# Are female leads more difficult than male?



## Annoying kid (Jun 1, 2016)

This is based on the observation I've made that there doesn't seem to be nearly as many male dominated fanbases of female leads as there is of female dominated fanbases of male. 

Case n point, after fellowship of the ring movie, Orlando Bloom had this massive female fanbase. 

But after the Hobbit, with Tauriel, essentially the female legolas, there wasn't this huge male fanbase behind the actress with guys going nuts over her. Even though she's a very pretty lady indeed. 

That seems to be the only inherent difference. 

So am I right to conclude the writing behind the female lead generally has to be better than for a male  in order to close that gap and for there to be an equal chance of success? :-k

Do you even agree that the gap exists?


----------



## Bishop (Jun 1, 2016)

Chances of success in literature have little to do with the sex of the character and more to do with the value of the story and the writing as a whole. I write female leads, male leads, and never once have I been told either alienates a certain audience.

What you're talking about his Hollywood, which appeals to a much lower common denominator than actual literature. Big wigs in Hollywood also still believe the only way to make a "successful" movie is if it involves white male superheroes, it seems.

Write what is right for your story. Male, female, or somewhere in between... great literature has been written with leads of both sexes.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 1, 2016)

Bishop said:


> Chances of success in literature have little to do with the sex of the character and more to do with the value of the story and the writing as a whole. I write female leads, male leads, and never once have I been told either alienates a certain audience.
> 
> What you're talking about his Hollywood, which appeals to a much lower common denominator than actual literature. *Big wigs in Hollywood also still believe the only way to make a "successful" movie is if it involves white male superheroes, it seems.*
> 
> Write what is right for your story. Male, female, or somewhere in between... great literature has been written with leads of both sexes.



I don't really agree with this. The fact is, the reason the majority of actors in Hollywood are white and male is because the scripts are being written by white males, and the films are being produced and directed by white males. There was an interview with George R.R. Martin where a black interviewer asked him a long-winded and race-baiting question about the prevalence of white characters in fantasy, including GOT, with the insinuation being Martin and other writers like him were guilty of some kind of white privilege/racism. As Martin answered very well: these stories are mostly being written by white males who will of course reflect their culture and history in their stories. He handled it very gracefully, but a lot of the left's race baiting is incredibly inappropriate and usually amounts to pablum.

And no, literature with a female lead doesn't have to be better than literature with a male lead in order to work. The reason nobody took to Tauriel is because she wasn't in the books, and the lotr/hobbit fans didn't really respect the inclusion. Most of us didn't even like the way the Hobbit films were done. Don't forget about things like The Hunger Games.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jun 1, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> This is based on the observation I've made that there doesn't seem to be nearly as many male dominated fanbases of female leads as there is of female dominated fanbases of male.
> 
> Case n point, after fellowship of the ring movie, Orlando Bloom had this massive female fanbase.
> 
> ...


Any female character based on a male character is most often weaksauce and will never be as good as their male counterpart.


----------



## Miseo (Jun 1, 2016)

There are these things called gender steretypes, and as much as we try to slander them, as a psychologist in training I'll tell you that by and large we subscribe to these stereotypes. So many men try to be strong and hold their emotions in, while many women likewise conform to to female stereotypes such as being more emotional and placing greater emphasis on socializing. Evolutionary psychology has found some genetic basis for these behaviours too, but I'm wary about evolutionary psychology... It forces all sorts of things into boxes that they probably shouldn't be in.

Now, when you think about, becoming part of a fanbase or, heaven forbid, being vocal about your fanship, has more to do with emotionality and sociality than it does with the typical male gender behaviours of being "strong" and keeping things locked up inside like a stoic hermit.

So perhaps it has little to do with the lead being male or female and more with how the fanbase itself subscribes to gender stereotypes.

At the same time, leads in movies are usually male for some reason. Nowadays there's more female leads but important female roles in movies are still solely lacking. The lack of fanbases for female leads could simply be to the fact that: A) there are less female leads by comparison, or B) they're used to male leads.

As for writing the characters, what's important is that your character is real, relatable, and most importantly moves the story forward. Gender shouldn't be a big issue.


----------



## aesir22 (Jun 1, 2016)

I prefer a female lead in both TV and literature. Just personal preference I guess. Also, bear in mind Orlando bloom already had a large female fanbase before LOTR. And female fan bases tend to be more vocal than male. I think people went more insane for Edward and the werewolf dude in twilight than any male fanbase I've seen. Just my opinion! 

The character you write should be engaging and of serious interest to the reader. The gender shouldn't be an issue unless you as a writer can write one better. I'm male, but find writing female leads so much easier than male so I stick to that for the most time because I feel I can write a better story that way. That being said I have a book on the back burner where the MC is a male.


----------



## Boofy (Jun 1, 2016)

Tauriel was unfortunate, really. They stretched The Hobbit thin and had to force feed fans a romantic interest that was never in the book as a consequence. She is the stuff you cut your cocaine with to meet demand when your supply is low. If it counts for anything, I am more a Gimli fangirl myself. I was never crazy about Legolas. He was too pretty. Blech.

 There are loads of brilliant and popular female characters though. Look at Motoko Kusanagi, Hermione Granger, Katniss Everdeen, Arya Stark and Lisbeth Salander.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 1, 2016)

Boofy said:


> Tauriel was unfortunate, really. They stretched The Hobbit thin and had to force feed fans a romantic interest that was never in the book as a consequence. She is the stuff you cut your cocaine with to meet demand when your supply is low. If it counts for anything, I am more a Gimli fangirl myself. I was never crazy about Legolas. He was too pretty. Blech.
> 
> There are loads of brilliant and popular female characters though. Look at Motoko Kusanagi, Hermione Granger, Katniss Everdeen, Arya Stark and Lisbeth Salander.



Daenerys Targaryen, too. She's up there with Jon Snow on GOT.


----------



## Boofy (Jun 1, 2016)

Oh yeah, people love Dany. I'm personally hoping she goes the way of her Father myself. Either that or the same way as Aerion the Monstrous, who ended up trying to drink a cup of wild fyre in the hope that he'd turn into a big ass dragon. That'd make for interesting watching. Especially if it worked... can you _imagine_?

I don't really like Jon Snow, though my hatred of Kit Harrington may well be influencing me in that. And again, too pretty. Those _curls_! Blech.

Brienne of Tarth is a brilliant female character, though. Her and Jaime need to kiss already and get it over with, damn it.

I write mostly female characters, personally. If I write lead male characters they all look, sound and act like Martin Freeman, ha.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 1, 2016)

Boofy said:


> Oh yeah, people love Dany. I'm personally hoping she goes the way of her Father myself. Either that or the same way as Aerion the Monstrous, who ended up trying to drink a cup of wild fyre in the hope that he'd turn into a big ass dragon. That'd make for interesting watching. Especially if it worked... can you IMAGINE?
> 
> I don't really like Jon Snow either, though my hatred of Kit Harrington may well be influencing me in that.
> 
> ...



How can you not like Dany and Jon Snow? You'd better like Tyrion, lol.


----------



## Boofy (Jun 1, 2016)

_Like_ Tyrion? If he were real, we would be in the French Alps enjoying our honeymoon right now. I am in love with that man.


----------



## Miseo (Jun 1, 2016)

Personally, I don't know if I can write good female characters. My interactions with both males and females have been... Limited. Lets just say I grew up in an ivory tower. Males at least, I can write because I am a male. My female friendships didn't supply good material. One turned out to be a horrible person who uses others for her convenience. Another was super clingy and got mad if I ignored her texts for like 3 hours. So if i wanna write a female villian or something I'm all set. Otherwise... >.>


----------



## Boofy (Jun 1, 2016)

Hey, hey! I'm a girl and I can't even be mean to my reflection without feeling bad! ;-;

I think the thing I struggle most with where it comes to writing the opposite sex is that I let my inner girl get away with itself and go frolicking through unrealistically sexy pastures with the hot nerdy guys who refuse to exist, ha. 

Do you not have siblings or cousins that might inspire a future female character?


----------



## Miseo (Jun 1, 2016)

Boofy said:


> Hey, hey! I'm a girl and I can't even be mean to my reflection without feeling bad! ;-;
> 
> I think the thing I struggle most with where it comes to writing the opposite sex is that I let my inner girl get away with itself and go frolicking through unrealistically sexy pastures with the hot nerdy guys who don't exist, ha.



Yeah... I can see how that can be a problem...



Boofy said:


> Do you not have siblings or cousins that might inspire a future female character?



... My sister....

...

Well, let's just say when I was 3 years old, I stabbed her in the leg with a pencil. To this day I've not regretted it.

I mean, if I wanted to make a vicious dragon as a character, sure.


----------



## Boofy (Jun 1, 2016)

I draw no inspiration from my female siblings, either. Still, there is good material there if you're willing to root around a little. You can also draw from characteristics you admire in both male and female characters from other books/shows/movies you enjoyed. You don't necessarily need to draw from what you know. ^^


----------



## Patrick (Jun 1, 2016)

Writing female characters is no harder than writing male characters, although my protagonists are usually male. They're characters. You only have to know what the female characters You are writing about think like, act like, etc. In short, you make it up.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 1, 2016)

They're also more prone to being called Mary Sue than male characters as well. 

Check my protag. 

Most talented fighter in the universe who is a self taught genius who killed an assassin with no training whatsoever, surpassed someone who's been training 50x longer, has a photographic memory, caused people to faint in the street, beat the personification of strength itself in one move, beat the creator of the universe and his greatest servants in five.   

:witless:


----------



## Miseo (Jun 1, 2016)

Well my World Eater series has... At least one female... >.> She's the hero antagonist. The MC is the villain protagonist.


----------



## Mutimir (Jun 2, 2016)

From a writing standpoint I haven't found that to be the case. Female characters are as easy to write as male characters. From a Hollywood standpoint as well there have been a string of recent successes. 

I've read The Hobbit.....I can't remember one single female character in the entire damn thing. Total sausage fest. What's that tell you?


----------



## Boofy (Jun 2, 2016)

Mutimir said:


> I've read The Hobbit.....I can't remember one single female character in the entire damn thing. Total sausage fest. What's that tell you?



Overtly dyed beards, cheery show tunes, towers... rings... Gee, I don't know.


----------



## Miseo (Jun 2, 2016)

Mutimir said:


> From a writing standpoint I haven't found that to be the case. Female characters are as easy to write as male characters. From a Hollywood standpoint as well there have been a string of recent successes.
> 
> I've read The Hobbit.....I can't remember one single female character in the entire damn thing. Total sausage fest. What's that tell you?



I always assumed Smaug was secretly female.


----------



## Boofy (Jun 2, 2016)

That would make Benedict Cumberbatch's voicing of Smaug a whole lot more interesting, that's certain. There aren't enough decent female dragons.


----------



## Sam (Jun 2, 2016)

Stop thinking of it in terms of male and female. Start thinking of it in terms of character. 

Characters only become difficult to write when you ask the question, "How would a man/woman/religious zealot/atheist/hawkish/pacifistic person act in this scenario?" The answer to that is, "However you want them to act, based on their personality." 

What sex they are is irrelevant. The only important thing is that you portray them how you characterise them. I've seen men faint at the sight of a needle, and others walk around with a gaping wound without breaking sweat, which has everything to do with their personality and pain threshold, and little to do with the fact that they're men. I've seen women turn into blubbering messes at the drop of a hat, and others refuse to give in to their emotions, which has everything to do with their perspective and experience and personality, and little to do with the fact that they're women. 

Characters act in the manner that you characterise them. As long as you stay within the confines of that characterisation (i.e., you don't have a character do something that goes completely against their personality and general constitution) you can portray a character in whatever way you please.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> So am I right to conclude the writing behind the female lead generally has to be better than for a male  in order to close that gap and for there to be an equal chance of success? :-k
> 
> Do you even agree that the gap exists?



I think another factor is in the way audiences react, and the genre's demographic. Female fanbases tend to be pretty united and vocal whereas a sample male fanbase is probably a lot more solitary and used to keeping secrets. That said, it is a good question, even if we leave aside the fans' reactions - how female leads stack up against their male counterparts. Well, first, what genre are you referring to? Romance? By your comments I assume Fantasy in which case I think a female lead has to bring something new to the table that the guys haven't already, or perhaps can't. The quick plug and play for that is of course sex appeal but that is a mite tired, I think.

What else? How can we exploit the guys' weaknesses - your implicit "gap" - and get a girl in there? I think to just amplify those personality attributes that women might possess more and better than men do, explore them and make them into strengths and game changers in interesting ways. That's what I have aimed for anyway with my WIPs. The lead is a female and while she doesn't exactly excel at traditionally "guy stuff" like weaponry (the one time she holds a crossbow it goes off in her hand and she pops her dirigible), her strength is her force of personality and single mindedness and - I hope - her ability to have readers and other characters root for her because they will have fallen in love with her, a little. These traits are things, real things, and I intend to use them all to my advantage and that of my stories muahahah  And for those that like women with a bit more brawn, I have an Amazonian warrior-queen with a severe personality disorder helping her out. Oh, and the guy they both had romantic entanglements with, all cooped up in this airship - he's there too, a seasoned soldier form an overseas conflict. Will they get on? Will it be awkward? Read it and see!


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 2, 2016)

bdcharles said:


> I think another factor is in the way audiences react, and the genre's demographic. Female fanbases tend to be pretty united and vocal whereas a sample male fanbase is probably a lot more solitary and used to keeping secrets. That said, it is a good question, even if we leave aside the fans' reactions - how female leads stack up against their male counterparts. Well, first, what genre are you referring to? Romance? By your comments I assume Fantasy in which case I think a female lead has to bring something new to the table that the guys haven't already, or perhaps can't. The quick plug and play for that is of course sex appeal but that is a mite tired, I think.
> 
> And for those that like women with a bit more brawn, I have an Amazonian warrior-queen with a severe personality disorder helping her out. Oh, and the guy they both had romantic entanglements with, all cooped up in this airship - he's there too, a seasoned soldier form an overseas conflict. Will they get on? Will it be awkward? Read it and see!



Do you mean actual Amazon of Greek myth?

A point on sex appeal. The male protagonist  doesn't have to compete against scantily clad heavily sexualized depictions of men the way the female ones do for women. What I mean is, even if you make a character who is - fairly- revealing in her manner or dress or uniform or whatever, you're competing with billions of images of women in a g string, or less, the bouncing exaggerated depiction of anime, the skintight costumes of female superheroes in comics etc, all vying for male sexual attention. Basically the sex appeal of female protagonists who aren't there to this extent:  just gets drowned out. 
http://michaelmay.us/07blog/images/1107_justiceleagueamazons.jpg

I decided early on that it'll be a part of my story, but I'm not going to compete with that.


----------



## JustRob (Jun 2, 2016)

Boofy said:


> That would make Benedict Cumberbatch's voicing of Smaug a whole lot more interesting, that's certain. There aren't enough decent female dragons.



In Anne McCaffrey's dragon books there is an entire flight of queen dragons eventually. Her main characters are predominantly female as well and she didn't do badly out of writing about them. She named her home "Dragonhold" because her stories about dragons paid for it to be built. Given that she was regarded as a science fiction writer there appeared to be a great deal of fantasy in those stories, but actually there wasn't. It goes to show how useless genres are.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> Do you mean actual Amazon of Greek myth?



No, I just mean she has that appearance and personality. 



Annoying kid said:


> A point on sex appeal. The male protagonist  doesn't have to compete against scantily clad heavily sexualized depictions of men the way the female ones do for women. What I mean is, even if you make a character who is - fairly- revealing in her manner or dress or uniform or whatever, you're competing with billions of images of women in a g string, or less, the bouncing exaggerated depiction of anime, the skintight costumes of female superheroes in comics etc, all vying for male sexual attention. Basically the sex appeal of female protagonists who aren't there to this extent:  just gets drowned out.
> http://michaelmay.us/07blog/images/1107_justiceleagueamazons.jpg
> 
> I decided early on that it'll be a part of my story, but I'm not going to compete with that.



Well, sure. That's the challenge of writers, to come up with something different. My main has very little revealed about her in that way; lookswise it's your basic "jacket and hair" comments, with very infrequent subtle moments of _eros _hinted at now and again, but mostly it's her personality and the things she does that come forth and form the pivots around which the plot swings. In that sense, I'm not really playing by those same rules.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> Do you mean actual Amazon of Greek myth?
> 
> A point on sex appeal. The male protagonist  doesn't have to compete against scantily clad heavily sexualized depictions of men the way the female ones do for women. What I mean is, even if you make a character who is - fairly- revealing in her manner or dress or uniform or whatever, you're competing with billions of images of women in a g string, or less, the bouncing exaggerated depiction of anime, the skintight costumes of female superheroes in comics etc, all vying for male sexual attention. Basically the sex appeal of female protagonists who aren't there to this extent:  just gets drowned out.
> http://michaelmay.us/07blog/images/1107_justiceleagueamazons.jpg
> ...



You know, there are a lot of men who don't just read books with females in them because of sexual appetite. There are very annoying female fan bases for the vampire and the werewolf in Twilight, and most of the people who read 50 shades are also female, but I don't assume all female readers are like that. And it's also possible for the people who like that stuff to also like other books for different reasons, just as it's possible for me to like wonderwoman's figure and a novel by the Brontes or Jane Austen.

When I write, I don't sit here thinking, oh no, how is my protagonist to compete with Edward Cullen for a female reader's attention.


----------



## aj47 (Jun 2, 2016)

Indeed.  Scout does not have sex appeal, but lots of folks read _To Kill a Mockingbird*​.*_


----------



## Kyle R (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> This is based on the observation I've made that there doesn't seem to be nearly as many male dominated fanbases of female leads as there is of female dominated fanbases of male.
> 
> . . .
> 
> So am I right to conclude the writing behind the female lead generally has to be better than for a male in order to close that gap and for there to be an equal chance of success? :-k



Interesting theory!

Personally, I believe readers (and moviegoers) will connect with your lead—whether they're male, female, or even a different species—as long as they're portrayed genuinely and engagingly.

It's kind of like the _Field of Dreams_ philosophy: If you write it (well), the fans will come.

And if you want some reassurance that female leads can still be popular and kick-ass, I give you the one and only Ripley:

[video=youtube;cStRa4OiUlQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cStRa4OiUlQ[/video]

:encouragement:


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 2, 2016)

Patrick said:


> You know, there are a lot of men who don't just read books with females in them because of sexual appetite. There are very annoying female fan bases for the vampire and the werewolf in Twilight, and most of the people who read 50 shades are also female, but I don't assume all female readers are like that. And it's also possible for the people who like that stuff to also like other books for different reasons, just as it's possible for me to like wonderwoman's figure and a novel by the Brontes or Jane Austen.
> 
> When I write, I don't sit here thinking, oh no, how is my protagonist to compete with Edward Cullen for a female reader's attention.



I said I WON'T compete with them. That's not what this is really about.

 The real comparison is  about female protagonists only being able to close the gap in sex appeal (towards men) that male protagonists have (towards women), by adhering to the standards of sexuality that competes for male attention- which is a far more sexualized standard.  So the standard female protagonist IS at a disadvantage because she likely won't be able to appeal to men at the level the way the male protagonists appeal to women. On the level of a sex symbol. Again, simply because fictional characters in G strings are ubiquitous. A man isn't likely to read for female sex appeal when it's everywhere.

The question of "who cares?" or "don't worry about it" implies that I am worried about it. I'm not. I find it interesting fyi.

Female leads as I said are also more likely to be called Mary Sue. SJW propaganda, sexist, more likely to be called a bitch - as people tend to be more forgiving when a male character acts in selfish or manipulative manners. 

I can only conclude that writing female leads sucessfully is the more difficult path.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> I said I WON'T compete with them. That's not what this is really about.



So what is the purpose of your thread?



> The real comparison is  about female protagonists only being able to close the gap in sex appeal (towards men) that male protagonists have (towards women), by adhering to the standards of sexuality that competes for male attention- which is a far more sexualized standard.



Yeah, if you want to appeal to a man's sexuality, you need to give him what turns him on. What's your point?



> So the standard female protagonist IS at a disadvantage because she likely won't be able to appeal to men at the level the way the male protagonists appeal to women. On the level of a sex symbol. Again, simply because fictional characters in G strings are ubiquitous. A man isn't likely to read for female sex appeal when it's everywhere.



Oh my gosh. I am going to walk up to the wall in my bedroom and just plant my face into it. Men are like microwaves in that they can be turned on at any time, so if you get them hooked on a good bit of imaginary flesh, they'll consume the book.




> The question of "who cares?" or "don't worry about it" implies that I am worried about it. I'm not. I find it interesting fyi.
> 
> Female leads as I said are also more likely to be called Mary Sue. SJW propaganda, sexist, more likely to be called a bitch - as people tend to be more forgiving when a male character acts in selfish or manipulative manners.
> 
> I can only conclude that writing female leads sucessfully is the more difficult path.



Of course. One could only reach that conclusion. 

The funny thing is, the only people I hear using the term "bitch" about certain women are other women. Men tend to use that term to refer to other men who are cowardly.

But your argument could only possibly mean that it's harder to write a female lead if the aim is for that female lead to be a sex symbol? In which case I do not think so. Men who like women fantasise quite easily about them.


----------



## Bishop (Jun 2, 2016)

Personally I think you may be over-estimating how many people read a certain book because of sexual attraction to the hero.

Most of us are there for... you know... the story.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 2, 2016)

Worrying about the sex of a character -- and how to best portray that character in terms of their sex -- is a fool's errand. None of my female characters are competing with any character in any other book in any way. They are no more difficult to write than a male character (if you believe they are, then the sex of the character has gotten into your head and you are screwed) . I don't think about how my female lead in my WIP will speak or act based on her sex. I think about it based on her character, her background, and her experiences. Just like my male characters.


----------



## TheWritingWriter (Jun 2, 2016)

Writing both sexes, I think, should be easy. They're humans, they just have different parts. And yes, I really see it as simple as that. 

Now, which fan base you follow is different than *writing a character. It's like connecting with a fictional person almost as you would a friend. I like Dani from GoT because she's badass, doesn't let people push her around, and doesn't skank herself to the thrown. I like Daryl Dixon because he's imperfect, and sometimes aggravating, and he never showers, yet manages to be attractive. He's an interesting character. But neither of these characters have a leg up on each other because of sex. And they're not popular because of their sex. It's the feels on the inside, and your life experiences painting the way you, if you will, fan girl. (Or fan guy, we don't discriminate here in WF.) 

So no, it's not more difficult.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 2, 2016)

I suspect that men don't go for sex-appeal characters in the same way that women do *looks at the growing stack of Poldarks on wife's  bedside table; at my own shelf of blowy-uppy-action fodder; and away again*

So ... the answer to this:



> So the standard female protagonist IS at a disadvantage because she  likely won't be able to appeal to men at the level the way the male  protagonists appeal to women.



Is not to write that sort of protagonist, if you're not able to pull it off. In any case, if by standard you mean "the same as men", then I think you are on a hiding to nothing. You may as well try to write an action-oriented protagonist in a proper Andy McNab man-novel using flowing penmanship who defeats his enemies by quoting Shakespearean verse at them (*shuffles through manuscript, darkly certain I have exactly that*), all the while expecting women to go crazy over it. It makes limited sense. Know your readership - even if it's just you. Don't expend energy conjuring them from atoms unless you're sure of what you're doing, in which case you wouldn't need to ask these questions.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 2, 2016)

Patrick said:


> So what is the purpose of your thread?



Already answered.



> Yeah, if you want to appeal to a man's sexuality, you need to give him what turns him on. What's your point?



  Already answered. 



> Oh my gosh. I am going to walk up to the wall in my bedroom and just plant my face into it.



Please do. 


> Men are like microwaves in that they can be turned on at any time, so if you get them hooked on a good bit of imaginary flesh, they'll consume the book.



Strawman fallacy. 




> Of course. One could only reach that conclusion.
> 
> The funny thing is, the only people I hear using the term "bitch" about certain women are other women. Men tend to use that term to refer to other men who are cowardly.



Non sequitr. I only asserted that female leads are more prone to picking up the label. You're bringing up who from as if that changes anything.  

But your argument could only possibly mean that it's harder to write a female lead if the aim is for that female lead to be a sex symbol? [/QUOTE]

No. I'm saying the male lead doesn't have to be sexualised to be a sex symbol to women. Whereas the female lead who is written the same way NOT AIMING TO BE A SEX SYMBOL, struggles on that front due to the ubiquity of sexualization vying for male attention.

That's the very opposite of what you claim I'm arguing. 

Both characters may appeal the same way along the lines of story. I've said as much. This would be the difference. The edge the male lead has in terms of appeal. 

Learn to argue.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> Already answered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you want to trade discourse points from the logical fallacies Wikipedia page, then I call pure confirmation bias on the above - and none of it particularly well-written-slash-argued to boot. Patrick, as the author of the masterful "Amarant Flowers" it barely needs saying that you're better than this. Just thought I'd get this in before the thread gets locked and I remember how terribly terribly 2011 internet trolling is, while beating a retreat back to my imaginary world...


----------



## Bishop (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> No. I'm saying the male lead doesn't have to be sexualised to be a sex symbol to women. Whereas the female lead who is written the same way NOT AIMING TO BE A SEX SYMBOL, struggles on that front due to the ubiquity of sexualization vying for male attention.
> 
> That's the very opposite of what you claim I'm arguing.
> 
> ...



I think your premise is flawed from the start here--now, I'm not a woman, so I can't explicitly speak for them--but when a male lead is in a book, they don't automatically start drooling. In fact, the reasons you like a character lead, male or female, are likely the same reasons a woman likes a male/female lead.

Male leads in novels are generally NOT sex symbols off the bat, like you're claiming. There are, in fact, very few Christian Greys--and even that's not literature. And both men and women in lead roles are almost always sexualized in film, so your initial example of Orlando Bloom... if you don't think Bloom's been sexualized in every role he's played, then you have a warped idea of Hollywood.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> Already answered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, either learn from what I have to tell you, or don't reply at all. 

You can't seem to express yourself without contradiction, so I am merely trying to understand what it is you're driving at. I don't seem to be alone in trying to understand just what on earth it is you're actually trying to say. As I said in my very first post in this thread, men read books for all manner of reasons, just as women read books for all manner of reasons. A female protagonist can have just as much appeal to a male readership as a male protagonist can have to a female readership. Men can and do enjoy a mixture of sexual content and non-sexual content.

Do sales support your thesis that it is harder for female protagonists to appeal to a male demographic than for male protagonists to appeal to a female demographic? I am not interested in your confirmation bias. Just give me the facts.



bdcharles said:


> If you want to trade discourse points from the logical fallacies Wikipedia page, then I call pure* confirmation bias* on the above - and none of it particularly well-written-slash-argued to boot. Patrick, as the author of the masterful "Amarant Flowers" it barely needs saying that you're better than this. Just thought I'd get this in before the thread gets locked and I remember how terribly terribly 2011 internet trolling is, while beating a retreat back to my imaginary world...



Nail on the head. Too bad I didn't read this before I posted. For me, this isn't about trolling, but thanks for the warning, friend.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 2, 2016)

bdcharles said:


> If you want to trade discourse points from the logical fallacies Wikipedia page, then I call pure confirmation bias on the above - and none of it particularly well-written-slash-argued to boot. Patrick, as the author of the masterful "Amarant Flowers" it barely needs saying that you're better than this. Just thought I'd get this in before the thread gets locked and I remember how terribly terribly 2011 internet trolling is, while beating a retreat back to my imaginary world...



You haven't refuted any of it. In fact the last post where you made a point, was to not write "that sort of character". To not bother trying to write a female character that can make men as devoted to her the way women are to these male heroes. Which is fine, but then you lose the right to call it confirmation bias.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> You haven't refuted any of it. In fact the last post where you made a point, was to not write "that sort of character". To not bother trying to write a female character that can make men as devoted to her the way women are to these male heroes. Which is fine, but then you lose the right to call it confirmation bias.



My words (because I am so quotable) were:



> Is not to write that sort of protagonist, *if you're not able to pull it off*.



For logic nerds like me who are interested in such things, that's another example of confirmation bias - taking my words out of context, losing you the right to any meaningful counterargument. But it's okay. It doesn't matter. I don't deny that the basic point of what you're trying to say has its challenges, like any writing. It's just that you framed half an argument and expected us to believe it was the whole one. There's another name for that bit of flawed reasoning but it eludes me right now.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 2, 2016)

> Right, either learn from what I have to tell you, or don't reply at all.



Ditto.



> You can't seem to express yourself without contradiction, so I am merely  trying to understand what it is you're driving at. I don't seem to be  alone in trying to understand just what on earth it is you're actually  trying to say.



I've made myself clear multiple times. 



> As I said in my very first post in this thread, men read  books for all manner of reasons, just as women read books for all manner  of reasons.



Never said otherwise. 



> A female protagonist can have just as much appeal to a male  readership as a male protagonist can have to a female readership.



When did I say otherwise? I said the writing for the female protagonist has to be better to achieve it due to the sex symbol edge male protagonists often enjoy among female fanbases and because of the Mary Sue aspect, and the SjW propaganda accusation, and the sexism accusation and the potential of "bitch" accusation. 
A writer who can avoid all that and write a female character that's just as successful as similar male leads, without a whole bunch of criticism, has succeeded on hard mode as far as I'm concerned. 

Still don't understand? Will you keep typing out total non sequitrs like "female leads can do just as well" or "men read books for many reasons"? 


> Men  can and do enjoy a mixture of sexual content and non-sexual content.



That's a non point because so do women. So that cancels out. 



> Do sales support your thesis that it is harder for female protagonists  to appeal to a male demographic than for male protagonists to appeal to a  female demographic? I am not interested in your confirmation bias. Just  give me the facts.



Show me the massive male fanbases for female leads. And don't give me rubbish about men not making massive fanbases or being more guarded about what they like. They make huge fanbases for dragonball z, star wars, sonic the hedgehog and a whole host of media. Yes, occasionally some get through, Lara Croft for example, when the creative execution is completely on point. But that's what I'm saying, to get there you have to be real sharp.


----------



## Bishop (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> Show me the massive male fanbases for female leads. And don't give me rubbish about men not making massive fanbases or being more guarded about what they like. They make huge fanbases for dragonball z, star wars, sonic the hedgehog and a whole host of media. Yes, occasionally some get through, Lara Croft for example, when the creative execution is completely on point. But that's what I'm saying, to get there you have to be real sharp.



You've yet to use a single example that is:

1) From literature.

2) Backed up with numbers. 

Men AND women are in fanbases for all of what you've listed. All of your reasoning is anecdotal at best. And sexist at worst.


----------



## LeeC (Jun 2, 2016)

Umm, folks, I don't see where we need to get all in a lather  This board is meant for writing discussion, not debating. All that's called for is to offer one's opinion in a helpful way, and let the OP take from it what they see of value, not argue each others opinions. 

My own opinion is that too often writers exhibit more of a stereotyping portrayal, based on their own experiences. If one wants to take more of a literary approach (character depth) then look for models in real life of the characters one has in mind. Male/female, white/red/black, whatever are distinctions inculcated in our minds, not the reality where every individual is different. Of course the wife often tells me that men are to dense to lead


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 2, 2016)

> For logic nerds like me who are interested in such things, that's  another example of confirmation bias - taking my words out of context,  losing you the right to any meaningful counterargument. But it's okay.  It doesn't matter. I don't deny that the basic point of what you're  trying to say has its challenges, like any writing. It's just that you  framed half an argument and expected us to believe it was the whole one.  There's another name for that bit of flawed reasoning but it eludes me  right now.



If someone discovers that they can't do it. Your advice was to not attempt it. Or are you saying they should not attempt it before writing it and should just know if they can or can't based on what, feelings?

And "right to"? What are you to talking about? There are no "rights" here.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> If someone discovers that they can't do it. Your advice was to not attempt it. Or are you saying they should not attempt it before writing it and should just know if they can or can't based on what, feelings?
> 
> And "right to"? What are you to talking about? There are no "rights" here.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 2, 2016)

> You've yet to use a single example that is:
> 
> 1) From literature.
> 
> ...



Why would I limit myself to literature when that's a) Not my medium and b) The most successful characters are multimedia?

And numbers? What is this a freaking science class? It's a forum on the internet. If you agree or disagree whatever. But don't expect a goddamn dissertation.  


Oh really? There are males in female fanbases of male leads?


----------



## Gyarachu (Jun 2, 2016)

Usually claims are expected to be backed with evidence, especially when argued so fervently and with such hostility.


----------



## Sam (Jun 2, 2016)

Enough. 

Personal attacks are not tolerated on WF. If the people in this thread cannot converse like adults, it will be locked.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 2, 2016)

bdcharles said;


> Is not to write that sort of protagonist, *if you're not able to pull it off*.



Which comes first. The realization that you can't pull off the character or the writing attempt?


----------



## Patrick (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> When did I say otherwise? I said the writing for the female protagonist has to be better to achieve it due to the sex symbol edge male protagonists often enjoy among female fanbases and because of the Mary Sue aspect, and the SjW propaganda accusation, and the sexism accusation and the potential of "bitch" accusation. A writer who can avoid all that and write a female character that's just as successful as similar male leads, without a whole bunch of criticism, has succeeded on hard mode as far as I'm concerned.



As Bishop pointed out, male characters often aren't sex symbols. Is Harry Potter a sex symbol for young girls? I won't even get into literary fiction or adult fantasy (my haunting grounds).



> Show me the massive male fanbases for female leads.



I am pretty sure you'll find there are loads of male fans of Daenerys Targaryen. I am certainly one of them, and she is absolutely a sex symbol.



> And don't give me rubbish about men not making massive fanbases or being more guarded about what they like. They make huge fanbases for dragonball z, star wars, sonic the hedgehog and a whole host of media. Yes, occasionally some get through, Lara Croft for example, when the creative execution is completely on point. But that's what I'm saying, to get there you have to be real sharp.



Yeah, and you have to understand that a lot of those men are self-professed nerds. Rey, the new girl in Star Wars, is seen by the fans of Star Wars as being really cool. She has loads of male fans.

The point is, Jon Snow has to be as well drawn as a character in order to achieve a fan base as any of these female characters. If you want your characters whether they be male or female to be loved and championed by the people who read them, then they have to evoke the imagination.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> bdcharles said;
> 
> 
> Which comes first. The realization that you can't pull off the character or the writing attempt?



This is a good question but I'm not sure there is a single answer. I would say it varies from person to person. Some people might say "I can't write that" and never try. Others might try and not succeed. Others yet might try, fail, think about what went wrong, and try again, driven to succeed later. More may never even have any of this occur to them, be they writers or no. I can only really speak for myself and say that I would have a feeling for the character I wanted to write before I did it, so: the reaslisation that I _can _write the character, followed by the attempt. Others may differ, but my writing tends to be very character driven. After all, all my writing is, is making permanent thoughts in my head that were already there. Could I do it the other way? Hmm, possibly. Might not enjoy it very much though. I mean, why would I want to do something that I don't want to do, if that makes any sense? I may or may not be able to write, say, convincing romance characters, but I'm not really that fussed about trying, being that that's not my genre or area of interest, so again the realisation would come first, for me.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 2, 2016)

> As Bishop pointed out, male characters often aren't sex symbols. Is Harry Potter a sex symbol for young girls?



Yes. Especially when portrayed by Daniel Radcliffe. Again, the popular characters are multimedia.



> I am pretty sure you'll find there are loads of male fans of Daenerys Targeryan. I am certainly one of them, and she is absolutely a sex symbol.



I already named one. But you'd be hard pressed to find many more. Want me to list male characters across media with massive female fanbases? I could easily. You  can't name many big male fanbases for female leads across media. And then you ask for numbers. Numbers for what? If you can name a nigh endless list of male fanbases for female leads, go ahead. I can't. Can you? Those that are have really exeptional writing behind it, when garbage writing suffices for alot of male leads to get significant female interest. 



> Yeah, and you have to understand that a lot of those men are self-professed nerds. Rey, the new girl in Star Wars, is seen by the fans of Star Wars as being really cool. She has loads of male fans.



She's seen by quite alot of them as being a Mary Sue, a debate that's ongoing and quite widely reported online. And  When she's just the same character as Luke but he never got that label. I'm talking about a female lead that can escape that criticism. That's capable and appealing. That's harder. 



> The point is, Jon Snow has to be as well drawn as a character in order to achieve a fan base as any of these female characters. If you want your characters whether they be male or female to be loved and championed by the people who read them, then they have to evoke the imagination.



Christian Grey - garbage writing. 
Jacob Black - his fanbase largely survived his desire to romance a baby at the end of Breaking Dawn.


----------



## Terry D (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> This is based on the observation I've made that there doesn't seem to be nearly as many male dominated fanbases of female leads as there is of female dominated fanbases of male.
> 
> Case n point, after fellowship of the ring movie, Orlando Bloom had this massive female fanbase.
> 
> ...



What you are describing here isn't a difference in the writing of a character, but a difference in the way readers react to characters. Men and women, *in general*, react to stories in very different ways, and sexuality has little to do with it. Continuing my gross generalizations (since we are talking about "massive fan-bases" we must, by default be speaking in aggregate terms), men tend to read for plot and action, hence the popularity with men of Jack Reacher, James Bond, Jack Ryan, Jason Bourne (what's with all the 'J' names anyway?), and Alex Cross. Men relate, or would like to, to these characters. Women, at least those making the likes of Stephanie Meyer, P. D. James, Nora Roberts and Dianna Gabaldon rich, are more interested in relationships. While there is frequently a sexual component to those relationships, that is not the primary draw. Just as sex, in real life, isn't the primary drive for women in a relationship. 

Do a good job of creating a fictional relationship between your male protagonist and your female readers and you will find success. Try to create the same relationship between a female character and your male readers and they will put your book down and pick up the next Harry Bosch mystery.

It is not that female leads are any more difficult to write than males, it's just that the relationship between the reader and the character is far different.

Also, are we talking about movies here, or books? They are worlds apart in the ways their audiences react to them.


----------



## Patrick (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> Yes. Especially when portrayed by Daniel Radcliffe. Again, the popular characters are multimedia.



They're multimedia now, but they didn't start out that way, and their sex appeal was not the reason for the growth of their fandom in the first place.



> I already named one. But you'd be hard pressed to find many more. Want me to list male characters across media with massive female fanbases? I could easily. You  can't name many big male fanbases for female leads across media. And then you ask for numbers. Numbers for what? If you can name a nigh endless list of male fanbases for female leads, go ahead. I can't. Can you? Those that are have really exeptional writing behind it, when garbage writing suffices for alot of male leads to get significant female interest.



The burden of proof isn't on me to demonstrate that writing female leads is harder than male leads; it's on you.



> She's seen by quite alot of them as being a Mary Sue, a debate that's ongoing and quite widely reported online. And  When she's just the same character as Luke but he never got that label. I'm talking about a female lead that can escape that criticism. That's capable and appealing. That's harder.



Oh please, Luke has been criticised for being an archetype since Star Wars' inception.




> Christian Grey - garbage writing.
> Jacob Black - his fanbase largely survived his desire to romance a baby at the end of Breaking Dawn.



If men and women react differently to characters, what's the problem? You're only criticising female fan bases by making this point. But as I said to you before, teenage girls are one slice of the market. There are loads of adult men and women out there who like to read proper fiction. Characters like Jon Snow are popular across a broader spectrum. So perhaps if I were to amend my statement, I would do it this way: to achieve a fan base that transcends a very narrow wedge of the marketplace, male and female characters have to be well drawn.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> I already named one. But you'd be hard pressed to find many more. Want me to list male characters across media with massive female fanbases? I could easily. You  can't name many big male fanbases for female leads across media. And then you ask for numbers. Numbers for what? If you can name a nigh endless list of male fanbases for female leads, go ahead. I can't. Can you? Those that are have really exeptional writing behind it, when garbage writing suffices for alot of male leads to get significant female interest.



My point is: is this total equivalence necessary? Do male readers have the same desire for a sex symbol type female lead that my wife's smouldering stack of Poldarks attests women readers might possess? Is it so inconceivable that a sample set of women and men would have differing reading wishlists? Is it even coneivable that a sample taken from either gender would throw up such homogeniety? That's leaving aside the notion that your average modern male lead might well fit pretty neatly into the Gary Stu mould (or, as I prefer think of them, McDarcy's  ) Your comparison between Rey and Luke is questionable because almost four decades of human thought separates them. If you want a like-for-like, you have to think in different terms. Find a character type that is typically well-suited for a female, and then find a male that fits it, and compare and contrast the two. Let's say Elizabeth Bennett from Pride & Prejudice. She doesn't do anything that is particularly blokey. TFA-era Princess Leia could probably kick her ass, though I'd argue they are both solid Stendhal heroines. But even though she is still subject to male authority in many ways, she has a strong mind, is a freethinker, outsmarts her contemporaries. What male leads are like that? Meanwhile, men do all kinds of other crazy nonsense for women. We're all one anothers subjects in one way. Embrace it. Make something good out of that very human fact.

All this said, one of my all-time favourite books features a female lead who is cooler than cool, namely Lyra. She needs no further introduction.


----------



## Non Serviam (Jun 2, 2016)

bdcharles said:


> My point is: is this total equivalence necessary? Do male readers have the same desire for a sex symbol type female lead that my wife's smouldering stack of Poldarks attests women readers might possess?



Yep.  Men are less likely to buy novelizations or form vocal facebook fan clubs, but we like sex symbols just fine.


----------



## oenanthe (Jun 2, 2016)

Annoying kid said:


> So am I right to conclude the writing behind the female lead generally has to be better than for a male  in order to close that gap and for there to be an equal chance of success?



I wish that were true. no, it's simply because the character is a woman.


----------



## BobtailCon (Jun 2, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I don't really agree with this. The fact is, the reason the majority of actors in Hollywood are white and male is because the scripts are being written by white males, and the films are being produced and directed by white males. There was an interview with George R.R. Martin where a black interviewer asked him a long-winded and race-baiting question about the prevalence of white characters in fantasy, including GOT, with the insinuation being Martin and other writers like him were guilty of some kind of white privilege/racism. As Martin answered very well: these stories are mostly being written by white males who will of course reflect their culture and history in their stories. He handled it very gracefully, but a lot of the left's race baiting is incredibly inappropriate and usually amounts to pablum.
> 
> And no, literature with a female lead doesn't have to be better than literature with a male lead in order to work. The reason nobody took to Tauriel is because she wasn't in the books, and the lotr/hobbit fans didn't really respect the inclusion. Most of us didn't even like the way the Hobbit films were done. Don't forget about things like The Hunger Games.



I agree. I hate this idea nowadays that you have to have EQUAL REPRESENTATION EVERYWHERE. If you have more male leads than female leads, you're a sexist. If you don't have a lot of black characters, then you're a racist. If your main character is white, you're a racist. If you include Native American culture (J.K Rowling), you're culturally appropriating. 

Fuck off, I'll write the story I want. If I want a black lead, I'll have a black lead. Often times my main characters are open to interpretation, I don't even specify. And with my fantasy stories, I have cultures of white people, very white people, mid toned people and black people. But there's also plant people. My other book is an Apocalyptic Western, so everyone is just sunburnt to hell. I don't know why race and things are such a big deal these days, it's like people are purposely segregating each other.

By the way, in no way am I saying Bishop holds this view, I'm talking about these very vocal groups who preach this shit.


----------



## JustRob (Jun 3, 2016)

Boofy said:


> Hey, hey! I'm a girl and I can't even be mean to my reflection without feeling bad! ;-;



That's a good idea. I'll rewrite my opening chapter to feature a girl who is mean to her reflection and in a fit of remorse resolves to change places with her. What a twist! I'll just nip back in time and do that. Check it out here. NUAT Chapter 1 Now back to the topic.



Bishop said:


> Most of us are there for... you know... the story.



Quite so.

I must try to keep up to date with WF rather than attempting to comment on maturing threads. I notice a threat was made to lock this thread. Recently that was done to another thread while I was typing a post and the editor does not issue a warning that it has been done. I object to my time being wasted like this. I understand the need but even moderators need to moderate their behaviour and show consideration for others when wielding their power.

Are female leads more difficult -- to read? Do we writers always have to make up for the deficiencies of readers, spoon-feeding them with the types of nutrition that they like? Is it harder to write stories that deviate from their expectations or to compete in a mainstream market that already feeds their addictions?

The idea of the Mary Sue character seems to arise from society's bias towards assuming that a woman who attempts something against the odds will most likely fail while a man who does so and succeeds is just a better than average man. On this basis any female character succeeding significantly against the odds is unrealistic. Since stories are allegedly written around characters overcoming conflict, on this basis society wouldn't expect the central character to be female. But regardless of the truth what we write is _fiction_. Our very language demands that characters have gender, so even though we may distort every other aspect of reality in our made up worlds that one thing still pokes through. It is no surprise then that when a writer wants to eliminate it so that the reader focusses on the real story they make all their characters the same sex, most likely all male. That isn't gender bias, just gender indifference when faced with a language biased towards gender. As Bishop says, we're just there for the story.

Anyway, I'm still in bed and need to get up and return to the real world now. Hopefully the thread hasn't been closed yet. If it has I may not come back.


----------



## Sam (Jun 3, 2016)

JustRob said:


> I must try to keep up to date with WF rather than attempting to comment on maturing threads. I notice a threat was made to lock this thread. Recently that was done to another thread while I was typing a post and the editor does not issue a warning that it has been done. I object to my time being wasted like this. I understand the need but even moderators need to moderate their behaviour and show consideration for others when wielding their power.



Part of a moderator's job is to make sure threads stay on-topic, do not become debates, and do not devolve into flame wars. When, for instance, the latter occurs, a warning is posted in the thread to let people know that any further inflammatory comments will be met with the punishment of infractions and, if serious enough, the thread will be locked. Once flaming begins, moderators must stomp it out at once.* There is no time to consider who may or may not be in the middle of creating a post, but in the event that a person _is_ in the process of creating one, there are ways to tell whether that person saw the warning and posted regardless, or was making a post and legitimately did not know that a warning existed. 

I'm sorry that you feel that your time was monopolised, but I'm the one who posted the warning and I stand by my decision to do so. I was not aware that you, or anyone else, were creating a post at the time I issued the warning. Had I known, it would not have changed the decision. My job is to consider the entire membership and their collective welfare on the forum. Flame wars makes the membership unhappy and frustrated. Ergo, flame wars get stomped out ASAP. That's the crux of it.  

*If there's a fire in a building, the fire brigade aren't going to hold off until someone finishes their meeting. Likewise, moderators act quickly to deal with powder-keg situations. If they wait for everyone to finish posting, the flaming will have escalated to an uncontrollable level. Hence, warnings are designed to prevent threads from being locked. They get members back on track so that locking is not required. It is when warnings are ignored, by people who have had ample time to see and read them, that the situation escalates to the point where locking becomes a necessity.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Jun 3, 2016)

To amplify what Sam has said, a lot of times if we have to close a thread (which is relatively rare by the way), it is not only to save a thread from getting out of control, but often it is to save inflammatory members from a probable infraction. If they can't post, then they can't write something so inflammatory that we have no choice but to take disciplinary action. Thus in a sense, we are saving those members from themselves.


Now, back to the topic


----------



## JustRob (Jun 3, 2016)

mrmustard615 said:


> To amplify what Sam has said, a lot of times if we have to close a thread (which is relatively rare by the way), it is not only to save a thread from getting out of control, but often it is to save inflammatory members from a probable infraction. If they can't post, then they can't write something so inflammatory that we have no choice but to take disciplinary action. Thus in a sense, we are saving those members from themselves.
> 
> 
> Now, back to the topic



What, how difficult it may be to write about inflammatory female leads? No, I'm joking of course. Thanks for the responses _gentlemen_. (Are female moderators more difficult ... )


----------



## Harper J. Cole (Jun 3, 2016)

It's an interesting debate. *Ak*, are you working on a story with a female lead at the moment?

*HC*


----------



## oenanthe (Jun 3, 2016)

> Fuck off, I'll write the story I want.



you should. and do you know why?

because if you try to please everyone, you won't write the stories that have the deepest meaning to you.


----------



## Bishop (Jun 3, 2016)

BobtailCon said:


> By the way, in no way am I saying Bishop holds this view, I'm talking about these very vocal groups who preach this shit.



Fear not, I understand where you're coming from. I'm less worried about forcing inclusion and more just bored by the current trends in films. There was a time not too long ago when I'd go see a movie with my wife every single week. Now I'm down to three or four times a year, it seems, because everything coming out is a color-graded, superhero-laden, imagination-lacking popcorn fest that fails to even get me into my popcorn. I'm done with reboots, sick of remakes, and if someone really tells me they're going to remake Escape from New York, I might punch them when they give John Carpenter's legendary role to Zach f*****g Snyder.

Sorry, bit of a rant there. But I refuse to believe I'm alone. That's why, I think the current climate for this sort of thing is so toxic but it does mean it's a good time for stories with female leads; good or bad, people are happy to see something new, for once.

Just, you know... Not Jupiter Ascending, okay?


----------



## DruidPeter (Jun 3, 2016)

Well! I'm honored to meet another who enjoys the illustrious work of Motoko Kusanagi!  Motoko is by far, one my most cherished female leads in fiction.

Having said that, I would like to agree with a point that's been brought up multiple times in this thread: The difference in expression between fan bases. I myself do feel that male fan bases just _act differently_ towards their cherished characters than female, I suppose. I mean, there are franchises and characters in general, female lead included, that I absolutely adore.

But I'd never go about displaying that attachment in the stereotypical fan girl way, I suppose. I recognize that this is only anecdotal, but I suspect that enough males out there are similar enough to lend it some level of credence.


----------

