ParanetOnline
McAnally's (The Community Pub) => Author Craft => Topic started by: The Neuromancer on January 03, 2011, 10:49:28 PM
-
Does it make much of a difference? I figured that if it is a good story then the characters gender doesn't matter much but I have heard that most people prefer female characters.
What are your thoughts on this?
Btw, I am talking about the supernatural sci-fi genre.
-
I don't see exactly how gender matters as long as the story is entertaining and well written.
-
I don't think it's so much that people prefer female characters as much as most of the urban fantasy being written is by female authors, and most tend to use female characters.
-
I like a well written story no matter what the gender of the protagonist is.
What I don't like is when someone, not so frequent now, does a action type fantasy heroine that is obviously just a guy in a girl suit.
A strong woman does NOT have to be a , pardon the crudity, a ball less guy.
JB does great women characters. Another writer who did great women was James Schmidtz.
-
[rant powers activate!]
The question I would ask is which gender are you more comfortable being flawed? One of the big reasons I like JB is that male or female, all his characters are are flawed. It has become one of my pet peeves that in the past few years, nearly all the urban fantasy with female protagonists (and a LOT have female protagonists) she ends up being some sort of goddess (real or otherwise) who will always 'just happen' to have made all the right choices throughout both the book and her life to come together like a demented Rube Goldberg/M.C. Esher brainchild at the moment the villan finishes his/her/its monologe ('Oh! The muscley antiques dealer I have been passionately dating since chapter 2 gave me the key to the lost treasure of Shangra La as a secret santa present! Now I can send Davy Jones back to the land of dragons by combining it with the kitschy lamp I bought at a swap meet!')
This is by no means limited to female characters, but it seems decidedly more common than with male characters. Maybe it's just easier to imagine a guy having to work at it while his mistakes come back to bite him in the ass?
[rant over]
Personally, I don't read books to hear about how perfect the protagonist is; that's what video games are for. :)
-
Gender of protagonist is irrelevant to my enjoyment of a well crafted story.
If the protagonist is the way they are for a reason and the reason makes sense and is believably supported in-story it's all good.
I too have a few pet peeves - one of which Snowleopard put succinctly as "Guy in a girl-suit".
Guys and girls approaching everything in an identical manner or being fully harnessed into some kind of negative gender stereotype.
And [off topic] except for Stoker, Butcher, and one other author whose name escapes me right now, I sooo don't want to read - or even know about - yet another crappy/stupid vampire story of either gender at all, regardless of how 'sexy' or sparkly they may be.
-
^
What he said about vampires. I'm so ready to be done with vampires and zombies.
Sigh.
-
Well, the pretty vampires don't bother me so much as long as they are not a major part of every plot.
And yes, I agree with the "guy in a girl-suit" point, it is very annoying.
-
I agree with piotr1600, vampires are done.
Hero or Heroine it doesn't matter as long as the story, and characters have depth. Although I am still waiting for the Wookie as a hero story.
-
Depends on what you are more comfortable writing. I'm a pure novice so writing from a female perspective as a guy is something fairly foreign to me. I wouldn't trust myself at the moment to write a female character.
-
Wookie
*Wookiee
Pet peeve of mine.
Also, everyone always says vampires are done. At a small con I went to last March, Jim's editor was there and said that editors say they don't want vampire stories because they've been done and overdone. But they keep getting published because people keep buying them.
-
Also, everyone always says vampires are done. At a small con I went to last March, Jim's editor was there and said that editors say they don't want vampire stories because they've been done and overdone. But they keep getting published because people keep buying them.
It sucks when what sells isn't what's really good.
-
nt
Edited to remove content that may bring negativity to the boards.
-
A pet peeve of mine with female characters is that in a lot of cases the author (regardless of their gender) turns them into nymphos. one very clear example of this is the Anita Blake series. Started out with a good strong but humanly flawed character who is now nothing more than a whiny super being who has more sex than plot development. Sex is fine in a book but not at the expense of plot.
As for Vampires, I still like them but hate how they are being portrayed as tragic hero's fighting against their vile nature, most of the time they just come out as whiny little dicks. If your going to have a vampire as a hero then they shouldn't just forget that they are predatory beings. I imagine vampires as kind of like cats, not evil but a little sadistic.
-
I agree with you N86 - why can't a woman achieve something with more than just sex. Sigh.
Because I'd heard just this complaint about the Anita Blake tales - I've never gotten into them.
Would just irritate me.
Another thing, which JB does so well - is when he's doing a wise-assed, smart mouthed woman she's just that - a smart ass like Harry. Too many authors and people who do TV scripts when they write a smart assed woman she turns out to be bitchy not mouthy - and there is a great and obvious deference between the two.
-
What I don't like is when someone, not so frequent now, does a action type fantasy heroine that is obviously just a guy in a girl suit.
A strong woman does NOT have to be a , pardon the crudity, a ball less guy.
So, precisely what constitutes a guy in a girl suit ?
I hate, with a passion, stories that assume that some small subculture-specific set of gender roles are universals.
I picked a female POV for the current space-opera project because it felt easier to get in the ways that setting really is gender-egalitarian; a male character thinking so risks failing as being blind to ways in which it's not.
-
deleted
-
Anyone else reading MLN Hanover's Black Sun's Daughter series ? Third book is just out of a projected ten, and having done the inital setup it's becoming clear that there's something really interesting being done there with ways for a female character to be strong without being weaponised or an orgiast.
-
I agree with you N86 - why can't a woman achieve something with more than just sex. Sigh.
Because I'd heard just this complaint about the Anita Blake tales - I've never gotten into them.
Would just irritate me.
Another thing, which JB does so well - is when he's doing a wise-assed, smart mouthed woman she's just that - a smart ass like Harry. Too many authors and people who do TV scripts when they write a smart assed woman she turns out to be bitchy not mouthy - and there is a great and obvious deference between the two.
Lois McMaster Bujold's Cordelia Vorkosigan is a prime example of how to write a smartass, smartmouth and strong woman who isn't just bitchyness disguised as those qualities. Joss Whedon's brought a number of those to us well. Small wonder Jim enjoys both.
-
It sucks when what sells isn't what's really good.
That I can raise a glass to. :D
Although, to find a pony in the pooh, consider all the grist milled vampire books to be a gateway drug to the Good Stuff, introducing and leading a few more young minds to Dresdenoholism....
-
So, precisely what constitutes a guy in a girl suit ?
I hate, with a passion, stories that assume that some small subculture-specific set of gender roles are universals.
I picked a female POV for the current space-opera project because it felt easier to get in the ways that setting really is gender-egalitarian; a male character thinking so risks failing as being blind to ways in which it's not.
Hey, Neuro, good to see you back. A guy in a girl suit is some writer basically taking a male character and putting a female skin on it. The character acts like a male, thinks like a male, has the same strengths as a male, even is gross like some males but it's supposed to be female. You don't find so many of them now but in the past you'd run across them more. Put that character up against a true female character and you can see the difference immediately.
-
Hey, Neuro, good to see you back. A guy in a girl suit is some writer basically taking a male character and putting a female skin on it. The character acts like a male, thinks like a male, has the same strengths as a male,
I thought you meant something like that, I am just at a loss as to what counts as acting or thinking like a male in this context.
-
Okay, let me see if I can clarify. Usually the guy in a girl suit is done with female warriors.
A GiGS female warrior would charge blindly at a foe way bigger than she was and, because she's the heroine, manage to defeat said warrior without getting her ass kicked. A true female warrior would be way more wary of a bigger foe because she knows she can't take him on in brute strength - she has to use her head and any other resources.
A good one, if you saw the Conan movie with Red Sonja in it - when she, Conan, and his buddy are about the rob some tower.
She looks at the boys and says "Do you know what horrors lurk above?" When the boys basically signal no.
RS - "Then you go first!" And they do.
It's a mind set difference. It can be a bit stereotyped, but there is a difference in how men and women act and behave in certain circumstances. Look at Murphy, she's been trained in martial arts but she still knows to be wary of a bigger foe. Where as Kincaid is pretty much capable of running down a foe his size or bigger. (Discounting supernatural abilities)
-
I'm female and have been told I think like a man--most likely because I'm low-maintenance, take people at face value, and don't get all offended by bodily functions--but I have to say, I don't tend to think of those traits as specifically male, or atypical of women in general.
There are a few practical things that need to be kept in mind when writing about the sexes, such as differences in plumbing, upper body strength, dress(possibly), and so on, but I think the most important thing is to focus on the character's voice and what (s)he wants and is trying to accomplish in the story, rather than getting hung up on gender roles.
-
Its also good to think about the type of society that the characters come from. Sparta trained both its men and women to fight and while the men were considered superior in a lot of ways but they still acknowledged the strengths that women posses. However in the opposite cultural spectrum Amazons were essentially men with a breast (traditionally Amazons cut off one of their breasts to be able to shoot a bow better) and their men were complete wusses.
-
I'm female and have been told I think like a man--most likely because I'm low-maintenance, take people at face value, and don't get all offended by bodily functions--but I have to say, I don't tend to think of those traits as specifically male, or atypical of women in general.
There are a few practical things that need to be kept in mind when writing about the sexes, such as differences in plumbing, upper body strength, dress(possibly), and so on, but I think the most important thing is to focus on the character's voice and what (s)he wants and is trying to accomplish in the story, rather than getting hung up on gender roles.
It isn't so much getting caught up in gender roles as the GiGS characters don't 'read' right - they don't seem believable.
-
It isn't so much getting caught up in gender roles as the GiGS characters don't 'read' right - they don't seem believable.
I've read plenty of characters who didn't feel believable to me as human beings; I can't recall one who felt like they would be a believable male human being but were actually being presented as female, or indeed vice versa.
-
I've read plenty of characters who didn't feel believable to me as human beings; I can't recall one who felt like they would be a believable male human being but were actually being presented as female, or indeed vice versa.
They don't occur much anymore, Neuro, the writers have gotten smarter and probably gotten yelled at by both readers and editors.
-
They don't occur much anymore, Neuro, the writers have gotten smarter and probably gotten yelled at by both readers and editors.
I think I might still find this easier if you could point me at a specific example, because I can't recall one in older fiction any more than in contemporary.
-
I think I might still find this easier if you could point me at a specific example, because I can't recall one in older fiction any more than in contemporary.
I'll have to think on it, Neuro. I suspect that most of that kind of example has not been reprinted or has gone out of print.
-
A GiGS female warrior would charge blindly at a foe way bigger than she was and, because she's the heroine, manage to defeat said warrior without getting her ass kicked. A true female warrior would be way more wary of a bigger foe because she knows she can't take him on in brute strength - she has to use her head and any other resources.
Isn't this a bit of a double standard? (and by 'a bit,' I mean huge.)
Male action heroes routinely charge foes who are taller, more muscled, and just plan bigger than they are. Then the male hero wins and the audience goes along with it every time, despite the fact that said foe is always taller, bigger, stronger, etc. On a very base level, the audience expects the hero to bash through all obstacles, no matter how over matched he is.
But when a female hero charges a foe who is equally stronger than her as the male hero's opponent was to him... then it's completely unbelievable because she's not acting like a female. What?
You say the female warrior should step back and evaluate the situation and use it to her advantage. Sure, of course. But so should the male warrior. As a rule, heroes don't take on people who are smaller and weaker than they are - they take on people who are bigger and stronger, no matter their sex. The smarter ones win through resourcefulness, but there are countless male heroes who do it just by charging the larger opponent and winning anyway.
To break it down:
Male Warrior + Charge + Much Larger Opponent = A Win = Standard Procedure
versus
Female Warrior + Charge + Much Larger Opponent = A Win = Unbelievable Because There's No Way A Charge Against A Much Larger Opponent Could Work, And Anyway, She's Not Acting Like A Girl.
Brashness is not an exclusively male trait. Neither is the urge to fight. Trust me on this.
-
I'm reminded of a wretched pirate movie in which Gina Davis was a Touch Chick Pirate Princess Sort. I recall watching her run up to a big muscley tough pirate guy, grab his head between her hands and just snap his neck using only the strength of her chicken wing arms. That would be a movie example of Girl In A Guy Suit. (Not so much in the mental/psychological areas, rather the physical.) But it still turned the movie from "Bad Enough As It Is" to "Lord, They Just Made It Worse." On the average, men are larger and stronger. Sure, there's odd exception, like the nice Samoan girl in college who used giggle as she tossed my 6 foot 2 self around like a raggedy andy doll on the judo mat, but most women I outmass and outmuscle, and most couldn't take or deliver the hits I can. Physics is just generally unkind to the Smaller Object, unless that smaller object is smarter and gets the hell out of the wya. It's a tangible difference between the sexes. One of the things I love about Murphy is that she's written in a way that she doesn't try to be Gina Davis Neck Snapping Girl. She trains like hell, and in martial arts which don't try match her weaknesses against an enemy's strength. It's believable to read about her bending some thug in unnatural and amusing directions with akido, jiu-jistu and judo, rather than seeing her muscle up to a toe to to slugging match with Mike Tyson a la muay thai.
-
^
What he said. Thanks PG. I never saw the Gina Davis movie so didn't know about that scene. But oh so unbelievable. ::)
-
I'm reminded of a wretched pirate movie in which Gina Davis was a Touch Chick Pirate Princess Sort. I recall watching her run up to a big muscley tough pirate guy, grab his head between her hands and just snap his neck using only the strength of her chicken wing arms. That would be a movie example of Girl In A Guy Suit. (Not so much in the mental/psychological areas, rather the physical.) But it still turned the movie from "Bad Enough As It Is" to "Lord, They Just Made It Worse."
Uh huh. And it's not unbelievable when James Bond/Indiana Jones/whatever action hero you care to name takes on a mook twice as large as he is and wins? The point isn't that the smaller person easily taking down the larger person is unbelievable. The point is that it's a double standard.
Physics is just generally unkind to the Smaller Object, unless that smaller object is smarter and gets the hell out of the wya.
See above about Double Standards with larger opponents. It's never realistic, but male characters constantly get a free pass while female characters get "they're not acting like women."
-
Uh huh. And it's not unbelievable when James Bond/Indiana Jones/whatever action hero you care to name takes on a mook twice as large as he is and wins? The point isn't that the smaller person easily taking down the larger person is unbelievable. The point is that it's a double standard.
See above about Double Standards with larger opponents. It's never realistic, but male characters constantly get a free pass while female characters get "they're not acting like women."
No it's not particularly believable when a male hero takes on a ginormous opponent and beats them. However the audience is usually rooting so much for the good guy that they don't care.
Unfortunately the double standard exists in movies too.
-
For one thing, the physical difference usually isn't as great, between average guy and average mook as it is between average girl and average mook. Indy usually cheated, btw, by hitting the mook with things like an airplane propeller. And James Bond didn't fair to well either going toe to toe with Oddjob or Jaws. He always had to fight smarter too.
For another, in the real world against an average sized guy or gal, the mook is usually gonna win. Excepting those cases where the smaller object is smarter and is skilled enough to not match weakness against the enemy's strength.
-
For one thing, the physical difference usually isn't as great, between average guy and average mook as it is between average girl and average mook.
To this I would say -
For another, in the real world against an average sized guy or gal, the mook is usually gonna win.
-oh look, you already said it for me. ;D
The original argument was that some female characters (none actually specified, but moving on) were written in a way that made them read as not-female. The one example put forward for this not-femaleness was a situation where a female would charge a larger opponent and win, when in reality she should have gotten her head bashed in or some such.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what part of this scenario is not-female. Is it the part where she charges the opponent against all odds? Hm, I don't think so. Like I said above, brashness is not an exclusively male trait. Neither is foolhardiness, or desperation, or bravery, or sheer determination - all of which would be perfect motivators for such a charge.
Is it the winning part of the scenario? Again, I don't think so. Winning, in this case, doesn't depend on maleness or femaleness, or even strength - it depends on being unrealistic and on the needs of the story. If the fight happened in the real world with an average person against an average mook, then the average person would get their ass handed to them on a platter, no matter what their sex was.
You can't say that a woman taking down a larger mook is 'male' when a guy taking down a larger mook is equally unrealistic.
Which brings me back to the point. Just what actions make a female character read as not-female?
-
See I don't see the Gena Davis thing as an example of a badly written female but more an example of bad action in general. Is it worse that its a girl? Maybe a bit... but if a guy character had done the same it would have seemed equally as cheesy in my eyes.
There are other movies with awesome badass women like Resident Evil that don't come off as being that bad or cheesy. Not great cinema maybe... but it didn't strike me as being a "guy in a girl suit".
The pass I give to the Resident Evil movies (2-current) is that the main character had turned into a super hero(heroine) essentially so all the wall flips and awesome kicks to zombie heads didn't seem as unbelievable as they would have had she still been an ordinary human like she was in the first movie. But even then when she had to fight something bigger and stronger she did lots of evading and strategy rather than going straight brawler with it. And for the first half of the movie she just ran whenever she saw it. That was less about being a "girl" though and more about being a smart action hero.
-
To this I would say -
-oh look, you already said it for me. ;D
The original argument was that some female characters (none actually specified, but moving on) were written in a way that made them read as not-female. The one example put forward for this not-femaleness was a situation where a female would charge a larger opponent and win, when in reality she should have gotten her head bashed in or some such.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what part of this scenario is not-female. Is it the part where she charges the opponent against all odds? Hm, I don't think so. Like I said above, brashness is not an exclusively male trait. Neither is foolhardiness, or desperation, or bravery, or sheer determination - all of which would be perfect motivators for such a charge.
Is it the winning part of the scenario? Again, I don't think so. Winning, in this case, doesn't depend on maleness or femaleness, or even strength - it depends on being unrealistic and on the needs of the story. If the fight happened in the real world with an average person against an average mook, then the average person would get their ass handed to them on a platter, no matter what their sex was.
You can't say that a woman taking down a larger mook is 'male' when a guy taking down a larger mook is equally unrealistic.
Which brings me back to the point. Just what actions make a female character read as not-female?
I'm about to get slightly uncouth here so pardon.
If I read of a female character standing around scratching her (pardon) cr*tch, belching, and farting - and there was no realistic reason for her to be doing that. I'd think someone had just transfered a male character into a female skin.
Yes, a woman can be crass but usually in a different way than a guy. Men and women are the same but they also are very different. It's a paradox. It's on a case by case basis, Jeno. Some female warriors don't read any righter than the male ones, others read very true. Maybe it's not so much about what the character is written like as how I read the character. It could be a personal thing on my part.
-
If I read of a female character standing around scratching her (pardon) cr*tch, belching, and farting - and there was no realistic reason for her to be doing that.
Clearly you haven't spent a lot of time around drunk sorority girls or in a girls' dorm. :D
Men and women are the same but they also are very different.
And those differences are largely based on the gender roles of a society. A female in a business suit and running a company was extremely unwomanly - in 1950's America. Today? Not so much. The differences you're talking about aren't nearly as hard wired as you seem to think.
-
People in a dorm or barracks of either gender generally don't act the same way out on the street as they do in an enclosed environment. It's the difference between being at home in your living room and in the mall food court. Most everybody behaves differently in public, or at least puts on pants and (hopefully) doesn't keep sticking their hands down them for no good reason.
Whether the emotional and intellectual differences between genders result from genetic hardware, cultural software, or a bit of both... they do still exist. As do the basic concepts of masculinity and femininity, again taking culture and setting into account. A good writer can make a strong, female character like Murphy, or Zoe from Firefly, and depict that strength of will and martial prowess without having to rely upon masculine mannerisms to do so, like some sort of surface decal to show "Toughness." Just as a male can be depicted as being sensitive and thoughtful without making him effeminate (Captain Jack Harkness or Ethen from Ethan of Athos.) Outside a book where the culture's gender roles and mannerisms are intentionally different, or the author is actually intending to address gender traits and roles, I personally regard reliance on swapping out gender mannerisms as a cliche. The old "I'll make her pick her nose, swear and grab her crotch to show that she can kick ass" is for people who can't write a character like Cordelia Vorkosigan.
-
I'm about to get slightly uncouth here so pardon.
If I read of a female character standing around scratching her (pardon) cr*tch, belching, and farting - and there was no realistic reason for her to be doing that. I'd think someone had just transfered a male character into a female skin.
Yes, a woman can be crass but usually in a different way than a guy. Men and women are the same but they also are very different. It's a paradox. It's on a case by case basis, Jeno. Some female warriors don't read any righter than the male ones, others read very true. Maybe it's not so much about what the character is written like as how I read the character. It could be a personal thing on my part.
i have to disagree with this statement because i know several girls who are more crude than a lot of the guys i know doing all the a fore mentioned actions regularity and with great gusto. the odd thing is that they still maintained a feminine attitude for the most part as well. the pot tom line is that people are gross no matter their gender. lol
I really need to read all the posts before i reply
Paynesgrey: I could not have said it better myself. there are key differences between men and women that are rooted into their genetics. yest a women can be stronger than a man, i know several that are, but on average a women will have less muscle mass than men, that's just biology. Women also store calories more efficiently than men, they need those calories for mothering healthy babies, and thus loose weight at a slower rate.
yes there are lots of social concepts that are imposed on women, and men for that matter, that predetermine their roles in society and yes it sucks but they do exist and do influence how your audience is going view your characters. if your characters aren't relate able to your readers then they just aren't going to want to read your book.
-
i have to disagree with this statement because i know several girls who are more crude than a lot of the guys i know doing all the a fore mentioned actions regularity and with great gusto. the odd thing is that they still maintained a feminine attitude for the most part as well. the pot tom line is that people are gross no matter their gender. lol
Note I said - if there was no realistic reason for her to be. Yes, I know girls can be just as crude as guys - it depends on the time and place. As PG said, if the writer just defaults to that to make the character seem like one of the guys then it doesn't read right.
Murphy doesn't do that and none of the cops she works with think any the less of her.
-
I'm about to get slightly uncouth here so pardon.
If I read of a female character standing around scratching her (pardon) cr*tch, belching, and farting - and there was no realistic reason for her to be doing that. I'd think someone had just transfered a male character into a female skin.
Being polite and civilised is female-specific ?
I don't, myself, find either polite male characters or crude female ones to read as poorly constructed for their gender. I can easily envision contexts in which characters of either sex could plausibly come out pretty much anywhere on that continuum, particularly given the way expectations of politeness vary in different strata of society, different parts of the world etc.
-
Being polite and civilised is female-specific ?
I don't, myself, find either polite male characters or crude female ones to read as poorly constructed for their gender. I can easily envision contexts in which characters of either sex could plausibly come out pretty much anywhere on that continuum, particularly given the way expectations of politeness vary in different strata of society, different parts of the world etc.
No, being polite and civilized is not female-specific. And as I said - again - if there's no specific reason for a female to be crude - it's lazy writing on the part of the author.
-
As long as the writer is giving enough motivation for the character's actions I don't care about the gender choice.
When it comes to action sequences, I've not read any that were badly done for a character doing something he or she obviously couldn't really do unless you count having super powers but like this /is/ fantasy/scifi.
There are even exceptions to gender roles within cultures in our own history (a female ruler in a time where females had no political power, Queens, Joan of Arc, Saints), so even if a writer sets up a universe where males are only used for snoo snoo, but then have one who owns a bar or something, that wouldn't really bother me as long as we got to hear the backstory of why he's an exception (like maybe his brew is a family recipe and he just happened to be born male).
But if you want an example of a heroine who has no doubts and just rushes into the fray alongside a hero who second guesses, is supremely cautious, and even hides behind the heroine occasionally, try Boneshaker. And after you do, reconsider if gender really matters.
-
It's not so much "gender matters" as it is about when an author uses cheap tropes (burping, farting cussing) to depict a heroine as being strong and badass, rather writing well enough to depict her as strong without simply draping "masculine" cliche behavior on her.
-
It's not so much "gender matters" as it is about when an author uses cheap tropes (burping, farting cussing) to depict a heroine as being strong and badass, rather writing well enough to depict her as strong without simply draping "masculine" cliche behavior on her.
My point is that I don't really see how our culture's cliches and tropes are translatable to fiction. With proper writing and worldbuilding you can make a woman who burps and farts and cusses a badass all you like.
-
One instance, though I don't recall where it's from, is a short chick being sized up by a bunch of over muscular military type guys and proving she's tough by lifting more weight than the guys can. Or something like that. I forget the specifics. Not sure where this was going--snow shoveling makes brain go splodey.
-
Sounds like skin trade. Anita Blake. She impressed some SWAT guys in Vegas by benching twice her weight. This is fine though because she is this living vampire, werebeast, necromancer hybrid. Simply put, she has super powers.
Any ways, it sounds to me like the main problem is not so much gender roles but the reason why a character acts the way he or she does. A female character can have all of the stereotypical masculine traits but it is unbelievable if there isn't a reason for it.
-
So what counts as an acceptable reason?
-
This would be a good one... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRUx88vRjIk)
Or at least it looks like a well thought out reason for someone female and small being badass.
-
No, being polite and civilized is not female-specific. And as I said - again - if there's no specific reason for a female to be crude - it's lazy writing on the part of the author.
Are you counting "this particular character happens to be both crude and female because that's how their personality is" as plausible reason here ?
-
Does it make much of a difference? I figured that if it is a good story then the characters gender doesn't matter much but I have heard that most people prefer female characters.
What are your thoughts on this?
Btw, I am talking about the supernatural sci-fi genre.
Getting back on topic.....
I would have to say that gender has a pretty big effect on character motivation and choice of action.
Example:
Male fighter protagonist gets knocked out, and is locked up in a room with his hands tied togehter. The man will evaluate where he is, and begin trying to escape.
Female fighter protagonist gets knocked out and is locked up in a room with her hands tied together. The FIRST thing that pops into her head is "holy crap someone could rape me" This particular situation for a woman is more emotionally intense and the need to espace is higher than it would be for a male character. I am NOT saying that all bad guys will inherently rape women, I'm just saying that women will always have this fear when in a situation like this. When tied up and unable to get free, a woman will not make snide remarks or do anything to further increase her danger or helplessness.
Another example.
women in real life often have to be much better at something to get the same respect that a man gets who is less skilled, especially in male dominated fields. This may have the effect of women being "bitchy" or even assuming an overly masculine persona in order to fit in and gain more respect. On top of that, the way a woman dresses effects how people will treat her.
Real world examples:
at my prom 3 guys were talking about aerodynamics and couldn't understand a concept. I walked over (and being incredibly nerdy) explained and expanded upon the conversation. They stared at me, and then laughed. While one of them said, "I can't take you seriously when you're dressed up like that" While in a t-shirt and jeans, my thouhts were valid, but putting on a dress took away any intellectual equality I had with my peers, as all they saw was a girl in a dress.
In college I worked in a unix lab. I had wired up all the compuers, set up the software and periferals, and my job after that was to simply be lab monitor and help people who needed help. I cannot tell you how frustraiting it was dealing with guys who didn't think I knew what I was talking about. They would try to "test" me with questions, argue with everything I said or ask to talk to my boss, who was male, and who would tell them the EXACT thing I had just told them. Then there were the guys would make passes at me or make general comments like, "chicks who program are hot"... But the WORST were when a guy would come up to me and ask me to help them with GUI asthetics because "girls are good at that"
I had to work MUCH harder than my male counter parts to get respect and notice at my job, and ended up using either humor or dry remarks to get through the day. (I will say that there were also guys who took my position at face value and treated me like they would a male lab monitor, so it wasn't ALL the guys in the lab who were being rediculous. I greatly appreciated being treated equally. BUT the fact that there were so many guys treating me differently was annoying at best)
In any case, I think women are more cautious (from a saftey stand point, they have to be, and it IS part of our culture) Also in real life, women are victims of violence more than men, by virtue that violent people will go after someone they PERCIEVE is smaller or more helpless (probably why most mooks are big guys, a smaller guy is not gonna attack the hero headon with confidence)
Another thing to consider is sex. (the act, not male/female) Sex is riskier for women than men. Women can get pregnant, and unlike men, they will be forced to deal with that consequence directly. Women can get hurt during sex far easier than men (again not saying this is the man's fault or that it even happens on purpose. An incompetant lover can be just as dangerous as one with a weird fetish) Women are in a more vulnerable position with sex, etc. Women will be more discerning with who they will sleep with, even promiscuous women, and they will take into account a guy's personality and behavior along with his looks.
Even when women KNOW they are smarter or a better fighter, they are not just fighting against the bad guy's idea about how women are, they also have the reader, and their own doubts and fears to deal with. Women will react more strongly to certain situations than men will by virtue of their gender.
I think that gender is important in how you write a character. In this post I just mentioned the effects on female characters, but you can certainly do the same with males.
-
Getting back on topic.....
I would have to say that gender has a pretty big effect on character motivation and choice of action.
Example:
Male fighter protagonist gets knocked out, and is locked up in a room with his hands tied togehter. The man will evaluate where he is, and begin trying to escape.
Female fighter protagonist gets knocked out and is locked up in a room with her hands tied together. The FIRST thing that pops into her head is "holy crap someone could rape me" This particular situation for a woman is more emotionally intense and the need to espace is higher than it would be for a male character. I am NOT saying that all bad guys will inherently rape women, I'm just saying that women will always have this fear when in a situation like this. When tied up and unable to get free, a woman will not make snide remarks or do anything to further increase her danger or helplessness.
Another example.
women in real life often have to be much better at something to get the same respect that a man gets who is less skilled, especially in male dominated fields. This may have the effect of women being "bitchy" or even assuming an overly masculine persona in order to fit in and gain more respect. On top of that, the way a woman dresses effects how people will treat her.
Real world examples:
at my prom 3 guys were talking about aerodynamics and couldn't understand a concept. I walked over (and being incredibly nerdy) explained and expanded upon the conversation. They stared at me, and then laughed. While one of them said, "I can't take you seriously when you're dressed up like that" While in a t-shirt and jeans, my thouhts were valid, but putting on a dress took away any intellectual equality I had with my peers, as all they saw was a girl in a dress.
In college I worked in a unix lab. I had wired up all the compuers, set up the software and periferals, and my job after that was to simply be lab monitor and help people who needed help. I cannot tell you how frustraiting it was dealing with guys who didn't think I knew what I was talking about. They would try to "test" me with questions, argue with everything I said or ask to talk to my boss, who was male, and who would tell them the EXACT thing I had just told them. Then there were the guys would make passes at me or make general comments like, "chicks who program are hot"... But the WORST were when a guy would come up to me and ask me to help them with GUI asthetics because "girls are good at that"
I had to work MUCH harder than my male counter parts to get respect and notice at my job, and ended up using either humor or dry remarks to get through the day. (I will say that there were also guys who took my position at face value and treated me like they would a male lab monitor, so it wasn't ALL the guys in the lab who were being rediculous. I greatly appreciated being treated equally. BUT the fact that there were so many guys treating me differently was annoying at best)
In any case, I think women are more cautious (from a saftey stand point, they have to be, and it IS part of our culture) Also in real life, women are victims of violence more than men, by virtue that violent people will go after someone they PERCIEVE is smaller or more helpless (probably why most mooks are big guys, a smaller guy is not gonna attack the hero headon with confidence)
Another thing to consider is sex. (the act, not male/female) Sex is riskier for women than men. Women can get pregnant, and unlike men, they will be forced to deal with that consequence directly. Women can get hurt during sex far easier than men (again not saying this is the man's fault or that it even happens on purpose. An incompetant lover can be just as dangerous as one with a weird fetish) Women are in a more vulnerable position with sex, etc. Women will be more discerning with who they will sleep with, even promiscuous women, and they will take into account a guy's personality and behavior along with his looks.
Even when women KNOW they are smarter or a better fighter, they are not just fighting against the bad guy's idea about how women are, they also have the reader, and their own doubts and fears to deal with. Women will react more strongly to certain situations than men will by virtue of their gender.
I think that gender is important in how you write a character. In this post I just mentioned the effects on female characters, but you can certainly do the same with males.
This is all true in real life, but in a fictional story, if the setting implies that women /aren't/ necessarily the weaker sex (due to political traditions or some equalizer like magic) then I don't think that a heroine is necessarily inclined to be more cautious or afraid of rape. Also, some women are naturally very atheltic and muscular, (I'm thinking of some of the athletes I knew in HS), and I don't think they went around with a higher sense of caution than their male counterparts.
I'm sorry that you had a lot of bad experiences in Academia as a female, but I think you'd be surprised at how the climate has changed since then. I majored in math (graduated in 2007) and was never treated as lower than a peer to my classmates (75% of which were males). I was treated with equality in all my classes, too, not just Math. But then again I didn't foray into CS much. I took discrete math and was one of the three or so people who had thier book open and could therefore answer the prof and interact in discussions, so I don't know for sure if /that/ was why I was treated equally or not. In any case, I like to think that the sexism of even 10 years ago has abated quite a lot.
-
This is all true in real life, but in a fictional story, if the setting implies that women /aren't/ necessarily the weaker sex (due to political traditions or some equalizer like magic) then I don't think that a heroine is necessarily inclined to be more cautious or afraid of rape. Also, some women are naturally very atheltic and muscular, (I'm thinking of some of the athletes I knew in HS), and I don't think they went around with a higher sense of caution than their male counterparts.
I'm sorry that you had a lot of bad experiences in Academia as a female, but I think you'd be surprised at how the climate has changed since then. I majored in math (graduated in 2007) and was never treated as lower than a peer to my classmates (75% of which were males). I was treated with equality in all my classes, too, not just Math. But then again I didn't foray into CS much. I took discrete math and was one of the three or so people who had thier book open and could therefore answer the prof and interact in discussions, so I don't know for sure if /that/ was why I was treated equally or not. In any case, I like to think that the sexism of even 10 years ago has abated quite a lot.
LOL I graduated last year..... but anyways :D
I would NEVER say that women are the weaker sex. I just think that men and women, either by virtue of society or physicality have different strengths and weaknesses which in turn change the way each genger reacts to certain situations. (not bad or good, just different) The only way to write a woman or man realistically is to take these into account.
A character should be one gender or another for a reason beyond being bed buddies, so if an author chooses to make the main character a woman, why did he/she make that choice? If the gender of the main character doesn't matter, why not write them so they have an ambiguous gender? (actually, that would be kinda fun to attempt...)
I think maybe reading up on the psychology of gender would be useful:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/gender
(I would stick with actual psychological research and stay away from feminist sociological papers...)
Women are smaller and have less muscle mass than men. Of course this is not 100% the case, but in general this is true. Being smaller has an affect on the way you react to others. Humans have an instinctual fear/caution about others who are larger or seemingly more aggressive than themselves. This is true for men and women. BUT since most women are smaller than half the population (males), this affects their psychology more than a shortist man who is still taller than some men and most women. (my BF is 6' 6" and all my freinds were afriad of him before they got to know him... ><) On the opposite side, a really large man may behave overly friendly and gentle (big teddy bear) in order to better get along with people, or a really tall man may try to use his size to intimidate people when really he hates to get into confrontations.
Then building upon that, you could say that because people have these tendancies about someone with a particular physical attribute, a stereotype or even cultural standard was created so that most people will see a woman as way less threatening than a man, and women will have to be overly aggressive to intimidate others. NONE of that has anything whatsoever to do with actual power, but percieved power. A small woman may very well be a great warrior, but people upon first glance will still fear the big teddy bear first.
If in your fantasy world, women are bigger and stronger than men, you STILL have to take into account that women carry pregnancies, breast feed (and hence have a child nearby) and possibly menstruate. (lots of people pretend this doesn't exist...LOL) This matters because menstruation and pregnancy make a woman more physically vulnerable and also makes her have to rely more on others. Having children nearby means they need to be more cautious. In preparation for this, even as younger kids, females are are pushed to be more social and have closer ties to their friends (which can also cause lots of drama...). Female relationships are nothing like male ones (like sister/sister or friends, etc) The reason this is important is because a big, stronge, powerful woman, no matter how powerful and undefeatable, is still at some point in her life vulnerable, wereas a big stronge powerful man may not have limitations on his physical prowless or percieved strength until he gets old or really sick.
You could certainly have the guys giving birth, but then you've pretty much made women into men with breasts....
I guess that my arguement is that gender does play a big role in how men and women behave and react to different situations and also how others treat them. No matter how egalatarian a society is, there will be differences due to this. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but gender deffinently shapes how a character behaves and how a character should be written.
The best advice I could give on checking to see if you've written a man or woman well in a work, is to write some paragraphs of the character doing things, and take away all gender ques like he/she and male or female names. (sam, alex and lee are all pretty gender neutral) Then have someone else read it. Most people will be able to say what gender they think the character is. Try doing this with a favorite book in which you think the genders are well written. Its a pretty interesting excersize.
Just for fun:
If I were argueing that gender is a social contruct and sex doesn't affect behavior, I'd bring up transgendered persons who are male or female bodied but feel they have a different gendered mind (but that also brings up the question of what makes a mind male or female?)
I would also point out differences in women between cultures (japanese women and american women are one of my favorite contrasts) Japanese women are not as outwardly emotional and japanese men do have close ties to each other. :D
I think this is just really interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)
the breeching of boys but not girls would have probably had an effect on girls growing up at that time (the change of dress was a special event for boys, and calling a man unbreeched was an insult)
-
BUT since most women are smaller than half the population(males), this affects their psychology more than a shortist man who is still taller than some men and most women.
This? Not true. I don't know why whenever these gender discussions come up everyone seems to forget short and average sized men exist. The average height of a male in the US is between 5'8 and 5'9. The average height of women in the US is between 5'4 and 5'5. In countries where there is significant malnutrition, height for both genders tends to hover around the 5 foot mark.
But again, these numbers are averages. Meaning half of the male population in any country you go to is going to be relatively even in height with half of the female population. Think of it as overlapping bell curves. There are more people of both genders inside of the overlap than there are outside of it. And any given individual inside of that bell curve is just as likely to be shorter, taller or the same height as any other individual, male or female.
If in your fantasy world, women are bigger and stronger than men, you STILL have to take into account that women carry pregnancies, breast feed (and hence have a child nearby) and possibly menstruate. (lots of people pretend this doesn't exist...LOL) This matters because menstruation and pregnancy make a woman more physically vulnerable and also makes her have to rely more on others. Having children nearby means they need to be more cautious.
Er...what? So once they're past puberty, every woman ever is pregnant 24/7? And if she's not pregnant, then she's on her period which makes her more vulnerable? And all sexually mature woman must have at least one kid hanging onto her skirts?
When a woman becomes pregnant (IF she becomes pregnant), it is for nine months, not the rest of her life. If she delivers the kid, then the problem becomes what to do with it. Today, most women wean and raise their own children, but most upperclass women in history handed the baby off to a whet nurse and a bevy of nannies and then got on with their lives. Women in tribal or clan societies left their kids with all the other kids of the group and then went off to do their jobs.
But the people we're talking about in this discussion are female warriors. I don't know about you, but if I were a female warrior, in any time or country, I wouldn't be thinking about popping out a bunch of kids. Women have used various forms of contraceptives since the dawn of freaking time, though some worked better than others. Pregnancy isn't an issue if she doesn't get pregnant.
As for menstruation making you more vulnerable...how? The only thing I could think of that you're referring to are maybe cramps, but not all women get those. Does it make her less able to pick up and use a sword/gun/weapon? Does it cloud her thinking? Her reaction times? What?
In preparation for this, even as younger kids, females are are pushed to be more social and have closer ties to their friends (which can also cause lots of drama...). Female relationships are nothing like male ones (like sister/sister or friends, etc).
That is a cultural thing and if you're working in any kind of alternate world, you can change that or play with societal expectations. You said yourself that there's a lot of variation on this even in the modern world.
The reason this is important is because a big, stronge, powerful woman, no matter how powerful and undefeatable, is still at some point in her life vulnerable, wereas a big stronge powerful man may not have limitations on his physical prowless or percieved strength until he gets old or really sick.
...do you mean to say women, at some definite point in their lives, are always going to be physically vulnerable? Or emotionally vulnerable? Because it is in fact possible for a woman to chose to never have kids. I'd think a female warrior, specifically, is more likely to go down this route than other women. And even if she does get pregnant, it's only for nine months. After that period of time her physical vulnerability is gone. Her emotional vulnerability is a different story.
But that emotionally vulnerability is not something female-specific. Children are as much of a weakness to fathers as they are to mothers. In some cultures fathers have more of an emotional vulnerability where their children are concerned.
-
LOL I graduated last year..... but anyways :D
Thats bizarre. I see you're also in Texas. I'm going to bet you went to either A&M or TT.
I want to know if I'm right :P
-
I think this is just really interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)
the breeching of boys but not girls would have probably had an effect on girls growing up at that time (the change of dress was a special event for boys, and calling a man unbreeched was an insult)
That is really intersting but for a different reason in my perspective: If we still dressed little boys in dresses and didn't let them wear 'breeches' until they were potty trained (2 or 3) then I bet it'd be a hell of a lot easier to potty train them.
But to the topic:
I stand by my former point: So much of gender difference is culture related or politically traditional. If you build a world where your main character is a woman with political/physical/magical prowess over a majority of the population (not all or that would be a boring heroine) then gender differences really fade. Males and females both in that position would be equally obligated to reproduce if political tradition required it. They'd both be equally motivated to avoid caring for children if they were wandering warriors. Neither would be particularly fearful of their lives, being confident in their power. Yes if you wrote a bathroom scene / sex scene it would need to be adjusted between the sexes, but not too much. In fantasy, you get a lot more leeway on gender behavior than you do in historical fiction or even regular fiction.
-
@Aludra I went to Oberlin College Actually... in Ohio. I could have gone to harvard, but Oberlin was cheaper and more fun. :D
Er...what? So once they're past puberty, every woman ever is pregnant 24/7? And if she's not pregnant, then she's on her period which makes her more vulnerable? And all sexually mature woman must have at least one kid hanging onto her skirts?
When a woman becomes pregnant (IF she becomes pregnant), it is for nine months, not the rest of her life. If she delivers the kid, then the problem becomes what to do with it. Today, most women wean and raise their own children, but most upperclass women in history handed the baby off to a whet nurse and a bevy of nannies and then got on with their lives. Women in tribal or clan societies left their kids with all the other kids of the group and then went off to do their jobs.
But the people we're talking about in this discussion are female warriors. I don't know about you, but if I were a female warrior, in any time or country, I wouldn't be thinking about popping out a bunch of kids. Women have used various forms of contraceptives since the dawn of freaking time, though some worked better than others. Pregnancy isn't an issue if she doesn't get pregnant.
As for menstruation making you more vulnerable...how? The only thing I could think of that you're referring to are maybe cramps, but not all women get those. Does it make her less able to pick up and use a sword/gun/weapon? Does it cloud her thinking? Her reaction times? What?
I didn't say women had to be pregnant ALL the time. Or even EVER get pregnant. But the fact that you CAN affects the way people behave and how others treat you. And besides that, its totally possible for people to get pregnant unintentionally... The contraceptives of the past were dangerous, and even life threatening to the women involved. I suppose you use have a magic spell or potion to cover that, but the fact remains that that is an action and consequence the woman has to be thinking about, and not the guy.
And giving birth to a kid is NOT just a 9 month sacrifice.... Your "junk" down there gets all kinds of messed up. Bleed for at least a month straight, tearing, inconstinance, excess fat, muscle strenght in the core is non-exsistant.... then there are complications like fistulas, infection (infection of the uterus after birth is VERY high in non-industrial places and is a very big killer of women) Not to mention boobs are leaking milk all over... Many women NEVER recover their bodies afterward, and most celebrities have surgery after having a kid.
If you are really younge, menstruation may not bother you as much, but it only gets worse as you age...
The problem is NOT just a few cramps... I mean, cramps are awful, so is pain in the stomach and legs or lower back, hot flashes, shifts in insulin level which cause dips in blood sugar (means either food cravings or fainting) headaches, bloating...and many women are stuck in bed for a day or two from their periods. (mine keep me in bed for a week because I get migraines ><) Then there is the blood loss itself, which causes lower blood pressure and potentially fainting if the chick is moving around too much. You also have less nutrients and red blood cells, so the body will have less energy. There is also anemia (low hemoglobin in blood caused by bleeding every month) anemia causes lower oxygen in the blood, fatigue, and if it gets really bad can affect the heart. (that happened to me when I was 16)
BUT the other problem with periods... is the mess. Many women in 3rd world countries TODAY don't go to school after they hit puberty. There are no toilets or running water or disposable pads. Women who work in the farms just let the blood run down to the earth so it's not a huge issue there, but if you have no way to keep the mess under control it causes problems, and then if a women uses unsteril rags she can get infections up there... you can't just wash up in the germ infested river. (these issues are probably why you almost NEVER read about menstruation in stories...people just pretend that it doesn't exist. I for one REALLY want to know how star trek women dealt with the issue...)
The fact that women DO have to deal with pain and vulerability, the fact that they have to deal with the issue of pregnancy (Do I want kids? when, how, who with? If I don't want them, how do I prevent it?) I think greatly affects the psyche of being female. If you are used to adapting to those things, and having to rely on others more often than many male's might, it affects how the person behaves and thinks.
I think a lot of "gender neutrall" characters are written with a male psyche. In most modern earth cultures, male is the standard behavior/way of thinking, while female is different or unstandard. I would love to see more female characters written as women, 'cus there is nothing wrong, or weak about being feminine.
This is pretty fun to play around with: http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php
I apparently write like a chick. LOL I really wonder what their word list looks like for this.
-
Male fighter protagonist gets knocked out, and is locked up in a room with his hands tied togehter. The man will evaluate where he is, and begin trying to escape.
Female fighter protagonist gets knocked out and is locked up in a room with her hands tied together. The FIRST thing that pops into her head is "holy crap someone could rape me"
In a contemporary setting, yes.
Having the reactions of male and female characters in that situation not be what you would expect in a contemporary setting is a way of getting in clues that the setting you are writing about works differently.
(I've just last night written a scene where the female POV character has been knocked out and wakes up tied up, and her first reactions go "I'm still alive so somebody has reason not to kill me outright just yet; test my bonds, whoever tied me up is competent; there's nothing lying around the room that could help me escape so the people who've abducted me aren't idiots; they've left me my clothes so they're not trying to make me feel vulnerable that way; the room is reasonably warm so they're not trying to break down my resistance through hypothermia.")
-
If in your fantasy world, women are bigger and stronger than men, you STILL have to take into account that women carry pregnancies, breast feed (and hence have a child nearby) and possibly menstruate.
Or you could just, you know, look at the sort of ways medical tech advances and availability affect gender relations in history and expand it into an SFnal future where these fundamental issues are very different. See for example Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series, which does rather a lot of interesting stuff with the social consequences arising from it becoming technically possible and then culturally standard to bring children to term in uterine replicators rather than in women's bodies.
-
In Bujold's work, those issues are part of the overall theme and are a key element in her worldbuilding. For a book which isn't aiming at gender issues or simply isn't taking the worldbuilding in that sort of direction the old gender/pregnancy issues still apply. Whether it's a necessary or even useful to eliminate those matters depends entirely on whether or not the author is interested in going that direction or not. If the story takes them there, great. If not, why bother?
-
If the story takes them there, great. If not, why bother?
I agree entirely, but to my mind, if one is creating a non-mimetic world for an SF or fantasy setting, not changing those things is every bit as much of an active choice as changing them; I am inclined to think the "why bother?" cuts both ways.
-
Boils down to "is this useful for telling the story" and/or "does it add to the world the author is interesting in building, does it take that world in a direction the author wants or even cares about?"
-
"Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series, which does rather a lot of interesting stuff with the social consequences arising from it becoming technically possible and then culturally standard to bring children to term in uterine replicators rather than in women's bodies."
Pregnancy does not fit into my lifestyle at all (medical issues + loss of productive advancement in carreer), so I plan to adopt if/when I decide to have kids. But if that tech were available now, I'd totally use it when the time came ;D
-
Preach it. That's one piece of "future tech" I'd love to see sooner rather than later.