# Sci Fi Women Who Are Excellent Human Beings Regardless Of Whether They Are Excellent Women **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 22, 2011, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712 "2011-11-22T03:29:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_In_Black)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/41 "2011-11-22T17:59:13Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Many in the thread are making perfectly relevant suggestions. But it seems like they are just throwing random stuff out there seeing what you will say. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/42 "2011-11-22T18:00:25Z")
> [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](#): > > But it seems like they are just throwing random stuff out there seeing what you will say. I say (and have said) “thanks.” Is something else required? We certainly haven’t had a chance to _read_ any of these books if that’s what you’re after. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_In_Black)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/43 "2011-11-22T18:06:51Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > This is also an invalid argument form: > > Z is a subset of Y > X is an excellent Y > X is a Z. > Therefore, X is an excellent Z. > > For example each of the following four statements could be true simultaneously, > > Every liar is a communicator > John is an excellent communicator. > John is a liar. > But John is _not_ an excellent liar. > > For another example, suppose I have an object which is both a hammer and a pair of scissors. It’s an excellent hammer, but a terrible pair of scissors. So: > > Every pair of scissors is a tool > This object is an excellent tool > this object is a pair of scissors. > But this object is _not_ an excellent pair of scissors. > > Someone I respect once said that the clearer he is, the less people understand. I thought this was crazy talk at the time. But I’ve been seeing it confirmed all over the place lately. This is one such case. But your not really being clear. I think I get what you mean by saying an excellent person who is a woman is not the same as an excellent woman. But your just splitting hairs. It would be like if your friend said, “That John is a great guy for helping us out.” and you corrected him saying, “No, he is a great person. What he did to help does not make him great at being a guy.” It seems like that is what you mean, at least to me. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_In_Black)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/44 "2011-11-22T18:08:07Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I say (and have said) “thanks.” > > Is something else required? > > We certainly haven’t had a chance to _read_ any of these books if that’s what you’re after. Did you read my post in context? If so, I am confused by your reply. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/45 "2011-11-22T18:16:08Z")
> [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](#): > > Did you read my post in context? If so, I am confused by your reply. You said you think people are giving suggestions in order to see what I will say. And what I say is, “Thanks.” There. Now everyone can see what I will say. (Because I said it.) What’s confusing? If you’d prefer to know not just what I would say, but what I would say if asked “Does this fit your desiderata?” then the answer is–“I don’t know. We haven’t read the book yet.” ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/46 "2011-11-22T18:18:13Z")
> [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](#): > > But your not really being clear. I think I get what you mean by saying an excellent person who is a woman is not the same as an excellent woman. But your just splitting hairs. What is the word “just” doing in this sentence? Is there a real distinction between the two concepts or not? If so, then I’m not _just_ splitting hairs–I’m using an actual distinction that actually exists in order to tell you the difference between what I’m looking for and what I’m not looking for. But is there not any real such distinction? In that case how can you get what I mean when I make such a distinction? If there’s no distinction to make, then no attempt to make this nonexistent distinction can be correctly understood. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_In_Black)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/47 "2011-11-22T19:10:58Z")
I am finished with this thread. It isn;t worth my time. I do not know if you are trying to be obtuse or what, but I don;t have the time. I was trying to help pin down exactly what you are looking for, but you seem to want to play word games. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/48 "2011-11-22T19:20:01Z")
> [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](#): > > I am finished with this thread. It isn;t worth my time. I do not know if you are trying to be obtuse or what, but I don;t have the time. I was trying to help pin down exactly what you are looking for, but you seem to want to play word games. Again, my thanks to everyone for the suggestions so far. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/49 "2011-11-22T19:20:44Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > This is also an invalid argument form: > > Z is a subset of Y > X is an excellent Y > X is a Z. > Therefore, X is an excellent Z. > > For example each of the following four statements could be true simultaneously, > > Every liar is a communicator > John is an excellent communicator. > John is a liar. > But John is _not_ an excellent liar. This is a pretty clear example of precisely what I’m not understanding about your OP. I can see how someone can be an excellent communicator, but a terrible liar. I don’t see how a female character could be an excellent human being, without also being an excellent woman. The question only makes sense if you assume that there are positive traits that are only positive if exhibited by men, and not women. Which, certainly, is far from an unheard of opinion, except that the sort of people who hold it would generally consider a woman exhibiting a gender-proscribed positive trait to be a terrible human being. For example, a Muslim fundamentalist might consider being a professional race car driver to be an admirable thing, but think that Danica Patrick is a horrible human for being a female race car driver. So it seems to me the only way to answer this question would be to presume some stereotype about women held by an undefined “other” group, and find a fictional character who defies that stereotype. Which is a fine topic for a thread, but I think you could have been a lot clearer if you’d just asked for examples of non-stereotypical women in science fiction. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/50 "2011-11-22T19:22:55Z")
**Miller** , does my post #32 help? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/51 "2011-11-22T19:26:03Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > **Miller** , does my post #32 help? It really doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/52 "2011-11-22T19:31:52Z")
Sorry, **Miller** , I genuinely don’t know how else to explain this. I do not have a model of feminine excellence in mind. I’m just looking for authors who don’t make the excellence of _their_ female characters depend on some conception of what it means specifically to be an excellent _female_. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/53 "2011-11-22T20:03:04Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Sorry, **Miller** , I genuinely don’t know how else to explain this. I do not have a model of feminine excellence in mind. I’m just looking for authors who don’t make the excellence of _their_ female characters depend on some conception of what it means specifically to be an excellent _female_. All of this as determined by _you_ before you’ll permit your wife to read the books… (And why limit her to SF?) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/54 "2011-11-22T20:07:54Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Sorry, **Miller** , I genuinely don’t know how else to explain this. I do not have a model of feminine excellence in mind. I’m just looking for authors who don’t make the excellence of _their_ female characters depend on some conception of what it means specifically to be an excellent _female_. Right now, it seems you’re asking for a book that states something like: Women should be X. This female character is Y, not X. But that’s okay, she’s still really cool. The problem is, I don’t think any such book exists, because the conclusion violates the first premise. If it’s cool for her to by Y instead of X, then the premise that women should be X is invalidated. Perhaps if you had a negative example? Is there an author you know of who did make the “excellence of their female character depend on some conception of what it means to be an excellent female?” Are there any novels that you’ve read that you feel do _not_ fit the criteria of your OP? That might help make what you’re talking about clearer. > [@Bridget Burke](#): > > All of this as determined by you before you’ll permit your wife to read the books… > > (And why limit her to SF?) Whoah, “permit?” “Limit?” Where the hell are you getting any of _that_ from? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/55 "2011-11-22T20:41:24Z")
> [@Bridget\_Burke](#): > > All of this as determined by _you_ before you’ll permit your wife to read the books… > > (And why limit her to SF?) I do not understand where you got any of this. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/56 "2011-11-22T20:45:19Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Right now, it seems you’re asking for a book that states something like: > > Women should be X. > This female character is Y, not X. > But that’s okay, she’s still really cool. More likely: This female character is Y and that makes her cool. It’s totally irrelevant whether females, in particular, should be Y or not. Or: This female character is Y and that makes her cool. (and the work never says anything at all about whether being Y is proper to femininity or not.) Or perhaps: You, reader, probably unconsciously expect women to be governed by norm X Here’s a female character who is not X. Yet you can see she’s awesome. Ha ha I tricked you. There are many other possibilities, but both of the above would fit as examples of what we’re looking for. > [@](#): > > . > > Perhaps if you had a negative example? Well, one list of “strong characters in sci fi” mentioned Jane Grey from (I think) the films (as opposed to the comics) and then went on, after talking about how cool she was, to explain that what made her really an awesome character to read about was how she was such a good mother figure for the other X-men. (Something like that.) That’d be an example of someone who thinks what makes a female character excellent is the same as what makes her an excellent female, for some conception of “excellent female.” ---
**Author:** ![ProbablyProcrastinating](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/57b2e6/32.png) [@ProbablyProcrastinating](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ProbablyProcrastinating)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/57 "2011-11-22T20:51:38Z")
I guess I just assumed by “excellent female” to be synonymous with “excellent (female) human being”. I can’t really imagine what else it might mean, unless it means like what my PHCP said to me which was that I had a body made for making babies. (You’d never guess by looking at me!) But that doesn’t make sense, really… I mean if you asked for an example of an “excellent male” would you mean, one with a high sperm count? Or what? ---
**Author:** ![hdc\_bst](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/9f8e36/32.png) [@hdc\_bst](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hdc_bst)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/58 "2011-11-22T21:00:22Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > Sorry, **Miller** , I genuinely don’t know how else to explain this. I do not have a model of feminine excellence in mind. I’m just looking for authors who don’t make the excellence of _their_ female characters depend on some conception of what it means specifically to be an excellent _female_. I doubt there are very many worthwhile works where this will be an issue. Other than Ayn Rand, who emphasizes the excellence of their characters that much? Further more, who sets out the declarative structure you’re proposing? I think most worthwhile authors will describe their characters - they will show traits which will make the characters compelling. Whether or not those traits contribute to excellence is in the mind of the reader. Whether or not those traits are feminine is also in the mind of the reader. Therefore it is up to you (the generic reader) to decide if a set of traits make someone an excellent generic person or an excellent woman. I enjoy Neal Stephenson, although I understand the criticism that his female characters aren’t the most rounded. In the Baroque cycle the character of Eliza is exceptional in many ways - ruthlessly pragmatic, brilliant, devoted to social justice, and hyper-sexualized. The author through narrative voice never declares here an excellent human being or excellent woman (I would say from the standard understanding of those terms she’s more the former than the latter), although other characters do based on some subset of those characteristics and their own perspective. I agree with **Miller** , what is the counterexample that you wish to avoid? On preview, I see you mentioning Jean Grey as your counter example. Aside from the absurdity of a strong female character in a Marvel work, it seems that your problem is with the ‘mother character’ role. So you want excellent female characters who do not (only) derive their excellence from being nurturing? There are good examples in this thread, but it does seem to me that the restrictions are coming from your ideas regarding strong women vs. strong generic human being. Maybe you can flesh out the definition a bit more? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/59 "2011-11-22T21:10:24Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > But is there not any real such distinction? In that case how can you get what I mean when I make such a distinction? If there’s no distinction to make, then no attempt to make this nonexistent distinction can be correctly understood. Exactly. There is no distinction. But when asked point blank if there is a difference, you refuse to answer. Which means we can’t know if you are using the terms as we assume they mean, or if you mean something different. And if we can’t know what you mean, we can’t actually answer you. It is infuriating trying to figure out what you mean because you refuse to clarify your question. Honestly, no one should have answered you at all until you clarified your meaning, but some people were being nice. Is their niceness misplaced? Are you going to apologize for not being clear and actually ask your question in a manner that actually makes sense? Or are you going to continue giving non answers that claim the question means whatever we think it means? Because, if the latter, I say the answer is John Cusack, because I interpret “works of science fiction which feature characters (esp. protagonists) who are female who are excellent human beings in a way that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are excellent women” to mean “random actor who just popped into my head.” ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712/60 "2011-11-22T21:15:44Z")
> [@hdc\_bst](#): > > So you want excellent female characters who do not (only) derive their excellence from being nurturing? That would count, and also, you can replace “nurturing” with any characteristic that is taken to be a feminine ideal with any frequency, and the resulting sentence would count as well as something my wife is looking for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sci-fi-women-who-are-excellent-human-beings-regardless-of-whether-they-are-excellent-women/603712.md?page=4)