disappointedThere are a lot of ways to reach me; I try to be accessible and responsive whenever possible. Sometimes, this leads to my being asked questions I would never dream of asking an author who wasn't a) a personal friend, and b) in the process of getting drunk with me. I try to answer them nicely, for the most part, assuming I can answer them at all (I can't, always; some questions simply can't be answered).
Last night, I was asked—in so many words—when either Toby or one of the Price girls was finally going to be raped.
Not "if." Not "do you think." But "when," and "finally." Because it is a foregone conclusion, you see, that all women must be raped, especially when they have the gall to run around being protagonists all the damn time. I responded with confusion. The questioner provided a list of scenarios wherein these characters were "more than likely" to encounter sexual violence. These included Verity forgetting to change out of her tango uniform before going on patrol, Toby being cocky, and Sarah walking home from class alone. Yes, even the ambush predator telepath with a "don't notice me" field is inevitably getting raped.
When. Finally. Inevitably.
My response: "None of my protagonists are getting raped. I do not want to write that."
Their response: "I thought you had respect for your work. That's just unrealistic."
Verity is the bastard daughter of Dazzler and Batman. Toby is what happens when Tinker Bell embraces her inner bitch and starts wearing pants. Velveteen brings toys to life and uses them to fight the powers of darkness. Sarah is a hot mathematician who looks like Zooey Deschanel but is actually a hyper-evolved parasitic wasp. The unrealistic part about all these characters? Is that they haven't been raped.
Needless to say, I was a little bit annoyed, and I still am.
Statistically speaking, one in six women will be raped in her lifetime. This is just the statistic we know; it doesn't account for the fact that right now, reporting rape is a minefield all of its own, and many women choose not to subject themselves to that process. I do not know how many of my friends have been raped. I know that five of them are safe because of me, if you trust statistics. So you know. There's that.
Rape in fiction can be a powerful and important thing. It can be used to make important statements, it can be used to drive important stories. I love Robin McKinley's Deerskin as much because of the discomfort it causes me as for the beauty it contains. There are authors I will always trust, or try to trust, and it's important to show uncomfortable things through fiction. I am not saying that no one should write about rape, ever.
But rape in fiction can also be a problematic and belittling thing, used to put cocky heroines in their places. When Janet goes to Caughterha despite being told not to, her punishment is rape by the eponymous Tam Lin. When a superheroine needs a deeper, edgier backstory, there's always some previously third-tier villain with a de-powering ray and an agenda waiting in the wings. I read a lot of horror, a lot of comics, and a lot of urban fantasy, and the one thing these three things have in common is rape. Lots and lots and lots of rape.
And I don't wanna write that.
I do not understand—I will not understand, I refuse to understand—why rape has to be on the table for every story with a female protagonist, or even a strong female supporting cast. Why it's so assumed that I'm being "unrealistic" when I say that none of my female characters are going to be raped. Why this "takes the tension out of the story." There is plenty of tension without me having to write about something that upsets both me and many of my readers, thanks.
Toby will not be getting raped. Verity, Alice, Sarah, Antimony, and the rest of the InCryptid girls will not be getting raped. Velveteen will not be getting raped. Rose will not be getting raped. If this makes my work unrealistic, then fine. There's a reason I write science fiction and fantasy.
But I do not write rape. And the fact that this somehow makes me "unrealistic," rather than making me an author who makes choices about what she wants to write...that's the part I find upsetting.
You know. In addition to everything else.
October 1 2012, 19:45:34 UTC 4 years ago
Apparently he doesn't know that several of the arts were started by women (Aikido, anyone?). But those women would NEVER use it on men, oh, no!
October 1 2012, 21:56:47 UTC 4 years ago
October 1 2012, 22:04:17 UTC 4 years ago
But heaven knows oral stories get crossed up worse than a tapestry worked over by a basket of kittens!
October 2 2012, 16:25:12 UTC 4 years ago
In certain ways it's kind of funny that Aikido, with its peaceful reputation, would be incorrectly attributed to women. Wing Chun, on the other hand, is perhaps known these days best as one of Bruce Lee's primary arts.
(Dragon, on the other hand, is my primary Shaolin art - and it's internal, and blends well with Chen Taijiquan, my all around primary art, but, um, it doesn't really shy away from the lethal. Or at least the possibility of the lethal. On a personal basis, should I end up in such a situation I would prefer to have the skill to resolve it without being lethal to someone else - but I would prefer even more to have a lot of tools in my toolbox. There are plenty of times when a lethal to my attacker sort of resolution would be perfectly preferable to a lethal to me or lethal to someone else one.)
October 2 2012, 19:28:18 UTC 4 years ago
Wing Chun is fairly hard-style, correct? I took Tae Kwon Do for two years, and then Jujitsu for three (the change was more due to proximity, but I liked not having so many bruises with Jujitsu!).
If one rarely has the opportunity to use some of the more disabling moves, it's sort of startling how well they work when you actually have need, isn't it? My Jujitsu teacher taught us some really nasty anti-assault techniques. I've never had occasion to use them, but one never knows....
And boy, do I wish I was in a place where I could take any of them through the college, instead of a private dojo! Talk about a price difference!
October 2 2012, 19:39:24 UTC 4 years ago
The problem with a lot of the nastier techniques is that it's hard to practice them to make sure you can do them well. And in many cases that are far less fool proof than we'd like! (Though trained versus untrained opponents can play into that.) Much of the time in sparring we end up doing real grappling against fake strikes - which is great if you can really do the strikes (though it makes the strikes look less effective) but there are obvious disadvantages.
But yeah, when they work, it's pretty striking. (ahem)
I'm glad that I both study and get to practice throat strikes and eye gouges, even if not with complete realism ;-)
I tithed to my school for an awful long time... and now I'm mostly on the other side of that, though in fact I don't charge tuition, and only finally put out the donation basket less than a year ago (after teaching for eight). Still, my students have, in effect, been buying me most of my groceries, for which I am profoundly grateful.
October 2 2012, 20:10:19 UTC 4 years ago
I've barely dipped my toe in the spiritual side of the arts, although my Jujitsu teacher taught us some meditation exercises, and also taught quite a bit of healing arts as well. About once a season, he would have a weekend class, and we would do a bit of learning another style, or learn about different types of massage, or chi readings and minor spine adjustments (a co-sensei was a chiropractor).
Wow-you really take the art on as a gift to others, so to speak; I like that! And good that it's giving you something in addition to a steady stream of students and sparring partners.