This is something I've been wondering about lately.

Should women go into battle? A huge cliche in fantasy is the warrior girl who can go into battle and beat up all the guys. I used to not have a problem with this (other than it being cliche ), but y'all have made me think about it a little more, and I want to know your opinions.

And please use this topic for fictional discussion only.

I wouldn't have a huge amount of Eowyn style shield-maidens but I liked the way Lucy was in The Horse and his Boy. I think women should be allowed as background archers and helping with things on the side lines (i.e. nursing and such). They should be good fighters in a pinch but not outright Amazons in my opinion.

In general, I would keep women out of battles. The vast majority of my female characters aren't the sort who'd even want to get into a battle, for one thing. To a certain extent, it depends. If the men are gone, I'd much rather have the women take up arms to defend their homes against the bandit attack than have them cower in their houses. Being a part of the army, though...I don't think that's generally a good idea.

Small fights, as opposed to out-and-out battles, are a different matter for me. I do have a few female characters who are quite capable of fighting, and I don't mind letting them use that ability.

I've been poking around meaning to start this topic for forever...

Is it wrong to portray women warriors?

In a favorite book of mine, the Blue Sword, it was considered good luck if there was a woman among the leaders. They called her Dalmura-Sol, Lady Hero. They said it gave the men courage, and something to fight for, and I could follow the logic as portrayed by the author.

But then, on the opposite side is Father Christmas' admonishment to Lucy: "It is an ugly thing when women fight in battle."

Obviously it could convey a feminist message. But then I believe it could portray just the opposite if done right.


Interested in seeing what other people say...

I personally don't particularly like it when women are in the thick of battle, but if they have to, there should be at least a handful of characters at least capable of doing it. And then they'd still be reluctant. I think the general personality and role of a woman is to be more of a servant and a man wants to protect his family and nation or clan. Therefore, the women would probably rather lend support as nurses or something. Or even archers, I guess.

One of the main characters of my book is a female soldier, but I try my hardest to make her dependent on her male partner which she fights with in battle. I don't necessarily see a problem with the original idea of a female soldier, especially if we are trying to do a sort of damsel in distress situation. But I also find it important to keep it in mind that (to my belief) God originally created men as the soldier, so there should more than likely be a male above the best female soldier. I think this keeps into the balance the female in battle bit. At least that's just my opinion.

Bethany Faith

Are there any biblical refrences for this topic?

- Terra

I don't mind that much when it comes to reading books with women who fight in battles. The setting it's in usually helps makes it less cliche. (Like in Greek mythology fiction pieces.) When it comes to writing about women and battling, I don't have a very solid opinion since I only have a couple stories where my heroine "battles" someone. Usually it's in self-defense instead of going headlong into an army.

There are a couple of women who went into battle, but I think they were going as generals or something, with a man. Like a two person team.

Really? Where?

- Terra

Personally, I don't care for women fighting in battle. It just doesn't seem very feminine. Although, I don't believe there is anything particularly wrong with it either.
Here's my opinion, when going forth to war, it should be men. When defending a homeland, I think there can be some women helping.
Also, I like a brave girl who can hold her own if she has to. She wouldn't necessarily pick a fight, but she would defend herself (and those she loves) if attacked.
That's my opinion. I just believe battling is mostly for the males, and females that go to war just aren't quite natural. Not to mention, in reality, most women would not handle the violence very well (just watch a battle scene from an R rated war movie like Kingdom of Heaven, and those images would be mild compared to what happens in a real battle) nor do they usually possess the physical strength to withstand the strain of battle.
God made women to be mothers to their children and lovers to their husbands. He made men to be the protectors of their homes, providers for their families, and conquerors of man and beast.

I heard somewhere that women are able to handle it better emotionally if their partner beside them drops. A man would fly into a temper and do something stupid.

But, that's not really on topic...

Not sure...I think it's in Judges somewhere...

Are you thinking of Debora, Elanhil? I think Airi covered her role in battle in another topic (Roles of Men and Women - see Airi's long post )

*chuckles* I get a lot of winking smilies in relation to my long posts

When I get my computer back, I will have to reply to this topic.

Oh, yes. I think I was the one who brought her up in that thread as well. But yeah. That's who I'm thinking of. Thanks Vili!

I don't really have a problem with it, but I could also see reasons why women shouldn't fight.
I don't know how well most women could mentally handle a battle. Not only seeing the violence and death, but also actually killing a person.
Some women might be able to handle this, of course, and be able to fight. I think it's good if they know how to defend themselves, at least. So, I'm not saying women CAN'T fight.

It's been hypothesized that women make better soldiers then men. A couple of scifi books I read dealt with the theory. But it's wrong. It totally desensitizes them. The women soldiers in said books are hardly women...

Interesting thought...

No, women don't fight in battle as well as men. They weren't built for it. If they were better in battle than men, than why would there be any question of their being in battle?

However, they can and they have, if needed. It often depends on the woman on how well she can handle it. Her personality for one thing, but also her upbringing and her background.



Hmm....I doubt it. I had heard that if a woman's companion dropped beside her, she'd want to mourn and she wouldn't be able to focus on anything else. Whereas a man would be able to shove it in a box and deal it with it later on. (The "Woman are spaghetti, men are waffles," theory coming into play... )

My Two Cents.

In C.S Lewis books Lucy and Susan both fight, I don't think it makes them seem less feminine if that makes sense. I can't think of anything biblical to support this but I can't think of anything in the Bible against it either at the moment

Complete edit, as my original post got all muddled up hehe, and someone how turned out factual rather than fictional I decided to delete it completely and make up a new one.

I think it is interesting that you all keep saying the bible doesn't talk about this subject. It doesn't talk about it in the same way that the Bible doesn't talk about Dinosaur and dragons. Never explicitly said, but very much implied in certain texts.

Examples, Please?

Oh don't worry, I will, when my computer is back up. I have several posts around here that I need my computer for.

*hopes Airia's computer is fixed soon*

*same*

Ditto.

Thanks for all the great replies, everyone! Here's my opinion:

I think that women can fight... but that doesn't mean they should. The main reason I don't think women should go into battle is because, like some of you said, men were created to protect, and women were created to nurture.

Also, when the men go off to war, someone has to stay behind and keep the country running. In WWII, one of the reasons we were able to win was because of the women on the home front. They ran businesses, cared for farms, and raised children, all while participating in the war effort by building planes and ships, sewing uniforms, and making guns.

I couldn't find any specific Bible verses that said women shouldn't go into battle, but there are places that imply it. In Numbers 1, you'll find a census of Israel, but it is only of the men over 20. This is because the purpose of the census was to determine the number of fighting men available. Men under 20 aren't listed, because they were deemed too young to fight (correct me if I'm wrong there.), and women aren't listed because fighting is not their job.

That's my .02, anyway.

Now I have question for y'all: In my story, there are six shapeshifters, who can use magic, and their presence would greatly improve the prospects of the good army... but I have a problem. Four of the shifters are girls. Should I put them in the battle, or leave them out?

Princess: Now THAT is definitely to the story I'm reading. Put them in. Why else would they be made the way they are except to fight?

Personally, I don't think fighting and killing are that good of things, and that the ability to lead, strategize, and use diplomacy are far better. In my work I do have some women who fight or who are strong enough and brave enough to fight, but I always choose to have my main warrior-ish women to be working on the strategy, coming up with defenses, or being ambassadors to try for peace. And that takes guts, trying to figure out an enemy while living near them, or being practically on the battlefield so that you can observe. It's totally not being cowardly to prefer that kind of thing. And I just like it better. I'm a very mind-over-matter kind of girl.
I think I've said it before, but I get so much of how I write women from Tolkien. Healing was valued so far over destroying in that world, and even in the men you see that, Aragorn is a good king not because he can fight, but because he knows about people, because he's wise, because he can heal. And these are are traditionally more "feminine" characteristics, lifted far above Boromir's warrior ways and power-hungriness. Everyone knows Faramir's better, because he is calm and wise and reads. He can fight and doesn't shy from it, but he doesn't particularly care for it, and I love that. That's how I try to write my women.
I would like to point out that women are hugely protective. There are all kinds of stories of women charging robbers when their kids were endangered, and has anyone ever gotten between a mama bear and her cubs? Here's an idea, don't. I think women would want to go out and protect their country and family, and if they need to and they think fighting is the way, they will. I do think, however, that a woman would prefer to do it by diplomacy or strategy. And that can be so much harder.
Anyway, rambly.

This doesn't bother me at all. Which is odd, considering that I agree with people like Layla and Princess that men and women were created for different things.

That said, I loved the movie Salt. Don't judge.

In my books Circle of Three and In the Middle, the main character is a 19 year old werewolf girl. She's been trained to fight and her father tried to desensitize her to killing. Since she started out a surprisingly sweet and quiet little girl, it didn't really work. She ends up so torn up inside that she wants to kill herself. But the training still takes over when she's in a position to fight, like adrenaline she can't control. Not to mention the villain has her baby...so there are some pretty violent battles.

In Snapshots, the main character is 25 year old Ruby Foxe, a police detective. In the beginning, you get a picture of her as a tough girl. Later, after a particularly traumatic experience, you see that it's a facade she's created to protect herself from being emotionally hurt. Obviously it doesn't work, and halfway through the book she's wishing she could stop running and settle down to be a girl again.

You get the picture. I love to put girls in situations like that, but make it realistic with internal conflict.

I don't think those are feminine characteristics, Cel. I think the problem is that our culture has a warped view of biblical masculinity and biblical femininity.

I don't want to steal the thunder from my upcoming post, but you all are blending two different terms. There is a vast difference between fighting and battling. And women are more than capable of fighting.

But I'll explain all of that when I get my computer in a week and a half. I just wanted to give you all some food for thought.

Hehe Airi, I love your 'food for thought' posts, they always leave me feeling baffled, interested and having to wait a week and a half for more

Well... At least my food for thought posts don't frustrate you guys. I struggle with being patient.

I asked Mom about this, and this was her answer:

"Look up the Prophetess Deborah in the Bible. She did not go into battle, but she lead the Israelites into battle. The fact that she had to was a dishonor to God, but God honored her. The king of the opposing army was killed by a woman as well, who put a stake through his head while he slept, if memory serves.

I cannot think of any place else where a woman is in battle. In the bible, Deuteronomy, I think, where it says it is a shame for a man to be in woman's clothing or a woman in man's clothing, I remember hearing once that the word used for women in "man's" clothing - "man's" is a Hebrew word that implies military garb - but I can't prove this. It may be worth looking up. I brought the ESV study Bible with us and it has a great concordance and commentary that explains the passages.

C.S. Lewis believed it to be a "terrible thing" for a woman in battle, despite the word change in the movies and elevation of Susan's fighting in Prince Caspian. The books display Lewis's actual thoughts on it. It's not the way things should be, but it's not forbidden, that I can see, it is more just not good, because it means the men have either failed, as in Deborah time, or things got so bad that there weren't men to take over. Men shouldn't be letting a women fight if they can in her place. If they do, it's a shame, a shame to the men, not necessarily her. If they can't fight and she must, it's necessary, but still a shame. Not a shame to her, just a bad circumstance. It's only a shame to the woman if she's putting herself in the shoes and clothing of a man to be a man, instead of the woman God made her, and out of her own pride. When that happens, she is snubbing the design of God, if that makes sense. However, God has examples of women being strong when they must in the Bible and it is an honor (to her only, not the nation that left her defenseless or pushed her into battle), in those circumstances.

They were the last line of defense for the home, and should be trained in defense, because if the men are away, they have to defend. I can think of a reason why women would be in battle. If there is a battle and men are lead away, the women would need to protect the home if it is attacked and left otherwise defenseless. This is why ladies should learn defense and weapon training. Pioneer women could shoot their guns to protect their homes, not just the men. It was dangerous out there, and they did what they had to do."

- Terra

That was a very good post, Terra.

Out of curiosity, what do ya'll think about Joan of Arc in this context?

Either she was called by God and was therefore not unlike Deborah, or she was crazy and got used in God's plan (but then, we all do). I haven't looked into Joan of Arc to make sense of what was going on there to say, but those appear to be the two options.

I'll give my full two cents (which will probably involve quoting half a dozen different people) on this main topic a bit later.

Joan was along the lines of the kind of lady I like, the leader strategist who was on the battlefield being awesome, but "preferred the standard to the sword." She wasn't crazy, no crazy lady can raise a siege in nine days where trained, veteran men had failed. It just doesn't happen. No crazy lady has the skills to encourage a depressed, exiled prince to be a king, whose own father was insane and called "Charles the Mad," making it hugely likely that he an his court, who had suffered greatly because of this madness and were constantly on guard against it, would've recognized it. No crazy lady stands up strong and brave in court, with an astute memory and very clever answers. At one point her questioners got her in a bind, asking a question in which either a yes or no answer would've gotten her condemmed, which she answered cleverly, getting out of the trap and stupefying the judges. The lady was brilliant. God told her to go out and save France, and she did and was awesome. And so that involved leading and being on a battlefield and wearing armor. Yay. Awesome. She rocked it out. The commanders doubted her and wanted to keep her out of battes and planning meetings. She went anyway. Then they called her a brilliant strategist, and ended up being behind her. It's so cool.
Some people say that her impact was only in morale. I find that a complete disregard of history and logic. The impact one woman can give on morale doesn't change the tide of a war and get a king on the throne. And why would this brilliant woman, who believed she was called to get the dirty English out of her country, be content with just being in the back polishing her cool armor shouting "Yay guys! Go team!"

Clarification: I was referring to the voices she heard and the visions when I mentioned the possibility of being crazy. There are basically four ways to explain those: they were from God, they were from demonic influence, they were her lying to get credibility, or they were the result of a hallucinating "crazy" mind.

I think it's okay to portray them in battle... but only IF necessary. In example, girls aren't as strong as guys. Hence not as good fighters.

Not necessarily. Put a trained swordswoman against a strong man just swinging a sword, she'll win. And smaller and lighter also equals quicker. Lightness of the feet, quick ducks, the ability to dart in and stab in weak places...
I personally have far more respect for skill than for simple physical strength.

And oh, okay, Katherine. I personally think they were from God; He was obviously with her.

True, but if she were to go into battle, she is most likely going to encounter trained swordsmen. She has skill, but he has both skill and strength.



As do I, but strength can overcome skill after a certain point.

I haven't really given much thought on this, but from what I heard from Celearas, it seems plausible that it was from God. However, we'll never be able to know for sure. Not in this life.

- Terra

Right, I know we'll never know. But I was curious what you thought, since she seemed to be a walking example of what we're talking about.

She wore men's clothes, led a battle, won war, crowned a king, and then refused to lay down her sword and take a woman's place until her work was done.

I really think she was called to lead, because like Deborah, there were no men who would.

Okay, so I told you guys the other day to think about the difference between fighting and battling, right? Well now I am here to expound, and also to share scripture on battling.

First off, fighting verses battling.

First definition of battling: A hostile encounter or engagement between opposing military forces.

First definition of fighting: to engage in battle or in single combat; attempt to defend oneself against or to subdue, defeat, or destroy an adversary.

Now, I am a firm believer in women being able to defend themselves. I think it is foolish for a girl not to know how to shoot a gun. My Daddy has insured that I know where a gun is, in case of emergencies, how to load it, and how to use it. He’s also taught me archery (I stink, by the way, but if need be, believe me, I’d hit someone), knife and tomahawk throwing (why won’t that stinking blade stick in the tree every time!), and I spent some little time in karate when I was a kid, till we moved out to the country. I wasn’t all that great, so I don’t really claim it as something I’m capable of doing. All that to say I am prepared and equipped to defend myself, my loved ones, or my home, if I ever had to (although my Daddy prays I am never put into that position). I’ve also learned you never aim at a person unless you intend to shoot. So if I ever had to, the moment I picked up that gun to use it as a weapon and not for recreation, I’d be intending to take someone out.

Is this battling? Is this unbiblical? I’d like anyone to show me biblically where it is. The bible does not call women to be defenseless and fully reliant on male protection. What the bible calls women to do is submit themselves to the men in their lives, to nurture and PROTECT those given into their care, and to live out our lives in accordance to His word and design for us (not in that order, by the way ).

So I highly disagree with people who say a girl learning these things is being masculine and exerting an independent spirit. That’s garbage! Women are fully capable of doing anything a man does. If she wasn’t, she couldn’t be created as the man’s Help Mate in Genesis. The question here isn’t whether women are capable. The bible never says women aren’t capable. What the bible does say is that the Lord has designated certain roles to men and women for the to fulfill. So the real question here for us, as Christians, is whether or not it is biblical for women to go to battle, not fight.

After all, a woman’s role is to protect those placed in her care. In long gone days women often had to fight for the lives of those she loved and was called to serve. I love reading stories of godly women during the western period. Do you know how many times the husband and father of the house would leave his family and the Indians who were watching would descend upon the house? They thought that the white women were like their own women. Subservient and docile. They often were caught off guard when a white woman would meet them at the door, gun in hand. Not all Indians came to scalp them, many were friendly and not met with a gun, but the women who lived in the hostile Indian country had a gun ready.

One of my favorite stories is of a woman whose husband had taken the only gun they had in order to go hunting. She was left with nothing but an axe. In an effort not to disturb anyone, this woman defended her home against 6 Indians who came to do evil in their household. This mother of four killed five of the six warriors and sent the other one running back to his camp. Their house was never bothered again because it was later learned that this Brave told the entire village that a demon inhabited white woman lived there, who fought with the power of the gods, and he had the scares to back this up.

So fighting is a different subject. I have the women in my stories fight. They defend themselves when needed, are skilled in archery and swordsmanship, and even accompany brothers and such. However, they do not go to battle, with one exception, which is worked out in a complicated manner and I have no problem with it because of the circumstance and her duty.

So now, let’s go into battle. Battle is very different, and the bible gives much implication that men should be the ones fighting in organized battle, and not women. I was impressed that Princess went and found some biblical implications, for which I commend her.

In the OT there were some guidelines given about military conduct, exemptions, and qualifications.

AGE AND QUALIFICATIONS: Censuses. Someone else said it well. Their purpose was not to find the population of people, but the amount of fighting age men. That’s why David got himself in big trouble when he took a census after specifically being told not to. God wanted David to trust in Him, not in the number of men at arms he had available, David paid dearly for this act of disobedience.

One of the specific qualifications was that “They be males at least 20 years of age”. They were also called to be emotionally and physically fit for the job. The mentally and emotionally weak or cowardly were not to be enlisted. Men of valor were specifically selected. A picture and example to others. A symbol of national patriotism.

Numbers 1:2-4
2 Take a census of all the males of the congregation of the Israelites by families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of names, head by head
3 From twenty years old and upward, all in Israel who are able to go forth to war you and Aaron shall number, company by company.
4 And with you there shall be a man (to assist you) from each tribe, each being the head of his father's house.
Deuteronomy 20:8

8 And the officers shall speak further unto the people, and they shall say, What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted? let him go and return unto his house, lest his brethren's heart faint as well as his heart.
Here is another passage that talks about men going to war, and again, an age is given.

2 Chronicles 25:5-6:
Moreover Amaziah gathered Judah together, and made them captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, according to the houses of their fathers, throughout all Judah and Benjamin: and he numbered them from twenty years old and above, and found them three hundred thousand choice men, able to go forth to war, that could handle spear and shield.
6 He hired also a hundred thousand mighty men of valor out of Israel for an hundred talons of silver.

It is also interesting to note that the bible does not include spiritual fathers and leaders in this number. Pastors are called to shepherd their people, to defend them against spiritual wolves in sheep’s clothing. To guard them against apostasy and hypocrisy. They are not called to defend them physically, although they are called to lay their lives down.

Numbers 1:47:
47 But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them.

Women and children are never listed in combat. In fact, just the opposite, the women and children were protected by the males. Husbands are called to lay down their lives for their wives and families. Women are not. I think this is a pretty clear message. Women are charged to submit and support, to love, respect, and honor their spouse. Princess brought up ( I think it was Princess) that the women in WWII took care of what needed to be done in order to protect their husbands and sons, brothers and fathers. They supported their men, even when they were far away from them. They kept things running. They cared for the families left behind. In the civil war we also see women melting down their pewter in order to cut bullets for their men. They wanted to insure they had ammo in order to defend and protect themselves.

Women play a great role in war time; they just don’t play the part that many of us give to them.

The Bible exhorts men to honor and protect women as the weaker vessel physically. Again, not because women are incapable, but because they were created this way. Another big reason why women should not be in combat is because many of them have children. A mother who abandons her children for war is abandoning her life’s calling. She is to raise and care for those children, who are the next generation. She is supposed to be raising those sons to become amazing, Godly men who are not “What man is there that is fearful and fainthearted?” If she goes off and leaves them, she risks leaving them in danger of being orphans. God does not want children to be raised without their mothers. Small children are more dependent on their mothers and it is bad enough losing a father in war, without the loss of their mothers.

Also, the Old Testament lists some reasons that males should be excused from military duty. They are as follows:

a.) Deuteronomy 20:5 "And the officers shall speak unto the people, saying, What man is there that hath built a new house, and hath not dedicated it? let him go and return to his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man dedicate it."

This scripture specifically talks about men. This act was an act that references men, not women.

b.) Deuteronomy 20:6: "And what man is he that hath planted a vineyard, and hath not yet eaten of it? let him also go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man eat of it."

c.) Deuteronomy 20:7 "And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her."

Those that are engaged to be married were not to go to battle. Unquestionably speaking of men, not women.

d.) Deuteronomy 24:5 When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.

If a man has just gotten married when war breaks out, he is not to go to war for a year, which I find very interesting...

So, I think the scriptures show us that men are called to battle, not women. However, I also think the bible is very clear that women should be equipped to protect their families.

That’s my .02 cents anyway.

Wow, thanks for taking the time to write that out, Airi.

I had never thought about the distinction between fighting and actual battle, but that definitely makes sense. It cleared up some things I was unsure about.

And I'm glad you found some of my points worthwhile!

Wow... long post... thank you, Airianna.

Yeah... I'm known for them...

Glad I could help illuminate some of those questions for you, Abby.

That was a very, very, good post Arianna. Thanks for that; especially the distinction between fighting and battling, like Princess said. Although it makes me want to start a topic related to this to solve a problem I have. *scurries off*

eruheran

Those are always dangerous words, Eruheran