# Gender Stereotypes and Tropes which I strongly dislike



## valiant12 (Dec 4, 2015)

I realised that in my stories there at least 200 men (most of them are red shirts , mooks and random scumbags) killed "on screen" for every killed woman. And that is not including the pointless civil war arc that im writing at the moment. Turns out that there is a trope that describe this Men Are the Expendable Gender - TV Tropes  I honestly dislike this.  How to fix my ''all men must die problem''?

Another thing that I dislike  is how few  female inventors/scientise there are in fiction..I know so many smart women and I think they deserve more representation. Game of thrones is guilty of that - the Maesters are all men.
And there are too few female  generals ,philosophers , religious leaders.
The majorority of  adicts , homeless people , domestic abusers and psychopaths are usually depicted as male. 
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-equation/201205/female-psychopaths


Which is your least favorite gender stereotype ?


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Dec 4, 2015)

I'm not sure that GoT is deserving of the criticizm you've levied against it. In that world it makes sense that the Maesters are all men, and that men are killed more since they face the brunt of the fighting. I don't hate stereotypes as a _per se_ matter. I think if characters or books have a stereotypical element that is properly addressed I would have a problem with it, like GoT for example. Now, when a person starts using stereotypes to reinforce negative perceptions of a race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation that is when I have a problem with the stereotype.


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 4, 2015)

valiant12 said:
			
		

> How to fix my ''all men must die problem''?



The simple answer would be to make more of your red shirt characters women, make more of your mooks and random scumbags women. Don't always assume that these background characters have to be men.

As for my least favourite gender tropes, I would just say simple androcentrism, the assumption that a character is male unless explained to be female. The fact that almost all red shirt background characters are male. Basically, it's just the way in which a bigger deal is put on female characters than on males.


----------



## valiant12 (Dec 4, 2015)

> I'm not sure that GoT is deserving of the criticizm you've levied against it. In that world it makes sense that the Maesters are all men, and that men are killed more since they face the brunt of the fighting



I'm not criticizing GoT for the deaths.


----------



## glutton (Dec 4, 2015)

I don't like the stereotype that a 'strong' female character especially a fighter type has to be overly aggressive. There's nothing wrong with an aggressive character in itself if there's a reason for it or it's just a natural part of their personality, but a lot of time it seems like the character is depicted as aggressive just to 'show' that they're strong - eg. having a huge chip on their shoulder, being violent towards other (usually male) characters for petty reasons, and just generally acting like a bully and/or tryhard. That certainly isn't a requirement to be strong, I usually prefer the more laid back badass who's confident and secure enough in their abilities that they don't feel a need to constantly flaunt it.

Just walk around all chill dragging around that 7 ft hammer on your cart and bash a Godzilla sized monster once in a while with it when needed. XD


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 4, 2015)

I dislike disliking cliche simply because its cliche. Many cliches and stereotypes exist for a reason. Breaking them is fine, of course, if it fits the story, but breaking a cliche or stereotype for the sake of it is... well... cliche. Realistic to the world is key.


----------



## indonesiancat (Dec 5, 2015)

The only way to really work this out is to put alot of women in the mook army or not have mook armies at all. The reason we are usually so disturbed by violence or murder against women is because they are generally not able to defend themselves in these situation. For instance, when male civilians are just massacred without reason, we also tend to react with disgust.

Especially if there is some form of establishment of the guy as a decent fellow and not just another mook. So, if we are to make men non-expendable, keeping civil wars out of it is a very good idea. Either that, or you simply make sure the impact of death really makes the reader feel something. When the battle goes on, it is one thing, but after the fight is over, show the guys who are dying on the field crying in pain and make the readers really feel that this is a situation of thorough despair.

As for women in the higher areas of this, it's really just limited to your fantasy and the type of world you want to build. Is it a society in which women are subservient to men? Then it wouldn't make much sense for women to be working in those fields. But fantasy is only limited by your own imagination. My only suggestion is that if you bring about a society in which gender issues simply don't exist, you really need to think through why that is. I always try to figure out the contrasts when I'm writing about a new culture and why my decisions would make sense.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 5, 2015)

valiant12 said:


> Another thing that I dislike  is how few  female inventors/scientise there are in fiction..I know so many smart women and I think they deserve more representation. Game of thrones is guilty of that - the Maesters are all men.



The maesters are all men because it's a patriarchal society. Women pursuing higher education would be unrealistic.

There's also the issue that, genetically and on average, men have better spatial reasoning skills, which allows them to do better (again, on average) at things like engineering, building, shipwright planning, so on. Fantasy reflecting this fact is just realism. In the real world, women have every option to become, say, hydraulic engineers. They don't. At least, not often. Women, though, do have better language and communications skills. Thus, seeing them involved in religion, politics, or being influential writers in fantasy worlds, this would be more realistic than having them design a new type of trebuchet.

However, that's only on average. It isn't true 100% of the time. It's up to you to decide on how many percents of the time it's untrue is realistic. Readers will loose interest if you rob the sexes of their differences, however.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 5, 2015)

indonesiancat said:


> The only way to really work this out is to put alot of women in the mook army or not have mook armies at all. The reason we are usually so disturbed by violence or murder against women is because they are generally not able to defend themselves in these situation. For instance, when male civilians are just massacred without reason, we also tend to react with disgust.



It's also biology. Men, or most of them under normal circumstances, are genetically programmed to sympathize more with women than they are with men, especially young women and girls. The reasons for this should be obvious. Men who were less protective of women ended up seeing a lot more of their women die, and thus ended up producing a lot less offspring than men who aggressively defended their women. Natural selection selected in favor of "caring about women more."

Anyway, I see the idea that the death toll of male-female characters "must be equal" to be incredibly... psychotic? Sorry there. Such concerns strike me as obsessive compulsive, or something. A need for equality that demands a higher death toll amongst women... it's going way too far. The death toll should reflect the goals of the war and the people fighting it, their mind set, so on.


----------



## indonesiancat (Dec 6, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> It's also biology. Men, or most of them under normal circumstances, are genetically programmed to sympathize more with women than they are with men, especially young women and girls. The reasons for this should be obvious. Men who were less protective of women ended up seeing a lot more of their women die, and thus ended up producing a lot less offspring than men who aggressively defended their women. Natural selection selected in favor of "caring about women more."



That explains the way primitive cultures view women. I guess saying stuff like ''men who hate women'' really make little sense, regardless how terrifying some societies have treated females. Even the violent and horrifying misogny of the taliban isn't there because they hate women. 



Vanilla said:


> Anyway, I see the idea that the death toll of male-female characters "must be equal" to be incredibly... psychotic? Sorry there. Such concerns strike me as obsessive compulsive, or something. A need for equality that demands a higher death toll amongst women... it's going way too far. The death toll should reflect the goals of the war and the people fighting it, their mind set, so on.



Lol, I completely agree. I'm not suggesting this because I have that type of authistic ''everything has to be fair'' view. It's just that if you are concerned about the deaths of faceless goons ( all males ) you gotta consider that there are few other ways to deal with it. Except for of course handling the death of endless pawns in the war as though they actually are individuals and not just statistics. This can easily be done by just briefly describing the despair and pain of the many fallen in the battlefield. This has been done extremely well in Game of Thrones, like when that one Lannister kid had his leg amputated. Before that, he was just one in many soldiers on the field, but now he is a tangible person, who is thoroughly suffering for the battle.

In the first place, having huge battles of just random dudes with covered faces might not be a good idea if you want to create a sense that these people actually matter. The bigger amount of people you have on screen, the fewer resources can be spent on everyone of them.


----------



## X Equestris (Dec 6, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> It's also biology. Men, or most of them under normal circumstances, are genetically programmed to sympathize more with women than they are with men, especially young women and girls. The reasons for this should be obvious. Men who were less protective of women ended up seeing a lot more of their women die, and thus ended up producing a lot less offspring than men who aggressively defended their women. Natural selection selected in favor of "caring about women more.



Not only this, but human population growth is limited by the number of women capable of reproduction.  A society that sends its women into battle alongside its men and loses many of them has its ability to replace losses and grow limited, not just in the next generation, but for several.  A society that only uses men can absorb losses better, and in the worst case it can resort to polygyny, like after the Thirty Years War in Germany and in Paraguay after the disastrous Paraguayan War.


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 6, 2015)

I hate how there's a tendency for any relationship between opposite sexes to either be fierce hate or passionate love. Like men and women can't have any other kind of interaction. They can't simply be colleagues or friends. God forbid they try to be _good_ friends, that just isn't possible unless it's because they both secretly love each other.


----------



## Russ (Dec 7, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> It's also biology. Men, or most of them under normal circumstances, are genetically programmed to sympathize more with women than they are with men, especially young women and girls. The reasons for this should be obvious. Men who were less protective of women ended up seeing a lot more of their women die, and thus ended up producing a lot less offspring than men who aggressively defended their women. Natural selection selected in favor of "caring about women more."



Evolutionary psychology is a bit of a rabbit hole and has a lot in common with astrology.  I am not certain that these conclusions that you suggest here are scientifically based.

There is at least as good an argument that men are inclined to view women as property on this reasoning than there is for a conclusion that they "care about women more" because of natural selection.  Neither of which is really based on evidence.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 7, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> I hate how there's a tendency for any relationship between opposite sexes to either be fierce hate or passionate love. Like men and women can't have any other kind of interaction. They can't simply be colleagues or friends. God forbid they try to be _good_ friends, that just isn't possible unless it's because they both secretly love each other.



You forgot about being put in the friend zone.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 8, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> Not only this, but human population growth is limited by the number of women capable of reproduction.  A society that sends its women into battle alongside its men and loses many of them has its ability to replace losses and grow limited, not just in the next generation, but for several.  A society that only uses men can absorb losses better, and in the worst case it can resort to polygyny, like after the Thirty Years War in Germany and in Paraguay after the disastrous Paraguayan War.



I'm not sure any society has ever seriously invested in female warriors until North Korea, honestly, and NK has never sent those women into serious warfare. I think the differences in sex we have today were coded into our genes before we were even humans. I mean, homo erectus probably dealt with tribal warfare in the same way we did it. The idea of a society ceasing to exist for the reason you say probably never came to pass. Men were always sent to war. If they were defeated, the women were enslaved and absorbed into the population of the victors. That's typically how it went. Modern ideals changes things. Slavery is wrong, we now learn, so we just slaughter the women and children alongside the men. Thank democracy we're civilized now.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 8, 2015)

Russ said:


> Evolutionary psychology is a bit of a rabbit hole and has a lot in common with astrology.  I am not certain that these conclusions that you suggest here are scientifically based.
> 
> There is at least as good an argument that men are inclined to view women as property on this reasoning than there is for a conclusion that they "care about women more" because of natural selection.  Neither of which is really based on evidence.



Are you a creationist or a feminist? If so, say it straight up, because neither is compatible with sociobiology and I'd rather not waste my time.

If you'd like to know the science behind my ideas, you'll find it in this book:
Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual | Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford | Springer

What you say is really just semantics, about property and caring. In the end, they're just words, and they don't mean much compared to DNA. What I'm saying is, if two people are drowning, and one is a 12 year old girl, and another is... well, male, then the majority of men will save the girl 99 times out of 100. Assuming the male is not a friend or relative, of course. But even then, many men would let their own friend drown rather than watch a young girl die. It's true. I know it is.

4 billion years of evolution has shaped us to do one thing, and to do it well, and that is reproduce. It's the only thing we're designed to do. All other things we do are just a means to achieving that end. Some of it is confused and incoherent, but it doesn't change the fact that our lives are only made relevant on the timeline of natural selection when we successful conceive and raise offspring. Discovering how human behavior contributes to this goal, and in what way, is sociobiology. It's nothing like "astrology." It's real in the DNA and testable in our environment.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 8, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> Are you a creationist or a feminist? If so, say it straight up, because neither is compatible with sociobiology and I'd rather not waste my time.
> 
> If you'd like to know the science behind my ideas, you'll find it in this book:
> Evolutionary Perspectives on Human Sexual | Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford | Springer
> ...



I disagree, if you have two 12 year olds a male and female who are both drowning I think it's going to come down to logistics everything being equal.  Which is closer, in more need, which is most likely to survive, the tools and resources available etc.  

This example brings up a problem.  Rember I want to live too and pass down my genes, I cannot do that if I die saving the girl or the boy.  The whole premise of this argument is a person acts to further their reproductive success.  Increasing the risk of NOT passing down my genes by increasing my risk of death is the exact opposite what my genes are telling me to do by this argument.  This is even more true if I have no genetic investment in the two children, not my kids.  If we look at animals we very very rarely see them put themselves in immediate danger to save a stranger, this changes among social groups when a member is in danger.  Humans are odd in we will risk or lives and resources to save strangers and genetic lost causes, those unable to reproduce due to sickness, age, or other variables.


I hadn't read the book, but any time I see the word sociology my level of scepticism goes up.  It's really hard to run tests on large groups of people with any sort of experimental accuracy, hence soft science.

 I agree with this theory by the way, I just wanted to point out that there are a lot of confounding variables and ignoring things like that is not good science.  Remember this theory could be disproven at any time, it's why I love science, you always have to push yourself to learn more.


----------



## valiant12 (Dec 8, 2015)

> But even then, many men would let their own friend drown rather than watch a young girl die. It's true. I know it is.



Who would you save in these situation ? How would your best friend feel If you abandon him when he need you the most?


----------



## Mythopoet (Dec 8, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> What you say is really just semantics, about property and caring. In the end, they're just words, and they don't mean much compared to DNA. What I'm saying is, if two people are drowning, and one is a 12 year old girl, and another is... well, male, then the majority of men will save the girl 99 times out of 100. Assuming the male is not a friend or relative, of course. But even then, many men would let their own friend drown rather than watch a young girl die. It's true. I know it is.



This is a ridiculous example because you are basically rigging the question so that there can only be one answer. You are assuming that there is zero chance of saving both and that the men in question would automatically know that before deciding which one to save. You are also refusing to take into account any accompanying circumstances, instead putting this drowning pair and their would be savior in a vacuum where the only obvious choice is the one you have chosen to prove your theory. 

What if the drowning pair were a mature woman and a 4 year-old boy? What if the 12 year-old girl had been taking swimming lessons her whole life and was able to save herself but the man was middle aged and overweight and quickly going under? What if the male drownee was close to some branches or some thing that could be used as a flotation device but the girl wasn't? What if the man thought they were close enough to both be saved? What if he thought it was already a lost cause and there was nothing he could do? 

It's NOT a clear cut situation that you can draw a clear conclusion from. Put a hundred men in that situation and you'll get a myriad of outcomes depending on circumstance and on how the individual man assesses the situation. 

This is exactly the type of thinking that gives us stupid stereotypes.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 8, 2015)

valiant12 said:


> Who would you save in these situation ? How would your best friend feel If you abandon him when he need you the most?



They would feel dead, heh heh. Any male friends I know would expect me to save a 12 year-old girl first. Now if the 12 year-old were too far away for me to save, then its the male friend. Fact is, any woman I know would expect me to save the 12 year-old girl first.

There is no hard rule here, individuals do vary, but on a cultural level there is a tendency to save females first: women and children first embodies that premise. I don't know that all cultures would embrace that.

I don't think the answer the as simple as biological imperative, either. The DNA will set the tendency, but culture and individual differences can alter that. In a scenario of 3 females all equally savable, aged 2, 16, and 30, biological logic would suggest saving the 16 year-old first... a female already capable of reproduction and with the most years remaining to reproduce. How many would actually save the two year-old first? A lot. A two year old boy vs a 16 year-old girl? A great many will save the boy. 

Anyone trying to erase the notion of some things being hard-wired by DNA is a fool, but at the same time, DNA folks often over-simplify and draw questionable but entertaining conclusions.


----------



## Russ (Dec 8, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> Are you a creationist or a feminist? If so, say it straight up, because neither is compatible with sociobiology and I'd rather not waste my time.



When it comes to the discussion of evolution I am neither a feminist nor a creationist, but I guess you think you might need a quick and easy label for such things.

If you want one you could say I am a "Gouldist", that is I believe that the most accurate description of modern evolutionary theory has been articulated by the late Stephen Jay Gould.  I am sure you have read all of his works, particularly those on the field of evolutionary biology.  He believes, as do I, that there is almost no evidence for the theories of that field and it suffers brutally from poor reasoning, often in fact backwards reasoning.

Now as you are probably aware the other large camp of evolutionary theory is led by Dawkins, I am not in the Dawkins camp.  But you should know that Dawkins himself is equally critical of evolutionary psychology in much of its work, particularly the camp led by Wilson.

Some of the things you say are actually simply factually untrue, or out of date old myths.

For instance the latest research tells us that differences in spatial reasoning skills between men and women are NOT genetically based.   You claimed the reverse.

Secondly evolution does not "design" anything.  Further we, that is humans, are not particularly good at reproducing at all.  We have crazy long gestation periods, very low fecundity and our infants are unable to function independently for a long period of time.  None of this makes us particularly good at reproducing at all.

You also seem to be interested in simply spouting  your own opinion rather than having a conversation about the science around the issue.  "It's true. I know it is." is not a scientific argument, it is actually something that one might more expect to hear from someone espousing a religious faith.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 8, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> This is exactly the type of thinking that gives us stupid stereotypes.



No not really. And stereotypes are not stupid. Not in literature nor in life. They have been and are critical.  But that's an entirely different question.

You complain of rigging the question but then re-rig the question. The question being asked was simplified and without qualifiers, all your what-ifs are pointless vs the original question. The assumption in all such hypotheticals is that both are equally savable but equally doomed. Which do you save? 

If you feel that is rigged to the 12 year-old girl being the only answer, you just proved the DNA point... although not really, but it could be argued thusly. On an anthropological or sociological level, you would have proved some point about the culture in which you exist. 

If you argued that you would save the male, that absolutely would speak to the culture within which you live, or to your individual psychological biases. And there would probably be a sociological driver for that if that was common in your culture.


----------



## X Equestris (Dec 8, 2015)

Vanilla said:


> I'm not sure any society has ever seriously invested in female warriors until North Korea, honestly, and NK has never sent those women into serious warfare. I think the differences in sex we have today were coded into our genes before we were even humans. I mean, homo erectus probably dealt with tribal warfare in the same way we did it. The idea of a society ceasing to exist for the reason you say probably never came to pass. Men were always sent to war. If they were defeated, the women were enslaved and absorbed into the population of the victors. That's typically how it went. Modern ideals changes things. Slavery is wrong, we now learn, so we just slaughter the women and children alongside the men. Thank democracy we're civilized now.



A number of tribal societies used their women in war.  The Scythians, some of the German and Celtic tribes, etc.  One thread common to all of them is that they were typically kept in reserve, staying closer to home, if possible.  Usually the only time women warriors were advancing into enemy territory was during migratory events.  Marius mentions the Cimbri and Teutones having their women fight with bow and arrow from war wagons before descending and fighting beside their male relatives.  "Civilized" societies weren't afraid to use their women in siege defenses, either.  

Most likely, any society that sent out their women in offensive warfare or hunting died out in the tribal stages as they were outbred by their neighbors who didn't.  After all, have you ever seen a matriarchal society send out their women as the primary fighters and keep their men at home?  Why is that?  And the answer that I keep seeing, from people far more educated than myself, is that men are--from a purely biological perspective--more expendable.  Who can regrow a population faster: five men and one woman, or one man and five women?


----------



## X Equestris (Dec 8, 2015)

Demesnedenoir said:


> No not really. And stereotypes are not stupid. Not in literature nor in life. They have been and are critical.  But that's an entirely different question.
> 
> You complain of rigging the question but then re-rig the question. The question being asked was simplified and without qualifiers, all your what-ifs are pointless vs the original question. The assumption in all such hypotheticals is that both are equally savable but equally doomed. Which do you save?
> 
> ...




The issue is that the girl in question is just that, a girl.  Humans care about children.  If you want to prove that men are more protective of women, things have to be equal to take out other variables.  That's basic scientific method stuff.  And the child factor is a big variable that needs to be accounted for.  Make the scenario one with two 12 year olds, one male and one female.  Or change it to an adult woman and a boy.  Does nearly everyone choose the woman still?


----------



## Russ (Dec 8, 2015)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Anyone trying to erase the notion of some things being hard-wired by DNA is a fool, but at the same time, DNA folks often over-simplify and draw questionable but entertaining conclusions.



There is very little evidence that many, if any, of our behaviours (as opposed to our physical morphology) are "hard wired" in a significant way.

For instance there have been a number of studies of the heritability or genetic component of "mate selection" which would seem to be a very important evolutionary behaviour.  However most studies suggest genetic factors only play a role at maybe a 5-6% level in mate selection so it is virtually a non-factor.

So beyond not really having evidence for many of the claims of the evolutionary psychology ideas, we also have to ask ourselves or come to a consensus of "when does it matter"?  It heritability is only a 5% factor in a behaviour is it worth even mentioning?

EP theory really is hamstrung by a near complete lack of evidence, as well as the existence of so many behaviours that run contra to its basic principles.


----------



## Russ (Dec 8, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> A number of tribal societies used their women in war.  The Scythians, some of the German and Celtic tribes, etc.  One thread common to all of them is that they were typically kept in reserve, staying closer to home, if possible.  Usually the only time women warriors were advancing into enemy territory was during migratory events.  Marius mentions the Cimbri and Teutones having their women fight with bow and arrow from war wagons before descending and fighting beside their male relatives.  "Civilized" societies weren't afraid to use their women in siege defenses, either.
> 
> Most likely, any society that sent out their women in offensive warfare or hunting died out in the tribal stages as they were outbred by their neighbors who didn't.  After all, have you ever seen a matriarchal society send out their women as the primary fighters and keep their men at home?  Why is that?  And the answer that I keep seeing, from people far more educated than myself, is that men are--from a purely biological perspective--more expendable.  Who can regrow a population faster: five men and one woman, or one man and five women?



I could add to the list of cultures that invested in female warriors, including primitive, modern and in between.  Israel, Russia, etc.  In addition the US has now opened up all of its combat roles to women, as many other first world countries had already done before them.

But the logic you advance is simply unquestionable, from a mathematical perspective men are simply lower value for cultural population growth.

The next question of course is "what does this mean" from the question of the role of genetics in behaviour.

It is not a gene that tells us that we need more women to reproduce than men, it is our reason, our consciousness.  There is no evidence that the math involved in that every simple calculation is genetically encoded in us.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 8, 2015)

Russ said:


> There is very little evidence that many, if any, of our behaviours (as opposed to our physical morphology) are "hard wired" in a significant way.
> 
> For instance there have been a number of studies of the heritability or genetic component of "mate selection" which would seem to be a very important evolutionary behaviour.  However most studies suggest genetic factors only play a role at maybe a 5-6% level in mate selection so it is virtually a non-factor.
> 
> ...



All psychology is hampered by quackery, in my opinion, and evolutionary psychology is far from immune to that. But I will argue any side of a debate I find fun, LOL. I will agree that the tendency would be to save the 12 year old girl in the initial scenario. Why? That's where it gets interesting! I don't claim to know the answer, but it is fun to bicker about. 

If I have a camp to fall into, it is: Skeptic. Of everything treated as dogma, religious, scientific, and otherwise. I would be that stereotype. And its a good one.


----------



## Russ (Dec 8, 2015)

Demesnedenoir said:


> All psychology is hampered by quackery, in my opinion, and evolutionary psychology is far from immune to that. But I will argue any side of a debate I find fun, LOL. I will agree that the tendency would be to save the 12 year old girl in the initial scenario. Why? That's where it gets interesting! I don't claim to know the answer, but it is fun to bicker about.
> 
> If I have a camp to fall into, it is: Skeptic. Of everything treated as dogma, religious, scientific, and otherwise. I would be that stereotype. And its a good one.



I heartily agree that skepticism or at least an evidence based approach to matters that can be dealt with in an evidence based fashion is a good idea.

I think EP is even more vulnerable to very poor reasoning due to the fact that it calls for speculation about prehistoric behavior that we really have almost no information on.

For instance while we cannot really do an experiment about who we would dive in to save if they were drowning, to an even larger degree we cannot know and have no evidence at all about who a human a mere 20,000 years ago would have jumped in to save if faced with the same choice.

Let's say there is a tendency to save person X when drowning.  That is all well and good, but it does not lead to the conclusion that Vanilla suggests.  In order to prove it is an evolutionary genetic trait you have to do one of two things:

1) prove that it is not the result of cultural or more transient factors (almost impossible), or more classically:

2) prove that there were once two distinct types of people, those that would dive in after X and those that would dive in after Y, and that the X group survived and passed on that genetic trait and the Y group failed because of their Y trait or their lack of the X trait in similar environments.

Speculation is fun, but proving evolutionary processes and connections is hard freakin' work!


----------



## valiant12 (Dec 8, 2015)

> In a scenario of 3 females all equally savable, aged 2, 16, and 30, biological logic would suggest saving the 16 year-old first



The youngest girl is most vulnerable. I will save her first.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 8, 2015)

No one seems to be taking into account other cultures here. Did you know that in ancient China a man was forbidden to touch a woman he was not married to, even to rescue her? In the case Vanilla gives, if it were to take place in ancient China, the man would only be allowed to rescue the other man because rescuing the girl would involve touching her, which was punishable by death. Or how about the vast amount if female infanticide that has occurred in Asia and India over the past thousand year, purely because boys are seen as more valuable?


----------



## ascanius (Dec 8, 2015)

Russ said:


> There is very little evidence that many, if any, of our behaviours (as opposed to our physical morphology) are "hard wired" in a significant way.



Question, if things like autism have a genetic basis, it does, and many other mental disorders, and affect behavior.  Then why isn't it the other way too, that normal everyday behaviors have a genetic basis.

I think there is a fifty fifty interaction genetics and environment.



Russ said:


> For instance the latest research tells us that differences in spatial reasoning skills between men and women are NOT genetically based.   You claimed the reverse.



Yeah, the research I've read is saying the opposite.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 8, 2015)

valiant12 said:


> The youngest girl is most vulnerable. I will save her first.



Precisely. But is that the most logical using the viewpoint of reproductive necessity? Probably not. 

Oh thes questions are so much fun! LOL.

But also a huge waste of time.


----------



## Russ (Dec 8, 2015)

ascanius said:


> Question, if things like autism have a genetic basis, it does, and many other mental disorders, and affect behavior.  Then why isn't it the other way too, that normal everyday behaviors have a genetic basis.
> 
> I think there is a fifty fifty interaction genetics and environment.



I think you might be mixing two different issues, probably unintentionally.

One issue is does biology impact behaviour?  The short answer is obviously yes, to a degree.  If I have a vision problem, or a physical or mental dysfunction I will obviously behave differently because of it.  It is also the case of physical and mental differences that are not unhealthy or dysfunctional.

Now there is an argument that based on our modern understanding of epigenetics that the nature/nurture argument is a distinction without a difference.  We now know that many genes are turned on or off based on the environment that they are in and thus for any genetic trait or behaviour there may be a environmental factor.

But what EP says is that we have certain behavioural traits wired into us *because* of natural selection and that we can discern or discover what they are and determine what environmental factors caused them to come into existence.  That is a vastly different claim than simply "some physiological or mental traits will more likely result in certain behaviours."

The field of EP suffers from a significant lack of real evidence, some very poor reasoning and what is commonly called the panglossian error or the spandrel problem.



> Yeah, the research I've read is saying the opposite.



What I understand was some of the best work in the field was the study published in the Proceedings in the National Academy of Science.  It is well discussed here:

Men are better at spatial reasoning? Erm, you might want to think again


----------



## Devor (Dec 9, 2015)

*ahem*

Moving right along . . .


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 9, 2015)

Devor said:


> *ahem*
> 
> Moving right along . . .



Deja Vuuuuuuuuu.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 9, 2015)

Russ said:


> I think you might be mixing two different issues, probably unintentionally.
> 
> One issue is does biology impact behaviour?  The short answer is obviously yes, to a degree.  If I have a vision problem, or a physical or mental dysfunction I will obviously behave differently because of it.  It is also the case of physical and mental differences that are not unhealthy or dysfunctional.
> 
> ...



I'll be honest that I don't know much If anything about PE.  However If we agree that behavior is influenced by genetics I don't really see what the problem is with assuming that such behavior/genetics have a evolutionary precursor, what that is exactly yeah we don't know, hopefully someone invents a time machine soon.

Second, look at that study closely, they don't actually prove that spatial ability has no genetic base/hard coded.  They prove that education has an influence on spatial ability, something we already know.  I'm serious, really look at the study, they are comparing differences in females who are uneducated and educated and comparing those results to educated males.  All it really shows is education can increase spatial ability, especially among females.  The authors even go on to say that this is important for legislators to increase participation in the sciences among females.  I read both the blog and the actual study and.... it really grates me.  A better test would have been to compare two uneducated groups then we have an equal group and are ONLY looking at genetics instead of adding education into the mix.  What I'm saying is I don't think this study is going to stand up very well to peer review an the basis that is shows that spatial ability is NOT hard coded in the genes of males and not females.  I didn't look for what peer review or conflicting evidence may or may not exist.


----------



## Russ (Dec 9, 2015)

ascanius said:


> I'll be honest that I don't know much If anything about PE.  However If we agree that behavior is influenced by genetics I don't really see what the problem is with assuming that such behavior/genetics have a evolutionary precursor, what that is exactly yeah we don't know, hopefully someone invents a time machine soon.



The problem is that science is supposed to be concerned with the provable truth, not "assumptions" and PE or sociobiology makes many claims based on no evidence and poor reasoning.  That is not science it is speculation.

In the study of darwinian evolution there are ways to prove things scientifically.  PE just tends to ignore the need for evidence for a series of "just so" stories, which is not science, or proof.

Let me give you an example.  Let's say there is a modern behaviour we call X.  PE may well come along and say "This behaviour is hard wired into humans because of condition Y in the environment a long time ago."

So that is their thesis.  We then are supposed to ask the scientific questions which are:

a) what is the evidence for that claim?
b) how can you be certain that X is the result of biological evolution at all? (there are accepted ways of doing this)
c) how can you tell us with certainty that it was condition Y that caused X, not D, E, F or G?
e) how can you prove that is not a spandrel or evolutionary by-product?

EP most of the time cannot answer these questions adequately.  It makes claims that are often unsupportable.  Thus it is bad science.  They then make various policy and political claims and suggestions based on this bad science which is also problematic.



> Second, look at that study closely, they don't actually prove that spatial ability has no genetic base/hard coded.  They prove that education has an influence on spatial ability, something we already know.  I'm serious, really look at the study, they are comparing differences in females who are uneducated and educated and comparing those results to educated males.  All it really shows is education can increase spatial ability, especially among females.  The authors even go on to say that this is important for legislators to increase participation in the sciences among females.  I read both the blog and the actual study and.... it really grates me.  A better test would have been to compare two uneducated groups then we have an equal group and are ONLY looking at genetics instead of adding education into the mix.  What I'm saying is *I don't think this study is going to stand up very well to peer review* an the basis that is shows that spatial ability is NOT hard coded in the genes of males and not females.  I didn't look for what peer review or conflicting evidence may or may not exist.



I am surprised to see your comments on the study it is really top notch, if you know how most studies of this type are conducted.

Firstly, despite your claim, by being published in the Proceedings, it already has stood up to peer review. It is a pretty darned good journal.

Secondly the populations used are great.  The sample size is excellent.  And as you should know the vast majority of studies of this type are usually conducted on undergraduate students in first world countries, which really skews the data wildly.  Getting to study these two groups was just fantastic quality science.

And the study does show that it is more likely that cultural factors lead to the differences between men and women in spatial abilities.  The differential between men and women in a patriarchal society is significant.  There is no differential between the scores of men and women in the matrilineal society.  The only changing variable of course is the culture, and thus it would appear that culture, not genetics is the prime causative factor of the differential.  The authors are clear that their data shows the importance of nurture in the spatial gap question.  Proving a negative is almost impossible, but in this case they prove the importance of culture and education in the gap.  I trust you will agree with me that culture and education are not genetically determined.

There is a second lesson from the study, that education makes both sexes better at this cognitive task.  A separate but equally supportable conclusion.


----------



## DMThaane (Dec 10, 2015)

Russ said:


> I am surprised to see your comments on the study it is really top notch, if you know how most studies of this type are conducted.
> 
> Firstly, despite your claim, by being published in the Proceedings, it already has stood up to peer review. It is a pretty darned good journal.



That's not entirely true. Hoffman admits that the study has shortcomings and that it shouldn't be seen as the definitive study on the topic but as a proof of concept. You can find this on the Proceedings website linked to the original study or linked to the reply alleging methodological problems. The study is important evidence but it is not the final word that so many internet sites take it, uncritically, as being.

That said, it is also not the only study on this topic to reach similar conclusions. While there does not seem to be substantial proof the evidence I've seen favours nurture over nature, at least as much as that dichotomy is even useful.


----------



## Russ (Dec 10, 2015)

DMThaane said:


> That's not entirely true. Hoffman admits that the study has shortcomings and that it shouldn't be seen as the definitive study on the topic but as a proof of concept. You can find this on the Proceedings website linked to the original study or linked to the reply alleging methodological problems. The study is important evidence but it is not the final word that so many internet sites take it, uncritically, as being.



It is my understanding that in science, there is rarely a "final word."  The authors' careful and perhaps even humble drafting of their conclusions, enhances its credibility with me.

And my posting of the study was not to suggest that the difference is proven "nuture" but to refute an earlier claim by someone that it had been proven genetic.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 10, 2015)

For me, the stake in the heart of much of the drivel coming from evolutionary psychology–and, indeed, from much popular science, in general–is the persistent effort to draw a universal on the basis of statistical data.

Whenever such a "scientist" claims that, say, in 89% of cases of X the result is Y–they usually fail to mention that 11% of cases do not result in Y.  Yet they will exclaim _eureka!_ and say they have found an absolute.  Often, 65% or 75% will be an adequate "determinant" for them.

This holds true for many branches of science.   So, in X% of cases, high sugar intake leads to Y; but in 100-X% of cases, it doesn't.  Hmmm.

This doesn't mean that nothing important is being discovered or that no relationships between X and Y exist.  But only that other variables also exist within the equation.  But this also doesn't mean that a meaningful relationship between X and Y certainly exists; without revealing those other variables, how can we know the importance of the relationship between X an Y?

I'm grossly oversimplifying above.  But also admitting that I am!


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 10, 2015)

This thread makes me think we need a completely new sub-forum for these types of discussions.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 10, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> This thread makes me think we need a completely new sub-forum for these types of discussions.



What type is that?


There _is_ drift, often enough.  But is all drift the same?


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 10, 2015)

FifthView said:


> What type is that?
> 
> 
> There _is_ drift, often enough.  But is all drift the same?



The OP's original question and what this thread has turned into are pretty far apart. It seems like every post with gender as part of the topic ends up turning into people debating personal beliefs and not really having much to do with actual writing.

Maybe we can have a "social/political issues and writing" sub-forum. 

Otherwise posts like these are always going to get derailed by ideological pissing contests.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 10, 2015)

The problem is also in the way some OPs inaugurate the thread.



valiant12 said:


> Which is your least favorite gender stereotype ?



There, that's asking for an opinion, a subjective evaluation.  So this naturally leads into a thicket of personal beliefs, personal assessments, personal philosophies and aesthetics.

One way such an opening can derail onto a different rail (rather than just simple chaos) is related somewhat to what I wrote above about turning a partial discovery into a universal truth.  I.e., the attempt to draw the universal from partiality.   Then the debate becomes about who has the Absolute Truth (tm) in his back pocket.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 10, 2015)

FifthView said:


> For me, the stake in the heart of much of the drivel coming from evolutionary psychology–and, indeed, from much popular science, in general–is the persistent effort to draw a universal on the basis of statistical data.
> 
> Whenever such a "scientist" claims that, say, in 89% of cases of X the result is Y–they usually fail to mention that 11% of cases do not result in Y.  Yet they will exclaim _eureka!_ and say they have found an absolute.  Often, 65% or 75% will be an adequate "determinant" for them.
> 
> ...



And what does this have to do with gender stereotypes and tropes exactly? Sounds like a completely different topic is being discussed.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 10, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> And what does this have to do with gender stereotypes and tropes exactly? Sounds like a completely different topic is being discussed.




What is a stereotype, if not a false universal or false absolute?  What, indeed, is a trope if not a frequently appearing device—rather than a statistical anomaly?

My comment was directly in line with the conversation up to that point in the thread, in any case.


----------



## Devor (Dec 10, 2015)

Russ said:


> What I understand was some of the best work in the field was the study published in the Proceedings in the National Academy of Science.  It is well discussed here:
> 
> Men are better at spatial reasoning? Erm, you might want to think again



I was going to stay out of this, but I decided that I do want to comment quickly on the study and on understanding its limitations.  I feel that people often overstate the evidence when they quote these things.

First, the disclaimers.  I have no problem accepting the validity of the study in terms of its actual findings.  And while I do think men and women behave just a little different for biological reasons, I don't really know or care whether spacial reasoning is one of those differences.

But this study is based on the time it took children to complete a four piece puzzle.  It found that women from the area with a lot of sexual discrimination did poorly, and the ones from the other side did about even with men.

The problems:

 - Sexual differences which occur in the brain and in your hormones aren't finished developing in children.  The sexes continue differentiating past puberty.  (edit, on second read the puzzle was given to "villagers," and not children.)

 - There are a variety of ways to solve a four-piece puzzle without using spacial reasoning, such as matching (this edge is green, that edge is green, they go together).  In my experience, that's how most people do it anyways.

 - The puzzle is very simple, and is therefore capped at the level of differences it can show.  You can't measure advanced reasoning with a test that basic.

 - There was no measure of how much energy they exerted during the test. Did some find it hard and focus more? Did some of them find it easy and slack off? Were they invested in solving the puzzle?

It's absolutely horrible that many women are held back in their education throughout the world.  This study is evidence of one of the ways that begins to happen early on. If you want to demonstrate that the difference between the sexes is small, or that we make too much of it, or that they're used to hold women back unnecessarily, this study is solid proof of that. But it doesn't come close to proving that the differences are not real on average.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 10, 2015)

Devor said:


> I was going to stay out of this, but I decided that I do want to comment quickly on the study and on understanding its limitations.  I feel that people often overstate the evidence when they quote these things.
> 
> First, the disclaimers.  I have no problem accepting the validity of the study in terms of its actual findings.  And while I do think men and women behave just a little different for biological reasons, I don't really know or care whether spacial reasoning is one of those differences.
> 
> ...



Thanks this was basically my problem with it.  I was try to keep my reply small so I didn't go in depth.

Also one other thing, you publish the results of your study so it is available to others to peer review.  Just because it's published doesn't mean it has been peer reviewed.


----------



## Russ (Dec 11, 2015)

ascanius said:


> Also one other thing, you publish the results of your study so it is available to others to peer review.  Just because it's published doesn't mean it has been peer reviewed.



The journal it was published in requires peer review before publication. So this study was indeed peer reviewed before it was published.  When people speak in the field about peer reviewed they normally mean a peer reviewed journal publication.


----------



## Devor (Dec 11, 2015)

Russ said:


> The journal it was published in requires peer review before publication. So this study was indeed peer reviewed before it was published.  When people speak in the field about peer reviewed they normally mean a peer reviewed journal publication.



Yes, but that peer review only refers to the methodology of the study.  It would be a mistake to view any single study as by itself proving something as big as whether or not men and women have biologically driven behavior differences.  It's one data point, one piece of a really big puzzle that contributes to the conversation.  It's that far-reaching conversation among experts with hundreds of studies and decades of debate that reaches conclusions like that, not one study.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 11, 2015)

I think the point, though, was just to show that there is "research" on both sides. One poster argued that something was absolutely genetic, and Russ was simply saying "perhaps... Or perhaps not." There is research on both sides and the fact of the matter is that we simply don't know. We can't argue these points as absolute truths.


----------



## Devor (Dec 11, 2015)

Heliotrope said:


> I think the point, though, was just to show that there is "research" on both sides. One poster argued that something was absolutely genetic, and Russ was simply saying "perhaps... Or perhaps not." There is research on both sides and the fact of the matter is that we simply don't know. We can't argue these points as absolute truths.



Fair enough - some of my points were directed more at statements in the blog post explaining the study than at Russ's direct statements.


----------



## Russ (Dec 11, 2015)

Devor said:


> Yes, but that peer review only refers to the methodology of the study.  It would be a mistake to view any single study as by itself proving something as big as whether or not men and women have biologically driven behavior differences.  It's one data point, one piece of a really big puzzle that contributes to the conversation.  It's that far-reaching conversation among experts with hundreds of studies and decades of debate that reaches conclusions like that, not one study.



It appears you are agreeing with my point.  Another poster said quite emphatically that it was proven that those spetial differences were genetic.  I suggested that no such thing had been proven.

Neither, I, nor anybody else has ever stated that this study is definitive.  In fact I praised the authors for being humble and careful in their conclusions.


The term "peer review" or "peer reviewed" have a meaning in such discussions, I used the term in its normal academic sense.  This study was published in a peer reviewed journal and thus has been peer reviewed.

The term "peer review" does not mean the study hold the definitive answer to an entire field.  In fact a Norwegian study just came out that suggests the difference is biology based, but once again it was done amongst Norwegian University students which I have concerns about.


----------



## Devor (Dec 11, 2015)

Russ said:


> The term "peer review" does not mean the study hold the definitive answer to an entire field.



I think ascanius may be referring to a point I've made about such studies in the past when he says peer reviewed. So forgive me, but that's why I'm getting into this.

When a journal publishes a study, they presumably review the methodology before doing so.  I don't think anybody is challenging that methodology.

However, peer review - at least, as referred to in laymen's terms - also refers to the reviews and opinions formed in the field after the publication.  A scientist reading that journal may challenge, just for instance, whether the puzzle really tested spacial reasoning, which could lead to similar tests run on this population with a more complicated challenge for participants, and so on.

That is, peer review can also include the process by which the limitations of the study are flushed out and researched further by others in the field.  It's because of that peer review process that one study being published cannot be taken as conclusive.  Rather, the conclusive findings determined by the study and affirmed by the journal publishing it are that women in one area took longer to complete the puzzle than women from another area.  The (perfectly well-reasoned, if you ask me) opinion that this study successfully isolated education as a factor, and the (reasonable, but more debatable, if you ask me) opinion that the puzzle measures basic spacial reasoning are still matters that require a scientific consensus and additional research.

The idea that this is reflective of all spacial reasoning differences between the two genders?  I know you agree when I say this, but it's only a tiny piece of that question.

If I'm misunderstanding the proper definition of "peer review," and there's a more applicable term for the process above, let me know and you have my apologies for confusing people.




Russ said:


> In fact a Norwegian study just came out that suggests the difference is biology based, but once again it was done amongst Norwegian University students which I have concerns about.



Most of what I know about this stuff comes from studying Marketing Research back in college, which is a very different perspective than the biological one of the scientists doing the research.

If I were tasked to design a test trying to pinpoint or define whether or how men and women might differ in spacial reasoning, I would start by looking at the physical differences in brain chemistry and hormones, and comparing that to reams and reams of qualitative data from college students in a search to identify the nature of the difference I would want to isolate.

More than likely, if there's a difference, you'll spot it first in a couple of free-response answers, and could then design a way to test it objectively.

I don't know if that actually makes a difference to this conversation, but I thought I'd put it out there.


----------



## ascanius (Dec 11, 2015)

Russ said:


> Another poster said quite emphatically that it was proven that those spetial differences were genetic.  I suggested that no such thing had been proven.
> 
> The term "peer review" or "peer reviewed" have a meaning in such discussions, I used the term in its normal academic sense.  This study was published in a peer reviewed journal and thus has been peer reviewed.



First I never said anything was proven, I simply said that the research I have read said the opposite what you are saying.  

For the peer review see below.



Devor said:


> I think ascanius may be referring to a point I've made about such studies in the past when he says peer reviewed. So forgive me, but that's why I'm getting into this.
> 
> When a journal publishes a study, they presumably review the methodology before doing so.  I don't think anybody is challenging that methodology.
> 
> ...



Thank you again devor for explain peer review, your summary is basically the whole shebang.  Russ, sorry for not explaining peer review better.  I did undergraduate in molecular biology and for me this stuff is common knowledge and I forget that not everyone knows these little details.


----------



## MauEvig (Apr 1, 2020)

There are stereotypes that tend to really annoy me. I can't stand the "women are damsels in distress" trope. While I don't mind men being heroes, it would be nice to see more women in that role.
But what really annoys me is that, and while I love tough women characters (most of my characters are, FYI), why do they always have to be lesbians or at the very least, a bisexual who has a female significant other? Don't get me wrong, I'm completely supportive of gays, lesbians and bisexuals, but just...why? If a hero is a lesbian and she's saving her lover, that still means a woman is going to be the damsel isn't it? In the case of two gay men, the man is still going to be a hero in this scenario? What gives?
But I'm a bit of a rebel. I tend to completely reverse gender roles, or at the very least both the male and female will save each other throughout the course of a story and even work together as a team. I'm actually a big fan of men and women working together. 
But as far as the portrayal of gay characters go, I kind of prefer reversing the stereotypes there as well. I tend to make gay males masculine and lesbians feminine. I suppose bisexuals could go either way.
But really, that's my only complaint, that and the fact that women tend to be the damsel in distress all the time.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 2, 2020)

MauEvig said:


> There are stereotypes that tend to really annoy me. I can't stand the "women are damsels in distress" trope. While I don't mind men being heroes, it would be nice to see more women in that role.
> But what really annoys me is that, and while I love tough women characters (most of my characters are, FYI), why do they always have to be lesbians or at the very least, a bisexual who has a female significant other? Don't get me wrong, I'm completely supportive of gays, lesbians and bisexuals, but just...why? If a hero is a lesbian and she's saving her lover, that still means a woman is going to be the damsel isn't it? In the case of two gay men, the man is still going to be a hero in this scenario? What gives?
> But I'm a bit of a rebel. I tend to completely reverse gender roles, or at the very least both the male and female will save each other throughout the course of a story and even work together as a team. I'm actually a big fan of men and women working together.
> But as far as the portrayal of gay characters go, I kind of prefer reversing the stereotypes there as well. I tend to make gay males masculine and lesbians feminine. I suppose bisexuals could go either way.
> But really, that's my only complaint, that and the fact that women tend to be the damsel in distress all the time.



Yeah, I have damsels in distress, but I’m just as prone to have in dudes in distress... hell, pretty much every character is in distress, heh heh.


----------



## The Dark One (Apr 2, 2020)

Playing with fire these sorts of threads...

Still, that's never stopped me. I guess I come from two different perspectives on this: one is that any writer is inevitably subject to his/her own innate conditioning. Some of it we can unlearn, if we want to, although I wonder whether some of the values replacing the dinosaur values are always as deeply held and self-evident seeming as the values sucked in with mother's milk. So bearing all that in mind, social values gradually change across the epochs and literature changes with it. Literary historians will find our time incredibly interesting from a sexual politics perspective.

My other perspective is the storytelling prism. I strive to give all characters equal agency. Obviously some will feature more in the story than others but every character who appears (if they get a name) must have some impact on the plot. If I stick to that rule then I'm unlikely to create ciphers or stereotypes. Or if I do, people will still enjoy reading them because they seem real and do things that matter.

That is my hope, but as with all things in this game - I'm the last one able to judge my own stuff.


----------



## Insolent Lad (Apr 2, 2020)

I wrote a story titled 'A Dragon in Distress' a while back. A middle-aged damsel had decided she wanted to marry him.


----------



## Devor (Apr 2, 2020)

For those who may not have noticed, I wanted to point out that this thread was necroed from 2015. That’s fine, just be aware.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 2, 2020)

Devor said:


> For those who may not have noticed, I wanted to point out that this thread was necroed from 2015. That’s fine, just be aware.



Like a zombie coming for our brains... Mmm, brains.


----------



## MauEvig (Apr 2, 2020)

Devor said:


> For those who may not have noticed, I wanted to point out that this thread was necroed from 2015. That’s fine, just be aware.



I legitimately didn't notice until after the fact. The system brings up threads that it thinks I might be interested in, so I clicked on it and commented. ^^; 



Demesnedenoir said:


> Yeah, I have damsels in distress, but I’m just as prone to have in dudes in distress... hell, pretty much every character is in distress, heh heh.



Well, that works, haha! As long as every character has their turn to be in distress, I'm cool with that. I just get annoyed when it's specifically women in distress. I just sit and go, dude, can't women ever be the bad ass hero!?



Insolent Lad said:


> I wrote a story titled 'A Dragon in Distress' a while back. A middle-aged damsel had decided she wanted to marry him.



That sounds interesting. I had a similar story idea, although it had more to do with a princess who was promised to a foreign land. She didn't want to go, so a dragon came and took her away to rescue her. The dragon was kind to her though, allowed her to learn how to read books. She and the dragon fell in love, and the dragon was able to take a human form. Eventually though, her Kingdom found and killed the dragon and took her away. She was heart broken, but the story has a somewhat decent ending in her case. The man she married, the crown prince of the other Kingdom was sympathetic toward her. It also turned out he wasn't interested in marrying her either, and had a male lover, but did so anyway due to political reasons. She found out she was carrying the dragon's baby, but the King claimed her child as his as he really had no desire to be with a woman anyway, so it was actually a bit convenient for them. He knew she still loved the dragon, and she was more accepting of him being gay as that was also just as taboo as her loving a dragon. So her and the King become friends and respect each other, but there's no romance between them, only in public for the sake of the Kingdom. The baby ends up looking more or less human, though she does develop dragon-like powers and has the same eyes as her dragon sire. I actually thought about focusing the story on the half dragon child. The King may be gay, but he's still sympathetic toward women and actually works towards better gender equality once he becomes King. He also adores his step daughter and dotes on her. 

Which reminds me of another pet peeve I have with gay characters. I hate when they hate the opposite sex. Just because you aren't attracted doesn't mean you should hate them. But that's me.



Demesnedenoir said:


> Like a zombie coming for our brains... Mmm, brains.



lol. Considering the situation we're in with quarantine I think it would make for a nice zombie apocalyptic story. Granted, that's more science fiction, unless there's magic involved in the reason for why the zombies exist. Necromancy is a thing. I did think of a science fiction story where the world's population was wiped out by a virus, and only 10% of humanity remains alive that developed immunity to it. It only effects humans so animals are fine. I'm not sure where to go with it though, I normally don't do post apocalyptic stories but it's almost like the COVID-19 makes me want to watch the movies and write stories with a similar theme.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 3, 2020)

I wouldn’t call my work heroic fantasy, more Dark Epic, and everybody ends up in deep doodoo more often than not. Sometimes they get rescued, sometimes they escape of their own volition, sometimes they die. I honestly don’t take gender into consideration, which is why it was really funny when I found I had the male lead rescued from a tower. It was a totally incidental flip of tropes that simply made sense to how the story was going. While one culture had dungeons, the other used hight towers for prisoners... Voila! But his hair was too short to let down.


----------

