[Polyhedron] Are women interested in this type of fantasy?

[JPL]

A very popular theme is the morally strong woman who rescues the morally weak man...from himself. As I understand it, a great many romance novels revolve around this idea of the good woman who saves [and redeems] the emotionally endangered man.

So I guess when you look at these romances with a lot of old-school adventure fiction, you get the idea that women rely on men to be strong in worldly matters [especially battle and providing for physical needs], while men rely on women to be strong in emotional and spiritual matters.

Don't some modern action heroines combine these two roles? Take Buffy --- her love interests are formidable physical opponents in their own right [although not her equal], but they also look to her for spiritual redemption. I'd put some of Xena's involvements in the same catagory. And Han Solo needed the occasional resuce [but was still able to act effectively on his own behalf], but he was nothing but a scoundrel until Leia made a man out of him.

[Edit --- just realized that the Captian already said this, and better than me. Let me add that there still seems to be an imbalance in that the heroine and her love interest will usually be closer in overall prowess than the hero and his love interest. But the gap is narrrowing, and even female love interests are now shown to be resourceful and strong individuals rather than fainting and swooning and passing out.]

So I think the "boyfriend in distress" works just fine, as long as the boyfriend's distress arises not only from physical peril [since his abilities will equal to or approaching those of the heroine] but also from emotional or spiritual incompleteness. The heroine has to save him twice.

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

This is an interesting topic , since when it comes to RPGS, many of us , male or female (I'm female) tend to play heroic characters. Few opt to play someone who can't at least take care of themselves.

I have degrees in psychology & sociology and this topic fascinated me to no end. I think the stereotypes in romance novels and films, as well as the stereotypes in the fairy tales we hear as children began long, long ago. There was a time in the world when it was your physical strength , not your thinking skills, that got you by. There were exceptions to that rule, but they were exceptions. In most cases, men are physically larger and stronger than women. It's a fact of life. This doesn't mean they are smarter, as this is an individual trait.

Of course centuries later, our world is more focused on the brains than the brawn to get ahead. But the stereotypes embedded in our heads as children tend to stick and a lot of women do look to strong men to "rescue" them. But I think even more women are more interested in someone who is equal or at least isn't always the one coming to the rescue...i.e.. maybe he can beat up the mugger in the alley and rescue you, but you can talk to his bank and convince them to give him that loan, whereareas if he tried to do it, they'd have turned him down.

Physical brute strength really isn't that relevant in today's society. So if we translate this into modern terms...

For me personally, I feel much more comfortable around men who do not "rescue me" or otherwise come to my aide by paying my way, buying me expensive things or otherwise supporting me. I'd rather it be the other way around. I like to be the one paying the bills and such.

For this reason, I'd be annoyed reading a book set in modern times, OR A FANTASY WORLD, no matter how well written, where a men was always rescuing a woman who was portrayed as not just physically weak, but simply incapable of taking care of herself. I'd rather see something where she was at least smart, or good with a blade or something. I don't like romance as a genre. I'm just not a romantic person, and that stuff makes me kinda nauseous. I don't fantasize about men saving me. I don't know any other women who read romance genre novels either.

But if it was more than just a cheesy love story with a female hero and it was well written, not just a blatantly reverse cliche, I'd give it a fair shot.

~S

 

[Emiricol]

<snip>(I don't know if Emirical's wife is a gamer or not). <snip>
Kahuna burger

Nope, she's not a gamer. Perhaps gamer women are different than other women.

 

[el-remmen]

Nope, she's not a gamer. Perhaps gamer women are different than other women.

Of course they are, they game

Just like gamer men differ from other men in the same way.

 

[Emiricol]

Here's your pop-science:

http://www.stanford.edu/~zozo/gap/childhood/genetic.html

Look, men and women undergo significantly different hormonal influences to the developing brain. The connection between left and right hemispheres of a woman's brain have roughly twice the capacity of men's. Women the world over regardless of culture surpass men consistently in verbal skills and related tasks. Likewise, men with spatial reasoning.

Given all that, I think it not realistic to insist men and women are the same. And, given that women tend to be better than men in a lot of things, why would you want to be? Different does not mean less than, any more than one ethnic group could be said to be less than another.

Yet we cherish cultural differences.

I think it ultimately more realistic to say that yes, there may be some differences, but that we as humans are far more impacted by our cultures than any minor physiological differences.

This position is supported by the fact that, per the study above, women's test scores were significantly better when told the tests were gender non-biased than when told they were biased towards men.

I don't think there's a biological reason for that. I don't think evolution would tolerate making a less-than-optimal human design in either men or women, since no society functions or lasts without both.

Enough of my rambling

You landlubber! I'm sure the pop science or punditry magazine that you've been reading tells you this, but there's been no real reason to give scientific creedence to the statement that men and women have fundamental mental or gender differences that arise from brain differences.

The only places such claims have been made are in the opinion sections of reputabile journals or in the publications of those trying to sensationalize such a claim, either for profit or political gain. Some people like to throw around claims that science has proven that men' brains are butchy and women's brains are frilly, but they never quote (or often cite) an article or a study, do they? Yes, we're all different, but then we all went to school, didn't we. I remember fondly my days with the school, amongst the reefs.

My axe has split open a bunch of brains, and I can't tell the difference.

 

[d20Dwarf]

EDIT: Replies to an unbelievably rude, reactionary, narcissistic poster deleted to avoid more of the same.

ON TOPIC PORTION BELOW

I think that question was quite astute, though I'm not surprised by the answers. D&D, after all, is an adventure roleplaying game, so those attracted to it must be attracted to adventure. I think women and men both enjoy adventure stories, classical romances as another poster pointed out, but probably for different reasons. But this does not mean that when a woman reads such a story she isn't in some way experiencing the exhilaration of the knight on horseback riding down his foes. Regardless of gender, nobody wants to play the captured person, it's the adventurer/rescuer that is the stuff of stories.

The same goes for me, a man, when I'm reading about female characters. Let's look at the Game of Thrones series, for instance. I find Sansa Stark to be almost an intolerable character, while Arya Stark is probably my favorite. It's an archetypal difference almost tailor-made for this thread: both are survivors, but one relies on the mercy of others (oh! my Jonqhuil!!) while the other does what it takes to survive, relying only grudgingly on others. My girlfriend is of a similar mind (although she likes Danaerys best, who is little better than Sansa in my opinion).

The fact that D&D is a game is what is often overlooked in threads and questions such as these. Were semperjase asking about real life, I would likely have a much different answer, but as far as the game goes, it's no surprise that women want to be the hero just as much as men.

As a last point to lighten the mood a bit: if you think it's just as worthwhile to rescue an ineffectual man as it is a princess, then you obviously have never watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

 

[Dinkeldog]

What has the discussion on whether it's possible for a woman to rescue a man and feel romantically attracted got to have anything to do with biological structural differences between sexes (gender is an inappropriate term here)?

You can posit that women won't be attracted to a man that she needs to rescue. That's a fine hypothesis, but the moment at least one woman says she would be okay with it, your hypothesis is blown out of the water and you have to try again. I could see an argument of "most women won't be attracted..." That seems reasonable, but then you have to acknowledge that you're talking about heroic women of the Flash Gordon caliber.

There are plenty of examples to the contrary in our fairy tales. The Seven Swans comes to mind where the heroine has to knit shirts out of nettles to save the Prince that she then marries. Gretel saves Hansel (of course they're brother and sister--that would be ooky--but she doesn't look down on him because she had the opportunity he didn't). Medea saves Jason. Eilonwy pulls Taran's bacon out of the fire several times. Mulan saves what's-his-name. That covers eastern Europe, western Europe, the Greeks, Welsh, and China.

Once you're talking about a rare example (most women aren't going on "adventures" just like most men aren't), then I think you need to take your rulebook of expected behavior and throw it out.

 

[Emiricol]

1) Nothing at all. A bunch of people brought it up, though I agree in that I don't know how it impacts the question at hand in any way.

2) He did posit that, but the actual post was for a question.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Dinkeldog,

As far as the game goes you are right, there is no reason to discuss biological differences that affect behavior.

Did we just agree? Oh god, pigs are flying into my roof! RUUUUUUUNNNNNNNNNNN!

 

[SemperJase]

To get away from gaming and address the larger topic, I posted here:

http://www.nutkinland.com/viewtopic.php?p=139747#139747

I would love to see some input from some of the women who posted here.
Thanks