Women Characters as Spies

[Popcorn1]

The women were portrayed as strong and fearless. Given that the setting is during war time, sometimes you have to take a side in order to survive. And that's what the women in the story are doing.

[Kristin Ransome]

I thought the women characters were well portrayed, but believe they deserved a more in depth development of character than they were given

[Samantha Simoneau]

I'm also really pleased that someone thought to begin this thread. I was eager to read everyone's thoughts on this, as I have yet to read the entire book. I'm disappointed, though. I was so encouraged by posters' general feedback on this book, but the consensus that the female characters are generally poorly developed bums me out. Thanks for the balanced look at this book!

[Mallory Porshnev]

I am glad you brought this up. I didn't like how women were generally portrayed in the book. In my opinion, most of the female spies were easily disposable. Out of all of them, Yasmina was the most well-developed. I couldn't tell the rest apart from one another. It felt like they were simply included to benefit and help Jamie, Jacko and the other lead male characters.

While they came across as smart, it was clear their looks and bodies did most of the work for them. They were effective in their roles but I wish more work could have been done to make their personalities shine through.

I agree. I liked that women characters were used a lot in this book, but of course, they did seem used mostly for their bodies and not their brains.

[skindrukas]

I see it this way. War is a man's thing. It just doesn't go along naturally with femininity. War takes life rather than give it. I wouldn't call women having masculine strength strong. I mean, they are capable, but the strength of a woman is her femininity, and the strength of a man is his masculinity. If women start running with guns it's kind of cute but not natural. It doesn't bother me in books. What is, though, that all strong women are usually pictured having superb looks and perfect bodies. As if the top feminine strength is how a woman looks like. Sadly, that shows how the looks are perceived in real life, too. I often want to cover myself before going out of my house and I'm not even that good looking...

[BelleReadsNietzsche]

I am glad you brought this up. I didn't like how women were generally portrayed in the book. In my opinion, most of the female spies were easily disposable. Out of all of them, Yasmina was the most well-developed. I couldn't tell the rest apart from one another. It felt like they were simply included to benefit and help Jamie, Jacko and the other lead male characters.

While they came across as smart, it was clear their looks and bodies did most of the work for them. They were effective in their roles but I wish more work could have been done to make their personalities shine through.

I agree. I liked that women characters were used a lot in this book, but of course, they did seem used mostly for their bodies and not their brains.

While it is frustrating to see women characters put in situations and living in societies (including our present-day society) that value their bodies more than their brains, I feel authors can still make such female characters well-rounded and human, and/or can even find ways to push at the reader's awareness of this as a situation in which she is not regarded that way by other characters in the novel. In other words, just because it's true to the time does not mean the author needs to unwaveringly go along with it. Like, okay, these women were valued for their bodies, but that doesn't mean the reader can't be allowed to see more in them than the men do.

It's not the end of the world, or grossly sexist or anything, but I do think the author could have done that better here, that the times aren't an excuse, and even that the roles the women played isn't a great excuse. I think he was just more interested in Jamie, Jacko, and the men, and saw the women as people who would have been there in some way/ways to serve the plot.

[BelleReadsNietzsche]

I see it this way. War is a man's thing. It just doesn't go along naturally with femininity. War takes life rather than give it. I wouldn't call women having masculine strength strong. I mean, they are capable, but the strength of a woman is her femininity, and the strength of a man is his masculinity. If women start running with guns it's kind of cute but not natural. It doesn't bother me in books. What is, though, that all strong women are usually pictured having superb looks and perfect bodies. As if the top feminine strength is how a woman looks like. Sadly, that shows how the looks are perceived in real life, too. I often want to cover myself before going out of my house and I'm not even that good looking...

Yours is a take I did not expect! I am not one who puts much stock in feminity and masculinity being important to adhere to. (Nor do I think the women currently serving in the military are "cute" for doing so.) Personally, I think statements like "the strength of a woman is her feminity" actually actively support the idea that how a woman looks is essential to her character and one of her most important assets.

I highly recommend Gayle Tzemach Lemmon's "Ashley's War" for a fascinating depiction of how real women have served in modern-day combat.

[briellejee]

While it is frustrating to see women characters put in situations and living in societies (including our present-day society) that value their bodies more than their brains, I feel authors can still make such female characters well-rounded and human, and/or can even find ways to push at the reader's awareness of this as a situation in which she is not regarded that way by other characters in the novel. In other words, just because it's true to the time does not mean the author needs to unwaveringly go along with it. Like, okay, these women were valued for their bodies, but that doesn't mean the reader can't be allowed to see more in them than the men do.

It's not the end of the world, or grossly sexist or anything, but I do think the author could have done that better here, that the times aren't an excuse, and even that the roles the women played isn't a great excuse. I think he was just more interested in Jamie, Jacko, and the men, and saw the women as people who would have been there in some way/ways to serve the plot.

But it's historical fiction, if the author won't go along with the time, then what's even the point of it having the setting? Though I agree that he could have developed the female characters even more, I just think that these female characters should be seen the way they are portrayed: as spies. Yes it is tragic that their initial job is a belly dancer or prostitute, but I think we're diverting from the fact that they are spies too! I don't get it why we concentrate more on their initial jobs because they are a bit demeaning for a woman character, rather than them being strong and intelligent as spies. Sure, they lack more exposure and development in the book, but it's fairly obvious that the author is not just good as other authors in developing all of their characters.

[BelleReadsNietzsche]

While it is frustrating to see women characters put in situations and living in societies (including our present-day society) that value their bodies more than their brains, I feel authors can still make such female characters well-rounded and human, and/or can even find ways to push at the reader's awareness of this as a situation in which she is not regarded that way by other characters in the novel. In other words, just because it's true to the time does not mean the author needs to unwaveringly go along with it. Like, okay, these women were valued for their bodies, but that doesn't mean the reader can't be allowed to see more in them than the men do.

It's not the end of the world, or grossly sexist or anything, but I do think the author could have done that better here, that the times aren't an excuse, and even that the roles the women played isn't a great excuse. I think he was just more interested in Jamie, Jacko, and the men, and saw the women as people who would have been there in some way/ways to serve the

But it's historical fiction, if the author won't go along with the time, then what's even the point of it having the setting? Though I agree that he could have developed the female characters even more, I just think that these female characters should be seen the way they are portrayed: as spies. Yes it is tragic that their initial job is a belly dancer or prostitute, but I think we're diverting from the fact that they are spies too! I don't get it why we concentrate more on their initial jobs because they are a bit demeaning for a woman character, rather than them being strong and intelligent as spies. Sure, they lack more exposure and development in the book, but it's fairly obvious that the author is not just good as other authors in developing all of their characters.

I must not have been clear in my point! (It felt as I was writing it like I wasn’t getting at what I really meant.) I agree with you entirely when it comes to what the women’s jobs are and the tasks they are given in the story. To my knowledge, they match the time and the setting, so it doesn’t bother me AT ALL.

(I think it’s worth noting that sometimes authors of historical fiction make assumptions about women’s roles because of our stereotypes about the past, when in fact their roles were much more complex/richer. But I don’t find that to be the case in the Warramunga’s War- Although I am not a scholar on the issue ).

It’s ONLY the two-dimensional nature of their characters annoys me. I don’t think authors have to recreate the historical attitudes towards women in aspects of their books such as how well they develop the characters. It isn’t an excuse to me. I agree Kater isn’t as interested or invested in characters who aren’t his leading men, but I find that to be a flaw and the way it applies to his female characters especially glaring.

Again, it’s not as if this is grossly sexist, and I still found this book to be well-written and enjoyable. I’m actually grateful that the women are there, have a presence in the book.

[NL Hartje]

I am glad you brought this up. I didn't like how women were generally portrayed in the book. In my opinion, most of the female spies were easily disposable. Out of all of them, Yasmina was the most well-developed. I couldn't tell the rest apart from one another. It felt like they were simply included to benefit and help Jamie, Jacko and the other lead male characters.

While they came across as smart, it was clear their looks and bodies did most of the work for them. They were effective in their roles but I wish more work could have been done to make their personalities shine through.

It's sad when a woman's body is doing "most of the work for them." Not in the sense that using their bodies is wrong (because I'm certainly of the "whatever works" school of thought), however, it would be nice if there was more play on their minds and cunning. I feel like this would have made them more believable.

[Hannahberry]

I love the idea of women being spies, so often spy novels are about men and the women are just sidekicks so it's a nice change for them to be more forefront here.

[AA1495]

You right guys, the Aussies army made a great job in choosing those ladies. The ladies were not just using their looks, but also their brains helping to win the war.

It takes a great deal of intelligence to be a spy. You have to learn your enemy, you have to plan how to deceive him, and not to mention, you also have to be prepared on how to get out if they knew you were one.

I agree. It needs great strategic and thinking skills to be a spy. You need to put yourself in their minds and that is not easy.

[ma_mon28]

There was a lot of attention on the male characters in the book. I am glad that there were some women in the book fighting as well, no matter what there profession.

Exactly! Even if in the eyes of many people, some prosti-women looks indignified, but a great help sometimes in chaotic moments. Like Rahab's story in the Bible.

[KJohnston]

I'm only about 1/4 the way through the book at the moment, and it seems like the women are doing all the hard parts of the job. They are the ones risking their lives and gathering the intel, while the men just kind of watch.

It also very much surprised me when that one girl was murdered, and the men in the book didn't seem very concerned about it. It appears as if the men view the women as tools and dispensable.

[briellejee]

While it is frustrating to see women characters put in situations and living in societies (including our present-day society) that value their bodies more than their brains, I feel authors can still make such female characters well-rounded and human, and/or can even find ways to push at the reader's awareness of this as a situation in which she is not regarded that way by other characters in the novel. In other words, just because it's true to the time does not mean the author needs to unwaveringly go along with it. Like, okay, these women were valued for their bodies, but that doesn't mean the reader can't be allowed to see more in them than the men do.

It's not the end of the world, or grossly sexist or anything, but I do think the author could have done that better here, that the times aren't an excuse, and even that the roles the women played isn't a great excuse. I think he was just more interested in Jamie, Jacko, and the men, and saw the women as people who would have been there in some way/ways to serve the

But it's historical fiction, if the author won't go along with the time, then what's even the point of it having the setting? Though I agree that he could have developed the female characters even more, I just think that these female characters should be seen the way they are portrayed: as spies. Yes it is tragic that their initial job is a belly dancer or prostitute, but I think we're diverting from the fact that they are spies too! I don't get it why we concentrate more on their initial jobs because they are a bit demeaning for a woman character, rather than them being strong and intelligent as spies. Sure, they lack more exposure and development in the book, but it's fairly obvious that the author is not just good as other authors in developing all of their characters.

I must not have been clear in my point! (It felt as I was writing it like I wasn’t getting at what I really meant.) I agree with you entirely when it comes to what the women’s jobs are and the tasks they are given in the story. To my knowledge, they match the time and the setting, so it doesn’t bother me AT ALL.

(I think it’s worth noting that sometimes authors of historical fiction make assumptions about women’s roles because of our stereotypes about the past, when in fact their roles were much more complex/richer. But I don’t find that to be the case in the Warramunga’s War- Although I am not a scholar on the issue ).

It’s ONLY the two-dimensional nature of their characters annoys me. I don’t think authors have to recreate the historical attitudes towards women in aspects of their books such as how well they develop the characters. It isn’t an excuse to me. I agree Kater isn’t as interested or invested in characters who aren’t his leading men, but I find that to be a flaw and the way it applies to his female characters especially glaring.

Again, it’s not as if this is grossly sexist, and I still found this book to be well-written and enjoyable. I’m actually grateful that the women are there, have a presence in the book.

I get what you mean about the two-dimensional nature. I'm also not saying that authors HAVE TO recreate the historical attitudes towards women as an excuse to not develop them more. As I've said, the author lacks that remarkable feat to develop all of his characters. It just so happens that the side characters were females that I think some readers make a big deal out of it. I'm not pointing any fingers here, but I just want to make it clear to some who haven't read the book yet that it is not entirely a conscious act from the author to "demean" his female characters this way. I think we both agree that it is not sexist on the author's part, he's just not good in developing his side-characters well - male or female.