# What's the difference (if any) between a male's mindset vs. a female's mindset?



## MorganaPendragon25 (Dec 20, 2020)

When writing male vs. female characters, is there a difference in how they think? In general, the world society expects males to be tough and strong, not showing emotions while society expects females to be soft and nurturing, showing emotions. I think in this day and age, all that should be thrown out the window. 

There are real-life women out there who break all of those stereotypes, A woman can be an aggressive, violent fighter and be very stoic and not very nurturing (especially if she doesn't want kids and has no attachment to them). Does that make her a "man"? Heck no. Just because a woman has muscles and guts to brawl, doesn't make her a man. I don't get why some people have a problem with strong women. There are strong women all over the place in our world today. I think the term damsel-in-distress is archaic, very old term. I expect the women in my life to be capable to defend themselves, they shouldn't need a man to save them or protect them. 

A man can be vulnerable too, he can breakdown during a hard time. Shows he's human. Showing emotions is not a female-only thing. Not all men are insanely strong or tough. 

As for relationships between males and females, it seems like those friendships are different than those that are male/male relationships and female/female relationships. Can a man and women be best friends without any romantic ties in that bond? Of course! I'm a man who has a best friend who is female. Nothing romantic, we just enjoy hanging out together because we enjoy the same hobbies and she is a blast to have fun with. We are both happily single. Whenever I read a book, it seems like the relationship between a man and a woman is all over the place. The woman is confusing and the man fantasizes about her; that's not all true. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 20, 2020)

In what context? Girls grow up to be women, little boys grow up to be big little boys.


----------



## Sam (Dec 20, 2020)

It would appear you've answered your own question.


----------



## Matchu (Dec 20, 2020)

Men tend to be rational and objective.  We imagine the slim volume of important information, concise, to the point.  The man has made his point, sometimes in poetry.

'W_omen' _like to talk, their birdsong is harmonious and fragrant, lacks the depth of man's rigour.  Women's books, in a publishing sense, are larger, generally repetitious of the nonsense they spout re candles, perfume and such-like. [Shopping]

Obviously there is *a place* for leather-clad, snarling, violent and aggressive women characters.  An island prison, an early chapter, women deprived of a man's wisdom, leaderless, a herd of women chase a pig with ill-sharpened sticks.  Clothes, no longer an issue for many of these women, whether written by a man or in diagram form.  There's much sympathy for the modern approach to characterisation.


----------



## Tiamat (Dec 20, 2020)

Oh goodness, not this again. People are people, and nobody has to be a certain way just because their biological gender says it must be so. Human beings are far more complex than that.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 20, 2020)

Matchu said:


> Men tend to be rational and objective.  We imagine the slim volume of important information, concise, to the point.  The man has made his point, sometimes in poetry.
> 
> 'W_omen' _like to talk, their birdsong is harmonious and fragrant, lacks the depth of man's rigour.  Women's books, in a publishing sense, are larger, generally repetitious of the nonsense they spout re candles, perfume and such-like. [Shopping]
> 
> Obviously there is *a place* for leather-clad, snarling, violent and aggressive women characters.  An island prison, an early chapter, women deprived of a man's wisdom, leaderless, a herd of women chase a pig with ill-sharpened sticks.  Clothes, no longer an issue for many of these women, whether written by a man or in diagram form.  There's much sympathy for the modern approach to characterisation.



Bilgiferous drivel - Women are far more pragmatic than men, you've been looking at too many stereotypes.


----------



## Pamelyn Casto (Dec 20, 2020)

Tiamat said:


> Oh goodness, not this again. People are people, and nobody has to be a certain way just because their biological gender says it must be so. Human beings are far more complex than that.



I agree that people are people and that human beings are complex. I also think they're (we're) quite often programmed by their (our) societies on what a man or woman is and what each can do and even what space each can occupy. I love studying ancient Greek culture and they had a strict slot for each gender-- right down even to who occupies the left side (female) or who the right side (male) in the very womb-- it began before birth. 

That left/ right position carried over into other areas of their lives. (And the sorting was alive and well during the Witchcraze era too, some centuries later.) The courtesans/ heiteras and the Amazons were the women who could manage to escape society's expectations of who occupies one space and who occupies the other. 

The vase paintings are also interesting. At funeral depictions it's usually the women shown as frantically wailing and pulling at their hair while the men stand by like Stoics. These spaces are still alive today. (For example, in a traditional U.S. wedding the male side of the family sits on the right side of the church and the female side sits on the left.) I find it all so interesting how a society manages to program its inhabitants to act and react in certain simplified ways even though as human beings we're all complex creatures.


----------



## indianroads (Dec 20, 2020)

People differ, there's no stereotype. Pay attention to people you know and others around you. Watch them closely, listen to how they speak and what they notice in different situations.

That said however, hormones do play a role in how we think and perceive the world around us.

Some years ago I watched a show about a scientific study of how men and women perceive the emotions of others. In the study, a biological woman was receiving male hormones as part of a sex-change. Scientists using FMRI (Fast Magnetic Resonance Imagining) watched her brain work as she was shown people with expressions demonstrating various emotions. The more male hormones in her system, the greater difficulty she had figuring out what the people in the pictures were feeling.

Beyond that, I've noticed that the women in my life have a keener sense of smell than I do. They also notice details of what people are wearing when I don't. Many women have better articulation in their speech than I do (they're more likely to say 'yes' than 'yah'). Now, admittedly, that's a VERY small slice of the human population, but I still use it in my writing.


----------



## Matchu (Dec 20, 2020)

Bloggsworth said:


> Bilgiferous drivel - Women are far more pragmatic than men, you've been looking at too many stereotypes.



Respectfully, we can only work with the material we are given.  Allow me to tackle..._trite trope_ one way, and you go another...or do your best.  I'm sure somebody will derive great satisfaction laying out in 1000 words 'how the world does not move to the beat of just one drum.'

It _is_ a writer forum.

[same to the rest of you]


----------



## Sam (Dec 20, 2020)

MorganaPendragon25 said:


> When writing male vs. female characters, is there a difference in how they think?



This is one of the biggest pitfalls that writers get mired in. 

I can guarantee you that for every woman who _thinks _one way about a subject, another will think about it in a completely different way. 

Humans are not easily categorised, nor should they be, and yet we seek to put them in boxes they ought not to be put in. We have labels for everything: geek, nerd, loner, Goth, etcetera. And we compartmentalise people based on what label we think they should have because it makes us comfortable, and our world would be turned on its head if we were to acknowledge the possibility that every human is unique in their own way, beyond what label society wishes to impose upon them. 

Disabuse yourself of the notion that all men or all women will act a certain way based on a stereotype. It's specious at best and vacuous at worst. I've met women who fainted at the sight of blood, and other women who waded knee-deep through the stuff to save someone's life. 

All of this is to say that your character will have a set of definable characteristics, as I've said in another thread, including but not limited to: goals, dreams, desires, needs, fears, traits, likes, dislikes; and all of these add up to create more than just a caricature of a person. 

When you find yourself asking "what would a woman do in this situation?", slap yourself across the face and instead ask, "What would my character do based on the way I've characterised them?" 

That way, you stay true to the character and not some stereotype.


----------



## EternalGreen (Dec 20, 2020)

I don't think there's much difference. People vary.


----------



## Matchu (Dec 20, 2020)

I shall argue how there is more mileage in the 'specious and the vacuous' than in the 'think not what woman would think, think what your character would...' zzzzzzzzzz

...which is an accepted truth, naturally, & the anatomically and grey-correct response of our great forum lands.  And accepted as a hobby in of itself [see: Pompous Letters To The Times of London, green ink variety]  However, should we online adopt CW teacher hat every time, or a perspective that the poster is fourteen years old? [I suppose we should do so, yes   ]

Yet, if this were a classroom, any character might yawn at her desk, spit on the floor and stare out of the window.  She would snigger in a tree house scrawling the specious and vacuous upon her den walls.  Which later generations might gold-plate for posterity, probably due to her insightfulness, and published by Menthuen Penguin.  She is very rich today. Meanwhile her teacher died in his obscurity, his final letter in green ink spread at his bedside, mmm.

[press send, see how that flies, mmm]

UPDATE: see _Writer v The Creative Writer warfare series_


----------



## Sam (Dec 20, 2020)

Look on the bright side. If writing doesn't pan out, you definitely have a career in motivational speaking. 

Magic 8-Ball says: not very likely. 

Onan for one, Onan for all.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 20, 2020)

Tiamat said:


> Oh goodness, not this again. People are people, and nobody has to be a certain way just because their biological gender says it must be so. Human beings are far more complex than that.


Oh my gosh, yes, please focus on your character being a person first and foremost! So many things aren't about gender, for instance:
Shyness
introvertedness/extrovertedness
appreciation for beauty
sneakiness
cleverness
abandonment issues
victimhood (either real or a mindset of victimhood)
laziness 
determination
self-discipline
being analytical
free spiritedness
etc.

This reminds me of discussing with my son how to talk to girls. At first it might seem like some kind of obstacle but I told him that they're just people. That got him over the worst of the jitters.

Gender might influence some things but even that will vary from person to person.


----------



## Matchu (Dec 20, 2020)

Horrible boy.  I have to go to work now all depressed.

[not 'your boy,' the chief...]

x


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 20, 2020)

*Flashbacks to the Writing Women thread*

Pass!


----------



## VRanger (Dec 20, 2020)

Bloggsworth said:


> Bilgiferous drivel - Women are far more pragmatic than men, you've been looking at too many stereotypes.



I had the feeling the comment you quoted was tongue in cheek, since it was so blatant. But there was no wink. LOL


----------



## Matchu (Dec 20, 2020)

Oh God, that means I’m thick.  So, so sorry @Bloggsworth.  

Mr Thuckness


----------



## bdcharles (Dec 20, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> *Flashbacks to the Writing Women thread*
> 
> Pass!



Quite.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 20, 2020)

As keeps being said, "people vary" , but they don't simply vary randomly, many factors come into play, social and personal. Gender is one of these, but it is moderated by all the other things as well.
Some things are gender affected, women are more likely to have some sort of unwanted sexual advance made to them for example, and yes, these things do affect the way people act and react to things.
Basically I would say that the more you know about your character the better you will fit that in with their non socially acquired aspects; things like gender, size, physical strength, and maybe determination, or its lack.


----------



## Pamelyn Casto (Dec 20, 2020)

And at the same time, aren't stereotypes pretty useful to a writer? Or maybe we should call them stock characters? I was just working up an exercise for another project and it's on this topic, the making good use of literary stereotypes or stock characters that have already been created for our use (through other literature). I'm talking about such stock characters as the country bumpkin, the femme fatale, the hypochondriac, the town drunk, the ingénue, the sidekick, or the absent-minded professor, and many more. Some would be limited to females, others to males, and some could be either one. So maybe sometimes for literary effect we need to show differences between male mindset and female mindset. Just sayin'. . . I don't imagine every writer creates a character from scratch. But then again I've never written a novel either.


----------



## chupaflor (Dec 20, 2020)

Yes, ask yourself about the character. But without slapping yourself across the face.


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 21, 2020)

There are some stereotypes that can be applied to women depending on society and its effect on person involved. On average, women tend to be more nurturing than men. Women tend to be more thoughtful and willing to cooperate than men. There are a ton of social norms there commonly held between genders. If a person deviates from those norms, they are likely to face blowback. So, if a female character isn't wooed by a baby, people will often ask, why. This also applies to a male character. If they are naturally sensitive and gentle, people will assume they are gay. They would likely have to face ridicule and sometimes greater violence against them from other men.

So, understand the social norms. Then, figure out why your character breaks them and how they break them. Does the character break the norms in subtle ways, or are they performative in their expression? Why? How does this person fit into the larger society? Are they comfortable around those that would look at them with dismay? Do they not care what others think of them? If no, then why?

This is the basics of character creation. We are not divorced from our environment. We have to interact with it on a daily basis. If your character is far and away different than the norm, it would effect how they interaction with that environment and how the environment interacts with them.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 21, 2020)

It's a question of what is meant by 'mindset'. It's a volatile phrase because there isn't really such thing. What is any human being's 'mindset'? Well, it depends, right? When you're hungry or tired your 'mindset' changes, for instance.

It's hard enough to generalize a mindset within a single individual person, let alone across a whole gender (a gender among which you aren't taking into account other things that alter 'mindset', such as poverty, education, age, etc.)

If you are hellbent on generalizing, you could rationally say women are less violent than men, based on the fact women commit less violent crime. You could say women are more nurturing, based on the fact women are more likely to enter nurturing professions, such as teaching and healthcare. You could rationally say all sorts of things that 'women do'. 

None of it will matter too terribly much, though, because gender is a social construct and biology only goes to far. Social constructs can mean everything and nothing at the same time depending on exactly what we are talking about. For the most part, on an individual level, they are a poor gauge of what people will do. There are differences between individuals in every demographic.

Anybody who believes women are less violent, for instance, has clearly never been inside a women's prison (I have). Anybody who believes women are more nurturing, has never met a woman who abuses children or animals (I have). A thousand hours discussing the topic will most likely end in nothing because generalizing entire genders does nothing for understanding individual people and their quirks.

 This is especially true for writers; What is the point of writing if not to consider people on an individual level?


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 21, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Anybody who believes women are less violent, for instance, has clearly never been inside a women's prison (I have).


Women prisons are less violent then their male counterparts.



> Anybody who believes women are more nurturing, has never met a woman who abuses children or animals (I have).


I think you're talking about the fringes here, not the mainstream. You are more likely to find nurturing women than women who are not nurturing.



> A thousand hours discussing the topic will most likely end in nothing because generalizing entire genders does nothing for understanding individual people and their quirks.
> 
> This is especially true for writers; What is the point of writing if not to consider people on an individual level?


To properly understand the individual, you have to also understand the environment that helped to shape them. I'm sure you'll agree that people when grew up in a fundamentalist religion would differ greatly from people who grew up atheist, regardless of gender. But, even in that fundamentalist lens, the women would differ from the men and often carry similar behavioral tendencies.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 21, 2020)

Pamelyn Casto said:


> And at the same time, aren't stereotypes pretty useful to a writer? Or maybe we should call them stock characters? I was just working up an exercise for another project and it's on this topic, the making good use of literary stereotypes or stock characters that have already been created for our use (through other literature). I'm talking about such stock characters as the country bumpkin, the femme fatale, the hypochondriac, the town drunk, the ingénue, the sidekick, or the absent-minded professor, and many more. Some would be limited to females, others to males, and some could be either one. So maybe sometimes for literary effect we need to show differences between male mindset and female mindset. Just sayin'. . . I don't imagine every writer creates a character from scratch. But then again I've never written a novel either.



Fun to reverse the norms  The female town drunk, country bumpkin, or the male hypochondriac or homme fatale. The absent minded female professor, some real possibilities there


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 21, 2020)

Tettsuo said:


> Women prisons are less violent then their male counterparts.
> 
> I think you're talking about the fringes here, not the mainstream. You are more likely to find nurturing women than women who are not nurturing.
> 
> To properly understand the individual, you have to also understand the environment that helped to shape them. I'm sure you'll agree that people when grew up in a fundamentalist religion would differ greatly from people who grew up atheist, regardless of gender. But, even in that fundamentalist lens, the women would differ from the men and often carry similar behavioral tendencies.



It somewhat depends on how we measure and define things, I think.

First off, you're right. Certainly men's prisons are _far_ more violent if we're talking beat downs and getting-shanked-in-the-shower-room, no question. I did not mean to say that was not the case. 

What I meant to say is, it's really hard to measure, to the point it becomes absurdly tangled up. I think sometimes there's a qualitative element that gets lost when comparing crime rates. One inmate stabbing another is likely going to show up on a report, but tormenting a cellmate through prolonged emotional cruelty and petty cruelty is less likely to. Who has the more violent intent -- a prisoner who punches another prisoner once, or a prisoner who tortures another prisoner in small but constant ways (hair pulling, scratching, shitting on their bed) day in and day out? I think it's really hard to make that comparison.

A hundred men for every one women on Death Row certainly seems, on its face, to support the theory that 'men are more violent', and in purely quantitative terms that's undeniably true. BUT if we consider that a very large number of those 100 men may have simply been part of armed robberies that went wrong and other 'heat of the moment' types of murder, gang shootings or whatever...then consider that the one woman may have, say, strangled their pregnant victim to death with their bare hands and then cut the unborn baby from their uterus (which is the case with the one woman who is currently on Federal Death Row), it starts to become difficult, not least because that seems like a crime that would be far less common among men. It feels like a particularly 'female' form of cruelty.

Yeah, it's an outlier, but we have this problem of qualitative difference constantly: A person who punches another person at a bar fight and a person who punches their spouse over breakfast have committed technically the same act, but nobody would say that those two actions are actually comparable, because we know the circumstances were likely to be so wildly different.

 Studies have shown that while men are more likely to be clinically diagnosed as psychopaths, the women who were deemed to have psychopathy were more likely to inflict long-term emotional harm on their victims, frequently without ever being traced. This suggests to me that the 'hostile mindset' (if not actual bloodshed) is pretty well shared among women and men and the main differences between gender lies in outcomes and not intentions.


----------



## ironpony (Dec 21, 2020)

I thought one of the big reasons why there are less women on death row is because jurors are far less likely to send a defendant to death row if it's a woman.  I didn't think this is entirely because there are less women murderers, unless I am wrong?


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 21, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> It somewhat depends on how we measure and define things, I think.
> 
> First off, you're right. Certainly men's prisons are _far_ more violent if we're talking beat downs and getting-shanked-in-the-shower-room, no question. I did not mean to say that was not the case.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you're saying Luckyscars.

My point is, men and women are often socialized in very different ways. This socialization breeds different general stereotypes of behavior for each gender dependent on the social norms. We should take into account these norms of behavior and play off of them. For a woman to be extremely violent in the same manner as would a man, there has to be some overriding reason. Even if that's the person's normal state of being, we would have to address how her society would view her and react to this behavioral anomaly.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 21, 2020)

It's interesting to me that discussion of possible stereotyping or assumptions often leaves out the idea of age. People can differ so much from when they're young to when they're middle-aged to when they're older. This comes with its own stereotyping, maybe, but I think it's interesting that the woman who starts out as a 'mean girl' who's not nurturing in the slightest can have a personal arc that leads them to have a much more caring personality...or not! But people do change over time and it's a good thing because stories turn on change.

Also, it's nurturing to give someone milk and cookies but it's also nurturing to straighten someone out pretty harshly if their actions are taking them in a dangerous direction. Be nurtured at your own risk!


----------



## indianroads (Dec 21, 2020)

First - I'm father to two daughters, and grandfather to two granddaughters and a grandson.
Second - my wife loves all those _murder TV _programs... like Snapped, and other horrific programs.
Third - as a life long martial artist, I've trained with several male and female world champion fighters.
Fourth - during my misspent youth I hung with an outlaw biker crowd - and there are both male and female clubs.

Ok - with that in mind, this is what I've observed.

Men and women are both capable of violence, but how they go about it differs.

Women tend to be more manipulative than men. They often do not commit the actual crime, but instead coerce a man into doing it for them. When women fight among themselves it often with words, or social manipulation that isolates the woman they want to hurt. It's been my experience that they hold grudges longer.

OTOH, men become physical easier/faster than women do. Disputes lead to arguments and quickly escalate to an altercation. However, once the fight is over and the issue settled, men either cut the other out of their life completely, or they just get over it and move on. 

Disclaimer: these are just my observations - the truth of them lies only within my experience, and is not universal.

ETA: women more frequently use poison to kill someone than men do.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 21, 2020)

> the one woman may have, say, strangled their pregnant victim to death with their bare hands and then cut the unborn baby from their uterus (which is the case with the one woman who is currently on Federal Death Row), it starts to become difficult, not least because that seems like a crime that would be far less common among men



I don't know about the latter part of cutting her up, but of murders where the perp and victim know each other the norm in this country is that men strangle women and women stab men. Makes sense when you think about it, he shuts her up, she has a knife handy. Take care round the kitchen.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 21, 2020)

indianroads said:


> Second - my wife loves all those _murder TV _programs... like Snapped, and other horrific programs.



That's actually a really interesting point. I can't lay my hands on the data immediately, but studies have shown that women actually dominate the viewership of true crime documentaries in general. If you watch channels like Investigation Discovery and stuff, you'll find a weirdly large proportion of female-targeted advertising. 

True crime generally is more popular with women. 70 percent of Amazon reviews of true-crime books are by women, for instance. But this is obviously balanced out with the fact that 82 percent of books about war are by men. So, again, we have a qualitative not quantitive difference when it comes to gender and violence  -- women as a whole aren't less or more interested in violence than men but they are interested in different forms of it. 

This isn't totally surprising given the number of incarcerated serial killers who somehow find women who are very enthusiastic about marrying them (you don't hear about many female inmates who have enamored male pen pals...) but it is kind of interesting that while men tend to be more likely to _become _serial killers, women tend to be a bit more fascinated with the idea of serial killers more generally. 



Olly Buckle said:


> I don't know about the latter part of cutting her up, but of murders where the perp and victim know each other the norm in this country is that men strangle women and women stab men. Makes sense when you think about it, he shuts her up, she has a knife handy. Take care round the kitchen.



That's interesting. The most common stereotype I heard is women are poisoners.


----------



## indianroads (Dec 21, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> That's actually a really interesting point. I can't lay my hands on the data immediately, but studies have shown that women actually dominate the viewership of true crime documentaries in general. If you watch channels like Investigation Discovery and stuff, you'll find a weirdly large proportion of female-targeted advertising.
> 
> True crime generally is more popular with women. 70 percent of Amazon reviews of true-crime books are by women, for instance. But this is obviously balanced out with the fact that 82 percent of books about war are by men. So, again, we have a qualitative not quantitive difference when it comes to gender and violence  -- women as a whole aren't less or more interested in violence than men but they are interested in different forms of it.
> 
> ...



My grandfather, who had immigrated from Ireland (Tralee, Co Kerry), fought in WW1 - trench warfare. When the movie 1917 came out I wanted to see it, but my wife didn't. (By the way - awesome movie with great cinematography) Yet, she'll watch programs about Jeffery Dahmer or the Green River killer all night long. 

When she watches Snapped, I (jokingly) ask if she's taking notes.


----------



## indianroads (Dec 21, 2020)

My WIP has two MC's, one male a brutal assassin on one side of a conflict, and on the other side a female that runs the (not so) secret police that is fashioned after Stalin's NKVD. Both flawed people. 

The male is consumed by tactics and killing methods, and doesn't take any interest in his normal appearance. So a lot of what is written about him are about technique, combat, and murder; clothing is rarely mentioned. He has a casual relationship with one of his students.

The female uses her attributes to manipulate and get ahead, and is a clothes horse, so she pays a lot of attention to appearance. I've asked questions about women's clothing here, because that what's running around in her head. She's cheated on her husband many times, and he finally leaves her.

Now, I could quite easily swap the roles. 

I've trained with a lot of very tough female fighters. Seriously, I pity anyone that tries anything with them - their skills are such that only pieces of the poor guy would be found.

Over the course of my engineering career I've encountered a lot of marketing guys wearing tailored suits (aka. Marketing Weenies), and salon haircuts. 

People matter. Gender is part of who we are, but not the sum total.


----------



## Pamelyn Casto (Dec 21, 2020)

indianroads said:


> I've trained with a lot of very tough female fighters. Seriously, I pity anyone that tries anything with them - their skills are such that only pieces of the poor guy would be found.



Wasn't there a time, within the last 25 years or so, that women in the U.S. military were not allowed in hand-to-hand fighting because they didn't know or honor the understood "rules" when having to kill someone? They were said to be too brutal so were kept out for a long period. (Wish I could call the title of the book I read on that topic . . .)


----------



## indianroads (Dec 21, 2020)

Pamelyn Casto said:


> Wasn't there a time, within the last 25 years or so, that women in the U.S. military were not allowed in hand-to-hand fighting because they didn't know or honor the understood "rules" when having to kill someone? They were said to be too brutal so were kept out for a long period. (Wish I could call the title of the book I read on that topic . . .)



A friend from my outlaw days met the woman he would marry in a bar. She was a member of a female outlaw biker club called the Devil Dolls. Anyway - my friend and I walked into a bar in Reno NV during a bike rally called Street Vibrations. We were having a beer together when he spotted her. She's a beautiful woman, so he went up and put his arm around her - probably about to use a corny pick up line - and she turned and punched him. He's a big guy, but she caught him just right and knocked him on his butt. He got up, complemented her on the punch, and bought her a beer.

Years later I was training in a full contact karate dojo. Marsha Hall trained there - she was the first woman to win Gold in Korea, as did Victor Tapson, who was a US nationally ranked fighter at the time. Marsha is about 5'10" and maybe 140 pounds, and Victor is roughly 6'3" and 230 pounds. I watched them spar one night - and Marsha knocked Victor out cold... I mean, he hit the floor flat on his back and bounced.


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Dec 21, 2020)

Very true. Yes, I agree that women tend to deal with more unwanted sexual advance as you suggest. They must know how to defend themselves in that regard. I have a bunch of female friends who are pretty much tomboys, they are really into guy stuff and love hanging out with their male friends (like me). They don't seem any different than my male friends. I would say my female friends are more detailed-oriented and more alert to their surroundings than my male friends. A fair number of my female friends are physically stronger than me and have more guts than I do; as you say, people vary. Many women can outshine men in combat, and that depends on things outside of strength. There is no limitation as to how strong, badass, brave, etc., a woman or man can be, either in real life or in a work of fiction.


----------



## JackSlater28 (Dec 21, 2020)

Well. I think a lot of it depends on culture. And also regional as well. Women are different in Los Angeles compared to San Francisco. Women are different in Reno compared to Vegas.


----------



## Matchu (Dec 22, 2020)

_He's a big guy, but she caught him just right and knocked him on his butt.

_I had to read that twice, thinking she must have been tiny.

... ...

Certainly my own tribe of badass badasses will all perish in the first chapter.  I can see no other solution.


----------



## CyberWar (Dec 22, 2020)

In my experience, women are as a rule more petty and vindictive. If they hold a grudge, it's for life - or at least a much longer time than any man could be bothered to. Women are also much less likely to resort to violence, but when they do, they show no restraint whatsoever. I've also noted women reserve much of their venom for each other rather than the men, all-female groups tending to be pretty toxic in any setting.


----------



## Sam (Dec 22, 2020)

We seem to be circling back to the pointless game of trying to answer, "What would a man/woman do in this scenario?", which is an exercise in futility when it comes to a character. 

It's pointless because I've seen women fighting like animals, and I've seen other women hiding under a table when shit started going off. Both of those decisions come down to personality and character. So if you're writing a shy woman, it's not gonna make sense to have her fighting like an animal, regardless of whether there's anecdotal evidence that says women do that. 

What matters most is the personality you've created for your character. It will answer any question you have regarding any scenario you put that character in.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 22, 2020)

Beliefs matter, too. I'm not talking about religious beliefs specifically but the idea that what someone believes is the engine that powers their actions.

For instance, maybe you've met the shortest guy in the room who has the inner belief that he's the toughest person there? He might be or he might not be but he carries himself with that confidence.

One of my mom's teachings was that, "You don't mow the grass, fix the plumbing, change the oil in the car, do renovations on the house...those things are what men are supposed to do." I did internalize that, reluctantly, and it's been a belief that's led to a lot of difficulty because not every man is a handyman. I have to learn how to fix things myself, try to talk my husband into learning how to do it as a team (his guiding belief is that if he doesn't know how to do something then that's a good reason not to), or try to afford to hire someone...and that goes against all the self-sufficiency beliefs that I learned!

Think about beliefs about money or dating or life and death or what is good and what is bad...in another thread someone talked about how a boy was given a heavy bag and his father didn't like him using it because it was 'too violent' and wanted him to play soccer instead. That's a guiding belief.

We end up talking about gender because it seems obvious but I think that there is far more power in belief to guide actions...unless it's a belief tied to your gender (like my second example above).


----------



## Matchu (Dec 22, 2020)

One evening all my friends were sat in a bar.  I was away on girlfriend duties.  My pal Liam, of Irish descent, he left the chaps to buy drinks at the bar when a huge & violent punch-up flared at his backside, all the key members of the crew receiving injury.  However, Liam remained at the bar, sweating and biting at his fingernails, a complete woman.


----------



## Sam (Dec 22, 2020)

Matchu said:


> One evening all my friends were sat in a bar.  I was away on girlfriend duties.  My pal Liam, of Irish descent, he left the chaps to buy drinks at the bar when a huge & violent punch-up flared at his backside, all the key members of the crew receiving injury.  However, Liam remained at the bar, sweating and biting at his fingernails, a complete woman.



He shoulda done this: 

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


----------



## indianroads (Dec 22, 2020)

Matchu said:


> One evening all my friends were sat in a bar.  I was away on girlfriend duties.  My pal Liam, of Irish descent, he left the chaps to buy drinks at the bar when a huge & violent punch-up flared at his backside, all the key members of the crew receiving injury.  However, Liam remained at the bar, sweating and biting at his fingernails, a complete woman.



Back when I was in my early 20's (damn... over 40 years ago!), I was sitting near the front of a bar enjoying a beer with a couple friends. At the back of the bar were about 15 members of a very high profile outlaw biker club. The club sent a Prospect up to order drinks, and a guy at the bar (I didn't know him) decided that he would show off to his girlfriend by picking a fight with the Outlaw Club Prospect. A fight started, and the civilian was getting the upper hand... until the rest of the club showed up. They took the guy down, and then the kicking began -15 bikers surrounded the guy and were kicking the living crap out of him.

Can you guess what I did? I turned around on my bar stool to watch for a bit, then looked away and continued my conversation with my friends. To this day, I consider the incident a lesson to the civilian, and who am I to interrupt his education?

Addendum. Outlaw bikers are among the nicest, most genuine people you'll ever meet. It's wise to remember that they live in a different world - with different rules, key among them being respect. If you're friendly and kind to an outlaw you will receive the same in return, being an asshole has consequences though.


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Dec 22, 2020)

True. I'm a dude and a lot of my closest friends are women and they like hanging out with guys more because all-female groups tend to become more toxic (lots of gossip and talking-behind-your-back). I have some pretty badass female friends!


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Dec 22, 2020)

Sam said:


> We seem to be circling back to the pointless game of trying to answer, "What would a man/woman do in this scenario?", which is an exercise in futility when it comes to a character.
> 
> It's pointless because I've seen women fighting like animals, and I've seen other women hiding under a table when shit started going off. Both of those decisions come down to personality and character. So if you're writing a shy woman, it's not gonna make sense to have her fighting like an animal, regardless of whether there's anecdotal evidence that says women do that.
> 
> What matters most is the personality you've created for your character. It will answer any question you have regarding any scenario you put that character in.



Very true. I've seen women who could kick the shit out of people and others who are scared to fight. Same with guys. Gender isn't much of a matter, really. A woman can be an extremely aggressive and violent attacker and a man could be a very gentle, nurturing human being. ALL HUMANS...are very different!


----------



## indianroads (Dec 22, 2020)

MorganaPendragon25 said:


> True. I'm a dude and a lot of my closest friends are women and they like hanging out with guys more because all-female groups tend to become more toxic (lots of gossip and talking-behind-your-back). I have some pretty badass female friends!



My wife belongs to several sewing / knitting groups, and she tells me of stories of the back stabbing and toxicity she encounters there... but again, this can occur in groups of males too. The amount of division and stress within our society these days certainly doesn't help.


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Dec 22, 2020)

indianroads said:


> My wife belongs to several sewing / knitting groups, and she tells me of stories of the back stabbing and toxicity she encounters there... but again, this can occur in groups of males too. The amount of division and stress within our society these days certainly doesn't help.



Oh man, there is a good dose of toxicity within my group of male friends. Sad there is so much backstabbing in today's world. The world was much more pleasant when I was a youngster in the '90's and 00's. I fear for the future of this planet, social media has only made our world worse and our world isn't going to get any better, especially in the United States. So much inequality between not just gender, but race and religion as well.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 22, 2020)

MorganaPendragon25 said:


> The world was much more pleasant when I was a youngster in the '90's and 00's. I fear for the future of this planet, social media has only made our world worse and our world isn't going to get any better, especially in the United States. So much inequality between not just gender, but race and religion as well.



Nah, the world's always been just as horrible, you just didn't see it. Odd how people think the freaking nineties had less sexism and racism than now. Have you seen a nineties family TV show or movie? It's all white saviors and sleazy fuckboys.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 23, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Nah, the world's always been just as horrible, you just didn't see it. Odd how people think the freaking nineties had less sexism and racism than now. Have you seen a nineties family TV show or movie? It's all white saviors and sleazy fuckboys.



Got to agree, to a degree. Black lives matter wouldn't have happened back then, my daughter says that all her friends with parents in my generation say they respond "But all lives matter", they simply don't get it. Three hundred years ago was not all that long in the grand scheme of things, but slavery was accepted as normal everywhere, that's where the 'To a degree' comes in, it wasn't always just as horrible, it was much worse. Admittedly it is two steps forward one back most of the time, so it can look a bit worse at times, but the overall trend is toward something better.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 23, 2020)

Some men and women fall in line with stereotypes. Others defy them. Many are a combination of both.

I feel that, when writing, the more you know your character, the less you think about their gender, and the more you think about _them_ as a person. Eventually the whole concern about gender (and writing their gender accurately) kind of disappears.

(Keep in mind there are also genderqueer individuals, for whom the whole notion of "binary" behavior is anathema.)


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 23, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> I feel that, when writing, the more you know your character, the less you think about their gender, and the more you think about _them_ as a person. Eventually the whole concern about gender (and writing their gender accurately) kind of disappears.
> 
> (Keep in mind there are also genderqueer individuals, for whom the whole notion of "binary" behavior is anathema.)


It amazes me how varied writers are in their craft and thinking. When I write a female character, I'm very much aware of their gender and how it will influence their environment and them.

So many approaches to getting to the same idea. :thumbr:


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 23, 2020)

Tettsuo said:


> It amazes me how varied writers are in their craft and thinking. When I write a female character, I'm very much aware of their gender and how it will influence their environment and them.
> 
> So many approaches to getting to the same idea. :thumbr:



I reckon 'similar but unique ideas' is a better description, it is the variation in writers that makes each produce unique work.


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Dec 23, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Nah, the world's always been just as horrible, you just didn't see it. Odd how people think the freaking nineties had less sexism and racism than now. Have you seen a nineties family TV show or movie? It's all white saviors and sleazy fuckboys.



Oh, I definitely agree there is more sexism and racism now. On racism, has the United States...the entire world for that matter...gotten anywhere on race inequality since the George Floyd thing? I think things have gotten even worse since that, instead of getting better. Not a pleasant world we live in, and social media doesn't make it any better.


----------



## Taylor (Dec 23, 2020)

For the most part, I agree with the people who indicate that, you shouldn't think too much along the lines of gender, and just develop your character for who you want them to be.  

However, I do think there is one area that can cause men and women to think differently from each other and uniformly along gender, and that is upbringing. Depending on geography, or religion, this can be significant.  So even if you don't want to go into your character's background to this degree, it would be important to think about how and where they were raised.  

An obvious example would be if they were raised by working class parents in the 'bible-belt', in middle America versus raised by artists in Greenwich Village, in New York City.  

Obviously, it's not a perfect science and I'm not advocating stereo-types, but it is important to think about if your character has some gender specific motivation driven by their upbringing.  

It can be as simple as whether or not he pulls out the chair for her, or insists on paying for dinner on the first date.  She can be either impressed or put off, depending on her upbringing.  

Another example would be if her struggle was that she wished she were more independant, and not always expecting the man to support her.  That can have a lot to do with certain expectations of the man and woman's role, that she witnessed as a child.  Or the opposite, a man who is attracted to more submissive women, but then gets frustrated when they expect him to pay for everything. 

I think upbringing is a huge part, and possibly the only difference between a male's mindset vs. a female's mindset.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 24, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Got to agree, to a degree. Black lives matter wouldn't have happened back then, my daughter says that all her friends with parents in my generation say they respond "But all lives matter", they simply don't get it. Three hundred years ago was not all that long in the grand scheme of things, but slavery was accepted as normal everywhere, that's where the 'To a degree' comes in, it wasn't always just as horrible, it was much worse. Admittedly it is two steps forward one back most of the time, so it can look a bit worse at times, but the overall trend is toward something better.



My first impulse was to say 'it was much worse' but thought better of it. 

I think it gets really difficult when we get into rankings. Not least because we cannot possibly do so fairly. At the end of the day, people as a species don't change much very quickly so it's safe to assume the basic instincts that drive the culture have mostly always been pretty similar, even if the culture itself has changed. What I mean is: Our culture might have been better/worse in the past but individual human beings were still wired much the same...it's not like there were more evil people around back then, nor benevolent ones. The proportion of bastards and saints was rather similar in 1950 to today. What is different is/was window dressing. 

Then, of course, it's difficult to point to things as barometers. For example, abortion rights in America in the 70's and 80's were arguably more liberal than now. At the same time, our culture was generally more misogynistic and/or patriarchal (as is obvious from watching mainstream 70's/80's movies and TV shows -- all rich white guys doing everything and women are mostly there for sex). So, which measure should we use to determine 'better' or 'worse' overall for women/minorities when doing a comparison? How to calculate? It's super complicated to construct an 'equality index' because there's so many different facets and variables that would need included.

Then, even if we're comparing different times within our own lives, weren't we different, too? I can certainly understand why people now might think the nineties (or eighties, or seventies, or two thousands, or fifties) were halcyon days, but I can't say they're approaching it rationally the majority of the time. With sufficient time, even dark periods in history can become revised in our imagination, and it's not an accident the 'better' times tend to be when we ourselves were younger/happier. I have liberal friends who spent the two thousands wearing t-shirts bearing the image of George W. Bush in a Hitler mustache and who now hold up viral pictures of the same man painting and grin and say things like 'he wasn't THAT bad after all' and see no contradiction. Hell, even I -- recognizing the contradiction -- find it hard to revive those feelings because...it's been years. With few exceptions, this is how it _always_ seems to work: The present is awful, the future is likely to be worse, the past is what we need to get back to. Rinse and repeat. 

Point is, we cannot possibly begin to assess how such things change over time beyond a very superficial degree. The male and female experiences are obviously _different _now than in 1920, and perhaps mindsets too, but I would hardly want to start evaluating those differences too much on merit. My current WIP is from a female POV in 1919 and I quite honestly am considering her little different to a woman now, and more specifically a _person _now. The differences caused by the time period and her gender are largely superficial and linguistic. She is mostly just a regular person.



MorganaPendragon25 said:


> Oh, I definitely agree there is more sexism and racism now. On racism, has the United States...the entire world for that matter...gotten anywhere on race inequality since the George Floyd thing? I think things have gotten even worse since that, instead of getting better. Not a pleasant world we live in, and social media doesn't make it any better.



But more now compared to what? 

That's the problem with this type of thing. We can all agree sex/race inequality is still a problem but...more now compared to when? 

If it's the nineties/00's, there was just as much racism, I promise you. Like I say, watch a mainstream nineties movie or TV show and count how many black actors and actresses it includes. Hardly any, and that's not because they weren't applying. Pretty much all the same social problems you see now were still around at just about any time period you choose in the modern era. There were absolutely George Floyd type incidents in the nineties. Just hardly anyone had a camera.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 24, 2020)

> With few exceptions, this is how it always seems to work: The present is awful, the future is likely to be worse, the past is what we need to get back to. Rinse and repeat.



Certainly a political norm, they know it appeals even when they lie through their teeth about the past. Hitler used it, painting a picture of an agricultural, rural idyll to the workers in heavy industry. I don't know how much Britain and Germany differed back then, but in 'Rural rides' Cobbett talks about agricultural workers hoeing turnips, dressed in rags, with bare feet in the frost, and living in benders with a cooking pot over an open fire their only possession. It does get better overall, Thatcher may have destroyed the unions, but we have not gone back to sending children down the mines.

There are aspects like that where you can make a comparison, being warmly dressed, getting enough food on the whole, not having to risk your life on a daily basis to get these things, I think one can fairly say that is better. On the other hand I can imagine a nineteenth century woman of good family being horrified at the idea of working, when we might be horrified she wasn't allowed to. Some things are not so measurable


----------



## Sam (Dec 24, 2020)

MorganaPendragon25 said:


> Oh, I definitely agree there is more sexism and racism now.



Based on what? 

If I could invent a time machine and deposit you back to 1950s and 60s America, you would definitely not think there's more racism now. 

My father worked in _England_ in the sixties. He took a photograph of a sign above a bar door that read: No blacks, no dogs, no Irish. It was much worse in America. Let me know when you find one of those above _any _door in 2020 and I'll recant my above statement.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Dec 26, 2020)

Well, there's gender stereotypes (which, to an extent, don't matter -- as many have mentioned, conformance or nonconformance to these is highly variable). 

But then there's sex: the physical (and spiritual, I believe) quality of being male or female. And that, I think, is not irrelevant. It's not a matter of women being "more nurturing" or something -- it's that female nurturing expresses differently than male nurturing. It's hard to pin down because it's so deep and intrinsic -- the only words we have for it are "motherhood" and "fatherhood." Same with the silly emotion vs reason stereotype -- it's not that women "think with their emotions" or something; it's that the interplay of emotion and reason moves in a way so deeply differentiated and unique that -- well, it's no good trying to explain it. I think that's why you often get the advice, "Just think about what your character would do." Not because sex is irrelevant, or because men and women aren't deeply, beautifully different (they are), but because trying to box in sexual differentiation into a set of platitudes or writing rules is a fruitless exercise, and will only generate stereotypes. Better to just run your work by friends of the opposite sex. _Til We Have Faces_ (C. S. Lewis) has some deep understanding of femininity; naturally, his wife helped with that book quite a lot.


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Dec 26, 2020)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Well, there's gender stereotypes (which, to an extent, don't matter -- as many have mentioned, conformance or nonconformance to these is highly variable).
> 
> But then there's sex: the physical (and spiritual, I believe) quality of being male or female. And that, I think, is not irrelevant. It's not a matter of women being "more nurturing" or something -- it's that female nurturing expresses differently than male nurturing. It's hard to pin down because it's so deep and intrinsic -- the only words we have for it are "motherhood" and "fatherhood." Same with the silly emotion vs reason stereotype -- it's not that women "think with their emotions" or something; it's that the interplay of emotion and reason moves in a way so deeply differentiated and unique that -- well, it's no good trying to explain it. I think that's why you often get the advice, "Just think about what your character would do." Not because sex is irrelevant, or because men and women aren't deeply, beautifully different (they are), but because trying to box in sexual differentiation into a set of platitudes or writing rules is a fruitless exercise, and will only generate stereotypes. Better to just run your work by friends of the opposite sex. _Til We Have Faces_ (C. S. Lewis) has some deep understanding of femininity; naturally, his wife helped with that book quite a lot.



Agreed. Both men and women can have nurturing qualities, but in very subtle ways. I mean, there are women out there where nurturing isn't part of their nature, not of their calling. And that's absolutely okay. Doesn't mean she's a bad person. A guy can be very nurturing and kind, way more than a woman. Humans are complex beings. I think it depends upon how men and women are raised by their parents. There is nothing wrong with a woman wanting to hang out with her guy friends more than her girl friends, same goes with a man wanting to spend more time with his female friends rather than his male friends. Or some men and women love just spending time together with their friends (no gender identification needed). I'm a dude and I've known a fair number of my female friends who are the strongest, most badass human beings I know. They have a lot of guts and determination. I think gender shouldn't be a massive influencer on how I write a character. I tend to create and write a lot of women who are physically strong just because I love writing them; if they have big muscles, does that make them masculine? Heck no, I think kicking out stereotypes is a thing to make a story better.


----------



## Hector (Dec 31, 2020)

If I worried whether I managed to successfully capture the opposite gender's mindset, I would never have written anything. :glee:

Anyway, judging from what two girls who happened to read the 'look inside' sample of my third novel told me, it seems I don't know a lot about women.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Dec 31, 2020)

I guess if someone is writing a character with a female mindset then a 3rd person omniscient point of view is the best one to choose? It's difficult to portray the opposite gender for a lot of writers. There are also advice books on that topic of writing the other character but I have not tried to buy a copy to read. A female lead if portrayed wrongly will lead to people not believing how your characters behave. Maybe the way to solve the problem combined with that is beta-reading. Here below I have included a book that talks about the topic.  This book below I can't recommend since I have not yet read it. But goodreads rated it favorably I think.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/193350000X/?tag=writingforu06-20


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 31, 2020)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Well, there's gender stereotypes (which, to an extent, don't matter -- as many have mentioned, conformance or nonconformance to these is highly variable).


I understand this in terms of character creation. But, once the story begins, a society's gender norms would have huge impacts on the character and how they walk through that society. Every person they encounter would have an expectation of that character based on their gender.



> But then there's sex: the physical (and spiritual, I believe) quality of being male or female. And that, I think, is not irrelevant. It's not a matter of women being "more nurturing" or something -- it's that female nurturing expresses differently than male nurturing. It's hard to pin down because it's so deep and intrinsic -- the only words we have for it are "motherhood" and "fatherhood." Same with the silly emotion vs reason stereotype -- it's not that women "think with their emotions" or something; it's that the interplay of emotion and reason moves in a way so deeply differentiated and unique that -- well, it's no good trying to explain it. I think that's why you often get the advice, "Just think about what your character would do." Not because sex is irrelevant, or because men and women aren't deeply, beautifully different (they are), but because trying to box in sexual differentiation into a set of platitudes or writing rules is a fruitless exercise, and will only generate stereotypes. Better to just run your work by friends of the opposite sex. _Til We Have Faces_ (C. S. Lewis) has some deep understanding of femininity; naturally, his wife helped with that book quite a lot.


Here, I think you're leaning quite heavily on those same stereotypes that you previously stated, don't matter. Men and women don't have intrinsic nurturing differences. That's taught. But, women and men have the capacity and intrinsic desire to nurture (doesn't have to be children). The expression of that want is partially shaped by our environment.

Men and women both think with their emotions. Our society simply gives women more latitude to express their emotions openly and to be more emotionally transparent.

The development of your characters can be done in a vacuum, but their involvement with your created society cannot be ignored. Their relationship with that world will greatly influence how they behave therein. Those who boldly buck the system will face backlash. Those that conform, will garner differing levels of social acceptance. How could this not have an massive impact on your character?


----------



## TheManx (Dec 31, 2020)

Disappointed. I went through this whole thing and there isn’t one toilet seat joke.


----------



## Annoying kid (Dec 31, 2020)

In genres like Romance/Erotica, theres a notable difference in  male and female behaviour because theres conventions to those genres thats expected. We all know what those are. Like the mans gotta be rich and exceptional and be the only one to see the vague unique quality in the plain, ordinary female lead. 

Other genres it just depends on the story. Its always good to have a variety of personality types. Where male or female characters dont have to be one kind.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 1, 2021)

gargvarun041 said:


> I thought one of the big reasons why there are less women on death row is because jurors are far less likely to send a defendant to death row if it's a woman.



I've heard that.

Children often pick up their roles as caregiver or provider by observing  their same sex parent, but that pesky Y chromosome probably is involved  as well. Whether our roles as adults came about via nurture or nature  is often debated, and I don't know of an empirical way to test and learn  the truth - which probably varies by individual.

In writing, I base my characters on people I've known.


----------



## BornForBurning (Jan 2, 2021)

> Men and women don't have intrinsic nurturing differences. That's taught.


In all seriousness, if sex-based nurturing differences are entirely 'taught' by society, who on earth is teaching society? 

Yes, this question is based on the understanding that the poster in question was employing blank-slate theory, at least regarding the trait under scrutiny, when he phrased his argument.


----------



## Hector (Jan 2, 2021)

BornForBurning said:


> In all seriousness, if sex-based nurturing differences are entirely 'taught' by society, who on earth is teaching society? s, this question is based on the understanding that the poster in question was employing blank-slate theory, at least regarding the trait under scrutiny, when he phrased his argument.



God.


----------



## Paularo (Jan 2, 2021)

Yes, there's a huge difference between them!


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 2, 2021)

BornForBurning said:


> In all seriousness, if sex-based nurturing differences are entirely 'taught' by society, who on earth is teaching society?
> 
> Yes, this question is based on the understanding that the poster in question was employing blank-slate theory, at least regarding the trait under scrutiny, when he phrased his argument.



It seems reasonable from the point of view of a single culture, And a single culture has taken over so much of the world that it sometimes seems the only one, but look at enough cultures and you will usually find one where any particular role is reversed.


----------



## Tettsuo (Jan 2, 2021)

BornForBurning said:


> In all seriousness, if sex-based nurturing differences are entirely 'taught' by society, who on earth is teaching society?
> 
> Yes, this question is based on the understanding that the poster in question was employing blank-slate theory, at least regarding the trait under scrutiny, when he phrased his argument.


Actually, I'm not. I was pointing out that the *difference* we see in how men and women nurture, is taught. I did not make that claim that we have no instinctual behaviors related to nurturing. So no, I don't believe in the blank-slate theory. We are mix of both our genetics and environment.

I love to hug and kiss my kids. I didn't get that from my mother, I got that from my dad. My dad, he's an anomaly amongst his peers. In fact, it was seen as _odd_ for any man to kiss his son during the time and place I grew up. But, if you go to a different country, like say Italy, men kiss and no one claims they're gay or soft in anyway. That negative connotation is based solely on social pressure and will certainly influence how men express their desire to nurture their young.

I've also known women who weren't particularly affectionate to their kids. They just weren't that kind of person. But, they felt the need to verbalize this, almost as if they were trying to explain why they didn't behavior as they were* expected* to.

Society places so many expectation on us around our sex. As individuals, we can reject or accept those expectations, but they certainly have an effect on how we walk through our respective societies. So to say that men and women are the same is incorrect biologically as well as socially. Those difference will influence behaviors, therefore this should be factored into your characters, *imo*.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 2, 2021)

Hector said:


> God.


What, you think anyone actually listens to him? Have a peek at the 10 Commandments, people were breaking those since the tablets were on the way down the mountain.


----------



## Hector (Jan 2, 2021)

Foxee said:


> What, you think anyone actually listens to him? Have a peek at the 10 Commandments, people were breaking those since the tablets were on the way down the mountain.



God's law is written in your heart. You either follow it or don't follow it. The choice is yours.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jan 2, 2021)

Hector said:


> God's law is written in your heart. You either follow it or don't follow it. The choice is yours.


Morality is a way of reasoning. I am glad to have read this quote. One not need to believe in a god but having some moral teachings wouldn't hurt. Also, the church may give moral instruction but as you said you are the decider. The apostle Paul was a very key figure in starting the church. Some people such as my eldest brother is a very proper person in the sense that everyone says he is generous and kind as people say he is and is very religious. Everything he does since he sees people less fortunate than him. For that reason he decided to have five godchildren even though that's a lot. He helps me. Sure not everyone is perfect. I think some things I don't agree with 100% percent since religion can influence political thought. However this is well expressed. It is a succinct and well expressed belief everyone holds (for the most part).

As for continuing this topic I would be wrong on many of my generalizations concerning women and how to interpret them with regards to writing them correctly. I'll stick to 3rd person omniscient which is what I have done so far. It seems to be the case many people write them wrong. Or we can if using a real life person write good minor characters. But a first person point of view character would be a mayor drawback. One pov is more popular than the other for writers.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jan 2, 2021)

I get the impression that many - not all-  women get more interested in normal events slower, smaller scaled sequences of events than men and care about the details more that men would find irrelevant. Like the stories targeted specifically towards women that have blown up in popularity - They're so slow and boring. I maybe jumped on at the wrong point but the first Hunger Games I saw was Mockingjay part 1, and nothing happened in it. But i'd heard from so many women that Katniss was this great hero. So I kept asking when she gets started. When she gets going. Twilight or 50 shades. Boring. I recently watched an anime called Little Princess Sara, the adaptation of A little Princess by Frances Hodgson Burnett, and its like they systematically removed all the interesting parts that made it work. I was so baffled that I sought out interviews from the creators, and they said they felt it was important that Sara didn't do anything.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 3, 2021)

I mean, if we're going to get super general and paint in broad strokes, the differences between men and women seem pretty obvious to me. Not all of the below is scientific, or possibly correct, but certainly this is how the chips seem to fall...

- Women tend to be more interested in emotional conflicts, specifically emotional conflict in an intimate setting. Not much male-targeted fiction addresses things like infidelity, for example, and that which does tends to be vastly different in terms of emotional weighting.
- Women tend to place greater value on family links, are less likely to 'go their own way', and are more open to expressing interpersonal value. They are more likely to write Christmas Cards, for instance. I don't know a single man who writes Christmas Cards. I'm sure there are some, but you aren't going to convince me the people ordering Christmas Cards each year are 50/50 between men and women. 
- Women tend to be more interested in aesthetics, men in utility. Women's taste revolves more around an emotional connection. Men care about how things look, but their interest in appearance tends to revolve around whether the appearance suggests high-performance -- for instance, the cars that men are attracted to tend to be cars that look like they can do [X], regardless of whether they actually intend on doing [X]. Women are less likely to be attracted to a car based on that criteria.
- Women tend to be more interested in anecdote, men in statistics. In studying a historical period, men tend to be more interested in the 'big picture' -- geopolitics, maps, economic macros, etc. -- while women tend to be more interested in the personal stories of those who lived at the time, letters, family histories, etc. 
- Women tend to be less interested in non-human characters and worlds than men. Women tend to be more open to stories about both women and men, men more strongly gravitate toward male characters.
- Women tend to be willing to invest in a smaller group of characters for longer periods of time and be more interested in the growth and change of those characters. Men can be interested in character too, but are less likely to 'stick with them' for the sake of seeing how they develop. Women are generally more patient and willing to accept a slower, more introspective pace.
- In politics, men tend to focus on left-right ideology, broad philosophical ideas, and identify themselves accordingly ("I am a socialist", "I am a believer in individual liberty", "I want smaller and less intrusive government") while women tend to identify more in relation to specific causes and concerns that may not be especially partisan ("I am a feminist", "I am pro-choice", "I want fewer guns in schools", "I want cheaper healthcare"). In politics, women tend to be more impacted by character, men by effects. Men tend to be more tolerant of Machiavellian behavior, at least among other men, at least when it aligns with what they believe overall. Women are more sensitive to effects, men are more sensitive to intentions. Women are more likely to see issues in terms of their impact on human beings, men are more likely to see them in terms of their philosophical aims. Men tend to be highly dismissive of women in politics, especially younger women.
- Sexually, men tend to be more impulsive and reckless and less prone to connect sexual attraction with romantic attraction. Women tend to link sex with romance more stringently than men. Women tend to develop feelings from casual sexual encounters more easily and strongly. On the other hand, men are more likely to internalize feelings and find more destructive outlets for heartbreak. Men tend to find it harder to 'move on' sexually and will retain sexual thoughts about women they have been with for longer and often separate from the reality of the relationship, which they may not even be interested in anymore. Women tend to be more interested in 'making things official' and tend to invest more emotional capital into concepts like co-residency, marriage, parenting, and other 'external' aspects culturally perceived as important to a relationship. Women tend to measure their own success more according to their marriage and family.


----------



## Gofa (Jan 3, 2021)

Movie  as good as it gets

Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man. And I take away reason and accountability.


men and women are different

men and women with a lot of alcohol in them are different again

chemicals matter  brain chemistry matters 

kind of foundational


----------



## Annoying kid (Jan 3, 2021)

Gofa said:


> Movie  as good as it gets
> 
> Receptionist: How do you write women so well?
> Melvin Udall: I think of a man. And I take away reason and accountability.
> ...



He was specifically a romance writer though. He is correct in that genre from what I've seen. Its about feelings not reason, and isn't about hitting the female lead with a dose of realistic accountability.


----------



## Gofa (Jan 3, 2021)

No i quoted it because its representative of how narrow minded too many men are

Most think a woman is a man plus or minus some things  

actually man is created by woman and yet man tends to cling to the belief he is intrinsically superior to she whom created him

but i gave you 280,000,000 millions of seeds  its all about me

nope she picked the one she wanted   

279,999,999 got dont come Monday


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 3, 2021)

Gofa said:


> No i quoted it because its representative of how narrow minded too many men are
> 
> Most think a woman is a man plus or minus some things
> 
> actually man is created by woman and yet man tends to cling to the belief he is intrinsically superior to she whom created him



I don't agree with that at all. I think men, if anything, tend to mythologize women to an absurd degree. Perhaps less so now than in the past, but I still remember how appalled I was when, as a teenager, I had to clean a women's restroom at a theater I worked at and discovered it was just as disgusting as the men's. T

he idealism of women, and femininity more broadly, is very much a one-sided thing. Women don't idealize men to nearly the same degree. Absolutely no woman goes through life thinking men are bastions of moral, physical, sexual purity, etc. On the other hand, people broadly still think women are more morally righteous than men, which is partly why there's so much excitement to see them in elected office and corporate boardrooms. 

I don't know how those people cope with the existence of women like Margaret Thatcher but somehow it doesn't matter how flawed the reasoning is, the common wisdom is women are a race of kindhearted nurturers; a species not just different from men but superior in every sense _other _than physical strength...which is satanic anyway.


----------



## Gofa (Jan 4, 2021)

the common wisdom is women are a race of kindhearted nurturers; a species not just different from men but superior in every sense _other than physical strength...which is satanic anyway.

I’m truly stunned buddy   Really 

and the satanic reference 

oh behave its just too much _


----------



## indianroads (Jan 4, 2021)

Comparing my experiences to the women I’ve known:
they are more affected by the cold.
they notice smells more.
they like dressing up.
they take more notice of what people are wearing - especially other women.

this is not true of all women, only those I know AND these differences don’t apply equally to all of them.

in fairness, it’s the ladies turn. What traits are unique to men?


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 4, 2021)

indianroads said:


> Comparing my experiences to the women I’ve known:
> they are more affected by the cold.
> they notice smells more.



These two are actually biological truths. Women are more sensitive to cold due to having a higher internal but lower external body temperature. Women also have more cells in the olfactory bulb (on average).


----------



## VRanger (Jan 4, 2021)

https://theconversation.com/why-men-and-women-cant-agree-on-the-perfect-temperature-66585


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 4, 2021)

Men tend to see changes in life as exciting, women tend to see them as threatening. I could also put it in terms of the unknown. Women tend to be fearful of the unknown, men tend to see opportunity in it.

Important to see these things as tendencies though, rather than absolutes.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 4, 2021)

luckyscars said:


> These two are actually biological truths. Women are more sensitive to cold due to having a higher internal but lower external body temperature. Women also have more cells in the olfactory bulb (on average).



And so, with that knowledge we can make our female characters more authentic.

I also recall that taken as a whole, women have a higher tolerance for pain than men do.

My mother used to say that if our species alternated who had babies, with the female first, the male second, the female third ... , no family would have more than three children... because men wouldn't go through that ordeal twice.


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Jan 7, 2021)

indianroads said:


> And so, with that knowledge we can make our female characters more authentic.
> 
> I also recall that taken as a whole, women have a higher tolerance for pain than men do.
> 
> My mother used to say that if our species alternated who had babies, with the female first, the male second, the female third ... , no family would have more than three children... because men wouldn't go through that ordeal twice.



I think many men are intimidated or threatened by a strong woman. I have a bunch of female friends who've gone through some crazy shit (really bad injuries) and they are brave and tough. They do have a higher tolerance for pain. I don't like speaking out giving birth and all that because obviously not all women want children. But the average woman can tolerate more pain that the average man can. Women can hold their own against men in battle.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 7, 2021)

MorganaPendragon25 said:


> I think many men are intimidated or threatened by a strong woman..


Only men who I wouldn't have much respect for.

As it is, my husband and other guys in my experience (husband's friends, my friends, relatives) value a strong woman. My husband not only admired me for what I could do, he added to it by teaching me to shoot for self-defense. It's not uncommon at all for women here in Western PA to hunt deer and other game which I haven't done but is heavy work if you're successful. One girl I worked with liked making a friendly competition out of it with her husband to see who could get their deer first. I don't know how it is elsewhere but here the expectation of women is that we will be strong.

As for a guy who might prefer weak women, well, there's reasons why they're not in my experience.


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Jan 7, 2021)

Gofa said:


> the common wisdom is women are a race of kindhearted nurturers; a species not just different from men but superior in every sense _other than physical strength...which is satanic anyway.
> 
> I’m truly stunned buddy   Really
> 
> ...



On average, perhaps women tend to be more nurturing than men. But definitely...not all women are nurturing. Some women in my life (female friends and heroes of mine) are iron-willed and are not the hugging type of people. Yes, on average men tend to be stronger physically than women but there are women out there who are tough enough to outmuscle men. I'm a pretty strong male and there are women in my life who have bigger arms than me and are stronger. I greatly respect my female friends who trains their asses off in the gym to build the body of their dreams. If I lose in a physical competition to a woman, all my respect to her same as I would respect me losing to a male. Strong women are intimidating.


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Jan 7, 2021)

Foxee said:


> Only men who I wouldn't have much respect for.
> 
> As it is, my husband and other guys in my experience (husband's friends, my friends, relatives) value a strong woman. My husband not only admired me for what I could do, he added to it by teaching me to shoot for self-defense. It's not uncommon at all for women here in Western PA to hunt deer and other game which I haven't done but is heavy work if you're successful. One girl I worked with liked making a friendly competition out of it with her husband to see who could get their deer first. I don't know how it is elsewhere but here the expectation of women is that we will be strong.
> 
> As for a guy who might prefer weak women, well, there's reasons why they're not in my experience.



It's good to know in this day and age that I think it's seen as "normal" for a woman to enjoy activities that were formerly "exclusively" for a man. Hunting, skateboarding, surfing, horseback riding, motorcycle riding, etc. It's also very common these days (at least in my point of view) for a woman not to want kids at all. Women deserve to do whatever the heck they want to do in their lifetime, no matter how they are raised by their parents and society. Only one life to live, live it however you wish to.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 7, 2021)

MorganaPendragon25 said:


> I think many men are intimidated or threatened by a strong woman. I have a bunch of female friends who've gone through some crazy shit (really bad injuries) and they are brave and tough. They do have a higher tolerance for pain. I don't like speaking out giving birth and all that because obviously not all women want children. But the average woman can tolerate more pain that the average man can. Women can hold their own against men in battle.



Some men want a shrinking violet just as some women want men they can care for. These types are often called: 
Men: KISA - Knight in Shining Armour.
Women: FNS - Florence Nightingale Syndrome.

Healthy people of both sexes don't want or need these types of people in their lives.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 7, 2021)

MorganaPendragon25 said:


> It's good to know in this day and age that I think it's seen as "normal" for a woman to enjoy activities that were formerly "exclusively" for a man. Hunting, skateboarding, surfing, horseback riding, motorcycle riding, etc. It's also very common these days (at least in my point of view) for a woman not to want kids at all. Women deserve to do whatever the heck they want to do in their lifetime, no matter how they are raised by their parents and society. Only one life to live, live it however you wish to.



I've trained in the martial arts for most of my life and have had the privileged to be taught by and train with world class female fighters. My respect for these women is off the charts. Back when I was in my late teens I trained with a woman that was a local fighting champions. She was my senior, but would often spar in class. I recall her practically yelling at me - "Hit me! Don't go easy just because I'm female... I'll keep coming at you until you deliver a good hard shot." I've received comments from women readers of my novels that most of my female characters are 'badasses'. With that said, some just aren't willing to compete against men - whether in their careers or in non-contact sports. 

Regarding pain threshold - I think it varies by individual (rather than by sex).


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Jan 7, 2021)

indianroads said:


> I've trained in the martial arts for most of my life and have had the privileged to be taught by and train with world class female fighters. My respect for these women is off the charts. Back when I was in my late teens I trained with a woman that was a local fighting champions. She was my senior, but would often spar in class. I recall her practically yelling at me - "Hit me! Don't go easy just because I'm female... I'll keep coming at you until you deliver a good hard shot." I've received comments from women readers of my novels that most of my female characters are 'badasses'. With that said, some just aren't willing to compete against men - whether in their careers or in non-contact sports.
> 
> Regarding pain threshold - I think it varies by individual (rather than by sex).



That's so awesome to hear about your martial arts background and your experience with world class female fighters. For me as well, my respect for women who are world class fighters is infinite, especially when an elite female fighter is willing and confident in competing against her male colleagues. In this day and age, I believe women are being encouraged to become physically tough and they can stand on their own as an independent person. I'm a pretty strong male myself and yes, if I had to spar with a female fighter, I would give her my all and no holding back. One of men's greatest weaknesses is underestimating his female opponent and going easy on her. I think a lot of men would be shocked to get in the ring with an experienced female fighter. I've lost to some female friends in a one-on-one physical sport before and you know what? All my respect to her in every scenario like that. I'm not a sore loser like some men are. Women deserve all the respect in the world of fighting. Some of them could run circles around some of the most elite male fighters.


----------



## BrandonTheWriter (Jan 8, 2021)

It really depends on the character. I base their mindset on their personality more than anything else, regardless of gender. Someone that is brash and daring would be much different than someone who was more timid and anxious as an example.


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 9, 2021)

MorganaPendragon25 said:


> I think many men are intimidated or threatened by a strong woman.


Define "many". Most men I know grow tired of weak people, especially as a partner.



Foxee said:


> ...my husband and other guys in my experience (husband's friends, my friends, relatives) value a strong woman...


This is my experience. When facing the challenges of life, you want people around you that will help you carry burdens, not have to be carried.



MorganaPendragon25 said:


> Strong women are intimidating.


Get to know them better and that will change



indianroads said:


> Some men want a shrinking violet just as some women want men they can care for. These types are often called:
> Men: KISA - Knight in Shining Armour.
> Women: FNS - Florence Nightingale Syndrome.
> 
> Healthy people of both sexes don't want or need these types of people in their lives.


Are you saying people with KISA or FNS are unhealthy?



indianroads said:


> Regarding pain threshold - I think it varies by individual (rather than by sex).


It also varies by the type or source of pain the individual is facing.



MorganaPendragon25 said:


> That's so awesome to hear about your martial arts background and your experience with world class female fighters. For me as well, my respect for women who are world class fighters is infinite, especially when an elite female fighter is willing and confident in competing against her male colleagues. In this day and age, I believe women are being encouraged to become physically tough and they can stand on their own as an independent person. I'm a pretty strong male myself and yes, if I had to spar with a female fighter, I would give her my all and no holding back. One of men's greatest weaknesses is underestimating his female opponent and going easy on her. I think a lot of men would be shocked to get in the ring with an experienced female fighter. I've lost to some female friends in a one-on-one physical sport before and you know what? All my respect to her in every scenario like that. I'm not a sore loser like some men are. Women deserve all the respect in the world of fighting. Some of them could run circles around some of the most elite male fighters.


What you're ignoring is that in real world of physical violence, men beat women more often than women beat men. That includes women who practice hand to hand fighting techniques. Just look up the crime statistics.

Men don't simply underestimate women during hand to hand contests. They overestimate how much they can hold back and still deal with her. That's why men pull their punches when sparring or fighting with women. It's how we're built. I was taught that a real man doesn't raise his hand to a woman. We are to protect our women and if they don't like it, we continue doing it without letting them know. Yes, I've been teaching my wife what to watch for, how to avoid becoming a victim, but no matter how good she is, I still watch her back and she watches mine.

However, once the gloves come off, the advantage shifts to the man. In general, men are physically stronger and fears being hurt by a woman less than by a man. When the gloves come off fighting a woman, gone is any sense of restraint. He's not fighting for survival or to win. He's going to ensure this enemy will never be a threat again and deliver a warning to others.

Consciously or subconsciously, men are aware of this. That's a large part of the reason men hold back fighting a woman- we don't want to loose the destroyer on her. It's codified.

In general, women are shields. They will do what's necessary to protect those they love and those in their care. They will sacrifice themselves to defend others. Men are swords. They don't wait for the threat to come to them. They will seek out that threat and destroy it at its source.

Strong women in a man's life is a blessing. It means a greater portion of the burden is shared.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 9, 2021)

> Are you saying people with KISA or FNS are unhealthy?



In my opinion (based on observation), yes they are.


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 9, 2021)

indianroads said:


> In my opinion (based on observation), yes they are.


If lacking the drive to defend and nurture others in need is healthy, we're in trouble


----------



## indianroads (Jan 9, 2021)

MistWolf said:


> If lacking the drive to defend and nurture others in need is healthy, we're in trouble



Healthy people don't engage in unhealthy relationships. I've seen men and women both marry people that were in essence train wrecks. From my observations, the healthy ones become enablers, and the unhealthy drag them down to their level. 

A woman married a man with a gambling problem (he was living in his car when the met). She placed the title of her home in both their names, then lost it when he mortgaged it at a casino to fuel his addiction.

A man married a sex addict. Obviously she had multiple affairs. He divorced her, but she took half of everything he had.

There are a lot of cases like this.


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 9, 2021)

indianroads said:


> Healthy people don't engage in unhealthy relationships.


From your mouth to God's ears. All too often, healthy people engage in unhealthy relationship. All too often _two_ healthy people engage in an unhealthy relationship. Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans.



> I've seen men and women both marry people that were in essence train wrecks. From my observations, the healthy ones become enablers, and the unhealthy drag them down to their level.
> 
> A woman married a man with a gambling problem (he was living in his car when the met). She placed the title of her home in both their names, then lost it when he mortgaged it at a casino to fuel his addiction.
> 
> ...


Agreed. But, wanting to defend (White Knight) and/or nurture (Florence Nightingale) isn't itself unhealthy. I know plenty of both types. They tend to be police officers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, firefighters, EMTs. They are driven to help people. They aren't perfect. More than a few have been enablers or had unhealthy relationships. But- with a few exceptions- they're good, healthy people. It's more complicated than "They're unhealthy people".


----------



## indianroads (Jan 9, 2021)

MistWolf said:


> From your mouth to God's ears. All too often, healthy people engage in unhealthy relationship. All too often _two_ healthy people engage in an unhealthy relationship. Life is what happens when you're busy making other plans.
> 
> Agreed. But, wanting to defend (White Knight) and/or nurture (Florence Nightingale) isn't itself unhealthy. I know plenty of both types. They tend to be police officers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, firefighters, EMTs. They are driven to help people. They aren't perfect. More than a few have been enablers or had unhealthy relationships. But- with a few exceptions- they're good, healthy people. It's more complicated than "They're unhealthy people".



I was speaking of relationships, not occupations that help those in need. Police officers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, firefighters, EMT's, are not (usually) drawn into relationships with criminals, hypochondriacs, and pyromaniacs.  

We won't convert each other to our POV, so there's no point in arguing the issue.


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 9, 2021)

indianroads said:


> I was speaking of relationships, not occupations that help those in need. Police officers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, firefighters, EMT's, are not (usually) drawn into relationships with criminals, hypochondriacs, and pyromaniacs.


Ho ho! If you had only heard _half_ the stories-!



> We won't convert each other to our POV, so there's no point in arguing the issue.


It's not conversion I seek, it's consideration. Just think about what I said. I'm just some guy on the internet and half off my rocker. Seriously, I'm half off my rocker as I type this. It's the most comfortable chair in the house and the only way to reach the keyboard as it sits on the card table.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 9, 2021)

MistWolf said:


> Agreed. But, wanting to defend (White Knight) and/or nurture (Florence Nightingale) isn't itself unhealthy. I know plenty of both types. They tend to be police officers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, firefighters, EMTs. They are driven to help people. They aren't perfect. More than a few have been enablers or had unhealthy relationships. But- with a few exceptions- they're good, healthy people. It's more complicated than "They're unhealthy people".





indianroads said:


> I was speaking of relationships, not occupations that help those in need. Police officers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, firefighters, EMT's, are not (usually) drawn into relationships with criminals, hypochondriacs, and pyromaniacs.



Here is my perspective on this.  Most people in a relationship lean to being either the giver (WK and FN), or the taker.  I have observed this for years and there is nothing unhealthy about it. And it is not a gender thing. It can go either way. But it's not black and white -- one is _always_ the giver and one is _always_ the taker, I'm not trying to say that. Just that if one person in the relationship _leans_ to be more of a giver, the other person _leans_ to be more of the taker. And that's perfectly healthy.

I have seen relationships where it starts off both parties are madly in love and then for some reason it blows up...and no one can really figure it out.  My observation is often that the two people are too much alike in as either givers or takers.  You see the giver...needs a taker to be relevant.  And the taker needs to be taken care of to feel secure.  

Not sure if it's relevant to this thread...but that is my belief.


----------



## MorganaPendragon25 (Jan 10, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Here is my perspective on this.  Most people in a relationship lean to being either the giver (WK and FN), or the taker.  I have observed this for years and there is nothing unhealthy about it. And it is not a gender thing. It can go either way. But it's not black and white -- one is _always_ the giver and one is _always_ the taker, I'm not trying to say that. Just that if one person in the relationship _leans_ to be more of a giver, the other person _leans_ to be more of the taker. And that's perfectly healthy.
> 
> I have seen relationships where it starts off both parties are madly in love and then for some reason it blows up...and no one can really figure it out.  My observation is often that the two people are too much alike in as either givers or takers.  You see the giver...needs a taker to be relevant.  And the taker needs to be taken care of to feel secure.
> 
> Not sure if it's relevant to this thread...but that is my belief.



I feel the giver/taker roles are true to most relationships. In another sense, I feel one person may be more protective over the other and the other seeks their defense. I know a lot of male/female relationships in stories when I was a child had lots of men as the heroes and the women as the damsels in distress. In other words, the male was the protector and the female was the one seeking defense. Nowadays I see a lot more women being the protective one and the man being the one needing defense/protecting. I like to think of some of my female characters as the "Knight In Shining Armor" to some of the men in my stories. Heck, a lot of the women I look up to as heroes in my life I could call them my Knight in Shining Armor. I think it's a fun way to look at things. I love reading about a woman who is protective of her male friends (female friends too of course)


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 10, 2021)

I don't think it is often that one partner takes on everything. "They're useless, I have to do it all." is often said, but rarely true, it is just they do different things that "Don't count" for some reason. Protector in one situation is protected in another.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 10, 2021)

I was just thinking of some old Dilbert cartoons - not sure if those across the pond know about Dilbert, but he's a single, nerd computer guy. Anyway, the cartoons kinda illustrate weird male logic.

The first cartoon involved Dilbert's friend Wally, who was asked why he never washed his bathroom towels. His answer was that when used the towels only touch the cleanest thing in the house - so they should be getting cleaner with each use. Then he mentions that his towels don't bend anymore.

The second cartoon involved Dilbert's girlfriend. They were sitting on a park bench, and Dilbert hands her a note. "What's this?" she asks. He replies, "You've been telling me about your problems at work and with your girlfriends for a year now, so, I've written some fixes for you." She's irate. "Do you think I'm broken?" "No," he replies. "You just have a few bugs."


----------



## MistWolf (Jan 11, 2021)

Roles in an intimate relationship can shift back and forth. Some days, I'm giving. Some days, my wife gives. Some days, one of us is all given out and needs the other to give.

People and relationships are not black & white and far more complicated than shades of grey. The human experience is a whole spectrum of colors.


----------

