Women Characters as Spies

[briellejee]

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...

Well, to sum your comment up: our society is one hell of a twisted mindset. And I agree with that. However, we are moving forward to a better world where we destroy those barriers and terms like "masculinity and femininity" in categorizing people. Especially tearing down the walls of patriarchy. In the book though, as far as their looks are concerned, I don't think that shows how strong they are. I think it all boils down to their skills as spies, especially Sarah, that made her stand out as strong. I do hope you find the confidence to just be you because you are already amazing.

[briellejee]

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.

Thank you for recognizing that aspect! And even more so, Sarah's skills are superior than Jacko, his brother - it shows that women can take down men in wars.

[Anon_Reviewer]

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.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Women's bodies are powerful and there's nothing wrong with that. But they are not the only thing women got working for them.

[Katherine Smith]

I agree that the lack of character development makes the women seem disposable even if this was not the intent of the author. I think that these women are strong because they took extreme risks for their countries. I also agree that this was not their primary objective since they were prostitutes or dancers. I think that this is one of the problems of spy type novels is that women in secondary roles become typecasted.

[Samy Lax]

In this book, it becomes obvious that it is the looks and bodies of these women that was leveraged to get them access in their secondary job as spies. They were just helping out the main characters.

[angiejack456]

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 find this to be true in many of the war books I have read and I find it distressing. Why do women always need to be portrayed as prostitutes? Why can't they be portrayed as having their minds be an asset instead of simply being valued for their bodies? I'm tired of women being type cast into this role.

[nvii_ft]

In my opinion, the women who worked as spies are patriotic people. They did what was needed to be done for their country. Their sacrifices are both admirable and disappointing. Admirable because they endured so much trouble undercover yet disappointing because they had to use ways women are commonly exploited with to accomplish their mission. I think, women spies should at least be given the choice of methods they want to use for undercover, the ones where their dignity are not lost.

[Rangerkay]

I think female spies could be used more often in a different capacity than most authors attempt to portray them in. I'm tired of seeing the over-sexualized portrayal of female spies. Where are the successful business women that won't take no for an answer? Where are the mother figures that are caring, but also tough as nails when they need to be? Where are the girls that use more brains than body to get what they want? Or the females that pretend to be dumb while they gather information and use their intelligence to hinder their opposition?

I've had enough of the women that are nothing but toys for the men. I'm tired of male and female authors showing ONE side to a character and thinking that it's the only side to someone's personality.

[Rangerkay]

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 find this to be true in many of the war books I have read and I find it distressing. Why do women always need to be portrayed as prostitutes? Why can't they be portrayed as having their minds be an asset instead of simply being valued for their bodies? I'm tired of women being type cast into this role.

EXACTLY

[Robby Chandra]

The character of a woman as a spy is not a stranger in a fictional story, because in real life there are many great countries in the world that use women as spies, an example of a famous female spy is the sun, the spy of women of the age a long time ago that is famous to date.

[briellejee]

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 find this to be true in many of the war books I have read and I find it distressing. Why do women always need to be portrayed as prostitutes? Why can't they be portrayed as having their minds be an asset instead of simply being valued for their bodies? I'm tired of women being type cast into this role.

They are actually portrayed with their minds as an asset because they were also spies. They're valued as spies and as equal to men too, especially Sarah. However, of course, they're just secondary characters that the author did not intend to develop.

[Hifza97]

The book is excellent with very strong portrayal of the feminine side. The women are strong, brave and self contended.

[N_R]

It does sound like this book needed to have more character development, particularly with the female characters.

[NuelUkah]

In your opinion, how were the women portrayed in the story? The German spies used belly dancers like Yasmina and Fahmy, and our main characters used prostitues like Fifi and Yvette, all to spy for their side's advantage.

Were the women portrayed to be independent and brave to be working as important assets to help win the war? Or were they depicted as easily manipulated and useful for their physical capabilities and characteristics?

Did you find them smart and fearless, or decietful and manipulative?

I think the women were portrayed well. As a reader, sometimes, you try to ascertain the author's perspective. There were strong and thriving women, like Sarah and Badia. There were also lesser women who served as prostitutes, spies, etc. That is expected because in real life war, there are prostitutes, and soldiers like women. Women are strategic to the success of some missions. I think Kater did a good job placing the women in diverse roles.

[briellejee]

I think the women were portrayed well. As a reader, sometimes, you try to ascertain the author's perspective. There were strong and thriving women, like Sarah and Badia. There were also lesser women who served as prostitutes, spies, etc. That is expected because in real life war, there are prostitutes, and soldiers like women. Women are strategic to the success of some missions. I think Kater did a good job placing the women in diverse roles.

Thank you for pointing this out! I have been saying the same thing over and over again in this post. As a reader, we don't get what we all want for the characters, but I really do think the author's incorporation of these women is not really a conclusion that the book is sexist or demeans women.