Given what I'm writing these days, I found these articles interesting. Berman makes a good point that your believable woman warrior will probably look more like Laila Ali than Buffy (though Buffy had magic backing her up). She's apparently spent a fair amount of time debating "whether women really could go up against men in combat and win before the invention of that great equalizer, the gun. [Her] position is yes, provisionally."
The Tiny Kung Fu Woman post also focuses on the muscle mass necessary to win a fight, and states that "every competent fighter in the world has muscular limbs."
ETA: I misattributed a quote. It's Braak (Tiny Kung Fu Women) who said, "I am, in fact, 100% in favor of more women warriors. Iām just opposed to the implausibility of tiny, skinny women being put into the role of a woman warrior without consideration for the practical demands of such a role." My apologies to Berman and Braak both. I've edited the opening paragraphs to fix this mistake.
First, the disclaimer: I'm no expert. I earned a black belt in Tae Kwon Do as a teenager, but I'm 20 years out of practice. I've taken a few other martial arts classes over the years, but not as seriously. And my first-hand experience as a warrior is pretty much limited to rolling d20s.
Muscle can be important. So is size. All things being equal, a big strong guy is probably going to have the advantage over the little, not-so-strong guy. (I say this with a lifetime of experience being the little guy.) On the other hand, the Aikido instructor I had back in undergrad liked to demonstrate techniques on the football players. The instructor was fairly small, probably in his 60s or so, with a bit of a belly. He'd pin guys twice his size and hold them flat with one hand on the wrist and pressure from the pinky of his other hand applied to the back of the elbow. As much as muscle and size can help, I'd still put experience and training over bulk any day.
When I write Talia's character, she has magic giving her speed and coordination, but she also knows where to hit and how to fight. There are places on the body where all the muscle in the world won't protect you. Throat, eyes, ears, groin, and joints, to name a few. The female fighter might have a weaker strike, but a hit in the right spot doesn't need that much force. Anyone who's roughhoused with a little kid and had them land a lucky blow knows how much damage a tiny opponent can do.
The style of fighting is important too. Wrestling will give more importance to strength and mass. Hand those same two combatants rapiers, and suddenly speed and control are more important, and size means greater reach but also a larger target area.
In the end, when you're writing a warrior woman character, not everyone is going to buy it. From the comments at Black Gate, "I can confidently state that even expert female fighters have absolutely no chance against half-trained male fighters." Fair enough. There are plenty of Conan novels for him to go read. But for the rest of the readers, I think one of the most important things to take from the discussion isn't that "Good fighters must be this strong and this big," but that the writer needs to figure out how the character fights, and think it through. In book two, Talia gets into a struggle with a male prince, trying to shove him off of the deck. When he resists, she doesn't try to overpower him. Nor would readers believe it if she did. Instead, she sidesteps, allowing him to overbalance while pushing him in the direction he was already going.
Like everything else, you have to think it through. The sword-wielding, armor-wearing mercenary will build up muscle, male or female. The assassin who relies on stealth, speed, and a knife in the back might not do well in a face-to-face brawl ... but of course she also knows better than to let herself be drawn into one. Part of winning the fight is controlling how it will be fought.
And very few practicing fighters are going to look like an anorexic Hollywood supermodel, regardless of their fighting style.
What do you think? What makes you believe a woman fighter can kill you as easily as look at you, and when do you lose your suspension of disbelief? For those of you who've read Stepsister, I'd also be curious to know whether you found Talia a believable fighter.






Comments
I don't know as much about Norse women, but medieval Scandinavia was one of the few places in Europe with true gender equality. There weren't a lot of warrior women up there, but those who earned thier place were treated just like the male warriors.
It would be interesting to also look at what in the cultural context allowed for more women warriors.
That said, my grandmother has knocked male Marines cold, and did so when she was a slim young woman as well as when she was in her sturdier middle age, so I am an easy sell on this stuff. My suspension of disbelief is waaaaaay over compared to some people's, because my real life experience of women is not even second cousins with physically helpless.
Yes.
Also, your grandmother sounds way cool.
Assuming you're not talking about a basic medieval hack-and-thrash battle of armored sowrdsmen, style, speed and smarts are, IMO and E, more important in winning a fight than pure mass, muscle or otherwise.
Style: the weapon determines the winner. Someone who is trying to silently choke an opponent will fight one way, the head-on clash of swordsmen is fought another way. And the fighter who has a poisoned dagger or lethal syringe needs to get in close and get out fast. Likewise, a mounted fighter needs control of their weapon and their mount more than they need brute strength. Conan would have been a crap polo player (if you don't think polo mallets are a deadly weapon, you've never seen the game played).
Speed: Hulk strong. Flash faster. Who do you think would land the first blow? And if the first blow is well-placed, there is no second blow.
Smarts: ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Man in Black, from The Princess Bride. Also, as my self-defense instructor taught us: in life-or-death matters there is no such thing as "fighting dirty." You fight to survive.
A character who has smarts and uses them to choose the style that best suits him/her (as opposed to just picking up the nearest sword and trying to thwack with it) will allow me to believe that s/he can win his/her battles. Studying the enemy = a believable warrior. Training and practice and understanding the theory of how they do what they do = a believable fighter, no matter what the weapon or the body type. Buffy worked not only because she had magic, but because we saw her training, day in and day out, and improvising/using what was to-hand when she had to fight dirty.
So, um, pretty much what you said already, i think. *grins*
That said, I know a professional stunt woman who's about 5"2", and slender but strong and solid. (She's NYC-based, though, so I guess they didn't know about her for BTVS. She would have been a good match.)
After Xena, the kick-butt heroine became ubiquitous, and sadly less and less logical, at least in visual media. I think the most egregious example I personally saw was in the follow-up to Zorro a few years back, when a tiny little Random Extra woman left her baby in an exploding barn (not to mention there was really no reason the barn should have been exploding in the first place) to go and pummel four bad guys, with no hint or clue or reason given at all that she should have been able to do that. (And I think I would be equally skeptical had it been a same-sized man doing that. She was TINY.)
I love my kick-butt heroines (I have the sneaking suspicion that Xena might have had a formative influence on my morality. I don't know what that says about me, actually), but I don't like this idea gaining too much currency in society that women are "as tough" as men with no caveats and no explained circumstances. I am quite tall/large, but I am not tough, I am not trained, and I am not aggressive, and in the portion of society I personally inhabit, I don't need any of the men thinking they can come and knock me around like a physical equal. (Too many people -- women and men both! -- out there RIGHT NOW talking about 'Rihanna had it coming' 'she must have made him do it' 'some of these women are tough!' and similar garbage.)
I'm not sure how much the idea of women being "as tough" is influencing domestic violence issues. Abuse and victim blaming has been going on for a long, long time, and I don't think I've ever come across "She's tough, so she can take it" being used as an excuse.
Regardless, any excuse that puts the blame on the victim instead of the abuser is bullshit, to put it mildly.
H. Jackson Brown, Jr. said it best: "In the confrontation between the stream and the rock, the stream always wins - not through strength but by perseverance."
I found Talia to be a believable fighter. You did not make her invincible; You made her quick, crafty, resourceful... but not invincible. I really liked her character. I think where my belief stops is when a character is perfect or too close it. They never get nicked in a battle... they never take a misstep giving their opponent an advantage... they always know the perfect way to proceed and they are never wrong, they never question themselves. In my opinion, perfect should not exist even in fiction unless the character is somehow divine. Even then, a flawed divine character is always more entertaining.
Shutting up now :)
Edited at 2009-02-12 03:17 pm (UTC)
I think you hit on a really important point, that the character with flaws and weaknesses as well as strengths is a much more engaging character to read about.
My wife and several other women are on the Banner Wars team, and what I can say about highly skilled fighting women is this: They are smarter than most guys, they are typically short (there are exceptions), they usually have biceps almost as big as mine, and they each specialize with a different form of combat (my wife is an astounding archer, her best friend is a short, stout girl with a huge shield who will bowl you over, one of our leaders is a tiny girl who is incredibly quick and clever with a sword-and-shield, another girl I know is a sprinter and is amazing with two swords, yet another is a pole-arm expert).
In traditional martial arts there are plenty of examples of high-quality women fighters.
There are many fewer of them than the men, but they do exist.
As for the traditional argument that men have higher muscle density and higher maxiumum run speeds, etc -- speed and fitness do come into play. Exceptionally fit individuals do have an advantage. But SPEED does not win the fight. TIMING does.
When the opening comes, if you know how to take advantage of it and you have the minimum speed and power necessary, then you will win. And if know HOW to make that opening happen, then you will take a less-expert fighter down the majority of the time.
My 2 cents.
My abusive husband was 6'0", weighed easily a hundred pounds more than I and he would usually strike by surprise by doing things like... pushing me down a flight of stairs, hitting my lower kidneys full-force, things like that. He would never hit me from the front, and always pretended such blows were accidental. I always escaped serious injury (ever do a flying flip down a stairway, land on the soles of your feet, tobaggan that way down the remainder, then do a perfect breakfall on the bottom landing to save your skull conking the bottom riser? And I've never considered myself athletic). The one time he caught me truly unawares, I put him down on the floor with quite a bit of hurt on him. Slammed his head into the tile and then double-fisted his back as he fell into the bath tub. Re-enacting the Psycho scene on a woman who isn't in on the joke? Not funny.
It took me a long time to wise up that if it was an accident, it should't happen so often. To me, having been in real fights where I was technically quite overmatched, it doesn't matter much on the size. Now, if you're up against someone huge, not getting grappled is important. However, this isn't wrestling, and dirty breakholds are Just Fine and Dandy when you're doing your damnedest to lay on hurt instead of take it.
You know, Bruce Lee was about my height, if a little heavier... and faster than any other human being I've ever seen. I don't get the whole females are helpless because they're not as strong myth. Gorillas are stronger than human males - that's why humans use guns. If strength always won in survival, wolverines or bears would rule the Earth.
It matters muchly on the smarts you use, and the degree to which you're willing to take pain to inflict it. Also, your willingness to make sure you've not only put your attacker down, but down AND completely out of fighting ability long enough you can get away safely. The only injury I ever took was a blue belt doing a take-down on me when I was in white that I totally did NOT know how to break the fall on properly. He was out of line doing that to punish me because I'd broken his guard four times in as many minutes in the hands-sparring. Of course, I also have the Viking berserker tendency, with the reddened vision and total lack of normal inhibition (e.g. sanity) except for all my cunning remains towards dealing out hurt - the more hurt, the more better - when I really get my dander up. Or after I take a couple of solid blows and the old lizard brain starts to conclude I'm actually in danger. That is the real reason I went for martial arts training. I wanted the discipline so I wouldn't have to kill someone to stop the fight.
Now that kidnapping women out of shopping lots to steal their ATM money and they never being seen again seems to be the latest local crime spree, however, I am planning to take the Concealed Carry course. I am a damn fine shot despite poor eyesight, even if the cop who gave my first handling course said if you shoot someone, you've just blown $50,000 in legal fees even for a self-defense shoot. I'd rather be poor than dead. Although I do hope I never am in danger, I do want to be able to save my life if it happens that I must. I already commonly carry a cane - sometimes because I need it for the knee, most times so I have a Big Stick. Wearing my "PENTAGON" sweatshirt also seems to REALLY reduce the catcalls, whistles, and other hassle I encounter sometimes walking around the neighborhood, as well.
Edited at 2009-02-12 03:37 pm (UTC)
What she wants is the good old fashioned "Boot to the head" technique.
It's also interesting though, aside from the cover of the book, there has been very little description of Talia's physicality. I mean, when we first meet her, Danielle does talk/think about her as certainly lithe, beautiful, and exotic looking. But particularly when Danielle compares herself so much to Snow, who is so not what I would picture as a warrior body-type but fights primarily with magic anyway, whether Talia may or may not be built like a believable warrior hasn't really come up while I've been reading. That de-emphasis of body-type has really worked in favor of my suspension of disbelief.
More generally, I believe women warriors like I believe most interesting characters who are, as you say, well thought through. I read in some how-to-write-fiction book or other that certain cultural perceptions of 'good guy' can be violated as long as they're quite well compensated for. The examples (which were from novels I hadn't read) had to do with a detective protagonist who loved and recited poetry; the how-to-write author said that for the audience to continue to believe this protag was tough enough to be a detective, the reader had to see the protag doing twice as many crunches, benching twice as many reps, and whatever other things the audience would expect such a character to have to do in order to be tough than they would need to see a character who didn't have soft-making (my paraphrase) characteristics. I think the same thing goes for female fighters. I have to read about training much more to believe a sword-wielding woman than I do for a sword-wielding man.
You're writing of Talia has done that quite successfully.
One of the stories I've heard from other fencers is that Ed Korfanty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Korfant
Rebecca defeated each and every one of them. I don't know if she was 13 or 15 at that time.
IMHO, a female warrior's form needs only be consistent with what she does and how she does it.
People who have had enraged drunks trying to crack their heads *and* know how to handle themselves, men or women, are the dangerous ones.
As for fiction, my most successful female protagonist so far knows that she simply can't go toe to toe with many men in a fair fight, so she simply doesn't ever fight fair. This is a good rule of thumb in general. Ten thousand hours of unarmed combat training are always trumped by the half-second it takes to pull the trigger.
-JM
I am only halfway through Stepsister, but I believe in Talia's abilities. From what I've read so far, she does not hesitate. She often gets the first strike, before the opponent even knows what's happening. That is a huge, huge, huge advantage.
I also have to wonder if women in combat roles in writing has a lot more to do with the skill of the writer to give the details (style and speed) that make a fight believable. Maybe in the Conan school of sexist bullcocky much of the focus is on swinging the same damn sword into the entrails of any and all villains-- yeah... That style isn't going to lend well to finesse based fighters. I guess what I'm saying is, hack writers can't hack strong females because it requires too much attention to detail.
That said, I hate skinny women on principal, and the idea of tiny warriors makes me gag. The one exception I can think of? Sara Conner from the second Terminator movie. She rocked hard and I believed her able to take down a small army on her own. Still, you want an example of hot and built? What about Tara from True Blood? Have you seen her arms? She looks like she could rip a man in half and make him like it. (She's a personal hero of mine.) http://cyncity.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341
Also? You don't portray her as an anorexic waif in a chain mail bikini. That kind of 'warrior woman' kills any suspension of disbelief for me.
Showing strong women in fiction, in all kinds of roles, is important. Physical prowess is not the only way to win a fight nor the only asset a fighter might have. Speed, cunning, determination, the willingness to take damage if it means you will survive in the end--all of those things are important too.
Head to head physical combat isn't the only way to fight either. There are other kinds of battles and I think it's just as important to show those as well.
If you can't make as much muscle as a man you have to use the ones you have more efficiently. Look at most anything a woman does that is physical and you see this. A woman punches with her hips more than her arms. She rows a boat with her back and legs more than her arms. She saws a log downward using her weight, not parallel to the ground with strength only. A woman is likely to be a smarter fighter not a stronger one. As long as the style of fighting reflects that I'd find it believable. A woman being flat out stronger than a man her size I'd have more issues with.
First, my sister is 5'0" and I'd put my money on her almost every time. She's been in her share of fights having lived in some tough neighborhoods and she learned what a smaller opponent has to do to survive and win.
Second, I studied Aikido when I was younger and size and strength had nothing to do with it. I saw small thin women wipe the floor with very large men. It was all about skill and technique. That said, even the diminutive women who practiced Aikido every day developed a level of strength that wasn't apparent at first sight.
Sometimes I think theme is more important than realism. But that's just me.
... Conan wasn't the only warrior in that movie. Valaria kicked ass, took names and held her own. But she didn't do it standing toe to toe taking bashing strikes from Mr. Bloodbath. She did it being quicker, lighter, and willing to move more.
She used not only her skills, but she learned how to use her environment to her advantage, something, I think, most fighters need to, but she did it on an instinctive level.
My warrior women that I write are two types -- One is light, lithe, wears only boiled leather armour, she fights with a lighter sword, and depends on what she calls 'the moves of the dance' to keep her alive.
The other one, though, is a separate creature. She's about 5'4. But she's strong. Why? Because she was born and raised to be a "true knight". Meaning she's been wearing armour from a young age, she's built the muscle for it, and while she still cannot stand toe to toe with a male knight (men still, much to her chagrin, gain more muscle than women) at least not for hours on end, she can swing a sword, and she can win, pretty consistently against them. But, when she's out of armour, she's not skinny, she's not 'lithe' she's not wiry. She's pretty thick muscled, and not a delicate flower. (Her arguments with her queen are rather amusing though.)
Did I believe Talia? Yes. I did. Because she still had trouble, despite being as good as she was. The rule of thumb about fighting is one I love to hear: "There's always someone better."
Talia is going up against humans, most of the time. Men looking at a skinny little chick will underestimate her, and be lazy in their defense. Just as old age and treachery will triumph over youth and skill, a half-assed block will suffereth a smackdown from a precision attack.
Talia wears loose clothing, akin to modern sweats, yes? this will hide the muscles that reveal how formidable she really is.
In the end, look at women's pro-wrestling. Awesome Kong is the only woman I would pit against Chyna. Beth Phoenix is a serious contender against Kong, however, I don't believe the other women in the WW
FE are equal to those three.This is part of why Joanne Walker in the Walker Papers is 160 pounds. Granted, she's also nearly six feet tall, but she's not fragile or delicate for her height. And, in fact, she started out heavier than that, and has gotten in better shape through the course of the books.
She is also not, mind you, a particularly typical urban fantasy warrior woman. She's pretty good at brawling, but that's because she got in fights as a kid, not because she learned to fight, and it's only within the parameters of the books themselves that she's begun to learn swordplay (because people keep sticking swords into her).
Style, as in playing to the character's own strengths whatever they may be, matters a whole lot, definitely. The context matters a whole lot; is she working inside her own context, or has she been forced outside it?
But, based on personal experience, what I find most viscerally convincing is a women warrior who has a lot of aggression, whatever form she expresses it in. Women in Western culture are conditioned not to be aggressive, and so when anyone has to deal with a women who is, they are at an instant disadvantage (which often seems to translate into this weird sort of disbelief or denial and leaving huge openings). Coming out of Western culture, that aggression is what instantly pings my believability radar.
If you are a lot smarter than your opponent, you figure out where they are weak and you are strong, and you capitalize on that.
Big strong, trained fighter vs little tiny fighter, other considerations equal, fighting hand-to-hand? Give it to the big guy/gal every time.
Put a weapon in the hands of the smaller fighter? The odds shift near equal. Put a gun in the hands of the small fighter? I'm backing the small fighter.
A writer can also work other factors. In one fencing tournament, I was part of a pool with a woman who had everyone else totally outclassed. She went on to win the tourney with only one touch scored against her all day: by me. I had the advantage of watching her first three bouts. My plan worked great for one touch, dead on, catching her totally flatfooted.
Since fencing isn't actually deadly, she proceeded to kick my ass for the next five touches. But my hit wasn't luck, and it wasn't duffing--it was cold observation and calculation on my part. (My opponent's experience was obvious in that she knew exactly what I'd done, and didn't let me do it again.)
Balance.
Once in a while I'll run into someone--literally. Or they'll run into me. It happens on crowded city streets where people aren't paying attention.
The inevitable result is that the other person bounces off me. Now, I admit I am a very large woman. I'm more than 100lbs overweight, and I'm 5'9" with a large frame.
But because I am a woman, with a classic pear-to-hourglass figure, my center of gravity is below my waist and counterbalanced by a solid booty and thighs made muscular by hauling that ass around several miles each day.
Could I be thrown my someone who knew what he was doing? Hells yes. But if you said, "E, we need to cut through this crowd in a hurry, please handle it," I could. (I know this for certain, because I have done it.)
Style matters. Tae Kwan Do is much different from Aikido--in the latter, I can say from experience that a small, skilled woman can throw large men around.