... Wow

Gods I miss a day I miss a lot. ahh forum life.

My wife had the displeasure of skimming the posts over my shoulder just now, and I'll spare our fellow Forumites the series of four, five, and six letter words that came out of her mouth.

Biological differences aside, we are also talking about over 2,000 years of social identification to work against. I'm not saying it's impossible for a female author to think, or write, like a male one. I am saying that by the time one is old enough to read and write, they have been subject to the unwritten social standards of everyday society, whether directly or indirectly. I am not meaning this as a negative point, it's just an observation of the slight-but-there variations between male and female daily life.

we've come a long way from the paleolithic ideals of "Hunter/gatherer and childbearer". Socially women are on equal grounds with men. To demand that women think exactly like men is either A) Utopian and therefore doomed to fail, or B) pushing that women are still inferior to men on some level because they think differently.

I can't say I've read nearly as many books as many of you, so I am reserved to arguing on the biological/social grounds, and leave noting the differences between author X and author Y to those who have a larger Repertoire.

I must strongly disagree. Very strongly. Your comments about cliched interests of women might be true if we were talking about what I think of as "bimbo urban fantasy" - ala undead and unwed, the sookie stackhouse books anymore, etc, but it can hardly be said of Kelley Armstrong or Rachel Kaine's books (i'm not going to defend Kim Harrison nor LKH because they're is a vibe they share and I dislike both of their series). The only one I can think to even slightly apply it to is the most recent Kelley Armstrong book- but let's face it, Jaime is superficially a bimbo.

I agree with your concept of "Bimbo Urban Fantasy", having read Undead and Unwed (as well as Undead and Unemplyed, Undead and Unappreciated, and Undead and Unreturnable). I actually enjoyed MaryJanice Davidsons works because they were so gloriously Shallow in a genre that naturally carries a certain level of depth.

K.A.'s books seem much more realistic to me, with much more real characters. I love dresden to death, but let's face it, he... fits a mold, in a sense. He's a recognizable character. There aren't a ton of psychological layers there, but don't tell me he doesn't wallow in angst. And to a certain extent, it's necessary, because a good story will have drama and tension, and the characters will have feelings about things, otherwise it is quite, quite boring.

Dresden has some of the traits commonplace in the genre for sure. The whole "I have access to a lot of power, but I don't want it" is a pretty average flavor to books.

Please. This is ridiculous to the extreme. men and women do not have such disparate writing styles that you can make such claims.

I agree fully, but we're not talking about the writing style, more of the main characters P.O.V. in the world.

There isn't a clear-cut line between male and female leads, Unless of course you're comparing Undead and Unwed and, say... Gil's all Fright Diner by A. Lee Martinez.

One I've never seen used: "All this touchy-feely stuff was making my ass itch." If that doesn't catch your attention, nothing will.

I would politely ask your permission, as the creative owner of that line, if I may write something starting with that line 

I find it highly ironic that it's SAM FREAKIN' RAIMI who dropped that ball.

heh.. "Groovy"

Male or female isn't really the issue.  I just want to be able to relate.
Thanks for the advice. 

actually I have to admit a major factor that got me into Dresden was the fact that he's male.

Don't get me wrong or take me for a sexist. Even as a hip, modern, sensitive 21st century guy, there's a lot of things in books with a female lead I just have to take the authors word on.

With Dresden it's like "he's noticing a womans chest! I do that!!"