On Writing Women. Looking for honesty...

[Svrtnsse]

Some of you will have hear/read this before, and probably multiple times, but maybe not everyone.

In my first novel, Enar's Vacation I tried my best to do justice to the female characters (I assumed I'd get the males right by default so I didn't worry about that), whether they were young girls or old witches or wandering semi-alcoholic monks. I put a lot of thought and effort into it and I was quite pleased with myself.

I passed it out to some test readers, and some of them liked it while other didn't, as is normal.
What bothered me was that one of my friends got so annoyed with my bad cliched gender stereotypes that she stopped reading halfway through. At first I figured she was just overreacting and didn't understand what I was doing, but as time went on I got around to asking another friend of mine and she pointed out the same thing, and in a bit more detail what was wrong.

A lot of it was with little details that I'd missed or just hadn't thought about at all. I got a third person to look at it and she eventually got me a long list of all kinds of things that could be tied back to bad gender stereotypes in one way or another. I still haven't fixed that as I moved on to write other stories instead, but I may come back to that novel later.

The reason I'm bringing this up is to tie in with what the last few posts have been about: the concern for getting it wrong.

When I first learned that there were stereotype issues with my book I took it pretty badly on a personal level. I'd created the book and the book was a reflection of me. As such, if there's bad stereotyping in the book, it must come from me. Ergo: I'm a bad person.

So there's a kind of logic to the reasoning, but it's still wrong. Sure, I got things wrong, and it's a reflection of me, but that doesn't mean I'm a bad person - even though for a while I felt like I was.
It took some time to realise and to figure it out, but a lot of what my friends objected against were things I'd done due to lack of knowledge and experience - both as a writer and as a person.
I took the time to analyse what the complaints were, figure out where they came from and what lay beneath. It was unpleasant, but in the end it was a good learning experience.

The bottom line here is that it's easy to get things wrong when you don't know what you're doing. It can be a really stressful experience when it happens, but it's something you can get through if you set your mind to it. It's a great opportunity to learn and grow.

Like, in order to learn from your mistakes you have to make mistakes.

I can't take myself seriously if I'm serious for too long.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

What bothered me was that one of my friends got so annoyed with my bad cliched gender stereotypes that she stopped reading halfway through. At first I figured she was just overreacting and didn't understand what I was doing, but as time went on I got around to asking another friend of mine and she pointed out the same thing, and in a bit more detail what was wrong.

Hence the importance of beta readers, not just to catch our use of gender stereotypes, but to catch anything we weren't focused on when we wrote the story.

I wrote some fiction with a thirteen-year-old girl as a main POV character once before. My female readers loved the character and one of them went out of her way to tell me so. This was a story with a couple of males as additional POV characters. The girl POV character got all the love from female readers. So I have no doubts about my ability to write female characters. I'll still want female beta readers for everything I write.

 

[Annoyingkid]

There is a not entirely unfounded fear that when a writer - or just about anyone - says there are fundamental differences in men and women, that it's being used to as a reason to limit opportunities for females. To keep these characters in the passive, submissive, victim role and away from the dominant, risk taking leadership roles. A writer might then say "I don't do that!"
Well you sure about that? That you don't do this to at least some degree?

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

There is a not entirely unfounded fear that when a writer - or just about anyone - says there are fundamental differences in men and women, that it's being used to as a reason to limit opportunities for females. To keep these characters in the passive, submissive, victim role and away from the dominant, risk taking leadership roles. A writer might then say "I don't do that!"
Well you sure about that? That you don't do this to at least some degree?

I've seen unnecessary limitations placed on fictional women so many times, and it's become too easy to spot in movies and the fiction of others. Perhaps it's not as easy to spot in one's own writing, though I believe I've done a good job avoiding it. Some of what I've written in my WIP may not sit well with some readers, but I've tried to stay true to each character. If some of their behavior is stereotypical, well, real people sometimes behave stereotypical, which is how we came to have the stereotype. So in answer to the question, perhaps I have done it to some degree, but I hope the degree is minimal.

 

[Xitra_Blud]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having male characters who react in ways that are more like a woman and vice-versa. I may think that the character is more feminine than most men, but it wouldn't pull me out of the story. Same thing with females who carry more masculine traits. I wouldn't be unconvinced that the character is a woman. I may think she's a tomboy, but it wouldn't pull me out of the story. Girly-boys and manly-women exist. I just think the author ought to know who they are writing.

I am female and write mostly male MC's (or I have lately anyway) and never once did I feel uncomfortable writing them. I simply ask myself, "How would my character react to this?" rather than "How would a man react to this?" Truth of the matter is, you have some people in reality who react to situations and think in ways that's less common in their gender. I don't see why characters can't be the same.

In fact, I've created male characters who are deliberately feminine. Prince Amiah is all about beauty and being the "fairest in the land". Granted, he lives in a society where male beauty is considered the superior beauty, but it's still traditionally a feminine role. And then I have some male MC's in other stories that take on a far more traditionally male oriented role and behave more masculine.

I guess if you are writing a character that is intended to be a manly-man or a girly-girl, and the character reacts in ways that are not particularly masculine or feminine, then you may be off, but I think if you know who you're writing and have an understanding of the character you are trying to create, it's okay for them to cross the gender line every once in a while. Know how the character would react not how their gender would react.

I feel like worrying about whether I'm writing "a man" rather than whether I'm writing "true to my character" is going to lead me down a one way trip to a flat character.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

I am female and write mostly male MC's (or I have lately anyway) and never once did I feel uncomfortable writing them. I simply ask myself, "How would my character react to this?" rather than "How would a man react to this?" Truth of the matter is, you have some people in reality who react to situations and think in ways that's less common in their gender. I don't see why characters can't be the same.

I feel like worrying about whether I'm writing "a man" rather than whether I'm writing "true to my character" is going to lead me down a one way trip to a flat character.

Well said. There are many ways in which I am and many ways in which I'm not a stereotypical male, but I would never consider myself effeminate either. Each individual is unique. While gender plays a part in what makes a person who they are, it is only a part. If you understand your character's motivations, you can write the character, using gender and other characteristics to aid in adding realism.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having male characters who react in ways that are more like a woman and vice-versa. I may think that the character is more feminine than most men, but it wouldn't pull me out of the story. Same thing with females who carry more masculine traits. I wouldn't be unconvinced that the character is a woman. I may think she's a tomboy, but it wouldn't pull me out of the story. Girly-boys and manly-women exist. I just think the author ought to know who they are writing.

I am female and write mostly male MC's (or I have lately anyway) and never once did I feel uncomfortable writing them. I simply ask myself, "How would my character react to this?" rather than "How would a man react to this?" Truth of the matter is, you have some people in reality who react to situations and think in ways that's less common in their gender. I don't see why characters can't be the same.

In fact, I've created male characters who are deliberately feminine. Prince Amiah is all about beauty and being the "fairest in the land". Granted, he lives in a society where male beauty is considered the superior beauty, but it's still traditionally a feminine role. And then I have some male MC's in other stories that take on a far more traditionally male oriented role and behave more masculine.

I guess if you are writing a character that is intended to be a manly-man or a girly-girl, and the character reacts in ways that are not particularly masculine or feminine, then you may be off, but I think if you know who you're writing and have an understanding of the character you are trying to create, it's okay for them to cross the gender line every once in a while. Know how the character would react not how their gender would react.

I feel like worrying about whether I'm writing "a man" rather than whether I'm writing "true to my character" is going to lead me down a one way trip to a flat character.

Basically my philosophy on the whole thing. I worry I will fall into stereotypes if i overthink how a male or female might behave over how my character would behave.

 

[Devor]

Basically my philosophy on the whole thing. I worry I will fall into stereotypes if i overthink how a male or female might behave over how my character would behave.

Stereotypes are a thing that happen because you're not thinking about them.

 

[skip.knox]

It's interesting to me that people assume they can write their own gender just fine. Maybe that's a correct assumption, but it strikes me that it is an unexamined one.

Pace Socrates, the unexamined character is not worth writing.

 

[Annoyingkid]

Gender swapping a female MC is not so easily done without stepping on the toes of one's established male characters and potentially having a vibe that's too similar.

My MC has a brother so there's already going to be notable similarities, including having the same surname. It's redundant if they're both hypermasculine ruffians, so lets have it be a direct translation and have a more refined male warrior of noblity. Whoops, too similar to another male character who's ...a refined warrior of nobility.

Its not interchangable because the gender is a powerful differentiating tool to begin with.

 

[Dark Squiggle]

This might be evil, but why not look at how some social animals treat gender?
I'm into fish, so I'll give an example I like. Female tiger barbs are generally more dominant than males because they are bigger and therefore fight better (bigger females can carry more eggs = more offspring), but there is one major exception. When a school of tiger barbs is threatened by a predator they usually have two responses: flee or swarm and harass until the predator flees or is torn to bits, but there is sometimes a third exception. The predator may be too powerful to swarm, but a single mid-sized male may become a "bully" male. The bully male will hide in crevices and jump out at the predator, ripping out chunks of flesh and fins, using aggression, speed and agility to slowly destroy or deter the threat. This male will then become dominant, in spite of his small size.
I think this is an interesting, and genuine display of gender roles in a species that exhibits sexual dimorphism. It allows for differences and yet is very different and somewhat less rigid than the gender roles we have created. There is an enormous amount of social animals to take cues from - why not use them to shape male/female interaction?

 

[Devor]

This might be evil, but why not look at how some social animals treat gender?
I'm into fish, so I'll give an example I like. Female tiger barbs are generally more dominant than males because they are bigger and therefore fight better (bigger females can carry more eggs = more offspring), but there is one major exception. When a school of tiger barbs is threatened by a predator they usually have two responses: flee or swarm and harass until the predator flees or is torn to bits, but there is sometimes a third exception. The predator may be too powerful to swarm, but a single mid-sized male may become a "bully" male. The bully male will hide in crevices and jump out at the predator, ripping out chunks of flesh and fins, using aggression, speed and agility to slowly destroy or deter the threat. This male will then become dominant, in spite of his small size.
I think this is an interesting, and genuine display of gender roles in a species that exhibits sexual dimorphism. It allows for differences and yet is very different and somewhat less rigid than the gender roles we have created. There is an enormous amount of social animals to take cues from - why not use them to shape male/female interaction?

^ There's a study on a variety of monkeys that demonstrates that the females show far more compassion to the male monkeys, with one exception: The Alpha male shows more compassion than anyone else. What that means is up for speculation, but one hypothesis is that males tend to "specialize" more, so that it wasn't the Alpha male's nature but its job to be more compassionate. Taken to an extreme that sounds horribly condescending (women don't specialize? That's all anybody in this economy does nowadays). Taken to a more mild view, it may imply that women tend to "wear more hats" in the workplace, while the men tend to want to focus and push aside things they view as distractions.

Insomuch as any of that might be true, you could also cut the gender difference and recognize it is as a normal difference - Some people like to wear lots of hats, and some people like to focus more on one thing.

A lot of the more scientific approaches to this discussion tend to focus on differences like this one above ^ - normal distinctions between normal people, where the distribution of women and men skew a little to one direction or another.

 

[Dark Squiggle]

^ There's a study on a variety of monkeys that demonstrates that the females show far more compassion to the male monkeys, with one exception: The Alpha male shows more compassion than anyone else. What that means is up for speculation, but one hypothesis is that males tend to "specialize" more, so that it wasn't the Alpha male's nature but its job to be more compassionate. Taken to an extreme that sounds horribly condescending (women don't specialize? That's all anybody in this economy does nowadays). Taken to a more mild view, it may imply that women tend to "wear more hats" in the workplace, while the men tend to want to focus and push aside things they view as distractions.

Insomuch as any of that might be true, you could also cut the gender difference and recognize it is as a normal difference - Some people like to wear lots of hats, and some people like to focus more on one thing.

A lot of the more scientific approaches to this discussion tend to focus on differences like this one above ^ - normal distinctions between normal people, where the distribution of women and men skew a little to one direction or another.

So I am female because I like to do a lot of different things?
Are you saying that animals are bad examples because they can't be understood?

Also, someone earlier in this thread mentioned brother/sister relationships being different from sister/sister and brother/brother relationships (I can't find the post now, or I'd quote it), but I wanted to add that unless one of them is married or there are outside people present, there is no difference, at least none that I can see. I have no brothers, but I have 4 sisters, and I can tell you that we all interact differently to each other, and I think that age makes a bigger difference then gender in such a relationship, as does personality. I see my freind's interactions with their siblings as a reinforcement of this.

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

Also, someone earlier in this thread mentioned brother/sister relationships being different from sister/sister and brother/brother relationships (I can't find the post now, or I'd quote it), but I wanted to add that unless one of them is married or there are outside people present, there is no difference, at least none that I can see. I have no brothers, but I have 4 sisters, and I can tell you that we all interact differently to each other, and I think that age makes a bigger difference then gender in such a relationship, as does personality. I see my freind's interactions with their siblings as a reinforcement of this.

Growing up, I had three brothers and two sisters. Yes, each individual is unique, and the relationships between me and each of my siblings are different. Age can certainly make a difference in relationships. But there were commonalities in my brotherly relationships that weren't there in the relationships with my sisters, and vice versa. Regardless of age, the brothers were more apt to engage in wrestling of any type, whereas anyone would participate when we played tag or built snowmen. The girls had activities that didn't interest us boys. Shared experiences help shape relationships, and some experiences are more likely to be shared only between brothers, or only between sisters. Hence the differences I perceive between brother/brother, sister/sister, and brother/sister relationships.

[Edit: One of my sisters was something of a tomboy, having three older brothers, but that doesn't change anything I said above.]

 

[Devor]

So I am female because I like to do a lot of different things?
Are you saying that animals are bad examples because they can't be understood?

So, my point here wasn't even about whether or not men and women are different in this way, but to give an example of some of the factors and considerations modern scientific approaches are looking at.

 

[pmmg]

I think this is an interesting, and genuine display of gender roles in a species that exhibits sexual dimorphism. It allows for differences and yet is very different and somewhat less rigid than the gender roles we have created. There is an enormous amount of social animals to take cues from - why not use them to shape male/female interaction?

I suppose I would be more inclined to do this if I was writing a fantasy race that had some animal type traits, borrowing from the example above, if I had a anthropomorphized fish people, I might look to the example of a fish species as a way of working out the type of gender roles that might form, and why. But, I guess I feel, there are enough examples of people being people to work out how gender roles would tend to play out in societies not dissimilar from our own. So, while I think it is neat, and I can understand why some species have developed gender roles that don’t seem very much like those I might be led to assume, unless I had some reason to base my human-like species on something animal, I am more apt to put my energy into studying such roles as have appeared already in our human species. They are the best match.

Course, they are fantasy worlds we are writing about, so why not add some fantasy?

 

[Dark Squiggle]

I suppose I would be more inclined to do this if I was writing a fantasy race that had some animal type traits, borrowing from the example above, if I had a anthropomorphized fish people, I might look to the example of a fish species as a way of working out the type of gender roles that might form, and why. But, I guess I feel, there are enough examples of people being people to work out how gender roles would tend to play out in societies not dissimilar from our own. So, while I think it is neat, and I can understand why some species have developed gender roles that don’t seem very much like those I might be led to assume, unless I had some reason to base my human-like species on something animal, I am more apt to put my energy into studying such roles as have appeared already in our human species. They are the best match.

Course, they are fantasy worlds we are writing about, so why not add some fantasy?

Well this thread was discussing genderless society, gender roles, and how gender effects/taints relationships, and I felt this was a good way to look at it in a way that, at least to me, feels a lot more realistic than pretending to erase gender altogether. You can't pretend that Fantasy doesn't already have a reputation for societies/species/races that are fabricated and idealistic, or at least stereotypical why is this not okay for a semi-standard (elf/troll/goblin/pixie/etc.) race that offers a healthy bit of life? I feel this is a good, clear lens to look at such concepts with. "Anthropomorphized fish people" are far more realistic than Tolkien's elves, and probably more capable of the dynamic characters and relationships this thread is crying out for, even if such people would be as heavily flawed as we are.

 

[pmmg]

why is this not okay for a semi-standard (elf/troll/goblin/pixie/etc.) race that offers a healthy bit of life?

Well, look, nobody has to listen to me, and I am quite sure most poeple dont. I dont really think this falls into the category of 'okay' and 'not okay' to do. You get to invent the world, make it anyway you like. If you want races that behave like fish might in some concept of gender roles, go right ahead. You might write the next astounding franchise and make lots and lots of money with it, and if you do, more power to you.

Many of these races, I could imagine might, or would, have different roles present themselves for the various genders. My inclination, however, would be, that to the degree that these races are similar to our own, they would likely have developed gender roles along similar trends. So, if you show me a race where all the women are smaller than the men, and the women make up all the combat roles, I am going to 1) think that unlikely, and 2) look for why that may be. Could be there are reasons, could be there are not. I will remain to be conviced. Worst that can happen is I will put your book down and go on to the next. But you know, most people put down a lot of books, and some few seem to like some works enough to make them best sellers, even though most readers would scoff at the notion.

My daughter hates the idea of sparkly vampires in Twilight, and refuses to call them vampires. But you know what...I am sure Mrs. Meyer does not mind one bit.

So, if you think Elves are ripe for bending all the gender roles, go for it. I think, unless there is some reason elves would be dramatically different, that would be unlikely. So, I probably wont write it that way. If I was, I would have to change a bit some features of the elves.

But more important than this whole discussion. If you have a story to tell and a vision of what you want to have in it, than by all means, go get it written. I'll be happy to hear about your success.

 

[JBryden88]

Admittedly I read the OP and skipped to the end.

I'm not a woman, but I've never read Dune and I've never and will never finish LOTR. One of the things that bothered me about Tolkien's work was that it read like a fictional encyclopedia half the time, and when it got to the actual storytelling I was already 100 pages in and couldn't be any less interesting. I will always pick the movies over the books... and I think part of the reason is in the fact the lack of anything for female characters to do. Personally? I'm a softie. If a fantasy doesn't have a romance - even if it's subtle and platonic - it feels like there's something missing. I like to see the full range of relationships in my fantasy - I like to see rivalries, bitter enemies, the best of friends, family, and both romantic and sexual relationships in my stories.

I'm the sort of person who judges a story on how realistic it is not by if I can believe the world, but if I can believe the characters. If all the characters go through a harrowing journey and there isn't even a single mention of certain qualities that are fundamentally human? That's what makes me realize I'm just reading a book and not actually immersing myself into a story.

When it comes to actually writing women... as a guy I try to follow a simple rule for myself. I develop the character traits, the role they play in the story, and then I worry about whether they are a male or a female. I've heard some guys say that they can't identify with female characters (not saying I've heard that here, but in general) but I've found that for me if they are well written fully fleshed out characters, it doesn't matter *what* they are, but *who* they are that allows me to relate.

 

[Lisselle]

I read The Lord of the Rings when I was ten, twice, and I've read it nineteen times since. Dad placed Dune on my pillow when I was thirteen, (Making sure I only ever read the first book!) and I loved it. He then gave me his Asimov collection. Before I turned fifteen I was a Sci Fi and Fantasy addict, however by that age I believed only boys had the truly grand adventures in life. (Not burdened by boobs and periods and all the things I saw as hindrance, which Frodo did not have to deal with on his quest to destroy the Ring, or Paul did not experience upon discovering he was the Kwisatz Haderach.)


After fifteen, I read Sharon Penman, Anne McCaffrey, and more. I actually found the Mists of Avalon to be inanely boring, and never finished it.


I agree with OP about The Name of the Wind, whilst I loved it, and was interested to hear Patrick Rothfuss was a lecturer of some sort in Feminism and women's studies, I found his writing of women lacklustre and gratuitous.


With my own writing, I know I am reaching out to the young girl who believed only boys had adventures. I have two main characters (a male and a female) and a multitude of support characters.


I write females with as much variation as I write my males. Hopefully I have the males right, though I am sure a couple follow standard stereotypes.


I write girls and women in much the same way as I write boys and men; they are people, they are all different, and are driven by different histories and experiences. (I write detailed histories for each.) I have always loved creating characters, and find it really easy, and because I am a staunch believer in my own strength, and also because most of my best friends have always been guys, I write my females with their own sense of expectation that their world will view them as equals, and their stories will be valid. If my characters argue, or dislike each other, it is never on the basis of gender.


The females in my story are never, never threatened with sexual violence. I feel this is an important responsibility for me as a writer. The fear of sexual violence is not something I wish to impart on any readers I may ever have. I do not use it as a tool or tactic between the males and females, it is weak, and only hurts girls/ women and their vision of how they can act, and what they can expect. It also hurts men. It should not be the standby way to treat/abuse/dominate/seduce a woman in a story.

(And yes, I hated reading Game of Thrones, though I now find the later seasons of the TV series quite compelling!)