# Writing Men (1 Viewer)



## Joker (Jul 28, 2020)

Because if we have a long thread treating writing women like its rocket science, we should do the same for men! :rabbit:

I'll open with what I think is an excellent example of a strong masculine moment.

Probably my all-time favorite book series, The Witcher by Andrzej Sapkowski, follows a fairly typical masculine hero, Geralt. Geralt kills monsters for a living, drinks like a sailor, feels like he has to hide his emotions and f***s any woman the second she says she's willing. He has so many awesome fight scenes, they become routine.

Which is why I think the "manliest" moment in the books belongs to his wimpy sidekick, Jaskier. Jaskier is a dainty, cowardly bard who loves his friend, but considers him something of a savage. He'd much rather stay indoors and write sappy love poems than go outside and get his clothes dirty. But when Geralt finds himself captured by dryads who make a habit of killing humans on the spot, it's Jaskier who's forced to bargain for his release, being the only one to know his location. He's scared shitless - he's never held a sword in his life! - but he does it anyways. He gets on his horse and crosses into Brokilon Forest on pain on death because he knows Geralt would do the same for him. The scene wouldn't be nearly as effective if the roles were reversed because we know Geralt could just stab his way out of it.

Those are the qualities of a true man. Bravery in the face of fear, sacrifice, and loyalty to your friends. :very_drunk:


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 28, 2020)

Geralt is great. He is pure hero matter. I must must must get more involved with the Witcher books. I though the Netflix series was excellent - I mean, silly, but so self-conscious it just works. Yeah, Geralt of Rivia. He rarely utters more than the one syllable and even then it's "hmm" or "fuck" or maybe the occasional "Come on, Roach" to his horse.

But Jaskier? I would _die _for Jaskier.


----------



## Joker (Jul 28, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> Geralt is great. He is pure hero matter. I must must must get more involved with the Witcher books. I though the Netflix series was excellent - I mean, silly, but so self-conscious it just works. Yeah, Geralt of Rivia. He rarely utters more than the one syllable and even then it's "hmm" or "fuck" or maybe the occasional "Come on, Roach" to his horse.
> 
> But Jaskier? I would _die _for Jaskier.



The pair of them stand head and shoulders above most men in their world - dumb, drab brutes whose blandness is surpassed only by their cruelty. No one really wants to read about guys like that.


----------



## Joker (Jul 28, 2020)

Biro said:


> Beer.... T*ts .....Beer........then more Beer.........Sorted!



This isn't about what makes us happy, lol. I think we all know that.


----------



## indianroads (Jul 28, 2020)

Men and women feel the same emotions but we display them differently - and how they are displayed largely depends on their upbringing and the society they live in.

When writing characters it's important to not be heavy handed with the personality traits as that can make them seem stereotypical and cartoonish. The best research one can do in this area is to pay attention to the men and women you know. We definitely should not fall into the mindset that men are always one way and women another.


----------



## Joker (Jul 28, 2020)

indianroads said:


> Men and women feel the same emotions but we display them differently - and how they are displayed largely depends on their upbringing and the society they live in.



This is a good point. White American men still retain a very Anglo mindset when it comes to the whole stiff upper lip thing. Down in Latin America, it's considered masculine for a man to embrace his emotions openly. Crying isn't considered a sign of weakness, but heart. And they got that from the Romans.


----------



## indianroads (Jul 28, 2020)

Mistakes I've seen women authors make when writing a male POV:

Paying too much attention to clothing.
Noticing subtle smells / scents.
Notice details about how women dress - (fashion etc) a simple 'damn, she looks great!' works fine.
Being overly secure with themselves - (appearance etc)
Never being afraid.
Never being emotional - (we work at hiding it, but feel it nonetheless)

I encourage other men to chime in on this list.


----------



## Joker (Jul 28, 2020)

indianroads said:


> Mistakes I've seen women authors make when writing a male POV:
> 
> Paying too much attention to clothing.



I have three shirts: NASCAR t-shirts, band t-shirts, and funny print t-shirts. Anything else is formal wear.


----------



## Joker (Jul 28, 2020)

Something I don't think some women understand is how men handle disagreements.

Once, when I was in school, this dude had beef with me for whatever reason. He was much larger than me, but undeterred, I picked a fist fight with him anyways. I got my ass beat... and we never had any problems after that. It was done.

My sister, though, had crazy girls who held grudges for YEARS over the pettiest crap. It very rarely got physical though.


----------



## indianroads (Jul 28, 2020)

Joker said:


> I have three shirts: NASCAR t-shirts, band t-shirts, and funny print t-shirts. Anything else is formal wear.



I live in t-shirts and jeans for the most part. Add steel toe boots and a leather vest when I ride my motorcycle.
T-shirts fall into the categories of: 
Indian Motorcycle dealer shirts
Motorcycle Rally/event shirts
Celtic design shirts.

I've been involved in martial arts for about 60 years - but NEVER wear shirts from tournaments or school shirts.


----------



## Turnbull (Jul 28, 2020)

Joker said:


> Something I don't think some women understand is how men handle disagreements.
> 
> Once, when I was in school, this dude had beef with me for whatever reason. He was much larger than me, but undeterred, I picked a fist fight with him anyways. I got my ass beat... and we never had any problems after that. It was done.
> 
> My sister, though, had crazy girls who held grudges for YEARS over the pettiest crap. It very rarely got physical though.



Lol, that's male vs. female psychology.  Men use aggression as a form of communication.  For women, a physical altercation is the end of the friendship.  For men, it's a way of dealing with emotions.  I was reading this one book where a guy was studying children's behavior, and he noticed that boys who fought were better friends afterwards.

Another interesting thing I read was the child psychologist who suggested that spankings were more beneficial for boys than for girls, but I guess that's neither here nor there in terms of writing.

So far as women writing guys goes, women tend to do what male authors do, and write idealized versions of men.  I'm struggling to recall any particularly terrible female writer writing a man, but it seems that for the most part authors tend to write their own gender more often.  I can't really think of anything particularly offensive in either direction, in fact.  Though part of me wishes a man would read my works and tell me what I'm getting wrong.  I don't think I'm very wrong, but all the same, I'm not quite sure my male characters reach the level of realism I would like to have.


----------



## indianroads (Jul 28, 2020)

Turnbull said:


> [...]
> So far as women writing guys goes, women tend to do what male authors do, and write idealized versions of men.  I'm struggling to recall any particularly terrible female writer writing a man, but it seems that for the most part authors tend to write their own gender more often.  I can't really think of anything particularly offensive in either direction, in fact.  Though part of me wishes a man would read my works and tell me what I'm getting wrong.  I don't think I'm very wrong, but all the same, I'm not quite sure my male characters reach the level of realism I would like to have.



If I'm uncertain, I first ask either my partner or my daughter that lives close by to give it a look. Beyond that, my beta reader is female as is my editor.


----------



## indianroads (Jul 28, 2020)

Responding with aggression is more common in younger men or boys.

I'm older (mid 60's) and have nothing to prove. If someone disrespects me I simply cut them out of my life without any drama.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 28, 2020)

Turnbull said:


> So far as women writing guys goes, women tend to do what male authors do, and write idealized versions of men.  I'm struggling to recall any particularly terrible female writer writing a man, but it seems that for the most part authors tend to write their own gender more often.  I can't really think of anything particularly offensive in either direction, in fact.  Though part of me wishes a man would read my works and tell me what I'm getting wrong.  I don't think I'm very wrong, but all the same, I'm not quite sure my male characters reach the level of realism I would like to have.



Have you read _Twilight_? Some pretty good examples of bad male writing by a woman. Same with a lot of romance writing. Of course, a lot of that is just bad writing generally, but some of it is women authors who are otherwise pretty good. Like, I don't actually, seriously think Stephanie Meyer is a _totally terrible _writer - nobody who sells millions of copies is completely unreadable and people who slam on Meyer as being the worst writer of all time are mostly just envious of her success. She's just a mediocre YA writer with an attractive idea who unfortunately had her middling writing skills made somewhat laughable by her _issues..._especially in regard to male-female relationships. There are lots of women authors like that. Lots of male ones too

I think a lot of the time the biggest pitfall with women authors is making male characters overly palatable to women by making them more sensitive, emotional, whatever. 

This isn't always a problem. I would generally prefer to read about a slightly 'feminized' male character than an overly 'masculinized' one. I don't often find either to be particularly realistic anyway, so sometimes reading a male character through a female author's filter can actually be quite refreshing. I find female authors tend to write feminized men but male authors, rather than writing masculinized women, tend to write _their version of femininity, _which is usually pretty badly done. That's the main difference IMO.

It becomes a bit of a problem when it doesn't jive with the character, though. Like, when you have a male character you know would act like kind of a douchebag for the sake of douchebaggery -- I find female authors tend to be more prone to add in complexity where perhaps it may not be necessary, maybe? I tend to find a lot more emotional depth, existential pain, etc in female authored books compared to male ones. A lot more angst, I guess. While that's usually pretty good, better than a bunch of louts, sometimes it feels unnecessary.

ETA: I think the trope of 'men are aggressive' is hugely overblown and this thread is kind of confirming it. Aggression as a male tendency gets far too much representation. Like, it's bullshit that 'men communicate through fistfights', I don't believe that's a norm of our gender and I don't think there's any credible studies that support it. What I think it is, is a trope that gets reinforced by a culture that is obsessed with masculinity and actually _likes _the idea of men being violent. Basically, I don't care if some men do bond aggressively, I'm sure some do, but it's entirely irrelevant because I don't and neither did any of my friends growing up and I have been able to successfully avoid violent men because they aren't as ubiquitous as people like to think. I'd have to check with my mother, but I'm pretty confident I never once got in a fight at any age -- a lot of us just don't get off on that shit.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 28, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> ETA: I think the trope of 'men are aggressive' is hugely overblown and this thread is kind of confirming it. Aggression as a male tendency gets far too much representation. Like, it's bullshit that 'men communicate through fistfights', I don't believe that's a norm of our gender and I don't think there's any credible studies that support it. What I think it is, is a trope that gets reinforced by a culture that is obsessed with masculinity and actually _likes _the idea of men being violent. Basically, I don't care if some men do bond aggressively, I'm sure some do, but it's entirely irrelevant because I don't and neither did any of my friends growing up.



Not to derail the thread, but bonding aggressively is a different thing than communicating through violence. Mosh pits, wrestling or sparring between friends, contact sports, etc. are all forms of aggressive bonding that are IMO not harmful. BUT also not an exclusively male phenomenon. My younger siblings play a very physical game called 'Killer' (essentially tackle football without the football part), and only two of them are boys. I myself like stuff like wrestling with friends, play-fighting, and moshing, and they really do give a distinct feel of brothers/sisters-in-arms that other forms of bonding don't. A half-hour in the pit with someone, and you feel like you know them for a year...there's just something about it...idk


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 28, 2020)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Not to derail the thread, but bonding aggressively is a different thing than communicating through violence. Mosh pits, wrestling or sparring between friends, contact sports, etc. are all forms of aggressive bonding that are IMO not harmful. BUT also not an exclusively male phenomenon. My younger siblings play a very physical game called 'Killer' (essentially tackle football without the football part), and only two of them are boys. I myself like stuff like wrestling with friends, play-fighting, and moshing, and they really do give a distinct feel of brothers/sisters-in-arms that other forms of bonding don't. A half-hour in the pit with someone, and you feel like you know them for a year...there's just something about it...idk



Oh yeah, totally agree, I was mostly just reacting to some of the statements floated in this thread, which do conflate aggression with physical violence/altercations and make some pretty ridiculous claims -- "men communicate that way". Uh, give me a break.

It is overblown, is my main point. I do think men are generally more competitive than women. I never 'fought' with my friends ever, but we did get into screaming fits of rage over video games and chess in a way I don't think most girls would, in a way that was _aggressive _or at least extremely _competitive_. 

But, I also think most stories cover this stuff with male characters pretty easily. Like, it's not really fertile ground for new ideas, just having yet another conflict resolved by a fistfight or swordfight or whatever. I would rather read about a male character who managed to be a total pacifist while simultaneously remaining both personally strong (not 'a bitch', to put it bluntly) and also human enough to avoid the trappings of being some kind of Messianic goody-two-shoes because that's silly too.

An example that springs to mind, kind of weird, is Piggy from Lord Of The Flies. Total lame-o and wussypants on the surface, but who turns out to be by far the strongest and most courageous character in a pretty violent book.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jul 29, 2020)

That'd be an interesting idea...didn't that manga Trigun have that premise (noble pacifist outlaw in a violent world)? I never read it but wondered about it.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 29, 2020)

Biro said:


> Well that I think is a perfect example of the type of person you are and the place where you live and the era of your life.  And thats not being offensive.
> 
> I did a topic recently and tried to explain how readers of different places and eras would have trouble understanding where the story is set.
> 
> ...



It may not be offensive but it is ad hominem and therefore meaningless.

I think what irks me a bit about this pontificating regarding 'people's understanding' is, I don't think you necessarily understand it either. 

The past cannot be 'understood' as some homogeneous thing. We both lived through the 2000's and I don't think either of us can talk about that era with any great certainty outside of the broadest of strokes. Were people violent in the 2000's? What was it like to live in the 2000's? Dunno! I only know what I saw and heard talked about. 

Like everybody else, your idea of these things is colored by your personal experience, which is anecdotal and not super useful. Like, you say 'this was common place every Saturday for every 20 years' like that means something important. Note that I never said men couldn't be violent, they absolutely can, and it's empirically true they are more violent than women. So, that's a straw man. A non-argument. My point is that violence isn't something that comes naturally to men overall as individuals. It doesn't. That's my assertion and I challenge you to prove it wrong.

Regarding your assertion that football hooliganism in the UK = some kind of checkmate for my assertion that such instincts are not endemic or even especially common among men generally, we can both play the 'look at my YouTube video' game. If you want to go there, it should be pointed out there were probably more men in the 1970's wearing flowers in their hair, chanting 'Hare Krishna', and listening to the Grateful Dead than there ever were beating the shit out of each other in the stands at soccer games. 

So why aren't _those _kinds of men considered 'common place'? 
Why is one characteristic reflective of typical masculinity but the other is not?

More to the point, so what? It's not like football hooligans and hippies can't both be reflective of male-ness. Can we not allow that generalizations of that kind are fairly redundant, especially if we're talking about creating characters in 2020? 

_Could it be that we are cherry picking our ideals of 'masculinity' to suit an ingrained cultural bias? If so, why are we doing that?_


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2020)

indianroads said:


> Men and women feel the same emotions but we display them differently - and how they are displayed largely depends on their upbringing and the society they live in.
> 
> When writing characters it's important to not be heavy handed with the personality traits as that can make them seem stereotypical and cartoonish. The best research one can do in this area is to pay attention to the men and women you know. We definitely should not fall into the mindset that men are always one way and women another.



Agree!  Every character should be carefully thought out and have their own set of traits based on what works with the theme and plot of the story.  It's interesting to think that men and women may feel the same emotions, but display them differently.  If that is the case, the internal thoughts would be the same for both POVs, but the actions would be different. 

 It would be interesting to hear how you would write the same emotion for a men and for a women.  For example, the emotion of fear.  Can you demonstrate the difference?


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> ETA: I think the trope of 'men are aggressive' is hugely overblown and this thread is kind of confirming it. Aggression as a male tendency gets far too much representation. Like, it's bullshit that 'men communicate through fistfights', I don't believe that's a norm of our gender and I don't think there's any credible studies that support it. What I think it is, is a trope that gets reinforced by a culture that is obsessed with masculinity and actually _likes _the idea of men being violent. Basically, I don't care if some men do bond aggressively, I'm sure some do, but it's entirely irrelevant because I don't and neither did any of my friends growing up and I have been able to successfully avoid violent men because they aren't as ubiquitous as people like to think. I'd have to check with my mother, but I'm pretty confident I never once got in a fight at any age -- a lot of us just don't get off on that shit.



The concept of physical fighting being diffferent between men and women may be one that is hard to ignore.  

We never instilled violence in any form when raising our children.  I remember once when our son, an intelligent and gentle soul, came to breakfast on a hot summer morning wearing a long sleeve shirt.  When reaching for the milk, marks appeared under his cuffs.  Quickly pulling back his sleeves, revealed bruising all over his arms.  The story was that a boy at school was harrassing other children.  My son took it upon himself to teach this boy a lesson.  It involved a treed area after school.  There was an audience.  They agreed not to hit in the face.  It was all very civilized.  They became friends afterwards.  I never understood it.  Where did he learn this?

And then I wonder about war.  If we were a matriarchal society.  Would there have been as many wars?  Or would they have been fought in a different way?


----------



## Joker (Jul 29, 2020)

Taylor said:


> The concept of physical fighting being diffferent between men and women may be one that is hard to ignore.
> 
> We never instilled violence in any form when raising our children.  I remember once when our son, an intelligent and gentle sole, came to breakfast on a hot summer morning wearing a long sleeve shirt.  When reaching for the milk, marks appeared under his cuffs.  Quickly pulling back his sleeves, revealed bruising all over his arms.  The story was that a boy at school was harrassing other children.  My son took it upon himself to teach this boy a lesson.  It involved a treed area after school.  There was an audience.  They agreed not to hit in the face.  It was all very civilized.  They became friends afterwards.  I never understood it.  Where did he learn this?
> 
> And then I wonder about war.  If we were a matriarchal society.  Would there have been as many wars?  Or would they have been fought in a different way?



No, just a bunch of jealous countries never speaking to each other again :icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## Matchu (Jul 29, 2020)

I prefer that idealised version of the trench warfare story to the beefcake interviewed on the BBC Iraq documentary:

"We had vehicles with STAY BACK OR WE SHOOT written in Arabic and English all over the humvee, but they kept coming, we started shooting, yeah we killed a lot of mummies and daddies and babies that day.  Guess they couldn't read.  Fuck it.  Fuck.  BARTENDER ANOTHER DRINK! Fuck."


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 29, 2020)

Taylor said:


> And then I wonder about war.  If we were a matriarchal society.  Would there have been as many wars?  Or would they have been fought in a different way?



The famously militaristic people of Sparta also happen to be one of the more matriarchal societies of pre-modern Europe. Plutarch reports of Queen Gorgo of Sparta: "When asked by a woman from Attica, 'Why are you Spartan women the only ones who can rule men?', she said: 'Because we are also the only ones who give birth to men.'" Make of that what you will.


As for writing men - seems to suffer the same problem as writing women - the differences can become exaggerated. For instance, men are typically more violent, but how many men actually experience violence in their daily/weekly or monthly lives? I'm sure a subset of men do, but many more don't. So if you're writing general fiction and every male character turns to violence, it could stand out. But in a dangerous fantasy setting it could make more sense.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> The famously militaristic people of Sparta also happen to be one of the more matriarchal societies of pre-modern Europe. Plutarch reports of Queen Gorgo of Sparta: "When asked by a woman from Attica, 'Why are you Spartan women the only ones who can rule men?', she said: 'Because we are also the only ones who give birth to men.'" Make of that what you will.



Interesting that you have to go back to 192 BC to find an example of a militaristic matriarchal society.  




epimetheus said:


> As for writing men - seems to suffer the same problem as writing women - the differences can become exaggerated. For instance, men are typically more violent, but how many men actually experience violence in their daily/weekly or monthly lives? I'm sure a subset of men do, but many more don't. So if you're writing general fiction and every male character turns to violence, it could stand out. But in a dangerous fantasy setting it could make more sense.



Good point!  For most general fiction novels, a man's need to turn to violence to deal with the conflict he is experiencing in the story would not be appropriate.  However, it seems to be more prevalent in script writing.  Sometimes it feels like producers seek out scripts that have reasons to portray violence.   Or is it just me?


----------



## epimetheus (Jul 29, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Interesting that you have to go back to 192 BC to find an example of a militaristic matriarchal society.



Had to go that far back to find any matriarchal society at all. And even then, i'm not sure they really count as matriarchal, just much more so than anything else until the modern era. Hard to infer anything from one datum, but the one we do have points the other way we would typically think. Maybe others know of other matriarchal societies to flesh out the data.



Taylor said:


> Good point! For most general fiction novels, a man's need to turn to violence to deal with the conflict he is experiencing in the story would not be appropriate. However, it seems to be more prevalent in script writing. Sometimes it feels like producers seek out scripts that have reasons to portray violence. Or is it just me?



Stories thrive on conflict of one sort or another. Violence, being so physical, is an easy one to show so probably gets over-represented. Certainly does in computer games too. Books have the advantage of being able to place the reader inside the protagonist's mind, hence giving access to internal conflict in a way that is extremely difficult on screen.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Stories thrive on conflict of one sort or another. Violence, being so physical, is an easy one to show so probably gets over-represented. Certainly does in computer games too. Books have the advantage of being able to place the reader inside the protagonist's mind, hence giving access to internal conflict in a way that is extremely difficult on screen.



Interesting observation!  I also wonder why in so many movies there is a lack of female characters.  So if what you are saying is true, violence is often portrayed because it's easier.  So then would it follow that it is easier to write male characters in violent settings?    And is it harder to write men in emotional settings and make it enjoyable for men to watch.  As such the term "chick flick" evolved.   

But going back to novels.  Personally, I find it hard to find good stories, that don't involve violence, and that portray men's inner thoughts and conflicts, that are not crime based.  And yet, there are plenty of non-violent, non-crime based stories that are female POV.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2020)

I'm writing a novel right now and the protagonist is a strong professional women.  She has struggled a bit in her love life and has now met and is dating a new man.  They connect on a professional level, and part of the purpose of the character is to get the plot development into dialogue.  

So far, I have made him a perfect man for her, good looking; well dressed, but not too groomed; owns a tux; is not too eager, but responsive to her needs; has some mystery about him; is complimentary to her, but not overly; edcuated; well spoken, but doesn't talk too much about himself; shows some vulnerabiliy, etc.  

I know at some point there needs to be something about him that is not perfect...because that is the way real life is.  But it has to be something that won't turn off the reader.  He is divorced, so I could tie something to that.  I have been toying with, that he doesn't want to have kids.  

Any ideas for character flaws in a man that the readers will accept without disliking him?


----------



## Joker (Jul 29, 2020)

Taylor said:


> I'm writing a novel right now and the protagonist is a strong professional women.  She has struggled a bit in her love life and has now met and is dating a new man.  They connect on a professional level, and part of the purpose of the character is to get the plot development into dialogue.
> 
> So far, I have made him a perfect man for her, good looking; well dressed, but not too groomed; owns a tux; is not too eager, but responsive to her needs; has some mystery about him; is complimentary to her, but not overly; edcuated; well spoken, but doesn't talk too much about himself; shows some vulnerabiliy, etc.
> 
> ...



Hiding his emotions out of fear of vulnerability. Acting without thinking. Maybe he has a habit of saying little white lies or exaggerating his accomplishments to impress her.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2020)

Joker said:


> Hiding his emotions out of fear of vulnerability. Acting without thinking. Maybe he has a habit of saying little white lies or exaggerating his accomplishments to impress her.



Good ideas but, he has already expressed some fears and shown vulnerability, that's one thing she already likes about him.  He is an incredibly accomplished lawyer.  Worked in Washington as a advisor to the whitehouse, and he downplays that to her which ends up working into the plot.  I can't see him telling little white lies.

Sorry Joker...anything else you can think of?


----------



## Joker (Jul 29, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Good ideas but, he has already expressed some fears and shown vulnerability, that's one thing she already likes about him.  He is an incredibly accomplished lawyer.  Worked in Washington as a advisor to the whitehouse, and he downplays that to her which ends up working into the plot.  I can't see him telling little white lies.
> 
> Sorry Joker...anything else you can think of?



Maybe he's moralistic?


----------



## indianroads (Jul 29, 2020)

Taylor said:


> [...]
> 
> It would be interesting to hear how you would write the same emotion for a men and for a women.  For example, the emotion of fear.  Can you demonstrate the difference?



It would depend on the POV, meaning writing the scene within the male's head vs writing from an observer - and further if that observer is male or female.

Within the male's head, I would focus on sensation. Skin tingling, tightness in the chest. Next I would write an internal monologue - _Crap. Roger's pissed and he's too big for me to handle_. - _Roger's hitting on my girl, she's probably gonna leave with him_.

From an observer, I would note physical changes such as eyes dilating, skin becoming pale, fist clenching. I would also use short choppy sentences to relay the emotion.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2020)

Joker said:


> Maybe he's moralistic?



I like that!  He works in policy law and sits on the board of the SEC.  It works...thanks!!


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2020)

indianroads said:


> It would depend on the POV, meaning writing the scene within the male's head vs writing from an observer - and further if that observer is male or female.
> 
> Within the male's head, I would focus on sensation. Skin tingling, tightness in the chest. Next I would write an internal monologue - _Crap. Roger's pissed and he's too big for me to handle_. - _Roger's hitting on my girl, she's probably gonna leave with him_.
> 
> From an observer, I would note physical changes such as eyes dilating, skin becoming pale, fist clenching. I would also use short choppy sentences to relay the emotion.



Now if it was a woman and another woman was pissed and hitting on her boyfriend.  How would you write the same feeling?  

I know this thread is about "writing men", but some posts have indicated we may not need to write men and women so differently. And I believe you said men feel the same emotions, just display them differenty.  I'm just testing the theory...


----------



## indianroads (Jul 29, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Now if it was a woman and another woman was pissed and hitting on her boyfriend.  How would you write the same feeling?
> 
> I know this thread is about "writing men", but some posts have indicated we may not need to write men and women so differently. And I believe you said men feel the same emotions, just display them differenty.  I'm just testing the theory...



I've not written that scenario, and am unsure how I'd do it. If the woman hitting on her man was a friend, I suspect she'd be furious at the woman - the man's response would determine how she'd feel toward him. The situations are similar, so a lot of the overt signs would be the same but the undertones would subtly differ.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 29, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Now if it was a woman and another woman was pissed and hitting on her boyfriend.  How would you write the same feeling?
> 
> I know this thread is about "writing men", but some posts have indicated we may not need to write men and women so differently. And I believe you said men feel the same emotions, just display them differenty.  I'm just testing the theory...



I don't think it's right that women and men feel the same emotions, although that could be a misunderstanding about the phrasing. 

Men and men do feel the same emotions in terms of broad labels: "Happiness", "sadness", "loneliness". But the more detailed fabric of those emotions as well as whether and how they are experienced and, most obviously, the way in which they manifest is extremely different and some of that's biological.

A good example of that I think is in sex. Both women and men are capable of feeling attachment through sex but women's sense of attachment is generally formed stronger and more rapidly. Now, of course not every woman is monogamous and casual sex is a thing, but women are far more likely than men to develop feelings after a single sexual encounter than men who are more likely to more easily differentiate between a woman they simply sleep with and a woman they want to have a relationship with, holding close to zero feelings for the former and a ton for the other.

That said, I do believe men who are in love can feel that emotion as strongly as women (and sometimes more strongly) so I would agree with the statement 'women and men feel the same emotions' in its most broad sense. The problem is that the actual applications of those emotions can be so wildly different that it _seems _like they aren't the same_. _Ultimately it doesn't matter if two people are capable of loving one another, if they don't love each other at the same time and with similar intensity and if that love doesn't manifest itself in a way that is recognizable between the two people, it's not the same emotional plane, its not a useful way to understand. And that is how you get the whole 'men are from Mars, women are from Venus' thing.


----------



## Matchu (Jul 29, 2020)

Taylor said:


> I'm writing a novel right now and the protagonist is a strong professional women.  She has struggled a bit in her love life and has now met and is dating a new man.  They connect on a professional level, and part of the purpose of the character is to get the plot development into dialogue.
> 
> So far, I have made him a perfect man for her, good looking; well dressed, but not too groomed; owns a tux; is not too eager, but responsive to her needs; has some mystery about him; is complimentary to her, but not overly; edcuated; well spoken, but doesn't talk too much about himself; shows some vulnerabiliy, etc.
> 
> ...



- He is a gym and a cycling obsessive, spends many hours admiring his own breasts in the mirror, until MC comes along when he learns to smoke.  Final scene comes with her pregnancy.  They are both admiring their new bellies together, and smoking.

- He is a 'conspiracy theorist' until through tender chapters she teaches him to read a paper book they found out walking the freeway

- The Jack hammer sex banger learns to slow down one chapter at a time.  Final chapter is tantric.

- Not educated.

- He does not own a tuxedo, and he smells a little bit.  She begins to appreciate the scent on 'journey.'

- He is kind of ugly but nobody really cares about that so much.

- Growing to love an intensely boring man.

Ummm, thinking on


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2020)

indianroads said:


> I've not written that scenario, and am unsure how I'd do it. If the woman hitting on her man was a friend, I suspect she'd be furious at the woman - the man's response would determine how she'd feel toward him. The situations are similar, so a lot of the overt signs would be the same but the undertones would subtly differ.



Yes, brilliant!  

When writing the man, you would have him be more concerned about how, or if he could overpower the other man physically.  When writing the woman, how she felt about her boyfriend's reaction would be key.  If the boyfriend responds positively to the attention, then possibly she would be more hurt by him than angry at the friend.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 29, 2020)

Matchu said:


> - He is a gym and a cycling obsessive, spends many hours admiring his own breasts in the mirror, until MC comes along when he learns to smoke.  Final scene comes with her pregnancy.  They are both admiring their new bellies together, and smoking.
> 
> - He is a 'conspiracy theorist' until through tender chapters she teaches him to read a paper book they found out walking the freeway
> 
> ...



All good ideas...thanks!   (The first one is a little weird...lol!!)


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 30, 2020)

Joker said:


> I have three shirts: NASCAR t-shirts, band t-shirts, and funny print t-shirts. Anything else is formal wear.



Deer antlers are not for fighting off the wolves.
Deer antlers are for establishing dominance among other deer. The size of the rack matters, as well as how hard they horn-wrassle the contenders.

Why do I bring this up? Because that quoted text above speaks directly to the male psychology of big racks.
See, men have an intrinsic need to be viewed as being manly. But instead of a rack, they do a lotta posturing and sign posting.

Ever see a truck with a Harley Davidson sticker? Wondered what logic makes a man put a motorcycle ad on a pickup?
They were showing you their rack. Motorcycles are tough and manly so you make sure people know you endorse tough products so they think you are a tough manly man.

So what you wear on your tshirts may just be a primitive urge to show off your rack.




And who said men and women think the same?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 30, 2020)

Men do a lot of posturing.
Just look at the manly stickers on their vehicles.
Or their shirts, or their avatars.

There are vast differences between how men and women think. I would say that men are far less logical compared to the opposite gender. I'd say that men have about a 60/40 mix (60% logic, 40% emotionally driven).. But I'd put women at 80/20.

A man is little more than an intelligent delivery system for a penis. (And really, I'm being generous with the word intelligent.)


----------



## PiP (Jul 30, 2020)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Men do a lot of posturing.
> 
> There are vast differences between how men and women think. I would say that men are far less logical compared to the opposite gender. I'd say that men have about a 60/40 mix (60% logic, 40% emotionally driven).. But I'd put women at 80/20.
> 
> A man is little more than an intelligent delivery system for a penis. (And really, I'm being generous with the word intelligent.)


Only a man could make this comment. Women may think it but wouldn't dare say it.


----------



## Joker (Jul 30, 2020)

PiP said:


> Only a man could make this comment. Women may think it but wouldn't dare say it.



Imagine if that was said about a particular race!


----------



## Bayview (Jul 30, 2020)

Guys. Don't write "a man"; don't write "a woman". Just write your individual characters, in all their infinite complexity.

I'm a woman. I have more in common with a liberal, educated, financially secure, born-in-Canada-into-a-stable-family MAN, than I do with a conservative, ignorant, impoverished, born-in-Taiwan-into-a-dysfunctional-family WOMAN.

There's no need to debate the stereotypes and generalizations, not as a WRITING discussion.


----------



## Gumby (Jul 30, 2020)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Men do a lot of posturing.
> Just look at the manly stickers on their vehicles.
> Or their shirts, or their avatars.
> 
> ...



Almost spit my coffee on the keyboard! 


I do sometimes think that there is a difference in a man's logic and a woman's logic. Maybe because we tend to align priorities differently.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Jul 30, 2020)

Joker said:


> Imagine if that was said about a particular race!



Well it wouldn't be even remotely accurate because race is not a genetic construction while sex is.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 30, 2020)

Hard agree with Bayview. Are there differences between men and women? Sure! There are also differences between men and other men. And differences between women and other women. And differences between a gay man and a trans woman. And differences between a child and an elder. And so on, and so forth. So many differences, across such a broad spectrum, that it's not even worth worrying about (in my opinion).

Hell, there might even differences between brothers. Sometimes they're polar opposites.

Focus on the character, I say. Not the gender. If you get to know the character well enough, as the writer, then the character's own gender-specific behaviors will become known, as well. And you won't even have to ask yourself about their gender in order to know how they'd behave.


----------



## Pulse (Jul 30, 2020)

Sounds a bit like Don Quixote who I didn't have much time for, but an interesting thought.  I remember doing an exercise where archetypes were divided into batches of three.  I think one of them was villain, victim and hero.


----------



## Joker (Jul 30, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> Hard agree with Bayview. Are there differences between men and women? Sure! There are also differences between men and other men. And differences between women and other women. And differences between a gay man and a trans woman. And differences between a child and an elder. And so on, and so forth. So many differences, across such a broad spectrum, that it's not even worth worrying about (in my opinion).
> 
> Hell, there might even differences between brothers. Sometimes they're polar opposites.
> 
> Focus on the character, I say. Not the gender. If you get to know the character well enough, as the writer, then the character's own gender-specific behaviors will become known, as well. And you won't even have to ask yourself about their gender in order to know how they'd behave.



True, but I'd argue gender is an inextricable part of character, even if on a subconscious layer. Hell, it's probably better that what, because _trying _to write a man (or woman) usually just leads to stereotypes. Just let your own knowledge and experience with men and women do the work most of the time.

(Except with pregnancy. I have no idea how a baby inside me feels!)


----------



## Joker (Jul 30, 2020)

Squalid Glass said:


> Well it wouldn't be even remotely accurate because race is not a genetic construction while sex is.



I... what? 

Are you saying that racial traits aren't based in genes?

Where all the babies in China being socialized into being black, then?

I really hope I'm misunderstanding this...


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 30, 2020)

Joker said:


> I... what?
> 
> Are you saying that racial traits aren't based in genes?
> 
> ...



Race doesn’t exist as a scientific concept. A lot of people get this confused. There’s no such thing in biology as “a black person” because black people can and often do share more of their genes with white or Asian people than other black people and so on. “Black” is a meaningless label in biology. So is “Chinese”, which is a nationality (also not a biological term) and shorthand for a non-scientific, political grouping of non-related ethnic groups (ethnicity is a biological term because ethnicities do share genes) who happen to be living in a particular geographical area. 

https://www.sapiens.org/body/is-race-real/


----------



## Joker (Jul 30, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Race doesn’t exist as a scientific concept. A lot of people get this confused. There’s no such thing in biology as “a black person” because black people can and often do share more of their genes with white or Asian people than other black people and so on. “Black” is a meaningless label in biology. So is “Chinese”, which is a nationality (also not a biological term) and shorthand for a non-scientific, political grouping of non-related ethnic groups (ethnicity is a biological term because ethnicities do share genes) who happen to be living in a particular geographical area.
> 
> https://www.sapiens.org/body/is-race-real/



True enough, but semantics. Replace my original point with the term "ethnicity" and the point remains - making a comment about someone's inextricable genetic characteristics shouldn't be tolerated. If a comment had been made about women only being good for being baby makers or Vietnamese people only being good for sweatshops, there would be (rightful) outrage.


----------



## Joker (Jul 30, 2020)

Biro said:


> Well I would love to know how characteristics and diseases are prevalent to certain races/groups and not in others then?
> 
> Skull shape and look of certain black people from one area.  Extremely tall in another.  Asian people having slanted eyes.
> 
> ...



Well, as I said above, the more technically accurate term is ethnicity. The term "white" is vague. Are Armenians white? But no one is going to debate you when you say Armenian- it's a lot more specific.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Jul 30, 2020)

Lucky is right about the distinction, but to your point, Joker, I think the same thing applies to ethnicity. We shouldn't stereotype things like intelligence or use of logic, etc. I also don't think we should when it comes to sexuality. My point was that the term race was not biologically or semantically correct in your post. 

Regarding the original point of intelligence vs emotion, I think it's context specific. People are emotional and logical and sometimes both at the same time. Boiling it down to men or women or race or ethnicity isn't very useful. People make decisions based on the context surrounding those decisions.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 30, 2020)

Bayview said:


> Guys. Don't write "a man"; don't write "a woman". Just write your individual characters, in all their infinite complexity.
> 
> I'm a woman. I have more in common with a liberal, educated, financially secure, born-in-Canada-into-a-stable-family MAN, than I do with a conservative, ignorant, impoverished, born-in-Taiwan-into-a-dysfunctional-family WOMAN.
> 
> There's no need to debate the stereotypes and generalizations, not as a WRITING discussion.





Kyle R said:


> Hard agree with Bayview. Are there differences between men and women? Sure! There are also differences between men and other men. And differences between women and other women. And differences between a gay man and a trans woman. And differences between a child and an elder. And so on, and so forth. So many differences, across such a broad spectrum, that it's not even worth worrying about (in my opinion).
> 
> Hell, there might even differences between brothers. Sometimes they're polar opposites.
> 
> Focus on the character, I say. Not the gender. If you get to know the character well enough, as the writer, then the character's own gender-specific behaviors will become known, as well. And you won't even have to ask yourself about their gender in order to know how they'd behave.



Let me just preface this that I agree with both posts that this is a massively overblown issue and people tend to fixate on the wrong things at the expense of individuality in characters and that it should not govern creative decisions in any significant way. 

I would kind of push back on the idea that discussing and considering gender roles, expectations and the cultural perceptions surrounding them as being something totally irrelevant to writing or not worth worrying about completely. I would also push back on the idea that just because there are a lot of differences between individuals and groups within one gender's umbrella that this means such individuals and groups can't also share a lot of important similarities. 

When we say something like "I, as a woman, have less in common with [type of woman] than I do with [type of man]" it's important, I think, to be specific as to what we are referring to. Certain things have no correlation, certain things have a lot of correlation. I think its inane when people want to talk about 'women think this' in regard to political issues, or that women are generally smarter or more compassionate when there seems a ton of examples saying that women can be heartless, cruel, sadistic. It's like these people never heard of Margaret Thatcher.

I still propose that regardless of the huge differences that might exist between a western, educated woman with an eastern, non-educated woman, there _will be some things that are similar _and, more importantly, that those similarities _may exist due to the shared gender experience._

An example of this could be something like body image. Regardless of how dominant, confident and assertive a woman is in her public and professional life (let's say 'straight cisgendered woman', for simplicity) we can probably assume her relationship with her body might be different. Women, regardless of their personal traits otherwise, tend to have a rockier relationship with things like weight, as evidenced by the fact most weight loss products are marketed to women. It's not the same for everybody and I'm not suggesting this is anything other than a generalization, but it probably means if I am writing about an obese woman then I need to take into account she is probably going to feel very differently in terms of her emotions regarding being fat than a similarly obese man might. That there, yes, may be some kind of commonality there that transcends most, if not all, women. 

Understanding gender is also an aspect that is potentially very important to a book's marketing. There is a genre called 'women's fiction'. Over the years there has been lots stuff variously marketed as 'men's fiction'. It seems that knowing how to 'write women' or 'write men' would be a factor in both of those genres to some extent.

Even disputing the validity of those two genres, there is a broader issue constantly cited by agents and publishers is writers "not knowing who their readers are". Basically this statement seems to be acknowledging that generalizations regarding readership with regard to expectations can be made and should be considered. These generalizations may not involve gender, but it might and often does: I recently subbed to an agent who was 'looking for stories that would get boys back into reading'. If I want to consider boys as being individuals with no broadly shared  'boy-ness' then I can do that, but clearly that agent thinks there is something distinct that boys might like, otherwise it's a useless statement.

Basically, I think a lot of this stuff is fundamentally flawed, overblown or just plain bullshit, but I also think it doesn't really matter what 'we think': Society certainly makes plenty of gender-based distinctions and, eventually, these rub off. It becomes sort of a chicken-and-egg thing: "Does gender-based writing come from existing gender-based preferences, or do gender-based preferences come from gender-based writing?" Like, I'm not sure if my daughter like princesses and dolls and my son likes trucks because they actually do like them...or because they have got conditioned (unintentionally!) to like those things. All I know is that it's probably not a coincidence that the girl likes 'girly stuff' and the boy likes 'boy stuff'.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 30, 2020)

Try writing a man who grew up in southern plains of America, during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

Then write a man who grew up in China, in the year 250 AD, during the Three Kingdoms War.

Then write a transgender man growing up in modern Lithuania.

Then write a pansexual man who grows up in the year 4729, after being raised by robots on an artificial planet.

To do these characters justice, you'd have to dig a lot deeper than just thinking about stereotypical "man" behavior. You'd have to write them like they are . . . unique individuals.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Jul 30, 2020)

Biro said:


> Sorry biologically there are only 2 sexes.



Did I say differently?


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 30, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> Try writing a man who grew up in southern plains of America, during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.
> 
> Then write a man who grew up in China, in the year 250 AD, during the Three Kingdoms War.
> 
> ...



Question...

Do you not think it's possible, or perhaps preferable, to write unique individuals who despite their uniqueness and individuality are still affected by, and responsive to, 'man-ness' in whatever form it exists in their culture? Do you think individuality cannot exist simultaneously with conformity?


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 30, 2020)

Biro said:


> Well I would love to know how characteristics and diseases are prevalent to certain races/groups and not in others then?
> 
> Skull shape and look of certain black people from one area.  Extremely tall in another.  Asian people having slanted eyes.
> 
> ...



Not gonna go into it much here because it's irrelevant to the topic and also easily researched, but there are no characteristics or diseases prevalent to races that have anything to do with genetic commonalities between 'black', 'white', or 'asian' people. For example, Aboriginal Australians are racially black but their genetics originate from Asia, therefore are likely less linked to any given African or Caribbean group than you are as a white person. Another example is Ethiopian (more correctly the Amharic ethnic group, as there are lots of different ethnic groups within Ethiopia) who are black yet their genetic history originates from the near-east causing them to look entirely different from, say, Zulu people _except _for the black skin. The fact they have a dark skin and may superficially appear similar to other black people to the casual observer means nothing to a scientist.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 30, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> ...
> 
> I would kind of push back on the idea that discussing and considering gender roles, expectations and the cultural perceptions surrounding them as being something totally irrelevant to writing or not worth worrying about completely. I would also push back on the idea that just because there are a lot of differences between individuals and groups within one gender's umbrella that this means such individuals and groups can't also share a lot of important similarities. ...



(Lots of good stuff cut for length.)

I don't disagree, necessarily, but I'd argue that there's an important distinction to be made between "how women/men think" and "considering gender roles, expectations, and the cultural perceptions surrounding them". The former suggests something inherent, universal, and unchanging, while the latter is essentially an understanding of setting (the society in which the story takes place) rather than character. Of course setting and character interact, but I still think it's important to think of them separately.

Ask yourself how many of your personality traits would have been the same, expressed in the same way, if you were born in a different culture. If I look at myself I can see that I'm very outspoken, fairly intellectually aggressive, impatient with people who don't seem to be using their brains well, etc. There have been some disadvantages to my expression of these "unfeminine" traits in the society in which I was raised, but the disadvantages were not enough to significantly change my behaviour. If I'd been raised in a different culture, one that enforced gender roles more strictly and was more punitive of deviation? I might very well not have expressed those traits or at least might have expressed them in a very different way. My characteristics aren't inherent; they're very culture-dependent.

At different times in the past we've seen women being viewed as completely pure creatures utterly unaffected by sexual desire, and at other times as being so overpowered by their sexual natures that they could not be trusted to make rational decisions. A woman with an "ordinary" level of sexual feelings, born into one society, would have felt like a total whore (and would have likely internalized any number of negative beliefs because of this); an "ordinary" woman born into a different society might have felt herself insufficiently "feminine" because she was burdened with rationality and self-control.

Lots more examples. In general, I agree that we shouldn't ignore the importance of culture on our characters; we should just be sure we recognize it as something external. And we should remember that we're almost certainly writing characters who are in some way exceptional (and worth writing about). We should feel no more drive to fit our exceptional characters into conventional gender roles than to fit them into any other tools of mediocrity.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 30, 2020)

Bayview said:


> (Lots of good stuff cut for length.)
> 
> I don't disagree, necessarily, but I'd argue that there's an important distinction to be made between "how women/men think" and "considering gender roles, expectations, and the cultural perceptions surrounding them". The former suggests something inherent, universal, and unchanging, while the latter is essentially an understanding of setting (the society in which the story takes place) rather than character. Of course setting and character interact, but I still think it's important to think of them separately.
> 
> ...



I completely agree that there's an important distinction to be made between culture/setting and character/mindset. What I'm a little less clear on is how important that distinction is in the context of writing.

For instance, I'm not sure if it's necessarily important if a male character in a story decides to punch somebody because he actually, genuinely wants to punch them and would do so regardless of his gender and where and when he was (internal)...or if he does it because cultural pressures cause him to think that's 'manly behavior' and expected somehow (external): Both still probably result in a fairly similar chain of events. Both likely still involve him thinking he is doing something he wants to do. 

Whether he is influenced into it or not, I don't see important, unless the conflict between such influences and his 'true self' are part of the story. Much of what a character does in a regular scene, though, I would argue isn't that contentious. Sure, exploring the motivations can be important from a character depth perspective, but how often in a story to we get that heavily involved into every single thing - or most things? Like, how often would it be necessary to analyze whether a woman is wearing high heels because she actually likes wearing them (which seems to be pretty unlikely but IDK) or because cultural views on 'femininity' have coerced her into believing high heels are something she likes? Probably never is that question important to answer in a literary context, and it doesn't matter anyway, because she can be both. She can be simultaneously adhering to a gender stereotype and doing so for what she at least_ feels _are entirely her own, individual decisions.

That is why I asked Kyle whether he thinks its possible for a character to be both conformist and individualistic. It seems to be obvious they have to be. But then, if we accept that conformity exists and is okay to be embraced, then conformity on the basis of gender presumably has to exist and be okay to embrace as well, no?

You are right that character is separate from setting but just like a character can change a setting we know a setting can change a character. So my question then is: _At what point does that difference matter? _Nobody is saying (well, actually, some people probably are...but I'm not) that gender is something hard-wired. Like, in a hypothetical Amazonian-type culture where males rear children and are known for being sensitive and women fight wars and are known for being aggressive, I'm quite certain men would indeed become the more 'emotional gender'. No argument there. But that isn't our culture and it most likely never really will be, so why does it matter what 'the truth' is? Why should be pretend there's some kind of important difference between culture and self? Are we all so special? Should our characters all be so special in that regard? I don't know that I need to read about a man who doesn't 'act like a man' to find that character compelling. 

Does it matter if a behavior is internally or externally driven if it is perceived by everybody, including the person doing it, as theirs of their own volition?

I really think we often get into the philosophical / sociological soup with this stuff and sometimes overlook the world as it relates to writing as opposed to, like, psychology or philosophy or politics. Then these discussions often become divisions into two camps. You have one camp which is a kind of postmodernist 'there's no such thing as X _really _and if you go around thinking there is or that it matters you're going to tie yourself in knots writing total stereotypes'. Then you have this other camp, the camp who apparently is so structurally driven they want to talk about men being loudmouthed louts who think with their penises. Neither one is accurate, to me. Both kind of miss the mark. Personally, I find myself sort of gravitating between the two depending on how I feel, which probably comes down to the degree I am thinking about this as a Writing Question instead of a Life Question.

 Maybe that's the problem? Maybe the real question is to what extent fiction should actually represent reality? I think I want to say: Not all that much, or certainly not to the degree people like to pretend. I think probably conceptualizing 'real men' and 'real women' is as redundant as, well, conceptualizing 'complete individuals, totally not beholden to [identity]', because neither exactly exist in real life in any meaningful sense. We can construct almost as many ways to group people together as we can to differentiate them. At which point, this starts to become a matter of preference.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 30, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Do you not think it's possible, or perhaps preferable, to write unique individuals who despite their uniqueness and individuality are still affected by, and responsive to, 'man-ness' in whatever form it exists in their culture?



Hey, I'm all for it if a writer approaches a character by thinking, "How do I write this character in a unique and individualistic way, while simultaneously having this character be aware of, and respond to, the gender-specific stereotypes of their society/culture?" Because that, at least, would show a considerable amount of thought and care has gone into crafting their character.

I'm less thrilled, on the other hand, when a writer approaches a character by thinking, "So . . . this character is a man. Let's see . . . men like pickup trucks, right? And they fight a lot? Therefore, this character will like pickup trucks and get into fights a lot. Seems legit."

(And sure, I'm aware that my second example is a bit of a straw man, but it's mostly just to clarify my point.)

Why am I less thrilled about the latter approach? Because that approach is (in my opinion) the cause of a lot of the "men writing women poorly" and "women writing men poorly" examples that have spawned these very discussions.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 30, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> Hey, I'm all for it if a writer approaches a character by thinking, "How do I write this character in a unique and individualistic way, while simultaneously having this character be aware of, and respond to, the gender-specific stereotypes of their society/culture?" Because that, at least, would show a considerable amount of thought and care has gone into crafting their character.
> 
> I'm less thrilled, on the other hand, when a writer approaches a character by thinking, "So . . . this character is a man. Let's see . . . men like pickup trucks, right? And they fight a lot? Therefore, this character will like pickup trucks and get into fights a lot. Seems legit."
> 
> ...



I agree. I think a lot of this stuff really comes down to people wanting...maybe not exactly to cut corners, but certainly to find a 'magic method'. Some kind of formula that can be relied on to consistently create X,Y,Z. I think for some people its just plain laziness, definitely, but others I think genuinely struggle with this stuff.

I have some sympathies with those struggles, honestly. Writing is hard. A lot of the time its frustrating and sometimes the results don't reflect the effort. You can spend years on a book doing ten rewrites and it still be garbage. You can spend a month on a single draft and it turn out brilliant. You can be a brilliant writer in many ways but for whatever reason just really suck at writing a particular MC. There are controllable factors and things you can do to improve, but there are some things that are just plain instinctive or even down to luck.

So, we look for ways to rationalize the instinctive and simplify the complex. Something like 'writing [type]' is a big prize because the logic would be if you can figure out the coding of 'men' or 'women' or 'black people' or whatever, it would help with soooooo many 'character problems'. 

But yeah, it's a flawed foundation all right.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 30, 2020)

So I hear a lot of debate as to whethor or not there are differences between genders...but no real discussion about specifically HOW they would differ.

So what do men do differently than women?
What kinds of decisions to they split paths on?
Do men approach conflict differently?
Do women think their way around a problem while men prefer to bluster thru it?

Be specific.
WHAT kinds of things differ between the two.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 30, 2020)

luckyscars said:
			
		

> I think a lot of this stuff really comes down to people wanting...maybe not exactly to cut corners, but certainly to find a 'magic method'. Some kind of formula that can be relied on to consistently create X,Y,Z. I think for some people its just plain laziness, definitely, but others I think genuinely struggle with this stuff.



Good point. I mean, I totally get the appeal of writing types and stereotypes. And it certainly does seem easier to do so. (And yes, writing definitely is hard! No arguments there.) But I view writing to gender norms as a sort of poisoned fruit; it may be tempting, but there's a chance that the writer will regret it further down the line.

Maybe writing to a stereotype—gender, or otherwise—isn't _always_ a bad idea. I'm sure there are many outstanding characters who've been written that way. But I'd wager a guess that it _is _a bad idea, more often than not.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 31, 2020)

Biro said:


> I think in general it is hard to change a womans mind on a decision.  When she has decided on something she tends to stick with that.  If someone comes along and tells her she is wrong.  It isnt accepted readily.
> 
> With a man.  If someone throws water on his fire.  He tends to listen and think.
> 
> ...



Is this a shitpost, Biro? It's a really bad take.

*"If someone throws water on a man's fire, he tends to listen and think" 
*
_Really? 

_Then please do explain the legions of conspiracy theorists  (pick your conspiracy, pretty much any you like) who are, by a huge majority, male and never change their minds regardless of evidence_?_ Birtherism, New World Order wingnuts, pizzagaters, reptilian royal family theorists, QAnon infowarriors, most UFO nuts, cult leaders. I see lots and lots and lots of men indulging in all of those.

While you're at it, please explain the thousands of doomsday preppers who sink thousands of their dollars into constructing absurd underground shelters filled with insane numbers of firearms that they are extremely unlikely to ever benefit from? Almost all of those are men.

What about those who follow bad/discredited ideologies? Neo Nazis? The KKK? Religious extremists? I'd suggest at least 50% those are male (probably more like 80%). Clearly the education system and common sense was not sufficient to 'throw the water on the fire' in such cases.

Then you could perhaps touch on the Wall Street financiers who make foolish investment after investment and end up bankrupt? Or, for that matter, rogue traders engaged in Ponzi Schemes, or derivatives fraud? Almost entirely, these are men. Even today that is true. Men for whom an inability to admit they are wrong _despite being told _not only failed to stop them but often actually caused the problem in the first place. 

How about foolish entrepreneurs who open businesses that are unlikely to succeed with money they don't have? Lots of dumb ass men who don't listen to advice or do research or plan properly. 

Every year we have legions of dumbasses dying on Mount Everest. Lots of those are dumb ass men who think they knew better than to bring oxygen or properly train. Every year we have morons drowning in the Atlantic on yachts after ignoring weather forecasts. In between, we see toolbags committed to engaging in a string of dangerous stunts for social media or whatever, all manner of things such as climbing skyscrapers or racing motorcycles down the freeway with no helmet. Plenty of dumb, dead men represented in those numbers too. Do you really suppose nobody ever told them 'you know, Kevin, this is kind of a bad idea'? Of course they bloody well did.

Or, a topical one, how about the idiots who don't wear masks, despite being told to, shown evidence for why they should, and end up catching and spreading disease? Plenty of men there. And women, sure, _but also lots of fecking men._ Lots of men making lots and lots of bad decisions not out of ignorance but out of stubbornness and/or a ridiculous illusion of macho. Occasionally resulting in them pointlessly dying from their stupid decisions -- a la Herman Cain (a man).

I don't mind contemplating and discussing gender differences thoughtfully, but there is no evidence you can possibly provide, at least not beyond that which is limited and anecdotal, for why you think women are less likely to admit they are wrong. If you try to prosecute such an argument in your writing I suggest it's not gonna come off well. Let's be serious?


----------



## PiP (Jul 31, 2020)

Ralph Rotten said:


> So I hear a lot of debate as to whethor or not there are differences between genders...but no real discussion about specifically HOW they would differ.
> 
> So what do men do differently than women?
> What kinds of decisions to they split paths on?
> ...



Good idea, Ralph. We need more input from women in this thread. Men can write men but can women step into the shoes of a man's POV.


----------



## Joker (Jul 31, 2020)

Well one thing I remember is that men tend to navigate by literally remembering spacial arrangements, while women use landmarks. It's for the same reason women see shades of color better but men have a stronger depth of field - men were hunters and had to track moving prey, while women were gatherers and had to discern which plants were poisonous.


----------



## Matchu (Jul 31, 2020)

Well, when I read Pat Barker’s Booker Prize winner Ghost Road I thought I could write it better, so when it comes to trench warfare you need a man’s eyes on the fire.  Fellas?


----------



## Joker (Jul 31, 2020)

Biro said:


> You appear to be blaming most of the recent headliners of the world on men?



Well, men do occupy most positions of power. So yes, we are responsible.

(But that also means men fix most of the world's problems.)


----------



## Bayview (Jul 31, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> I completely agree that there's an important distinction to be made between culture/setting and character/mindset. What I'm a little less clear on is how important that distinction is in the context of writing.



(more good stuff cut for length)

I don't think it's all that important to distinguish between the two when they match, but I think it's really important to distinguish between them when they DON'T match. And I think it's important for writers to be sure they're writing a unique character, not simply resorting to societal expectations. And I think it's a mistake to assume that all stories are set in our current Western world.

So there are two different shifts that could lead to it being important for an author to consider what's innate to their character vs. what's a societal expectation. The first, obviously, is if the character doesn't conform to societal expectations. If an author sets a story in 1950s North American and the male character has some stereotypically feminine characteristics, the author can make that character realistic even though he doesn't conform to societal norms, but the author should also be aware of those norms and the pressures they may put on that character.

Conversely, an author could write a character who conforms to modern Western gender norms but set that character in a society with different gender expectations. It could still be a realistic character (assuming the author writes the character in a way that lets us understand the source of the deviance) but again, there would be a clash between that character and the society.

I think my main belief is that there is such a high degree of variance within genders that it makes no sense to treat them as coherent, meaningful groups in terms of behaviours. But many societies (all?) do try to group humans in this way. Authors need to be aware of those societal pressures, since we set our stories within societies, but we shouldn't internalize them and think they're meaningful to our character creation.


----------



## Joker (Jul 31, 2020)

Biro said:


> OK off topic but look at women who were and are in power and the monumental balls ups they did but will not admit their mistakes.
> 
> Angela Merkal
> 
> ...



A handful of completely subjective anecdotes doesn't prove your premise...

I, personally, am not a fan of Obama's legacy. Does that mean I should, on principle, not support any more black Presidents? No, that's ****ing stupid.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 31, 2020)

Biro said:


> OK off topic but look at women who were and are in power and the monumental balls ups they did but will not admit their mistakes.
> 
> Angela Merkal
> 
> ...



What politician ever admits they're wrong? They always duck the question. 

As for how good or bad women are at leadership, the countries that have female prime ministers/leaders, have all recovered from coronavirus much faster than the male led ones. People like Trump and Boris Johnson refused to listen to their scientific advisors until it was way late in the game. 

https://qz.com/1877836/do-countries-with-female-leaders-truly-fare-better-with-covid-19/ 

But alot of that may be down to the notion (fact) that any culture enlightened enough to have female leaders and not be affected by the resurgence of the extreme right wing, is also enlightened enough to respond to a virus correctly.  

A male led world has led to ecological disaster so I don't know by what metric men can be considered better. Especially considering thats an extremely collectivist way of considering characters in stories, seeing how characters are not demographics but individuals.


----------



## Joker (Jul 31, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> What politician ever admits they're wrong? They always duck the question.
> 
> As for how good or bad women are at leadership, the countries that have female prime ministers/leaders, have all recovered from coronavirus much faster than the male led ones. People like Trump and Boris Johnson refused to listen to their scientific advisors until it was way late in the game.
> 
> ...



To be fair, the majority of countries with female leaders are small, wealthy European countries. I don't think Kim Yo Jong would be any better than her brother if she were in charge. But otherwise I agree. Collectivism sucks.


----------



## Joker (Jul 31, 2020)

Biro said:


> I'm not getting involved in your politics.  Your preaching to the wrong person with that.



Lol, bro. _You _made this political.


----------



## Joker (Jul 31, 2020)

Biro said:


> I couldnt give a monkeys where they, what side of the fence they are or whatever.
> 
> I havent said who is better than another I have just highlighted just 'one' particular 'trait' with one sex.
> 
> What you lot keep banging on about to try and prove your points is up to you.......work away I will leave you to it.



I guess it isn't just women who can't admit when they're wrong. :barbershop_quartet_


----------



## Squalid Glass (Jul 31, 2020)

*Let's get back on topic, please.*


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 31, 2020)

Biro said:


> They come in all forms men and women.


The universal answer to any of these kinds of threads. :beguiled:

Describe any kind of man, or woman, and someone will inevitably come up with a counter example.

And yes, perhaps there _are_ social/cultural/evolutionary tendencies between genders, in a statistical sense . . . but do such tendencies even matter when we're writing _individuals_?


----------



## velo (Jul 31, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> . . . but do such tendencies even matter when we're writing _individuals_?



Absolutely if you want verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief.  Gender roles vary substantially based on society and time, you would write these characters very differently if they were in Victorian England vs Ancient China vs modern day Los Angeles.  The human condition is fairly universal but how that plays out in day to day speech, behaviour, and outlook can vary widely.  The more believable to the setting your characters are in terms of those gender roles the better they will play on the page.  

This, of course, does not mean you can bend the rules to suit your needs.  This can be done with great effect, such as having a strong female character in a highly patriarchal setting, but I feel like you'd also have to show the social conflict her strong will would cause in that society to truly make the character and scene feel believable.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 31, 2020)

Its hard to stay on topic with the writing men and women, *because there is no topic*. There's only individuals and culture. There's no coherent way to talk about writing reductive, abstract collectives like "men" and "women". Thus the more one tries to analyze it that way, the more simplistic and naive their writing becomes.


----------



## Joker (Jul 31, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> Its hard to stay on topic with the writing men and women, *because there is no topic*. There's only individuals and culture. There's no coherent way to talk about writing reductive, abstract collectives like "men" and "women". Thus the more one tries to analyze it that way, the more simplistic and naive their writing becomes.



Eh. I think Kyle R was more accurate.

You absolutely can talk about men and women as averages. There's a reason men outnumber women when it comes to criminals and cops and trash collectors and CEOs.

A man who works as, say, an elementary school teacher is going to face discrimination in ways a woman teacher won't, even if he isn't in any way stereotypically masculine. The average affects the outlier.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 31, 2020)

velo said:


> The more believable to the setting your characters are in terms of those gender roles the better they will play on the page.



You make a good point. Though, I believe we're talking about slightly different things.

You're talking about an author being _aware_ of norms, while I'm talking authors who write to _fit_ norms.

I definitely agree that an author should be aware of what's realistic/plausible (etc), in terms of how their character interacts with the world around them, and in terms of what is expected of them. With that point of yours, I'm in total agreement. :encouragement:

My point is that an author shouldn't feel obligated to construct their character _based on_ societal (or gender) norms—because such an approach could be a surefire way to write a generic, stereotypical (and possibly unrealistic) character.


----------



## indianroads (Jul 31, 2020)

I usually source people I know || have known, compile and mix their traits to create someone new.


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 31, 2020)

Biro said:


> As I have tried tp point out many times but it seems it just passes straight through some peoples heads.  I wonder why?



Because they're MEN!!!


----------



## Joker (Jul 31, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> Because they're MEN!!!



Well, actually, I sexually identify as an attack helicopter...


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 31, 2020)

Biro said:


> So its got nothing to do with the rant on your politics then?  Well that's a relief.



You named and commented on political leaders to back up the idea that women make worse leaders. I responded with a refutation.  Remember? 

So do you write your men as better leaders than women, Biro?



Joker said:


> Eh. I think Kyle R was more accurate.
> 
> You absolutely can talk about men and women as averages. There's a reason men outnumber women when it comes to criminals and cops and trash collectors and CEOs.
> 
> A man who works as, say, an elementary school teacher is going to face discrimination in ways a woman teacher won't, even if he isn't in any way stereotypically masculine. The average affects the outlier.



Without specifically referencing what culture we're talking about we're making incoherent claims because people default to white, western culture while claiming it as universals.


----------



## Joker (Jul 31, 2020)

Uh, when did I claim that Western culture was universal? Who is "people"?

Of course I'm going to be speaking from that background, though. The overwhelming majority of people on this site are of it.


----------



## Darren White (Jul 31, 2020)

*ADMIN NOTE:

SINCE THIS THREAD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WRITING ANYMORE, FOR AT LEAST FOUR PAGES IT'S POLITICS AND NAME CALLING, I AM GOING TO MOVE IT TO THE TAVERN

THIS IS A WRITING DISCUSSION FORUM. 
AND DISCUSSING POLITICS IS NOT ALLOWED. NOT HERE, OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE FORUM. NEITHER ARE PERSONAL ATTACKS.

THIS THREAD WILL BE FOLLOWED CLOSELY.*


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 31, 2020)

Biro said:


> You appear to be blaming most of the recent headliners of the world on men?



Just to be clear, because I don't want to be smeared as a sexist against men or women -- I'm not blaming anything or anyone. I am simply pointing out how easily disprovable that particular view was. You can't simultaneously say 'men are more likely to admit they are wrong' and then in the next breath say 'the proportion of people who won't admit they are wrong are shared equally among both men and women' because those two views are contradictory. All I have to say on the topic.


----------



## bdcharles (Aug 1, 2020)

Joker said:


> Well, actually, I sexually identify as an attack helicopter...



I read this as "sexual attack helicopter" at first :O


----------



## PiP (Aug 1, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> I read this as "sexual attack helicopter" at first :O


now that is what I call imagery


----------



## Joker (Aug 1, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> I read this as "sexual attack helicopter" at first :O



My rotor blades are very erect.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 1, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> I read this as "sexual attack helicopter" at first :O



It's already been done, I'm afraid:

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B011YHWHPI/


----------



## Xander416 (Aug 4, 2020)

Bayview said:


> It's already been done, I'm afraid:
> 
> https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B011YHWHPI/


What the f---? lol


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 16, 2020)

Joker, you are a troll.
Be gone with you and your silly circular sexist arguments.
The adults are talking here.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 16, 2020)

PiP said:


> Only a man could make this comment. Women may think it but wouldn't dare say it.




Which part of it?


----------



## Joker (Aug 16, 2020)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Joker, you are a troll.
> Be gone with you and your silly circular sexist arguments.
> The adults are talking here.



Can't tell if you're fucking with me or not...


----------

