Marion Norindale Books

We need to understand there’s a difference between not making an FMC “one of the boys,” and allowing characters to explore gender expression without limit.

No, we shouldn’t be implying that following traditional (and often also toxic) standards of masculinity is better than following anything attached to traditional femininity.

But many discussions nowadays don’t understand that nuance. Nor do many understand how the trend actually stems in large part from the conservative “pick-me” movement. But we’ll get into that in a minute.

* * *

First off, we need to understand the central pillars that all of these arguments revolve around. Whether someone advocates for an outdated and sexist portrayal of female characters, or tries to argue the “correct” way to make her acceptably strong, they all agree on the same foundational beliefs:

• The only two ways to exist are the “traditional masculine” and the “traditional feminine.”
• People assigned male at birth (AMAB) must adhere in some part, if not in whole, to the traditional masculine.
• People assigned female at birth (AFAB) must adhere in some part, if not in whole, to the traditional feminine.
• If they do not, they are an incorrect, weak, and/or sexist portrayal of their gender.

For the sake of the argument, we define “traditionally masculine” as:*

• Physically strong, muscled, and/or good at fighting
• Willing to engage in crass behavior (swearing, rudeness)
• Being confident, sometimes to the point of arrogance
• Having short hair and/or wearing clothes traditionally associated with the male gender

We define “traditionally feminine” as:

• Possessing emotional sensitivity
• Showing compassion, gentleness, & kindness
• Being well-mannered & restrained in language
• Having a tendency to yield, remain quiet, or to assert strength through subtle & unobtrusive means
• Having long hair and/or wearing clothes traditionally associated with the female gender

*When I refer to toxic masculinity, I’m talking about these traits (including, but not limited to):

• Physical prowess based on vain and unhealthy standards, which would require men to “look” fit but to harm their bodies to achieve the end result (such as dehydrating to get the outlines of abdomen muscles, or working out and dieting to an unhealthy degree)
• Using one’s physical prowess to intimidate and/or overpower others
• Feeling a sense of entitlement to women’s physical and sexual attractions, as well as to their bodies
• Treating women and anyone they don’t like in general as “less-than”
• Lacking the ability to emotionally regulate, and assuming healthy emotional regulation is “weak” or “effeminate”
• Being unable to have healthy relationships with other men due to a need to constantly prove one’s mental and physical dominance over them (i.e. the “alpha male” mindset)
• Assuming one deserves more rights in society due to being AMAB

It’s important to remember that the standards we hold men and women to did not arise because of natural traits, nor largely from a place of benevolence. They’re based on sexist and outdated standards.

And this is not to say that every trait associated with each is evil. For example, everyone should have some degree of confidence, and the world would be a much better place if a lot more people were kind and gentle to each other.

This is to say that the assumption that AMAB people and AFAB people each and only inherently express one set of traits is sexist. Hence my use of “traditional” to refer to these traits, instead of referring to them as some sort of base, objective “masculine” and “feminine.”

* * *

The initial concern that sparked this discussion had a point. Merely taking an FMC and characterizing her using traditionally (and often toxic) masculine traits is not how to make a good FMC. This is because it still restricts people to a simple gender binary, implying a “correct” way to express yourself according to an arbitrary set of standards, and then ranking one set “better” than the other.

But in attempting to counter this, people remained rooted in the same core problem: chaining themselves to both that binary, and the impossible standard of finding the “correct” application of masculinity and femininity for both FMCs and MMCs. They misdiagnosed the root of the issue, fixating too deeply on how traditional femininity appeared to be under attack.

The problem is not the amount of traditional masculinity and femininity present in your FMC. And the correct counter to the problem is not “make sure your FMC still adheres in some way to traditional femininity.”

The problem is twofold: that the binary is not the exhaustive description of the human experience; and that women, even fictional characters, shouldn’t labor under stereotypes and expectations. Let them be whoever they want to be, no matter how much of their behavior, appearance, and personality falls under the traditional categories.

We need to stop thinking of characterizations in terms of a binary. The world isn’t “traditionally masculine” and “traditionally feminine.” Your characters might adhere to one category, the other, some combination of the two, or reject them entirely.

And that’s okay! The point isn’t “how traditionally masculine or feminine is your FMC?” The point is, are you writing characters who are free to be who they are, regardless of the standards our society thinks they should be following?

I’ll see posts where people think the “correct” way to write an FMC is to make sure, no matter how badass of a fighter she may be or how much she swears, that she still wants to wear a ballgown and get dolled up for the party. The message becomes that traditional femininity is the natural state for people AFAB. That if you don’t ascribe to that, then you’re shaming people who believe in it. And that something must be wrong with you if you don’t like glitter or nail polish or ballgowns.

And this is coming from someone whose wardrobe is eighty percent frilly dresses and hair bows. I love a princess aesthetic. But I also know I’m not the only person in the world, and I want people who aren’t like me to feel seen and represented.

I don’t want an AFAB teenager working out their gender identity to pick up a book where a woman gets to be a badass fighter, but is quickly reminded she’s only a “good, strong” woman if she nurtures traditional femininity.

I don’t want a woman who’s been struggling to find her voice to be told she can’t be loud, say the wrong things, or make people feel uncomfortable with her presence. And I certainly don’t want her to believe she can only do such things if she looks “feminine” enough while doing it.

I don’t want someone who’s been struggling with trying to be the “perfect” woman think she has to force herself to buy the dress, grow her hair out, or be like everybody else, just to be seen as “unbroken.”

The correct way to not shame anybody for who they are is to not shame anybody for who they are. And existing in a different way than somebody else is not shaming them. I’m not shaming women with masculine preferences by wearing dresses and hair bows. And I don’t feel insecure or attacked when I pass by a woman wearing cargo pants and a man’s hoodie. We’re all free to be who we want to be—and our characters should be, too.

* * *

Now, we’ve got to talk about the “pick-me.”

A “pick-me” is a girl or woman who’s desperate to earn male attention, usually within a conservative sphere of influence.

Some “pick-me”s may turn to traditional femininity to earn what they want, flouting their devout adherence to conservative standards over the “corrupted” nature of the secular world.

But many will turn to what appears to be the opposite tactic—pretending she’s not like all those “airheaded, slutty” feminine girls who try to ply men’s affections with their bodies and their makeup. These “pick-me”s understand the “male brain.” They’re “intellectual” enough to talk about “male topics.” They understand “manly interests” like sports and comics. They often don’t get along with other women, because typical girls are just so “catty” and “petty.”

To them, the world is full of women who are too emotional, flighty, irrational, weak, and full of fluffy “feminine” interests to appeal to a “true” man. These men want someone who won’t bore him with her own likes and dislikes. These women have to be similar enough to him for him to be able to talk about and do whatever he wants. And he doesn’t want to worry about having a “whore” at his side who might use her “feminine wiles” to flirt shamelessly with whoever she wants.

One point I cannot stress enough on this topic is that, under conservative and patriarchal norms, femininity is not respected. Which might sound odd; but you have to remember, under these standards, women are second-class citizens. The highest respect a woman can earn is by being a pretty, chaste, compassionate, and nurturing homemaker, wife, and mother.

But that doesn’t mean she’s respected nearly as much as a man. She’s still a substandard person, espousing the traits of the “weaker sex.” She’s still too stupid and emotional to handle intellectual topics, weak to do well at physical tasks, and undeserving of the right to make choices about her own life and body. She can earn some respect by fulfilling her socially-set role—but she is still not fully respected.

Femininity may be the pinnacle of a conservative woman’s achievements, but it is still the inferior of the two options. Think about how much fiercer people attack trans women versus trans men. By their own logic (that the presence of trans women makes cis women “unsafe”), wouldn’t trans men then be “unsafe” in the presence of cis men? But they don’t care about trans men, because the point isn’t about safety—it’s about how they look down upon AMAB people who have made a choice that, to them, is degrading and inconceivable: the choice to live as the “inferior sex.”

So, if you see someone attempting to make an FMC “unique” or “strong” by applying to her traditional (and, as cannot be stressed enough, often toxic) masculine traits, then looking down on traditionally feminine traits, it’s more than likely it’s the result of the conservative “pick-me” movement.

Note how in almost all these cases (and I only say “almost” in case there’s actually an exception out there), the FMC becomes a helpless swoon in the arms of the man who finally chooses her for her “quirky” and chaste ways. That’s not the mindset of someone who ultimately spurns conservative norms—that’s the mindset of someone either adjacent to or entrenched within them. People think “putting down traditional femininity” automatically equals “feminist,” but it’s not like that at all.

Just as well, there’s a separate discussion in the idea that what appears to be “feminist” about many of these stories nowadays isn’t exactly a feminist’s idea of the topic, but a conservative’s.

Many modern fantasy books appear both feminist and backwards because they’re a conservative’s idea of what liberals think feminism is, not feminism told through an actual feminist lens. I.e., conservatives think liberal women just want to have “free sex” and act like men (usually by fighting, swearing, and wearing pants), so that’s why the FMCs behave the way they do.

But in reality, they’re missing the core foundation that produces the misidentified byproducts of “free sex” and “acting like a man:” feminists want consent and autonomy. They want the ability to decide where and when they’re comfortable participating in intimate acts, and the ability to express themselves however they choose.

But both consent and autonomy are concepts that threaten the patriarchy, so conservatives and conservative-adjacent authors don’t really want to include them. So if they want to appeal to a more liberal audience, then they pick concepts that skirt close enough to said principles in order to be mistaken for feminism.

Which is why the FMCs will somehow have both “modern” and seemingly “feminist” traits—such as being able to do things a man was traditionally assumed to be better at, or wearing men’s clothing—but they’ll also still be dainty, sexy, and completely helpless in the arms of the right man.

* * *

Once again, I’m not arguing that the initial concern about FMCs was unwarranted. I just wish people would realize that the solution doesn’t lie in figuring out the “correct” percentage of traditional masculinity and femininity to apply to your characters. Any argument that still ties itself to that mindset is, at its core, sexist, whether or not the arguer realizes it.

We need to break free of that binary, allowing us to participate in it as much or as little as we want. The solution is empowerment, not adherence.

Make “girly” girls, “masculine” boys, tomboys, or effeminate men. Make your characters however you want them to be—and make sure you’re not sending the message that being any other way makes a person “wrong.”