If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
The idea that "A Female character doesn't fight = She's useless".
This idea has always bugged me. Why must everyone fight to be useful in a story? A team does not consist of merely the fighters--there's support too, you know.
Take a Fantasy story. If there's a stafff chick/healer girl, she will be derided as "useless" by the fandom because she doesn't fight. Uh huh. Because we all know that keeping the team alive and well-healed for each battle is useless, amirite? And obviously making sure it's cohesive and everyone is working together means that you're useless, amirite again?
It gets worse, though. In the same stoy, a healer boy will be regarded as interesting by the fandom because he takes an uncommon role for males. He will also be regarded as useful and important to the team, even if the only difference from said healer girl is that he has a dick.
So:
Male support characters are intersting and useful. Female support character, on the other hand, are useless and sexist for doing the exact same things.
This is a ridiculous double standard. What makes it even more ridiculous is that it is perpetrated by the exact same people who normally oppose double standards.
What the hell?
Comments
The only time a female character is useless is when she doesn't stay in the kitchen
While with a male character it is always clear
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes, the author innocently wanted a support character to be female. That's it.
Wars are won by tactics. Firepower is useful, but the side with better support, tactics, and logistics has a massive advantage.
Do I need to pull out the "Feminity-Masculinity-equality" quote again?
The derision with which fans treat this sort of character is probably connected to the fact that the most vocal fans of things like fantasy novels or video games are young, male and like them epic battle scenes.
At the risk of being a bit obvious, this is also not a phenomenon in all media. If you wrote a "literary" novel about the First World War, for instance, no-one would say "Your leading female character is crap, she doesn't do any fighting", because in "serious" fiction war isn't supposed to be cool anyway.
However, concepts of femininity, support, patronising stereotypes and complementary (inferior) role towards men are still closely linked, and it would be strange to pretend that they don't exist.
The same thing with equal value of active and supported roles. No disagreement with it, but when linked in any way with gender, advocating it might be seen as uncomfortably close with advocating fixed roles for women.
"But staying in the kitchen and rearing children is a valuable pursuit!" (it is) "So when we say that a proper woman should stay in the kitchen, we are not discriminating against her!" (sorry, you are)
You could say individual female support characters aren't the problem, but if in your story, females are nothing but support, then you're still playing to stereotypical mind-set
Just look at Hellfire Catharsis, which has:
Male MC and leader/fighter (Enselm)
Female MC and Second-in-Command and leader/fighter (who is the strongest character in the team) (Abcde)
Male supporting alchemist (Johnazhan)
Female healer (Ile)
Female fighter (Chrona)
Female supporting fortune-teller (Rötria)
Male fighter and support (Niko)
Male fighter (Kenshi)
Female long-range fighter (Yuyuko)
Female supporter (who actually is the strongest character in the entire series, she doesn't fight at full power because she would bowl over everyone in seconds) (Marina)
You can just about argue in some contexts that this is justified by reality. In the US and British armed forces, for instance, women can join but do not serve in front-line combat roles (this is not true of all militaries now, of course). So if your setting is based on those, having women in support roles in war is justified.
If you're writing pure fantasy, though, why limit yourself by the rules of the real world?
I added their names for no particular reason.
I've noticed when you have an action series with lots of characters, there will often be a Crowning Moment Of Awesome where the leading noncombatant female on the hero's side (who is often either a specialist healer of some kind, or introduced as a useless character), will be alone with a kid or an injured person and has to select a weapon and fight.
[Expletive deleted] TVTropes!