Womb-man 
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
No womb man no cry.
Whilst I disagree with the tweet I kind of want Marvel to bring out a Womb-Man movie now.This is so good.
What have I missed? Why is Mbappe in the thread title?
Mbappe is rumoured to be dating/dated a trans woman.
don't want it anymoreI thought this was kind of accepted?
She did a good job of creating a world (granted some plot holes and the mother of all plot armours) and getting her readers emotionally invested. It’s a good hero’s journey. That much is clear. She can’t write like Tolkien though.
Perhaps it is. I wasn't aware as I'd never read any of it. My initial post was merely remarking on that.
"I need more melatonin" perhaps?
Tolkien was a bad writer. He was great at world building but at the actual craft of writing he was poor. Far too overly descriptive, not powerful on a sentence level like a Cormac McCarthy and most of his characters were paper thin stereotypes. Rowling, while still no legend or great novelists, is a better writer than Tolkien was.
And the terrible songs and poems. The best thing the films did was cut out Tom Bombadill.
While actually agreeing with your criticism you've outlined regarding Tolkien, I still have him far above Rowling when comparing the two writers, especially as bar the first those criticisms apply to Rowling's work to a greater extent than Tolkien's.
distantly
I agree to some extent since many of her characters are not very complex but at least she wrote both female and male characters who make decisions that matter, unlike Tolkien who couldn't write a woman to save his life so she takes it for me (although I wouldn't put either among the best fantasy/sci-fi writers).
Indeed. I had to skip over those parts as they were really bad.
That's actually a very good point
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that Rowling's writing of female characters is no better by the standards of the 90s/2000s than Tolkien's was by the standards of the 30/40s.
I'm not a massive advocate of Tolkien as a writer, but I'd say that Eowyn's plotline and character journey in Lord of the Rings, whilst obviously not amazing or perfect, is more carefully thought out than anything Rowling does with any of her female characters. Outside of Frodo and Sam's ones, it's actually probably the one which feels the most personal to Tolkien.
Eowyn's arc is that she lives in a culture (roughly based on the culture depicted in Anglo-Saxon heroic poetry, but it's sort of a metaphor for early-20th century militarism) which values glory and honour in battle (an exclusively male activity) above all else. She starts off accepting that glory and honour in battle is what is most important, and therefore aspires to go to war instead of staying home and doing the unsung stuff her society expects women to do (which is basically to enable the men go off to attain glory and honour in battle by doing everything else).
She rejects the role she's given and goes off to war secretly, attaining glory and honour in battle by killing the Witch King. But having done that, she realises that glory and honour in battle is what her society values rather than what she values. Her arc ends with her rejecting the expectations of her militaristic society entirely in favour of choosing to spend the rest of her life doing something which falls completely outside of the roles her culture assigns to men or women (which is reflective of Tolkien's pacifistic streak, he sees the best possible thing for a character to be doing is to try and fix the awful things done in war, like Sam with his gardening and box of soil from Lorien).
On the other hand, in Harry Potter the matronly mother figure who spends most of the series nagging people, knitting them ugly jumpers or crying calls someone a bitch at the end.
Not buying it. Eowyn is one of the few females in the entire series that gets more than a sentence or two and her arc is extremely minor overall. She might have played an important minor part in the plot but she isn't written very well nor frequently compared to all the main characters. I remember being quite underwhelmed by how little attention is really paid to her and her arc although it was more interesting than a lot of the hobbit stuff so it would have been nice to get more pagetime.
Also, it's a bit unfair to just pick one female in Rowling's world the way you did. That would be a valid criticism if Rowlings only had 2-3 females across the saga like Tolkien but when she writes about a wide range of women from Hermione to Tonks to Minerva to Luna, I don't think it's even comparable. Rowling's females span the range of different types of people and they all play just as important roles in the plot compared to Tolkien who has what, 2 or 3 women in the entire trilogy that even get more than a passing mention and even then Eowyn is just about the only one that does anything (Galadriel is a joke and Arwen doesn't really do anything in the books).
So yeah, Rowlings > Tolkien when it comes to female-male character balance and qualities.
Although, for reference, both GRRM and Rothfus do quality female (and male) characters better than either Tolkien or Rowlings iMO
Last edited:
Obviously I'm not going to argue that Tolkien has better gender balance than Rowling, or that the women he does deign to include get more "screentime" than Rowling's women. I think the criticism of Tolkien for not including more female characters is fair play. However, I do think the criticism he gets for writing female characters 'badly' is really odd. Eowyn isn't a late 20th century woman living in something akin to late 20th century England, like Rowling's characters are. She's a woman in a book stylistically and thematically inspired by mythology and epic poetry (so most characters don't get any inner monologue, and most are there to either further a plot point, or showcase a theme/message), living in a society loosely based on those portrayed in Anglo-Saxon epic poems of the 7th and 8th centuries, and the conceit of the book is that she (like some of the other characters) is speaking a heavily accented version of what is her second language, which is rendered to the reader as a stylised form of Modern English. I'm not sure by what measure you can say that she's "badly" written, or at least, by what measure you can say she's written any worse than anyone else. I'd actually argue that her and Faramir get the most significant and fleshed out character arcs of any non-Hobbit, and some of the best dialogue.
And yeah I was being tongue in cheek when I referenced Mrs Weasley, but I think the point stands more broadly. Rowling's idea of writing well-rounded female characters is basically to write caricatures, and then give them the odd moment where something sad happens to them, or where they play against type, to hint at depth which simply isn't there. Although, it's fair to say that that's Rowling's approach to writing people generally.
Going off topic, but I'm interested to see Rothfuss cited as someone who writes women well. I've always though the women in Kingkiller Chronicles are purposefully written in a way which implies an unreliable narrator (i.e - Kvothe is telling the story and he's depicting women as they appeared to him as a horny teenage boy, rather than exactly as they were).
That's a fair criticism of Rowling's work but I don't think it makes a difference regarding Tolkien's fault at not writing female characters and females being not just practically irrelevant in his world but also in his writing. Part of why I say he can't write female characters well is quite simply because he doesn't. You can't just ignore how many females Rowlings writes and develops compared to Tolkien or saying Tolkien can't/doesn't write female characters. I can't tell you how many woman I've met in the last 20 years that have been Harry Potter fans and inspired by a female character in the series. I don't think I've ever met a woman who has been inspired by one of Tolkien's very few female characters who are all also caricatures (even more so than Rowling's).
Eowyn is such a minor character with so little pagetime in the grand scheme that I don't think that makes him even decent at writing female characters. He has two female characters that do next to nothing and are paper-thin stereotypes and then Eowyn, who gets a little more agency but it's hardly anything extraordinary or complex and comes off as very token and box-checking.
Tolkien wasn't an 8th-century Anglo-Saxon poet, he was a 20th-century novelist and literature professor at one of the most esteemed universities in the world. I would expect far better from someone in that position than an 8th-century poet. No matter what his inspiration, he should be judged by what he produced, which is a 20th-century novel. Even if we just compare him to a fantasy contemporary, CS Lewis (and not even the great novelists of his era), Lewis does a better job at writing female characters with agency than Tolkien and they were both inspired by older myths and writing in the same era.
Re: Rothfus,
That is kinda the point. Rothfus is writing on multiple levels and despite that obvious unreliable perspective, a reader can understand the females in Name of Wind as more complex and intriguing than anything in LotR because they are seeing them through a character's eyes which is a higher level of writing than what Tolkien does with his few female characters.
Anyway, I'll just end with this bit of fun. I do think the comment here on Tolkien applies: "all your bad guys die, your good guys survive, we can tell what's going to happen by page and age five"
@oneniltothearsenal - all fair points I think.
I guess I'm trying to judge each author by the yardstick of what they are trying to do, as opposed to what readers expect from a novel. I don't think Tolkien (outside of the hobbits) is trying to write characters we recognise and can relate to, he's writing characters whose arcs, like in Beowulf or the Iliad or mythology generally, embody a theme or moral lesson. And it's on that basis I'm trying to judge the likes of Galadriel and Eowyn, as opposed to whether they are realistic women I can imagine meeting. Book-Aragorn isn't a realistic man I can imagine meeting either, he's an Arthurian warrior-hero figure.
Rowling is clearly trying to write relatable, positive female characters, so I can't help but judge her unfavourably when she writes them unrealistically/stereotypically, doesn't give them significant character arcs, or when their only function in the story is as a sidekick/support/love interest to the main dude. I also can't help but judge her unfavourably when her female baddies are almost universally stock sexist archetypes (big fat aunts, jealous, shrewish sisters, obsessive lovestruck maniacs).
I agree on Rothfuss. With the female characters in the Kingkiller books I always get the sense that there's depth to them which Kvothe skips over or doesn't quite understand, which is impressive given that he's only using Kvothe's voice to get that across.
I guess I'm trying to judge each author by the yardstick of what they are trying to do, as opposed to what readers expect from a novel. I don't think Tolkien (outside of the hobbits) is trying to write characters we recognise and can relate to, he's writing characters whose arcs, like in Beowulf or the Iliad or mythology generally, embody a theme or moral lesson. And it's on that basis I'm trying to judge the likes of Galadriel and Eowyn, as opposed to whether they are realistic women I can imagine meeting. Book-Aragorn isn't a realistic man I can imagine meeting either, he's an Arthurian warrior-hero figure.
Rowling is clearly trying to write relatable, positive female characters, so I can't help but judge her unfavourably when she writes them unrealistically/stereotypically, doesn't give them significant character arcs, or when their only function in the story is as a sidekick/support/love interest to the main dude. I also can't help but judge her unfavourably when her female baddies are almost universally stock sexist archetypes (big fat aunts, jealous, shrewish sisters, obsessive lovestruck maniacs).
I agree on Rothfuss. With the female characters in the Kingkiller books I always get the sense that there's depth to them which Kvothe skips over or doesn't quite understand, which is impressive given that he's only using Kvothe's voice to get that across.
I'm going to edit my response a little to get back to the main point.
Rowling is, just as much as Tolkien, writing to embody a theme or moral lesson so if that factor can excuse stereotypes or thin characters for Tolkien it also 100% applies to Rowling as well (she was writing YA not adult fantasy like GRRM). I don't see the hobbits as recognizable or relatable either, they were all also caricatures and thin stereotypes.
I think with some of the backlash to some of Rowling's tweets, people forget what an achievement she made. She was the first to really bring fantasy up to date (albeit YA fantasy) by including a full roster of female characters from the protagonists to antagonists to supporting in a way that no fantasy writer has really done before her in such a successful way. I don't agree that her female antagonists were almost universally stock sexist archetypes either (Bellatrix, Malfoy's mum, Fleur, etc all had more depth than that). It was truly remarkable and for the first time, you would see huge amounts of female fans of fantasy instead of what you'd usually see (90%+ males). I think it's clear she succeeds at writing female characters to some degree more than Tolkien even if she isn't as adept as adult novelists like Jennifer Egan or Megan Abbott.
Tolkien also had a big achievement: world-building. For western writers, he pioneered a form of world-building that was much deeper than seen before (although I would argue that Asian wuxia writers were doing just as deep world-building before Tolkien and contemporary to him such as Wang Dulu & Jin Yong). But Tolkien lacked in many aspects of the actual craft of writing so even with her flaws, I think Rowling is the superior writer even if we take into account what they were intending to write.
Last edited:
Referencing Bellatrix, Malfoy's mum and Fleur as characters with any depth isn't helping your argument mate.
And as a womban I'd expect her to have more experience with womben than a horny geriartric.
Ursula Le Guin?
octavia butler as well
Le Guin is a good call out although I'd put her more into science-fiction or speculative fiction than fantasy. Butler, not so much because while she is perhaps the best writer out of all mentioned, she doesn't fit in the fantasy category for me. She's much more literary fiction than fantasy.
Fantasy isn't her main genre, true, but the Earthsea series is pretty textbook.
LGB Alliance co-founder breaks down in court when asked to define ‘lesbian’
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ks-down-in-court-when-asked-to-define-lesbian
https://www.theguardian.com/society...ks-down-in-court-when-asked-to-define-lesbian
“We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is.”
I’m not really sure how widening your definition of lesbian erases other lesbians. Is she arguing that it diminishes ‘their struggle to be accepted?’ Because if so surely she has to see the irony there?
I’m not really sure how widening your definition of lesbian erases other lesbians. Is she arguing that it diminishes ‘their struggle to be accepted?’ Because if so surely she has to see the irony there?
Transphobia is still fairly normalised in a way racism and homophobia aren't (or aren't as much).
The mere existence of trans people is funny to some people with trans folk being the butt of jokes simply for being trans.
Is it?
From the article:
All hate crime is bad (lol all lives matter), but it still seems racism is still fairly normalised.
Well, I can see where she's coming from. Widening the definition of group identity has the potential (in some cases) to make the definition itself redundant, because if the treshold, criteria or rules around the definition of identities are too easy to challenge, change and/or abolish, that makes the definition a very loose one at best, which can in turn lead to uncertainty, leading to anxiety and identity crisis (for the individual and groups as a whole) or other kinds of problems regarding communication and mental health, which the definition was meant to prevent in the first place. Lesbians for example had to establish a community and a definition of who they are and their value as human beings, against religious and/or cultural oppression which gave them a sense of agency and a sense of belonging/existence, enabling women struggling with social norms and ostracisation to feel seen, heard and accepted for their sense of self. Trying to dictate the definition those women found for themselves is a fascist trait and should imo be called out as such. The community itself has every right to change the rules and beliefs around their identity and those outside the group have every right to make recommendations in good faith. A consensus has to be found within the group though, not outside of it.
To use an oversimplified metaphor... why call a Navajo a Navajo, if that definition can be challenged freely, just by me identifying as one. Me feeling I belong to a certain group who's rules and criteria don't match with my observable personal traits, abilities or behavioral patterns, doesn't make me part of that group or give me the right to dictate their identity and I expect many people on here to stand firm against allowing me to identify as a Navajo.
Social groups are a construct revolving around certain rules/beliefs. Those rules might involve genetics/biology, culture, sexual orientation, spirituality, shared history/experiences and many more. It's a complex structure of many individuals, that share certain similarities and see themselves as part of a group while also being accepted by others within the group as part of it. It's not a one way street.
Edit:
Btw. I don't really see the irony because neither Mrs. Harris nor the lesbian/gay community makes an attempt to systemically oppress others in their endeavour to build their own identity and a community around that. They simply don't want others to appropriate their identity and/or dictate the definition of it.
Last edited:
Long thread:
Hard to make any sense of that without knowing what they mean by “trans hostile”.
I don’t see how any news article which touches on a (currently) controversial issue could avoid at least some content which could potentially be interpreted as “hostile”.
Bit of a glib analogy but I’m sure you could do a similar analysis on coverage of Manchester United and conclude we’re being overwhelmed by “MUFC hostile” content.
For a political party so besotted with capitalism, the republican party sure seems to hate choice.
and if "unalterable harm" is their concern, someone should really let them know you can't undo suicide