________________



135.


__________________________________________________



136.


__________________________________________________



137.


__________________________________________________



138.


__________________________________________________



139.


__________________________________________________



140.


__________________________________________________



141.


__________________________________________________



142.


__________________________________________________



143.


__________________________________________________



144.


__________________________________________________



145.


__________________________________________________



146.


__________________________________________________



147.


__________________________________________________



148.


__________________________________________________



149.


__________________________________________________



150.


__________________________________________________



151.


__________________________________________________



152.


__________________________________________________



153.


__________________________________________________



154.


__________________________________________________



155.


__________________________________________________



156.


__________________________________________________



157.


__________________________________________________



158.


__________________________________________________



159.


__________________________________________________



160.


__________________________________________________



161.


__________________________________________________



162.


__________________________________________________



163.


__________________________________________________



164.


__________________________________________________



165.


__________________________________________________



166.


__________________________________________________



167.


__________________________________________________



168.


__________________________________________________



169.


__________________________________________________



170.


__________________________________________________



171.


__________________________________________________



172.



Notes:

No mudkips, don't worry.

Secrets Left to Post: 25 pages, 608 secrets from Secret Submission Post #182.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - doing it wrong ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[demiincarnate.livejournal.com]

No, I'd disagree. There are significant differences between men and women, some of which are innate but more of which arise in cultural environments and social expectations. Sure, a scene with men having a conversation may be similar to a scene with women having a conversation, but a story about a man is vastly different from a story about a woman. I would like to write about more female characters, myself, and every time I start a story I think to myself, "Would this story work the way I wanted it to if the main character were female instead of male?" Unfortunately, the answer is usually no.

[thene]

If 'a story about a man is vastly different from a story about a woman' then that is the whole entire problem; the story clearly works wrong.

The story would work if the main character were female. That's why/how fans write genderflips. Even if it wouldn't work 'the way you want it to' then it would work some other way.

[demiincarnate.livejournal.com]

Uh, no, the gender of the main character can make a huge difference in any work, good or bad. Limiting ourselves to literature: Would Othello or A Farewell to Arms be anything like the original story if the main characters were female? Would Medea or Hedda Gabler make any sense with male main characters?
Besides, even major details that don't affect the plot matter in a story. Setting, for instance, need not be a plot device, but it is a major contributor to a story's success. For instance, I was writing a story set in a small town, and I wasn't getting anywhere with it; it seemed very bland. I decided to set it in a walled city instead. Even though the change was superficial, it caused a major difference in the atmosphere of the story, which greatly improved it in my opinion.

[thene]

Okay. I've just spent a while retyping this comment so it sounds less wanky, but please tell me that you understand that what you are practising is straight-up, unambiguous misogyny? Saying you can't POSSIBLY write about female protagonists, it just CANNOT BE DONE, so you'll be using them as side characters for your male characters if at all...even if you believe wholeheartedly that this is your only option (which I believe it isn't) can't you see that the result is active, complete sexism?

Going back to what you said originally: I would like to write about more female characters, myself, and every time I start a story I think to myself, "Would this story work the way I wanted it to if the main character were female instead of male?" I don't understand why 'male main character' is the starting point and 'female character' is a possible 'instead of'. Why not start with 'main character' and take it from there? Why not flip a coin before starting?

[(Anonymous)]

I think what they are trying to say is that if you have a certain plot/storyline/setting in mind, sometimes it needs a certain sex character for that specific role. For example, if you wanted to write about Victorian England and some mystery/deceit/conspiracy plot about a person in power, it would be much harder to have the main character be female. It would also be hard to write about being on the front lines if that country's army doesn't allow females to serve in combat. There are also many settings and plots that would not work with a male as the main character unless they wanted to change a bunch of details around, and sometimes that's just not what you want to do as an author. Sure, these things can be done if you try hard enough (ie crossdressing, changing details/time periods, switching perspective to a side character, etc.) that could make the story interesting for other reasons, but it may change it drastically from their original idea.

And, well, if that's not what they're trying to say, I think that's a decent point either way.

[thene]

My point was that you are absolutely NOT confined to only ever writing stories in which you ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE a male protagonist and anyone who claims they are is accomplishing misogyny.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, obviously. The majority of plots and characters are gender-reversible and anyone who tries to deny that is simply ridiculous. However, it's a bit ignorant to claim that it is always possible to have either a male or female as the protagonist, due to situations I already mentioned. I think this was just a case of misunderstanding.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

I think what they are trying to say is that if you have a certain plot/storyline/setting in mind, sometimes it needs a certain sex character for that specific role.

That's how I read it. I'm a big fan of gender flips myself, but sometimes it just doesn't work. If you're writing about an organization that only allows men, as you said, like say the US Army Rangers in front-line combat, dude's gonna' have to be a man. Unless you are writing in an AU - in which case the US has reversed its rulings on women in combat, and thus necessitates a different American culture than the one that exists presently - or maybe in the future, at some point. Or perhaps a transgendered woman who isn't "out" yet, and can't ever admit to her true gender because they Army won't allow it. Or you could write a very similar story about a woman in Princess Patricia's Light Infantry - Canada's elite Army regiment, which does allow women in front-line combat. Either way, something's got to change. You're no longer writing about US Army Rangers of June 26th, 2010.

If you want to, he's gotta' be a dude. Sure it makes the US Army sexist, but it doesn't make the writer sexist. These are different things.

[(Anonymous)]

You worded that much better than I did. (:

[demiincarnate.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I like to write historical fiction about war and politics, myself. But even in situations where either a man or a woman can be featured, a man's story will be different from a woman's story, and I just tend to prefer the man's story.

[ariseishirou.livejournal.com]

I'm growing to prefer the woman's story, myself. Fun to root for the underdog, and all that. Plus it's a story less often told. If that makes you a misogynist, I suppose I'm a misandrist, now. Alas!

[demiincarnate.livejournal.com]

?! No, I would say that it is NOT misogyny.
First of all, I never said that I CAN'T write about female protagonists - I said that I don't want to write stories about women. (That is, I want to write stories which necessitate male characters.) I certainly do write female characters, and even female protagonists. I just do so less often, out of personal preference.
Second of all, I don't see how it is hateful to women (this would be how I define misogyny) to not feature them as protagonists in my stories. I am not harming any real women by doing so. I am not even harming any fictional women by doing so - I am sparing them from being a character in one of my stories, because my stories rarely turn out to have happy endings. I would understand that it would be misogynist if I made all female characters flat or unrealistic, or relegated them to less important roles in society, or claimed they couldn't do the things men do, but I am not doing any of those things.
Third of all, I write what I want to write. I like to write stories about soldiers in 19th century wars, and about Nixon-era politicians. Main characters in these stories are not female by necessity. I like to write about the themes of fatherhood, of male friendship, of discrimination against male homosexuals. These are different from their female counterparts. The reasons WHY I prefer to write about these things are as moot as the reasons why I write at all. I do not have a moral obligation to write about things I do not want to.
About my comment: I do start with a male main character by default. I recognize that this is not necessarily the right thing to do, only what I prefer to do, and this is why I make an effort to change it. The reason I do not flip a coin, however, is because I prefer to come up with a plot first, and then decide on a character who would fit this plot. I choose the character design I find most inspiring; usually, I find female character designs uninspiring. This is not my choice, whether or not to be inspired.

[thene]

...Nixon-era politicians like Golda Meir? Oh, wait.

See, saying 'I write about Nixon-era politicians therefore I only write about men' is the sort of erasure that misogynists practice a lot. They don't write about women, therefore the women aren't there, even if the women were right there all along. Talking about 'sparing women' from supposed hardships is also a feature of misogyny, usually deployed in the form of chivalry - I think you're using it mostly as a rhetorical device, but really, it's not a very good one. And yes, queer women are used to the fact that the incessant focus on homophobic discrimination against queer men alone is a common form of misogyny.

I like fatherhood as a theme too, as it happens. I live in a world where fathers have daughters as well as sons, therefore I write about both men and women.

No, you're not obliged to write about things you don't want to write about, but it is fairly clear to me that the reason you don't want to write about these things is that you're (unconsciously, I am sure) sexist.

[demiincarnate.livejournal.com]

...The Nixon era occurred in America. Besides, I never said the women weren't there! But they were not the main players.
You seem to be avoiding the salient points I bring up. I agree that my practice of preferring men shares some characteristics with misogyny, in that misogynists also prefer men. But the similarities end there. I do not see where I am actually committing an act of misogyny by not writing about women. It is not more or less moral to write at all; it is therefore not moral or less moral to write about women. I don't see how this is anyone's problem but mine.
Tell me, why do you think I'm unconsciously sexist just because I insist on treating men and women differently? I don't think men are better overall. I prefer the company of women, myself. If anything, I like men as characters because they tend to be more obviously flawed.
On a note unrelated to me, have you considered that people might prefer to spare female characters from harm because it makes them uncomfortable to be part of a broader system that favors mistreatment of women? Why is it always damsels that are tied up and in distress?

[(Anonymous)]

Sure it would. You just have to write about bisexual shapeshifters like I do. After all, if they are equally capable of being male as female, you can do some interesting things with characterization.

[demiincarnate.livejournal.com]

....Sometimes I want to write stories that are set in REALITY.
Although to tell the truth, I have used bisexual shapeshifters to solve this problem. My favorite OC is one.
...What's your fandom? Is it, like, Left Hand of Darkness fandom? Because if that has a fandom I want to be in it.

[cordelia-gray.livejournal.com]

I have been lamenting the lack of a Left Hand of Darkness fandom for ages. Although apropos of the Dorothy Sayers quote above, I know that LeGuin was criticised for making the characters sound too "masculine" in their neuter state. Which I think may be a case of male reviewers/critics failing to notice that women do actually talk very much like human beings when left alone.

[demiincarnate.livejournal.com]

Let's make a fandom! Somebody go get gethenian to come too and we can start one.
Haha, what kind of a criticism is that? Maybe people were taking issue with the fact that all of the politician characters talked like politicians.

[cordelia-gray.livejournal.com]

all of the politician characters talked like politicians

LOL!

We totally should make a fandom, I made everybody in my book club read it a couple years ago, but that book really needs more love. All her non-Earthsea books do, really. Not that I don't like Earthsea, it just gets a lot of attention already.

I think LeGuin may be one of those authors that are a little uncomfortable with the idea of fanfic, though. :( I kind of give her a pass on that because I like her and I'm a hypocrite she's old-school. Still, it gives me a little pause about writing fic for her books, y'know?

[gethenian.livejournal.com]

...and I didn't even noticed you'd mentioned me until I replied to the earlier comment. *WAVES*

[gethenian.livejournal.com]

There is a certain validity to that line of criticism in that the LEAD characters were never seen in more "feminine" roles. They are politicians, spiritual leaders, the "king," and all referred to using masculine pronouns -- Genly's choice, which he explains very well, in my opinion.

I did read that Le Guin always regretted that she never got to write the lead characters in that book in the parts of their lives that were less traditionally masculine. I recall specifically that she said something about wishing she had had good reason to show Estraven as a mother with Arek (I am unsure why she chose to use that word, since Estraven was the biological FATHER of both of his children with Arek, but I suppose she just meant having a nurturing role in their upbringing). But then there are her two short stories set on Gethen -- in one, the Gethenians are all referred to as SHE, and that story I recall was actually written before the novel. In the other, they revert to the male pronoun for all persons, but it tells the story of an adolescent Karhider experiencing their first kemmer -- as female. "His" first sexual experiences are as a woman, with other women. I particularly like that story. It does very well to show the complete equality with which Karhiders (I don't recall if Orgoreyn sexual practices are discussed at all) regard any conceivable kind of sex, from homosexual couplings to orgies and there is reference made to the free practice of more creative approaches.

[cordelia-gray.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I always thought that the use of masculine pronouns in that book was a totally valid choice, because we're not just getting a story about a genderless society, we're getting a story about that society as seen through the eyes of someone from a society more like ours. Ai's issues in dealing with the Gethenians are an equally important aspect of the book. It's easier for him to assign male terms to people who are acting in "masculine" roles than for him to examine his own assumptions about gender.

This partly all came up for me because I'm working on a fic-challenge thing, and one of the prompts is "mpreg" which is something I really have no interest in writing. But then I thought "what if you screwed with the timeline (and the biology!) a little, and Estraven got pregnant, and Genly had to figure out how to deal with that?" Haven't written it yet, but I might.

I think I read that second story, a really long time ago. I need to re-read it!

[gethenian.livejournal.com]

WHY HELLO THERE.

LHoD has a fandom. To the best of my knowledge, it consists of me and the voices in my head.

[cordelia-gray.livejournal.com]

Can I be one of the voices in your head?

[gethenian.livejournal.com]

I am always happy to have more company. ^_^