Gender Stereotypes and Tropes which I strongly dislike

[valiant12]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.