Dexter's Sister and female characters, * lets keep it CIVIL!! *

[Steerpike]

The problem here, as it often is when this topic arises, is a failure to separate statistical likelihoods from the individual character.

You can point to traits, interests, or what have you that are more likely to be associated with males or females, and you can argue to what extent it is nature as opposed to nurture, but when you get down to the level of creating a character it is irrelevant. I don't think anyone would deny that among individuals, the distribution is all over the spectrum. You see males who, if you had a check list, would associate much more heavily with the traditionally female and vice versa.

If you're creating a female character, and you're starting off with a list of preconceived ideas about what traits, interests, &c. that female character has to have because she's female, then you've already made a huge mistake in character creation. That's true irrespective of the nature v. nurture debate.

 

[Feo Takahari]

To try to follow up on what Steerpike is saying, I've written terrorists, vigilantes, and a transgender self-proclaimed magical girl. I've written a man who thinks he's a reincarnated dragon and a girl who's attracted to her twin brother. I'm writing people who are possible, but by and large, I'm not writing people who are average. Why play the average game, then?

Edit: because I ought to at least try to respond to the OP, I'll drop My Little Pony again. I think the real solution to "How should I write my female character?" is to not just throw in one woman and have her be "the woman." The farm girl, the artsy dressmaker, and the shy veterinarian couldn't be more different, but they're each potentially characters a viewer could like and identify with.

 

[Mythopoet]

Ah yes, 'separate but equal'. Isn't that a tried and tested philosophy which only leads to good things.

In all seriousness, if our society defines men and women as being inherently different, it encourages and forces men and women into different roles in society. You end up forcing men to take up masculine professions and women feminine ones. You are creating gender roles! IN our society men and women should feel free to pursue whatever path they choose in life, and a philosophy of 'different but equal' does not encourage that.

No, the problem is an inherently human failure to actually live a worldview in which all people, no matter how different, are equal to ourselves. Philosophy only goes so far, because few people are capable of actually living it out moment to moment. We all tend to view the different and the other as naturally inferior, even if it is only subconsciously and unintentionally. If we could all live up to the beliefs we claim, the world would be a different place. But alas, humans are inherently flawed.

 

[Gryphos]

No, the problem is an inherently human failure to actually live a worldview in which all people, no matter how different, are equal to ourselves. Philosophy only goes so far, because few people are capable of actually living it out moment to moment. We all tend to view the different and the other as naturally inferior, even if it is only subconsciously and unintentionally. If we could all live up to the beliefs we claim, the world would be a different place. But alas, humans are inherently flawed.

You're right, people are different. All people are different from each other. But if we start saying that members of this group are like this and members of that group are like that, we create a situation in which people born into a certain group feel as though they can't exhibit qualities typical of the other group, because 'it's not natural'. Which is wrong. As I said earlier, people should be able to choose whatever path they want in life, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, etc.

 

[Trick]

people should be able to choose whatever path they want in life, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, etc.

I agree with this but you're basically just saying that we should have freewill and freedom.

My only question for you, based off of reading all your posts in this thread, is: If societal influences are the reasons for the differences between men and women, which is present across all cultures (there is no culture I know of that has differences in gender roles significant enough to void this) where did those influences originate? When did someone suddenly say, "boys and girls should be treated different!" ? And how did this happen across cultures and land masses in very similar ways without any kind of contact?

Could it be that the inherent biological differences between men and women are at the root of societal norms and influences? Dads wanting their boys to play sports because they did and moms buying dolls for their daughters is what it is, but where did it all come from? If you believe in evolution then you may have to think about this a bit differently but, in all honesty, the only way these "norms" could be so widely and yet independently present is if they have a basis in fact.

I also say: have kids, try out your theories and then talk about this again. I have probably lent to the masculinity of my boys in some ways but the honest truth is, the majority of the time, they like boy stuff just because they do.

Backing up Steerpike's earlier post, none of this discussion actually needs to have any bearing on the OP because we are writing individuals who don't need to fit into boxes for any reason other than our own. Just write individuals and forget all the studies about gender blah blah blah. We are not social scientists publishing reports, we're fiction writers.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

You're right, people are different. All people are different from each other. But if we start saying that members of this group are like this and members of that group are like that, we create a situation in which people born into a certain group feel as though they can't exhibit qualities typical of the other group, because 'it's not natural'. Which is wrong. As I said earlier, people should be able to choose whatever path they want in life, regardless of race, sex, sexuality, etc.

But I don't think anyone is saying x person is x way because they have an x chromosome instead of a y. I think it's a general statement that it is more likely to find a man acting with physical aggression than it is to find a woman doing so. At least, the way I think about it is distribution on a curve of some kind. Men skew towards aggression because they have more testosterone.

You're right though people should be able to choose. But it is good to recognize that sometimes people through choice fit squarely within societal gender roles and that's fine for them. I am not accusing you of saying it's bad BTW that is more of a comment about how if you write a stay at home mom type character people get upset with the writer, especially if you are male.

 

[Trick]

that is more of a comment about how if you write a stay at home mom type character people get upset with the writer, especially if you are male.

This is a fun one. You're right, people have a pretty negative reaction to stay-at-home moms and it disgusts me. People say "choose, choose, choose; you're free to be who and what you want."

A woman says, "I want to be a stay-at-home mom."

"DON'T CHOOSE THAT! What is wrong with you? Is your husband forcing you into this demeaning role?"

Woman says, "No, it's my choice."

"Weirdo!"

It does often feel that our current society wants everyone to be free to do everything EXCEPT.... As if raising children isn't an incredibly hard job.

But I've gone off topic again. Drat.

 

[Gryphos]

My only question for you, based off of reading all your posts in this thread, is: If societal influences are the reasons for the differences between men and women, which is present across all cultures (there is no culture I know of that has differences in gender roles significant enough to void this) where did those influences originate? When did someone suddenly say, "boys and girls should be treated different!" ? And how did this happen across cultures and land masses in very similar ways without any kind of contact?

Could it be that the inherent biological differences between men and women are at the root of societal norms and influences? Dads wanting their boys to play sports because they did and moms buying dolls for their daughters is what it is, but where did it all come from? If you believe in evolution then you may have to think about this a bit differently but, in all honesty, the only way these "norms" could be so widely and yet independently present is if they have a basis in fact.

I would say that the root root root cause of it, going way back to when humanity's ancestors hadn't even left the African continent yet, would indeed probably be smoking of biological difference. Note, I don't argue that biology has no role to play, simply that the role of our environment is much more powerful. So I would say that in the beginning of the human race, this subtle biological tendency developed into a societal norm. Men were the hunters, and women the child-rearers, etc. When humans spread all over the world, they took this basic idea of gender roles with them. And this basic idea developed separately in all the different cultures into different but very similar attitudes to gender roles. That's how all over the world gender roles have developed, because they developed before humans even spread all over the world. That's my theory anyway.

So I do believe that some subtle differences may exist biologically, but I believe that these differences have been massively overstated, which leads to entire cultures being built around the concept of gender difference, which exacerbates the problem. While naturally there may be some statistical difference in traits between men and women, with social conditioning, you end up with a much more pronounced difference. Society isn't the root cause of gender roles, but it's the reason they've been maintained through to the modern age when hunter-gatherer instincts aren't really relevant anymore.

I also say: have kids, try out your theories and then talk about this again. I have probably lent to the masculinity of my boys in some ways but the honest truth is, the majority of the time, they like boy stuff just because they do.

One day, maybe. But it is interesting to note that children will naturally imitate their parents, and often are more likely to imitate same sex parents. This is due to the fact that as they are the same sex, they simply see them as having more in common. But anyway, if a boy likes doing 'boy things' that's fine, so long as he hasn't been pressured into anything.

But I don't think anyone is saying x person is x way because they have an x chromosome instead of a y. I think it's a general statement that it is more likely to find a man acting with physical aggression than it is to find a woman doing so. At least, the way I think about it is distribution on a curve of some kind. Men skew towards aggression because they have more testosterone.

I know, but you have to understand that a statement as seemingly harmless as 'men are more likely to exhibit aggressive behaviour' can have a subtle effect on a young girl or boy. On its own it may not change much, but together with a whole volley of similar comments thrown at us in everyday life by our society, it can very much influence person's psychology. Boys might feel as though they're not meant to be in a 'feminine' or 'girly' occupation, because those are 'typically done by women', and vice versa with women wanting to do a 'man's job'. This is why I'm opposed to the words 'masculine' and 'feminine', because their use only serves to tell girls they can't be masculine because, well, it's called 'masculine' for a reason, and vice versa for boys.

 

[Trick]

children will naturally imitate their parents, and often are more likely to imitate same sex parents. This is due to the fact that as they are the same sex, they simply see them as having more in common.

If you can say this then you can't judge people for imposing gender roles (not that I'm saying you are, exactly). Just by being masculine myself, which is my nature regardless of it's sources, will influence my boys toward masculinity. I am not going to change or lie about who I am or how I feel just because I'm a parent. So, I will inevitably push my boys towards a gender role without any intention or specific action other than being myself.

Therefore, it's a natural progression.

 

[Gryphos]

If you can say this then you can't judge people for imposing gender roles (not that I'm saying you are, exactly). Just by being masculine myself, which is my nature regardless of it's sources, will influence my boys toward masculinity. I am not going to change or lie about who I am or how I feel just because I'm a parent. So, I will inevitably push my boys towards a gender role without any intention or specific action other than being myself.

Therefore, it's a natural progression.

True, but while children will naturally imitate parents, I do think a conscious effort should be taken by parents to make sure their children don't feel pressured into anything. The boy may naturally want to play with cars because he sees the father driving a car, but if at any point he picks up a doll, let him play to his heart's content.

 

[Trick]

True, but while children will naturally imitate parents, I do think a conscious effort should be taken by parents to make sure their children don't feel pressured into anything. The boy may naturally want to play with cars because he sees the father driving a car, but if at any point he picks up a doll, let him play to his heart's content.

I'll say this much, my boys have never asked for a doll but both have toys that they pretend to feed, put down for naps and nurture in general. I have never made a point to stop that behavior... it's cute as hell to be honest But my oldest has slowly stopped doing it of his own accord. As far as I can tell, it just happened naturally.

 

[Steerpike]

Do you think it happened mostly naturally or due to a growing understanding of what society expects from boys?

 

[Trick]

Do you think it happened mostly naturally or due to a growing understanding of what society expects from boys?

Well, he's a smart kid, spoke sentences well before two years old, counted to ten shortly thereafter and he's only impressed me more every day since; but he's 3.5, so his understanding of what society expects from him is quite limited. I honestly believe he enjoyed it less and less. His "society" is his family and since we didn't discourage it or encourage something else in it's place, it leads me to believe that he just changed as part of getting a little older and being himself.

 

[Steerpike]

Well, he's a smart kid, spoke sentences well before two years old, counted to ten shortly thereafter and he's only impressed me more every day since; but he's 3.5, so his understanding of what society expects from him is quite limited. I honestly believe he enjoyed it less and less. His "society" is his family and since we didn't discourage it or encourage something else in it's place, it leads me to believe that he just changed as part of getting a little older and being himself.

Yeah, could very well be. I was thinking of things like books or television, which children glean a lot from even when they're very young, but you obviously understand a lot more about his development than I do (my understanding being zero, since I don't know your son ).

 

[Trick]

Yeah, could very well be. I was thinking of things like books or television, which children glean a lot from even when they're very young, but you obviously understand a lot more about his development than I do (my understanding being zero, since I don't know your son ).

He is read to a lot, by my wife especially since she opted to be a stay-at-home mom, but by me before bed most nights. I can't say I've noticed any books at his level that really differentiate between boys and girls that much. His TV watching is pretty limited too (just movies actually, no stations) but I don't see everything he does so it could affect him. He's definitely full spectrum on gender traits in other ways but so many kids are. I don't even think people who want their kids to fulfill such-and-such traits are too intense when their kids are very little.

 

[Guy]

It's probably because writers are continually judged and criticized for their portrayals of female characters, but very rarely for portrayals of male characters , unless it's because the male character is a racial minority. Heaven help you if you try to write a female character that is a racial minority. You'd better get it absolutely perfect or the critics will tear you apart. As a society, we care far more about how female characters are portrayed and so its natural for writers to be more concerned about it.

But since that particular goal is impossible, I quit worrying about it and write the characters as I see fit. And I operate under the assumption that if I can do it then, by definition, it isn't that hard and end up baffled why others can't do it (meaning if a shmuck like me can do it, how hard can it be?)

Personally, I think this is a terrible thing because I don't believe you can achieve true equality if you're constantly treating one sex like it's far more important. You can't balance the scales by going to the opposite extreme. You have to start treating both sexes as of equal importance right now. And also, because as you point out, it makes it seem like females are some rare creature that is mysterious and hard to pin down. It makes writers more afraid to write female characters, which will just end up leading to the same problem for a different reason: lack of female characters.

And this strikes me as particularly odd given our genre. It's fantasy, a world entirely of my creation. I can make the social and cultural norms whatever I want. You'd think fantasy writers would have the least difficulty overcoming this, yet here we are, chasing our tails yet again.

 

[Devor]

Rather, I want to pose a vital question, is it good that there are differences between genders? Do you want there to be biologically-caused psychological differences coded in the X and Y chromosomes that defines a person for the rest of their life?

Me? f*ck no! I would hate for that to be true. If it were true, I would still despise the division in toy stores between boy toys and girl toys. If I had children I would raise them gender-neutrally, not forcing dolls on the girl or cars on the boy, even though apparently their biology means they're just meant to play with them. I would let them be who they wanted to be.

I want to believe that men and women are the same, because society would be better if everyone believed that.

Why should it be bad? Is it bad that some people are introverted and others are extroverted? That some carry the past, while others focus on the future? We self-identify with these traits or we don't, without any other indicators. But they're still very much defined by our biological makeup. I think you only see it as a problem because there's some outside label on gender. But I'm not talking about labels. I'm talking about biology.

Let me put it another way. If we were all ponies with magical tattoos on our butts saying who we are and what we're good at, wouldn't it be naive to think we should be somebody else?

That's why I don't understand the strength of your reaction. I get that nobody wants to be an abstraction of their gender, and that people should be seen as individuals. Absolutely. And I'll be the last person denying the role of choice in anything. But is there something wrong with feminine traits that we should deny that women even have them?

To me, that sounds far more oppressive and damaging, to hold this belief that every woman who behaves a little differently than a man is doing so because society conditioned them that way, because society wronged them.

 

[Gryphos]

Why should it be bad? Is it bad that some people are introverted and others are extroverted? That some carry the past, while others focus on the future? We self-identify with these traits or we don't, without any other indicators. But they're still very much defined by our biological makeup. I think you only see it as a problem because there's some outside label on gender. But I'm not talking about labels. I'm talking about biology.

Do you honestly believe that introversion and extroversion, or philosophical outlook, are coded into our DNA? Hell, why not make everything coded into our bloody DNA? There's got to be a gene somewhere inside me that makes me prefer cats to dogs, or love marmite. You know, there's probably a gene somewhere that makes me want to be a fantasy writer! Look, it may sound all nice and neat to say that we are nothing but fleshy robots with all our emotions and thoughts coded into our hardware at construction. But our minds are not hardware, they're software, software which gets naturally updated over time by our experiences and interaction with the world around us. The mere fact that personalities can change over time proves that our personalities are not biologically chiselled in stone. I'm not the same person I was five years ago.

Let me put it another way. If we were all ponies with magical tattoos on our butts saying who we are and what we're good at, wouldn't it be naive to think we should be somebody else?

Wouldn't it be cruel to tell us we can't be somebody else? What if a pony came about that didn't like the tattoo it was given? What if it exhibited traits that the tattoo said it shouldn't? Why not just get rid of the tattoos and let the ponies be who the hell they want to be?

That's why I don't understand the strength of your reaction. I get that nobody wants to be an abstraction of their gender, and that people should be seen as individuals. Absolutely. And I'll be the last person denying the role of choice in anything. But is there something wrong with feminine traits that we should deny that women even have them?

To me, that sounds far more oppressive and damaging, to hold this belief that every woman who behaves a little differently than a man is doing so because society conditioned them that way, because society wronged them.

You're right, that would be oppressive and damaging, which is precisely why I'm not arguing that point. I have never said that there's anything wrong with 'femininity' in women or 'masculinity' in men. If a woman wants to, she can be girly to her heart's content, and she can also be boyish. A boy can be boyish, but he can also be girly. Some girls are naturally girly, and some are naturally boyish, and some boys are naturally boyish, while some are naturally girly.

The problem is not with 'feminine' traits. The problem is with assuming a woman has feminine traits because she is a woman. The mere presence of 'masculine' women disproves that utterly. If femininity is coded into the double XX chromosome, then all women would exhibit feminine traits. As it is, not all do, so obviously it can't just be an issue of biology.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I would still despise the division in toy stores between boy toys and girl toys. If I had children I would raise them gender-neutrally, not forcing dolls on the girl or cars on the boy, even though apparently their biology means they're just meant to play with them. I would let them be who they wanted to be.

If someday you have daughters, and they discover Disney Princesses and Disney Fairies are a thing, they will want the dolls. (And probably the videos of Tinkerbell and friends.) There are "girly" Lego sets now: Lego Friends and Lego Elves (a fantasy-themed sword-and-sorcery series). The girly Legos are more colorful than the ones I grew up with, and the Lego people are more realistic looking and have stylish hair and sometimes skirts.

These are not toys forced upon my daughters; but they are toys my daughters like.

As a writer, I think a woman can slay a dragon as well as any man can. As a martial artist, I don't take my opponent's gender into consideration. There is a difference between point-sparring and full contact, but I won't make that into a gender thing. I don't want a crooked nose, so I play for points. As a husband, I recognize distinct differences between men and women, as does my wife, and I am glad of these differences. As a father, I see my girls imagine themselves as princesses, fairies and mermaids, and it's cute. I won't feed them the line that "girls can be knights, too." I do tell stories where the princesses, fairies and mermaids solve their own problems as opposed to having the (male) knight ride in and rescue the girls.

When I say "as opposed to," I'm really opposing an outdated storyteller's mentality. Many children's stories written these days have female protagonists who don't need a male hero to rescue them. I LOVE Paper Bag Princess! (Google it!)

 

[Mythopoet]

But our minds are not hardware, they're software, software which gets naturally updated over time by our experiences and interaction with the world around us. The mere fact that personalities can change over time proves that our personalities are not biologically chiselled in stone. I'm not the same person I was five years ago.

Biology is not "chiselled in stone", for one thing. Our physical selves are changing all the time. So I don't think that when people say that biology has something to do with personality, they mean that our genes determine our personality and thus that our personality is "chiselled in stone". But denying that our physical nature has a relationship with our personality is just as flawed.

You may be a different person than you were 5 years ago, but you are certainly not an entirely different person. Personality develops over time, but it very rarely changes drastically. People have an essence that is themselves from an extremely early age. In my experience, my kids have started displaying their essence as toddler (at least, that is when I am first able to really observe it). They continue to grow and develop over that, but they are still observably themselves.

The problem is not with 'feminine' traits. The problem is with assuming a woman has feminine traits because she is a woman. The mere presence of 'masculine' women disproves that utterly. If femininity is coded into the double XX chromosome, then all women would exhibit feminine traits. As it is, not all do, so obviously it can't just be an issue of biology.

Again, I don't think that anyone here really thinks that it is "just" an issue of biology. That is a straw man argument. The "pro-biology" people in the discussion have, to my understanding, really only been saying that biology is a factor, not that it is the only factor. So please, stop arguing against that straw man, it doesn't really have anything to do with what people here are actually saying.

Furthermore, no one has claimed that all women should display feminine traits. Or that all men should display masculine traits. We call "feminine traits" as such because, in general over a large population, they tend to show up in females far more often than men. And the opposite is true of masculine traits. This does not mean, and nor is anyone here claiming, that feminine and masculine traits only show up in females and males, respectively. This is another straw man. Nor is anyone claiming that any individual man or woman is expected to display their respective gendered traits. Again, a straw man.

But it is undeniably human experience that "feminine" traits show up much more often in females and "masculine" traits show up much more often in males. This observation has always been true for as long as humans have existed. It is part of human nature. Again, this observation has nothing to do with individuals, only with large groups. Denying it is foolish. The only real way to deny it is to deny the existence of "masculine" or "feminine" at all. But this directly contradicts all of human experience. Nonetheless, that does seem to be what many in our society are trying to do. Abolish gender entirely and make men and women the same. I oppose this. I think the world would be a far worse place without the feminine and the masculine.