# Writing Women OFF TOPIC DISCUSSIONS



## Cephus (Jun 11, 2020)

Admin Note: I have moved all the off-topic discussions from Ralph's Writing Women thread

*******



Annoying kid said:


> Yeah but rates of sexual assault of men on women blow the reverse out of the water. So it would make sense to be somewhat more cautious when sexualizing women to a male audience.



There is no link between writing sexualized themes in books and actual sexual assault in reality. You are trying to rationalize something for political reasons and that is not a rational response. If it's wrong for one gender to do it, it's equally wrong for either gender to do it, yet you don't see anyone telling women they can't stick Fabio on the cover of their romance books. Look at the top romance titles on Amazon and figure out how many of them have shirtless men posed for sexuality. By my quick count, it's at least 8 our of the top 20. Now, let's look at fantasy to see how many chainmail bikini-clad women there are. You might get one or two, but there are more shirtless men there as well than anything resembling sexualized women.

This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. It's desperately trying to get to a pre-conceived political notion by ignoring the parts that you don't like in favor of the parts that you do.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 11, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> Its not about the term. It's about the inequality by which the term is applied. Something can be fine in theory, but sexist in practice due to hypocritical application.


If I went searching for sexism in this way I'd never get anything else done.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 11, 2020)

Cephus said:


> There is no link between writing sexualized themes in books and actual sexual assault in reality. You are trying to rationalize something for political reasons and that is not a rational response. If it's wrong for one gender to do it, it's equally wrong for either gender to do it, yet you don't see anyone telling women they can't stick Fabio on the cover of their romance books. Look at the top romance titles on Amazon and figure out how many of them have shirtless men posed for sexuality. By my quick count, it's at least 8 our of the top 20. Now, let's look at fantasy to see how many chainmail bikini-clad women there are. You might get one or two, but there are more shirtless men there as well than anything resembling sexualized women.
> 
> This is hypocrisy, pure and simple. It's desperately trying to get to a pre-conceived political notion by ignoring the parts that you don't like in favor of the parts that you do.



It doesn't prove much to say "there's no link" and "show me the study" because these things are extremely difficult to study in meaningful numbers. There have been serial killers like Ted Bundy who directly cited porn as a contributing factor in his killings. https://conquerseries.com/serial-killer-ted-bundy-describes-dangers-of-porn/

And while books are unlikely to be a large factor in a porn saturated internet they do contribute to culture. Furthermore when do you see the female tageted books going on about the man's genitals in such ridiculous terms? Some of the stuff you see on the "Men write Women" Twitter feed simply has no equivalence among female targeted fiction. 

Ps, I'm not particularly interested in debating this back and forth - I simply provided the other side of the debate.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 11, 2020)

Foxee said:


> If I went searching for sexism in this way I'd never get anything else done.



One doesn't need to look very hard when you have major motion picture actors like Daisy Ridley having to comment on it due to the criticism crossing a level of notoriety. Something a male actor has never done or ever had to do. 

I've seen videos from film critics on youtube call Rey a Mary Sue for being for doing too much and Katniss a Mary Sue for doing too little and still being the star.  In the same video.

I've seen people in anime fandoms pile hate on female characters and call them Sues for getting obsolete transformations from like eight seasons ago. The character in my avatar is an example and got alot of hate. 

I haven't had to look hard for it at all. If anything it found me.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 11, 2020)

Foxee said:


> If I went searching for sexism in this way I'd never get anything else done.



One doesn't need to look very hard when you have major motion picture actors like Daisy Ridley having to comment on it due to the criticism crossing a level of notoriety. Something a male actor has never done or ever had to do. 

I've seen videos from film critics on youtube call Rey a Mary Sue for being for doing too much and Katniss a Mary Sue for doing too little and still being the star. In the very same video. 

I've seen people in anime fandoms pile hate on female characters and call them Sues for getting obsolete transformations from like eight seasons ago. The character in my avatar is an example and got alot of hate. 

I haven't had to look hard for it at all. If anything it found me.


----------



## epimetheus (Jun 11, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> I've seen videos from film critics on youtube call Rey a Mary Sue for being for doing too much and Katniss a Mary Sue for doing too little and still being the star.  In the same video.



Just because there are some sexist people out there who will call anyone a Mary Sue, does not mean that no one actually is a Mary Sue. Rey certainly is. Katniss is not. It should have nothing to do with sex - it's just bad writing.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 11, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> Just because there are some sexist people out there who will call anyone a Mary Sue, does not mean that no one actually is a Mary Sue. Rey certainly is. Katniss is not. It should have nothing to do with sex - it's just bad writing.



Rey certainly wasn't by the end of her first movie. When I have debated fans on this and listed the things Anakin has done in The Phantom Menace, I have universally found that their default position is to attempt to prove why Rey is a Mary Sue, and yet defend Anakin from the critique of being on the same level if not worse by the end of his first movie.


----------



## epimetheus (Jun 11, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> Rey certainly wasn't by the end of her first movie. When I have debated fans on this and listed the things Anakin has done in The Phantom Menace, I have universally found that their default position is to attempt to prove why Rey is a Mary Sue, and yet defend Anakin from the critique of being on the same level if not worse by the end of his first movie.



The prequels are some of the worse writing i've ever seen. I'll give Rey that she was a slightly better character than Anakin - but a slightly better smelling turd is still a turd.


----------



## Foxee (Jun 11, 2020)

What I mean is, your focus decides your passion. Sure, there is sexism and I've met it, too, in RL and in print. If I let it control me and spend my time complaining about it then I miss out on this great thread about how to write women.

Which would be a really interesting thread. If it stayed on topic. Speaking of which:

*Please Stay on Topic. 

Ralph was nice enough to give a few simple rules for posting in this thread. 

Please follow them for the sake of the discussion that has been requested. 

Thanks!*​


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 11, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> Its not about the term. It's about the inequality by which the term is applied. Something can be fine in theory, but sexist in practice due to hypocritical application.



I think 'Mary Sue' is just one of those 'look how smart I am' labels that people think they can throw around willy-nilly. It's sort of like the term 'virtue signaling', it's a term that has real meaning - or used to - and yet has been abused so often that nobody really knows what it actually means anymore. Apparently showing up to a protest for racial equality is virtue signaling these days.

We don't talk about toxic femininity very much in writing, not nearly as much as toxic masculinity, and that's really at the heart of the problem IMO. Toxic femininity is generally defined as writing female characters that adhere to traditional feminine traits - characters who are overly moralistic, image conscious, vulnerable, etc. I would say there's a solid argument that writing female characters that are the polar opposite of those things is itself a form of toxic femininity because it is still using the same basic inaccuracies. It is defining women according to the same standard, just in the opposite fashion. 

The 'nympho' thing is an example. The proportion of real women who can be properly described as 'nymphos' is almost certainly a micro-percentage, and yet they are incredibly over-represented in writing and in discussions of writing. But why are there so many _nymphos_ in writing? The answer has to be because we want there to be, which really indicates a complete misunderstanding of what the word 'nympho' means and how many women fit into that category. I feel like a lot of male authors have a hard time distinguishing between a woman who likes to have a lot of sex and a woman whose identity is based on sex. 

Additionally, it seems the bar is set incredibly low for a female character to be sexualized compared to a male one, which is why you will frequently find some reference to a female character's breasts (even a nine year old's, or an old woman's) but hardly ever to a male characters testicles, despite both being significant and cumbersome pieces of anatomy.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 11, 2020)

Hyper sexualized descriptions to the point of unintentional comedy is still a thing, but rarely discussed is the other side of the spectrum on forums both writing and otherwise. I've seen and had extremely violent suggestions on how to make the villain evil, that involves torturing female characters and literally tearing their bodies apart. I had a list of quotes back in the day but I'll say that in every context it was mentioned in a voyeuristic way. Like this is something they would love to see. And whats really chilling is the forums I've seen it on's total lack of reaction to it. No one calls it out. And while I think gatekeepers do stop that from reaching the shelves and I hope it stays on the most obscure parts of poorly moderated writing forums.  I've noticed a deterioration in the advice given regarding how to write female characters in general on several writing forums. Ranging from allowing wildly reductive and regressive ideas such as the Man with Breasts trope to go unchallenged and silencing any counter arguments on it, to silencing, and certainly not supporting minority voices who speak on these issues. So it does make me concerned that we're actually going backwards when it comes to writing female characters. Likely as a backlash to the recent rise in popular characters that have clear social justice motives in their creation.


----------



## BornForBurning (Jun 11, 2020)

> I've seen and had extremely violent suggestions on how to make the villain evil, that involves torturing female characters and literally tearing their bodies apart


On this point, we all have to consider: at what point does depiction _of _evil become indulgence _in _evil? Not writing your personal pornography is certainly a good place to start. But the final solution, I think, involves realizing that evil cannot and should never be depicted as being capable of standing on its own merits. All good stories start with a vision of Light, in my opinion. The Deceiver then rears his ugly head in an attempt to corrupt and subdue said goodness. That's conflict. That's the fundamental 'beginning' of all good storytelling. 

'Satan fell by force of gravity' - GK Chesterton


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 11, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> So it does make me concerned that we're actually going backwards when it comes to writing female characters. Likely as a backlash to the recent rise in popular characters that have clear social justice motives in their creation.



Often, some appearance of going backwards is a symptom of going forwards. It sounds counter-intuitive, but consider the fact this is even something being discussed now...

It's the same deal with the race stuff. Yes, it's not good that there is lots of white supremacist stuff going around these days. But the presence of white supremacy can be seen as less as a movement and more as a counter-movement. An act of desperation. It doesn't really 'mean' anything. It isn't necessarily proof of where society is headed in the long run.

In every period of semi-modern history, times of change have also been times of regression. In terms of women, the main eras of feminism roughly happened in the 1910's-20's (gaining the right to vote), the 1960's (the sexual revolution), the 1980's (second wave feminism) and the late 2010's (Me Too). Every single one of those eras either coincided or led to an era of 'things are going backwards'. The 1920's came before the 1950's and yet in terms of women's cultural empowerment you would barely have known it. The 1960's sexual revolution led to the golden era of pornography, specifically _misogynistic _pornography. The 1980's led to, well, the 1990's and have you _seen _a movie from the nineties these days? There's some pretty backward stuff. The 2010's is where we are currently moving out of, and we will see.

Additionally, there is a really important difference between simply writing women in a way that isn't very convincing and being misogynistic. I get the argument that it's a slippery slope, one leads to the other, etc. but I am pretty sure guys like Stephen King genuinely don't want their work to come across as sexist, let alone something violent. I don't think it's a conscious backlash. I do think some writers (particularly in the horror genre) do have a bit of an unhealthy fascination with violence against women specifically, in the sense that murdering women seems to be their go-to, but I don't necessarily want to say that's due to misogynism or perverse motive. I think _some _of it is, but there are other aspects. For instance, we live in a culture in which the death of a male is generally far less shocking simply because it is far more common (through war, gang violence, etc) so sometimes the idea of having the Most Evil character do terrible things to women specifically is probably because it is more shocking. Same with children. Men are considered more expendable.

Anyway, interesting. I guess I see this as primarily a matter of a lot of male writers (self included) just not really being totally sure how to navigate the waters, especially when it comes to anything remotely about sexuality. I'm sure there are all kinds of psychological reasons for that, but probably the best way to learn to write women is to read more writing by women about women...?


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 12, 2020)

Biro said:


> Unless you grew up in those era's then you have no real idea of what life or the attitude of those there was like and in no way can you compare to how anyone thinks today.  Anybody who does who wasn't there is just talking from reading somebodies version (were they there?) of what it was like to pure bollox.



It's called 'history' and I'm very sorry to hear you find it unnecessary to learn about.


----------



## Cephus (Jun 12, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> One doesn't need to look very hard when you have major motion picture actors like Daisy Ridley having to comment on it due to the criticism crossing a level of notoriety. Something a male actor has never done or ever had to do.
> 
> I've seen videos from film critics on youtube call Rey a Mary Sue for being for doing too much and Katniss a Mary Sue for doing too little and still being the star.  In the same video.
> 
> ...



There is a difference between having to comment on something and choosing to comment on it. Unfortunately, there are far too many people out there who have been indoctrinated into the belief that there is rampant sexism and racism everywhere, therefore they see "evidence" for it everywhere they look. This is called confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. Yet when you set aside those preconceived notions, it is clear that the data doesn't actually support any of those conclusions. It's why you had to say previously, essentially, "I don't have to prove anything that I say is true, I just know that it is". This is an irrational thought process. You cannot simply make the unsupported assertion that you know the truth without having any means whatsoever of demonstrated both how you learned this supposed "truth" and how you have objectively tested it to see if your assertions hold any water whatsoever.

None of these claims hold any water at all.


----------



## Cephus (Jun 12, 2020)

Biro said:


> Unless you grew up in those era's then you have no real idea of what life or the attitude of those there was like and in no way can you compare to how anyone thinks today.  Anybody who does who wasn't there is just talking from reading somebodies version (were they there?) of what it was like to pure bollox.



It's also not relevant. Many people, let's be honest, many YOUNG people today seem to think that by destroying reminders of the past, that they somehow alter the past and remove those things from the historical record. This is absurdity at its finest. What happened yesterday is not relevant to today. The only thing that matters to today is today. You cannot live in the past as justification for your unfounded beliefs in the present.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 12, 2020)

Cephus said:


> It's also not relevant. Many people, let's be honest, many YOUNG people today seem to think that by destroying reminders of the past, that they somehow alter the past and remove those things from the historical record. This is absurdity at its finest. What happened yesterday is not relevant to today. The only thing that matters to today is today. You cannot live in the past as justification for your unfounded beliefs in the present.



History doesn't matter and people shouldn't care about it BUT it's absurd if young people don't respect history...?

I'm sorry, but those two views read as incredibly contradictory.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 12, 2020)

Biro said:


> I never said such a thing.
> 
> I do find when people who were never there describing attitudes and events in todays contents totally amusing.
> 
> ...



Okay, but I don't think anybody mentioned the attitudes in the 1970's. I didn't. I simply said there was a lot of misogynistic pornography made then. There was.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 12, 2020)

Cephus said:


> There is a difference between having to comment on something and choosing to comment on it. Unfortunately, there are far too many people out there who have been indoctrinated into the belief that there is rampant sexism and racism everywhere, therefore they see "evidence" for it everywhere they look. This is called confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. Yet when you set aside those preconceived notions, it is clear that the data doesn't actually support any of those conclusions. It's why you had to say previously, essentially, "I don't have to prove anything that I say is true, I just know that it is". This is an irrational thought process. You cannot simply make the unsupported assertion that you know the truth without having any means whatsoever of demonstrated both how you learned this supposed "truth" and how you have objectively tested it to see if your assertions hold any water whatsoever.
> 
> None of these claims hold any water at all.





Biro said:


> Totally agree and usually driven by a 'lefty' leaning belief they are always correct so we must burn everything from the past.  But they never consider for one minute they may be wrong or where their lies about history may lead in the future.



Well, there are confirmation biases everywhere at the end of the day; don't forget that just because someone feels something strongly doesn't mean it isn't objectively happening. In such cases I imagine "the data" would show reality moving about at various places between two poles.

People go a lot on gut feelings, from which confirmation bias springs. Why? Because in the moment, what is important is not getting to the actual fact of a matter but making day-to-day existence more livable. Over recent decades this idea of gut reactions has had a bad rap for being hysterical, subjective, anti-intellectual, open to abuse, and often just plain wrong. Logic, the arguments say, is king. And those claims aren't necessarily off the mark. They're just half the story. 

Personally I think there is a lot of merit to instincts and gut reactions. Think about it. Why do we have them? They have evolved, I suggest, over the millennia to protect us from difficult or potentially harmful situations. I can't think of a reason why, just because we live in modern times, dangers have abated. Sure, it might not be lions and tigers and bears but our fellow humans pursuing us. So when people like Daisy Ridley react or comment on to what they believe is rampant sexism and racism they may not be wholly wrong. Calling it "indoctrination" only underscores this point.

I think gut reactions are far more prevalent than people like to admit. "Our" reactions are always logical and correct. "Their" reactions are always emotional and unsteady. It's all the same.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 12, 2020)

Cephus said:


> It's also not relevant. Many people, let's be honest, many YOUNG people today seem to think that by destroying reminders of the past, that they somehow alter the past and remove those things from the historical record. This is absurdity at its finest. What happened yesterday is not relevant to today. The only thing that matters to today is today. You cannot live in the past as justification for your unfounded beliefs in the present.





Biro said:


> Totally agree and usually driven by a 'lefty' leaning belief they are always correct so we must burn everything from the past. But they never consider for one minute they may be wrong or where their lies about history may lead in the future.



This isn't how it works. It's about not centre-staging stuff that makes practises like racism and sexism seem more acceptable. Like all these statues that people have been toppling, the argument is that the place for them is not out in public but behind the walls of history. Yes, these things associated with these people happened. No, we should not forget that. No-one's trying to rewrite history. _That _is absurd. People are simply trying not to repeat it.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 12, 2020)

Biro said:


> Ok let me put this point to you.
> 
> The writer lives in a time when certain things were acceptable.
> 
> If a writer wrote about as it was in todays context they would be hammered because so we are told it isnt acceptable now.   But it was then.  They know exactly because 'they' were there.  So what are they supposed to do........rewrite in today's context?



Sure, why not? It may take some effort on your part, but plenty of people do it. Historical fiction is very popular and a fairly small proportion of it gets 'hammered'. 


> That is just trying to eradicate the past.



No it isn't, that's hyperbolic in the extreme. Writing about previous experiences through the lens of who you are now, what you now know, is part of growing up.




> If they read your description of events they would think its old garbage because it isnt 'as was'.
> 
> People who grew up at that time think in a certain way right or wrong by todays standards.



As long as people are able to think critically, which may include being _self-critical _and understand that the world didn't stop in 1959 or whatever, I don't think anybody minds. Again, this just sounds paranoid as heck.



> So if your book took place in those times and it was written in todays 'speak' and 'standards'.  Then it would be historically wrong.  It would not be accepted by those who were there.  It would be actual garbage and basically a lie.



Most historical fiction is 'historically wrong', that's why it's fiction. 



> A woman described as she would have been in that era by someone of that era is correct and the writer in no way wrong.
> 
> Of course there are now taboo subjects but even that is really rewriting history by not talking about it as it actually was.



Look man, I don't think you get the point. People don't read about the past because they want to hear Henry VIII's imagined hot take on Ann Boleyn's nipples, y'know? They read it because they are interested in aspects of the era. It's not all or nothing, right? It's possible to 'talk about it as it actually was' without having to be subjected to the less interesting ramblings of 'description'. Nobody is advocating for historical accounts to be censored or anything. But historical fiction isn't just 'a book set in a past time period' it is 'a book set in a past time period _​with relevance and interest to modern readers'_


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 12, 2020)

> There is a difference between having to comment on something and choosing to comment on it. Unfortunately, there are far too many people out there who have been indoctrinated into the belief that there is rampant sexism and racism everywhere, therefore they see "evidence" for it everywhere they look. This is called confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories.



Actually this is called Ad Hominem fallacy. Debating the person instead of the argument. 



> Yet when you set aside those preconceived notions, it is clear that the data doesn't actually support any of those conclusions.


 
My claim, is that the threshold for criticism for female characters, especially those of colour, is lower than that of male, requiring the writer to write the female character *better* than the male just to break even. This is on topic as it concerns the writing of women.  

But lets talk about your counter evidence.  So do you have evidence of Mary Sue accusations in any male character reaching a level of notoriety that major motion picture actors feel the need to defend themselves against it? ( Daisy Ridley, Star Wars) Have you seen evidence of male characters being accused of being "SJW propaganda" and being criticised to such an extent that actors have given speeches about it? (Brie Larson). Or of male actors of characters having to shut down their social media due to sustained harrassment over their characters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Marie_Tran#Harassment_and_attacks To entire female casts having to do so (2016 Ghostbusters) including Leslie Jones being called a "Gorilla" by provocateur Milo Yianopolous. 

Have you found evidence of male writers of fiction anywhere ever, being afraid to write male characters because they know any character they write will be called a Gary Stu? At ClipperCon 1987 (a _Star Trek fan convention held yearly in Baltimore, Maryland), Smith interviewed a panel of female authors who say they do not include female characters in their stories at all. She quoted one as saying "Every time I've tried to put a woman in any story I've ever written, everyone immediately says, this is a Mary Sue." 
_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue#Criticism

Or how about when Joss Whedon had to shut down his social media and got severe backlash simply for having Black Widow be sad she's infertile. 

Have you found evidence of male writers apologizing for their character being a gary stu, without even knowing what one is? _ author Joanna Cantor interviews her sister Edith, also an amateur editor, who says she receives stories with cover letters apologizing for the tale as "a Mary Sue", even when the author admits she does not know what a "Mary Sue" is

_And thats not even counting the anecdotal experiences I've had seeing the wildly different reactions to female and male characters's feats when the male characters are doing far more overpowered feats. Guess who receives the  Mary Sue backlash: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKG4I4rde3M

I've seen people advocate for their heads to be ripped off in canon. And for what? Getting some obsolete powers from many seasons ago "too easily".

This is from the largest anime fanbase of them all. 

Have you had critique where someone has said your male character should be swung around by his reproductive anatomy and have it savagely ripped off, just to make the villain moar evil? No ones said that about my _male_ characters. 

Have you actual examples in women's fiction that descriptions of men reach the level of hypersexualized absurdity that can often be seen on the "Men write Women" twitter feed? 

You should accept the possibility that people who see evidence of sexism or racism or whatever ism do so because it actually affects them more, so  will be more inclined to notice it. Instead of outright dismissing everything they say as "confirmation bias".

And although, as I implied it is difficult to prove causation, there are plenty of  studies showing porn has negative consequences. Check out the ncbi website sometime.

Some people actually use female action heroes as their main character and do not like the trend of female characters being outright dismissed as "Strong female characters" or "Mary Sues" or "Man with Boobs", or "SJW Propaganda" simply because they're portrayed as actual leaders and as competent as their male counterparts.  Or that they're sex objects just for being slightly sexualized.

That is also why I speak out against this crap. Because it barely has anything to do with how well you write or execute. Their issue with female characters of that sort is from conception.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 12, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> Actually this is called Ad Hominem fallacy. Debating the person instead of the argument.
> 
> My claim, is that the threshold for criticism for female characters, especially those of colour, is lower than that of male, requiring the writer to write the female character *better* than the male just to break even. This is on topic as it concerns the writing of women.



Anyone remember that song _Burden of Proof_ by Lagwagon? Great song, underrated band.

[video=youtube;pN3G89G11dA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN3G89G11dA[/video]


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 12, 2020)

Although I'm the one that gave it, even the idea that better writing will make the reception of woman characters notably better is hit or miss. The fact that characters from 30 years ago, Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley are the two critics often go to when referencing good examples (even on this very sub forum) indicates that the goalposts are simply being moved. Critics who say "write better" To escape all these negative tropes, the question needs to be asked why they're so often reaching that far back for positive examples. Writing across the past 30 years apparently hasn't had much of an impact with them.


----------



## epimetheus (Jun 12, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> The fact that characters from 30 years ago, Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley are the two critics often go to when referencing good examples (even on this very sub forum) indicates that the goalposts are simply being moved. Critics who say "write better" To escape all these negative tropes, the question needs to be asked why they're so often reaching that far back for positive examples. Better writing across the past 30 years apparently hasn't had much of an impact with them.



If we're talking sci-fi, how about Dr. Louise Banks or Lena (also a PhD. doctor) from Arrival and Annihilation respectively. They are very well written characters within the last few years - well written books/films all round.

No one talks about how Annihilation focuses on four very competent women coping with a dangerously bizarre situation. I don't know why - maybe because they all die in the end? But so had dozens of men. 

People do talk about how bad Ghostbusters 2016 was though. And they are right - awful writing. 

Maybe some of those calling out Star Wars and Ghostbusters do have an agenda against women, but that doesn't mean i'm going to stop calling out bad writing. And those films displayed terrible writing. No one idea why the actors are attacked for it though - surely the script writers should be the ones under fire.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 12, 2020)

epimetheus said:


> If we're talking sci-fi, how about Dr. Louise Banks or Lena (also a PhD. doctor) from Arrival and Annihilation respectively. They are very well written characters within the last few years - well written books/films all round.
> 
> No one talks about how Annihilation focuses on four very competent women coping with a dangerously bizarre situation. I don't know why - maybe because they all die in the end? But so had dozens of men.
> 
> ...



Yeah but there is a difference between what people cite as positive examples when directly called out on it and what people cite under regular circumstances. You'll get no disagreement from me that there have been positive examples since 30 years ago, and people might mention them when directly pressed,  when not directly pressed on the implications of reaching that far back, even my own brother has done it. Has specifically cited Ripley and Connor. Which has made me wonder what writing women well actually means to them. If it means staying within the confines of what they like, which is a specific kind of character. 

At the very least there appears to be alot of restrictions. To the point where I and many others don't even pay attention any more. We just do our thing knowing its going to get slammed whatever.  

Make her strong without much depth: Strong Female Character.
Give her the "wrong" kind of depth: Get driven off of Twitter https://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/joss-whedon-driven-off-twitter/
Make her too "masculine": Man with Boobs.
Make her too weak: Damsel in distress/Faux Action girl.
Make her loved and hyper competent : Mary Sue. 
Make her hated : Pity Sue. 
Make her sexy : Sex object. or "Fighting fuck toy" 
Make her not sexy : Starts getting called mannish (See critcism of new She Ra, new Lara Croft) 
Make her a marginalized identity : SJW propaganda. Forced diversity.

And so on. To be as invisible from such criticism as a white male character of the same status, a writer of female characters/other minorities needs to carefully tread an extremely  narrow path beset with mines on either side.


----------



## epimetheus (Jun 12, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> Yeah but there is a difference between what people cite as positive examples when directly called out on it and what people cite under regular circumstances. You'll get no disagreement from me that there have been positive examples since 30 years ago, and people might mention them when directly pressed,  when not directly pressed on the implications of reaching that far back, even my own brother has done it. Has specifically cited Ripley and Connor. Which has made me wonder what writing women well actually means to them. If it means staying within the confines of what they like, which is a specific kind of character.
> 
> At the very least there appears to be alot of restrictions. To the point where I and many others don't even pay attention any more. We just do our thing knowing its going to get slammed whatever.
> 
> ...



On this thread you were the first to mention Ripley or Connor. I'm not on Facebook, twitter etc. I've heard they are pretty toxic places: I can well believe it is full of all kinds of misogyny. But we know that social media is not representative of attitudes in the general population - that extreme views are over-expressed as algorithms select content that gets the most views - apparently stuff that enrages us - accentuated by bots. 

You ask for female characters to be subject to the same level of criticism which is fair enough. That means i will criticise characters i feel are poorly written, and praise characters i feel are well written, regardless of gender.


----------



## Cephus (Jun 12, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> History doesn't matter and people shouldn't care about it BUT it's absurd if young people don't respect history...?
> 
> I'm sorry, but those two views read as incredibly contradictory.



I didn't say history doesn't matter. We should learn from history so that we don't make the same mistakes again. But you can't change history. You can't pretend that history didn't happen. That's the mindset of a lot of people these days. There was a recent story of Gone With the Wind being removed from some online streaming platform, or I also heard that they were going to add a disclaimer before the movie saying that it represented the views of the 1930s. If you're honestly watching a movie made in 1939 and can't work out for yourself that it isn't going to represent modern values, you've got something severely wrong with you, yet this is how it goes these days. You've got Disney doing the same thing with movies like Dumbo. Let's not even talk about Song of the South. Things change. People need to figure it out. People need to stop being perpetually offended by everything. Frankly, they need to just grow up.

Too bad society seems to be going the other way.


----------



## Cephus (Jun 12, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> Well, there are confirmation biases everywhere at the end of the day; don't forget that just because someone feels something strongly doesn't mean it isn't objectively happening. In such cases I imagine "the data" would show reality moving about at various places between two poles.



And it doesn't mean that it is. That's why we have to rely on the facts and not people's feelings. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who are wearing their emotions on their sleeves and if the facts don't match their ideological positions, then the facts get ignored. To bring it back around to writing, how many cases do we see where a writer isn't "black" enough to write stories about black people? How many cases do we see in Hollywood where studios get lambasted for not hiring gay actors to play gay roles, ignoring completely the fact that actors exist to pretend to be things that they are not? These are things that don't matter, yet there is a particular political ideology out there who is making it the core of their beliefs. Seriously, when Ruby Rose recently left Batwoman, the studio immediately started virtue signalling, saying they were going to find another gay actress. Who cares? Try finding the BEST actress you can find! But nope, quality doesn't matter, just pandering to a particular demographic does.



> People go a lot on gut feelings, from which confirmation bias springs. Why? Because in the moment, what is important is not getting to the actual fact of a matter but making day-to-day existence more livable. Over recent decades this idea of gut reactions has had a bad rap for being hysterical, subjective, anti-intellectual, open to abuse, and often just plain wrong. Logic, the arguments say, is king. And those claims aren't necessarily off the mark. They're just half the story.



Yet that is the problem. Because when people go on gut feelings, they often get things entirely wrong and go off the deep end. Then you get a bunch of stupid people lighting things on fire, driving businesses out of business, losing people jobs, harming the overall economy, all in the name of their feelings. If that's the kind of thing  you're going to defend, I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 12, 2020)

Cephus said:


> And it doesn't mean that it is. That's why we have to rely on the facts and not people's feelings. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people out there who are wearing their emotions on their sleeves and if the facts don't match their ideological positions, then the facts get ignored. To bring it back around to writing, how many cases do we see where a writer isn't "black" enough to write stories about black people? How many cases do we see in Hollywood where studios get lambasted for not hiring gay actors to play gay roles, ignoring completely the fact that actors exist to pretend to be things that they are not? These are things that don't matter, yet there is a particular political ideology out there who is making it the core of their beliefs. Seriously, when Ruby Rose recently left Batwoman, the studio immediately started virtue signalling, saying they were going to find another gay actress. Who cares? Try finding the BEST actress you can find! But nope, quality doesn't matter, just pandering to a particular demographic does.



My point is I would wager that the number of people who make decisions based on facts alone is vanishingly small, no matter what we tell ourselves. We cherrypick, because if we didn't, we'd likely never achieve much at all. That's why people make emotional decisions - because it is efficient and effective. Sure it may or may not reflect some facts, but facts and truth just don't matter much to most people, across the spectrum - whatever the spectrum is. It's human. It's what we do.




Cephus said:


> Yet that is the problem. Because when people go on gut feelings, they often get things entirely wrong and go off the deep end. Then you get a bunch of stupid people lighting things on fire, driving businesses out of business, losing people jobs, harming the overall economy, all in the name of their feelings. If that's the kind of thing  you're going to defend, I don't know what to tell you.



They're being heard, which is what they want. So with that in mind you could argue it's a success for them. They don't typically feel engaged with those things like the overall economy anyway, so they've not really lost that much.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 12, 2020)

Cephus said:


> I didn't say history doesn't matter. We should learn from history so that we don't make the same mistakes again. But you can't change history. You can't pretend that history didn't happen. That's the mindset of a lot of people these days.
> 
> There was a recent story of Gone With the Wind being removed from some online streaming platform, or I also heard that they were going to add a disclaimer before the movie saying that it represented the views of the 1930s. If you're honestly watching a movie made in 1939 and can't work out for yourself that it isn't going to represent modern values, you've got something severely wrong with you, yet this is how it goes these days. You've got Disney doing the same thing with movies like Dumbo. Let's not even talk about Song of the South. Things change. People need to figure it out. People need to stop being perpetually offended by everything. Frankly, they need to just grow up.
> 
> Too bad society seems to be going the other way.



I'm not sure what Gone With the Wind and Dumbo has to do with writing women. Are there even any women in Dumbo? Dumbo's mom, I guess? 

Or could this possibly - just _possibly! -_ be a cunningly devilish attempt at some cheeky strawmanning.

It seems to me several people on here have this ravenous need to constantly inject 'SJW culture is B.S and I hate it' points into just about any thread remotely related to anything about society and culture. It seems to me this is a kind of obsession that manifests regardless of whether it's appropriate, like a bad attempt at product placement.  

Nobody said anything vaguely related to the points you are currently making, they aren't 'relevant' to the thread topic, and nobody is likely to change their minds based on hot takes regarding racist crows in Dumbo. So, let's park that stuff.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 12, 2020)

Matchu said:


> _
> 
> _pINHEAD.  i thought this was a writer forum?  Pick up your dollies, go do some drawing.  NOW.



??

You realize one must write before drawing a comic can take place


----------



## Matchu (Jun 13, 2020)

So sorry @lonelykid for the ‘pinhead.’ It was an unfortunate knee-jerk & yawn/fart combination, contribution.  I’ll address contrition when I get to a keyboard.  Goodness, I must have been foaming Bordeaux out my ears, apols.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 13, 2020)

BornForBurning said:


> Restrictions imposed by who? Slammed by who? Some person on the internet?



Alot of people on the internet potentially. Thats why I listed some hollywood examples. It has to reach a high level of notoriety and cultural significance for that industry to respond in any way.


----------



## Dluuni (Jun 13, 2020)

Cephus said:


> Many people, let's be honest, many YOUNG people today seem to think that by destroying reminders of the past, that they somehow alter the past and remove those things from the historical record.


No, they don't. The historical record is what it is. Statues, however, do not preserve a historical record, their purpose is to glorify the subject. The Black Plague was a historical incident, we don't have statues of rats.
Statues are built to show what a society values. If society no longer values the subject of the statue, the statues come down. Columbus statues are particularly vile to a lot of people for good historical reasons. The historical record is clear about his actions, and in the words of the long term nuclear warnings...





> This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here.
> 
> What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us....
> 
> This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 13, 2020)

Biro said:


> You could have some valid points there.  But dear old Chris was acting on behalf of the Spanish Catholics who actually funded him in his expeditions.
> 
> So when does the eradication of Spain.  The Spanish people and the Catholic church begin then?
> 
> ...



This really is a Michelangelo of straw man construction, Biro. It's practically art. 

Somebody says "Christopher Columbus's statues should come down because he killed a lot of people" and your response is...."HE WAS ONLY KILLING PEOPLE BECAUSE SPAIN TOLD HIM TO SO YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING ITS THE FAULT OF THE SPANISH WHO ARE AROUND NOW AREN'T YOU?!!"

 Imagine if you said "Dr. Harold Shipman killed a lot of old people" and my reply was "WELL DR. HAROLD SHIPMAN ONLY KILLED PATIENTS BECAUSE HE GOT TO SEE THEM AS PART OF BEING A DOCTOR IN THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE SO SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING YOU DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE ANYMORE" 

You would think I was raging nuts conflating two completely unrelated things.

It's really a bad faith approach. The extent by which Spain was complicit in Columbus's actions is open to debate. Even if they were not open to debate, they have no relationship with modern Spain and you don't get to play six degrees of separation to make it so.

If you genuinely want to expand the debate to this stuff then do you think you could please do so in good faith?


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 13, 2020)

One of the benefits of fantasy races is it allows writers  to elegantly side step alot of the gender stereotyping and preconceived baggage of what readers and critics think a woman "should" be, and how a woman "should" be written.  It wouldn't be remotely rational to call a female character a "man with boobs" for instance when she wasn't even human in the first place. Not that that trope has any merit in 2020 anyway. Just an example.

Ps - It seems to me that the other topic thats evidently about showing, talking about and getting feedback on written samples of your work more than anything else, should be in the sub forum dedicated to such.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 13, 2020)

Biro said:


> It's called sarcasm LS.
> 
> I don't blame the Spanish of today than I blame the American people of today for what some did long ago to them Injuns.   Pulling down statues everywhere because of reasons that make even less sense is only robbing pigeons of somewhere to shite.  Its cruel.  If somebody smashed your toilet you would go nuts.



The point you were making wasn't sarcastic at all. I think you genuinely think there's a link between people expressing contempt for Columbus and the same people expressing contempt for *the historical record*, correct? 

In other words, you think that statues of Columbus should not be touched because Columbus is 'a part of the history of Spain/America/the world', don't you?


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 14, 2020)

I hope the hyperbolic gender stereotyping going on in the other topic is tongue and cheek. But when the words "absolutely accurate" is used in said posts, it doesn't leave me with much hope. :ChainGunSmiley:


----------



## Amnesiac (Jun 16, 2020)

If we trace it back to its basic roots:

Fathers train their kids to fight, hunt, and survive in the world, and usher their kids into the world. (i.e. "Son, go be a man.") They are also the protectors and defenders of their family/clan/tribe, etc. It's hardwired into us.


----------



## epimetheus (Jun 16, 2020)

Amnesiac said:


> If we trace it back to its basic roots:
> 
> Fathers train their kids to fight, hunt, and survive in the world, and usher their kids into the world. (i.e. "Son, go be a man.") They are also the protectors and defenders of their family/clan/tribe, etc. It's hardwired into us.



But it can manifest in myriad ways, which change as society develops. Daughter, go be a woman can now mean that she becomes the sole custodian of her sexuality at a certain age, rather than the old fashioned view that the father hands over her sexuality to a husband on her wedding night.

I don't have a horse in this race, just pointing out that there are multiple runners.


----------



## BornForBurning (Jun 16, 2020)

>


Just for the sake of maintaining everyone's grip on reality, I would like to point out that the attached images are in fact auto-generated advertisements for custom T-shirts that have quite possibly never even been printed. They are entirely the result of algorithmic attempts at 'targeted' advertisement. Bad taste? Maybe, but when it's a poorly-designed computer program that's actually responsible, I'm leery of placing the blame on cultural misogyny.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 16, 2020)

BornForBurning said:


> Just for the sake of maintaining everyone's grip on reality, I would like to point out that the attached images are in fact auto-generated advertisements for custom T-shirts that have quite possibly never even been printed. They are entirely the result of algorithmic attempts at 'targeted' advertisement. Bad taste? Maybe, but when it's a poorly-designed computer program that's actually responsible, I'm leery of placing the blame on cultural misogyny.



**Sighs*
*Pulls up Google*
*Thirty seconds later**

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B079NPLKY7/?tag=writingforu06-20
_"This is a great shirt. The size fits my husband perfectly. He's 5'5 280lbs. He loves it and everywhere we go people stop him to ask where did he get his shirt." 

"This shirt was great. My daughters father loved it. It fit as expected and a perfect fathers day gift!" _

https://myfatherdaughterstore.bigcartel.com/product/10-rules-for-dating-my-daughter-t-shirt
_"The world wide phenomenon that has been shipped to over 70 countries!"
_
https://www.walmart.com/ip/I-Have-A...ns-Father-s-Day-T-Shirt-Black-Small/775333939


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 16, 2020)

Biro said:


> Totally confused at what you mean.......unless you think that the aim of the stuff on the t'shirts and what King meant 30 years ago was all about protecting his precious daughter until the 'right man' appeared?  If so you are way off and possibly it is todays attitudes over past attitudes?



Actually I did not speculate on what King meant, that was Terry and a couple others. If you're confused, you better ask them.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> They were meant as a joke and nothing else.



Its not just a joke. Its intended to intimidate (especially the gun violence one) with the plausible deniability of a joke.  

Characters are not real people. To make them seem real on the page you must think of them as technical constructs and messages. This is the paradox of character design and execution.  So just because a real life normal father somewhere might have rare, fleeting thoughts of his daughters growing chest, that just means that real people have weird Freudian thoughts sometimes. It's quickly dismissed and they move on. 

With characters there is the author's intentionality to consider. A character has a thought about his child's boob because the author meant him to think it. Because the author intended to send a message. The audience has no reason to believe its a random uncontrollable thought, so will think of this father as a creep. So unless the writer is trying to portray  a creep, they ought not to have him thinking of his kid's reproductive organs.  Just because real people do something means my character should do it too, is an absurd way to think.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> I cannot answer for what the author intended the reader to think as I am not the author.  On that point neither can you.
> 
> What you actually think after reading something is all in your mind and if you think good or bad things then I can only answer for what I think.
> 
> ...



Treating a t shirt that threatens gun violence in a gun country as just a joke with no subtext of intimidation is simply reckless and lacking in basic survival instincts. So I won't dignify this ludicrous tangent with any further response. Its off topic anyway. Deuces.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 17, 2020)

Indeed. We can carry on the discussion in the off topic version of this "Writing Women".


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> Again you know nowt.



"Nowt?" What, are you from the UK? Maybe there a T shirt like that can be just a joke. Not in America. 

There are people in America who will shoot people dead for the mere act of jogging. If you think people of similar mindset won't shoot people for emotionally hurting their daughter, that is reckless and lacking survival instinct. There are fathers there with that traditionalist mindset who this kind of T shirt appeals to. It has the highest rates of mass shootings in the world to the point where institutions like schools will not tolerate "jokes" about gun violence. Even if they are on T shirts. Read the room.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Jun 17, 2020)

Good call, Annoying kid.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jun 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> The t'shirt is world wide and as LS said probably more than 30 years old.
> 
> It's not really about emotionally  hurting their daughter.  It's more about a naughty young man 'having his wicked way' with her and most likely 'leaving her up the duff' as we say here.  Pregnant and then 'doing a runner'.



For well over thirty years, these shootings have been happening. America has been gun country. If anything it was worse back then. Answer me this. If you're a black man dating a white daughter of an American gun owner, and he shows up with this shirt, are you gonna take it as a joke? Really? I think not. Therefore we can conclude that people who call it a joke are being blind to their privileges. Many things in history have been jokes (like black face for instance) yet had nefarious subtext. It being a joke doesnt suddenly excuse it of toxic ideology. Especially considering jokes must be anchored in real life attitudes and beliefs for it to work. A joke can't be total fantasy, or it wouldn't land. It wouldn't resonate. 

If it was just a joke, you'd expect non fathers to buy it just as much. But I very much doubt thats the case. It is intended to send a message. In most instances the message isn't that the father will literally murder anyone who messes about with his daughter, but its a warning that he might very well try to kick your ass if you do. And who knows how that would turn out.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> The t'shirt is world wide and as LS said probably more than 30 years old.



I didn't say that.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 17, 2020)

Annoying kid said:


> If it was just a joke, you'd expect non fathers to buy it just as much. But I very much doubt thats the case. It is intended to send a message. In most instances the message isn't that the father will literally murder anyone who messes about with his daughter, but its a warning that he might very well try to kick your ass if you do. And who knows how that would turn out.





Biro said:


> Oh get a life for Christs sake.  You cant turn everything into something it was never meant to be.  Then ban it because it may offend someone who hasn't even been born yet.
> 
> If thats the case you had better ban everything and we will draw a 1 meter square around ourselves and never move or speak to anybody outside it...........just in case it offended someone.



I see these two perspectives as being at either end of the spectrum. While I tend toward the view of taking serious social problems...seriously, I have sympathies and disagreements with both.

I don't think most sexism, including the t-shirts I posted, to be an imminent threat. Violence against women is real problem, yes, but it's not nearly as common as casual sexism -- which is prevalent everywhere but especially in writing, especially in certain genres of writing (fantasy, for instance). 

Most fathers I know who would probably wear that kind of t-shirt aren't physically or mentally capable of trying to kick anybody's ass for 'messing with their daughter'. There's a lot of talk with this stuff, a lot of chest-puffing macho nonsense, a lot of good-ol-boy posturing that really doesn't come to anything. Most of us dads are fat, lazy armchair quarterbacks who like to think we have some kind of power of attorney over our daughter's sexual purity but the moment she tells us to go fuck ourselves we will whimper like hurt puppies. 

That being said, I don't think it's 'just a joke either'. A lot of men really do see themselves as white knights for their 'little girls' and it's demented. But that's for a psychology forum.


----------



## Periander (Jun 17, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> A lot of men really do see themselves as white knights for their 'little girls' and it's demented. But that's for a psychology forum.



Sounds Freudian.

Well, as a person of the male gender, I find it highly useful to ask the ladies how they perceive this or that.  The idea has often been put forth that women are best at telling their own stories.  Of course, quite a number of male writers have been highly successful with interesting female protagonists, so it can be done.  But if you don't know how a person of the female sex might or might not act in a given situation, it's always better to ask respectfully.  It's a good discipline.

Now if you're a woman writing about women, the more power to you!


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 17, 2020)

Periander said:


> Sounds Freudian.
> 
> Well, as a person of the male gender, I find it highly useful to ask the ladies how they perceive this or that.  The idea has often been put forth that women are best at telling their own stories.  Of course, quite a number of male writers have been highly successful with interesting female protagonists, so it can be done.  But if you don't know how a person of the female sex might or might not act in a given situation, it's always better to ask respectfully.  It's a good discipline.
> 
> Now if you're a woman writing about women, the more power to you!



A criticism that comes up quite often is that 'not all women are the same', which is true, and goes back to intersectionality. Another way of looking at it is 'yes...but they are all women'. So while your female character may not be relatable to 'all women' as long as your female character is at least relatable to 'one woman' and ideally 'quite a few women', that is plenty good enough. 

Because we are not looking to hybridize every human being with a XX chromosome into a character, and trying to do that is a losing game - you _cannot _make a character appeal to _all_ women. But you can certainly make a female character be unappealing to the vast majority of women and there is a long track record of writers who have managed to do exactly that (especially 'these days') and that is where the danger zone lurks.  

So, the name of the game is to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, I guess? Having a story featuring a female lead character being read by a female reader to make sure she doesn't do anything that is vastly out of whack with reality is really the extent to which this matters.


----------

