Why are abuse backgrounds for "feisty" female characters so popular?

Huh. I wanted to agree with you, but then I thought of the three female protagonists I have and none of them have that.

- Liao has some minor quibbles with her parents over her name, but otherwise they encouraged her and supported her.
- Libby's parents haven't been mentioned since the story's focused on her, and they don't live in the same city as her, but I imagine them to be quiet, somewhat traditional and maybe a little embarassing. Certainly nothing abuse worthy.
- Ren never knew her parents (it's a kobold thing).

David Adams said:

Huh. I wanted to agree with you

Click to expand...

I wasn't saying people here overuse the abuse background, more asking if people think it's overdone in general as the other board felt and trying to start a discussion of why some might jump to use this trope.

I think it's overdone.

I sometimes think that the author needs some reason for a female MC to be strong, as if she can't be that way naturally. Almost like it was given to her rather than something she worked for.
Granted, harsh experiences are character- and motivation-building (whatever doesn't kill you...) but it's just been used to death.

My redhead is an army brat with an overprotective father. Doesn't seem to have kept her from giving the bad guy a what-for

Considering there is a high rate of abuse against women, I don't find it troubling to read about strong women who've persevered and become stronger.

That said, abuse triggers a lot of motivation, emotion, and conflict. Basically it serves as a catalyst for the protagonist. Now that I'm thinking about the series that I love to read, I can only pinpoint one that has an abusive background. And neither of my protagonists are from an abusive home.

Maybe it's just an easy explanation with lots of the work already done for the writer.

"She's feisty because she was abused." -> OK.

"She's feisty because she ate lots of turnips." -> Explain...

"She's feisty because she ate lots of turnips, and turnips are injected with the chemical F3iST at the factory." -> OK.

It's shorthand. You want a story about a guy bashing heads and shooting shotguns: they killed his family, now he's out for revenge. You want a heist story with a sympathetic character: his daughter's sick, the government won't pay for her treatment, he's left with no choice but to assemble a group of five quirky characters and take down the biggest bank in America.

Yes, abuse against women is very high so it's possible the rates in fiction are less that reality.

However, I think a reason people use it is that it increases the reader's sympathy for the character as well as being an easy short-hand to justify unusual motivations in a character. It's like orphans. They're horribly overused but everyone likes to cheer for an orphan and it's an easy gimmick to rationalize 'unique' personalities. Like Tolstoy said: "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Misery and suffering do tend to bring out the extremes in personalities.

Got to work up some of that misandry froth.

Kind of like movies on the Lifetime channel. 

I'm not complaining.  I've used it in my books too.  Another tool in the box.

Vukovina said:

Maybe it's just an easy explanation with lots of the work already done for the writer.

"She's feisty because she was abused." -> OK.

"She's feisty because she ate lots of turnips." -> Explain...

Click to expand...

Some of the people complaining about this were saying feistyness doesn't need to be explained though, which I 100% agree with.

The argument on the other board wasn't so much that abuse can't be a valid motivation, more that women can be feisty without having been abused and it's overused as an explanation for mere feistyness. When I personally used abuse backgrounds it was to explain more than standard level feistyness (in one case extreme pride, in the other the character actually tried to stop being a tomboy because she thought her dad, who encouraged her tomboy-ness, abused her).

Maybe it's akin to the revenge factor often over-used to motivate male characters. I think patterns develop and after a time lead to expectations in character and plot, just as in life. My book has a very strong female lead and a more emotionally vulnerable male lead, the latter due, in part, to an episode of abuse in his background. The expectation might be, then, that the male character should overcompensate for that vulnerability because he is male just as the female might be expected to overcompensate so not to be seen as vulnerable because she is female.

In Southern Gothic literature, the flawed or vulnerable character is a staple. I think in many types of literature, the expectations of character motivation are different. The trap in that may be in the overcompensation of a perceived or very real vulnerability, hence, the overuse of strength due to a particular adversity...ie: abuse.

glutton said:

Some of the people complaining about this were saying feistyness doesn't need to be explained though, which I 100% agree with.

The argument on the other board wasn't so much that abuse can't be a valid motivation, more that women can be feisty without having been abused and it's overused as an explanation for mere feistyness. When I personally used abuse backgrounds it was to explain more than standard level feistyness (in one case extreme pride, in the other the character actually tried to stop being a tomboy because she thought her dad, who encouraged her tomboy-ness, abused her).

Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. Some women are just feisty. It does not need explanation other than that they've always been that way. I am a feisty woman and have been for as long as I can remember. No abuse in my history. My mom was a feisty woman. So was my grandmother. I have many close female friends who are feisty - close enough to have told me if there was abuse in their histories, and as far as I know, there was not. Feisty women happen.

And then there are women with abuse in their histories that are sweet as pie.

Yes, abuse happens, and I don't think it should be excluded from our fiction. But it's all very case-by-case, and to slot it in as a stock "excuse" for a character's personality is both infuriating and offensive, both to women who have been abused and to women who were born naturally feisty.

Laura Rae Amos said:

I have to agree with this. Some women are just feisty. It does not need explanation other than that they've always been that way. I am a feisty woman and have been for as long as I can remember. No abuse in my history. My mom was a feisty woman. So was my grandmother. I have many close female friends who are feisty - close enough to have told me if there was abuse in their histories, and as far as I know, there was not. Feisty women happen.

And then there are women with abuse in their histories that are sweet as pie.

Yes, abuse happens, and I don't think it should be excluded from our fiction. But it's all very case-by-case, and to slot it in as a stock "excuse" for a character's personality is both infuriating and offensive, both to women who have been abused and to women who were born naturally feisty.

Click to expand...

THIS. If there's a good reason to give her an abuse background, do it, but not simply as the stock excuse for feistiness.

Why do we need to explain feistiness?

(Also, while we're at it, can we PLEASE stop having all readheads be feisty?)

Because men with fetishes keep writing these themes. 

Seriously, these threads are getting creepy.

See my article on how to create a female anti-hero... http://jahuss.com/anti-heroes-in-science-fiction-can-a-girl-be-an-anti-hero/

That's pretty much why.

Sadly most of the feisty women I know in real life actually do have abuse in their backgrounds. So there's probably just a lot of mirroring of real life going on here. But I also think it's safe to say some writers just go for this kind of backstory because it's convenient, and because it's a bit of an edgy topic to touch on at all.

Krista D. Ball said:

Because men with fetishes keep writing these themes.

Seriously, these threads are getting creepy.

Click to expand...

I was actually trying to make a different kind of thread from my usual and start a serious discussion, but eh.

I don't think of it as much as abuse explaining feistiness, as abuse giving the character a powerful arc. If she comes from a background of damage, or attack, and by the will and spirit she has she overcomes that background, then that story is more compelling than a woman who comes from a comfortable, happy background, and with her energy and willpower, what? Maintains that happiness? Defeats the baddies?
There's less wow in somebody who comes from ten, and maintains a ten, than somebody who comes from zero and achieves a ten.

glutton said:

I was actually trying to make a different kind of thread from my usual and start a serious discussion, but eh.

Click to expand...

Dude. Don't even.

Krista D. Ball said:

Dude. Don't even.

Click to expand...

+1

Thread locked while we discuss. Back after I have my ankle possibly amputated X-rayed.

Folks, I've locked two threads within five minutes. Anyone bringing this discussion into another thread while I'm gone, or starts a new thread about this, will get a timeout... Y'all know the rules.

This is being discussed in Admin.

Thanks for understanding.

Betsy
KBoards