# Problem with women



## MichelD (Aug 24, 2019)

I didn't realize it while writing it, but reading my first draft of my novel I see that I don't portray women very well.

My protagonist's wife is dead.

He goes to his old home town and stays with an old acquaintance and the first night she lets him into her bed.

He finds out that the 40 year old murder he is investigating was over a First Nations woman who was an easy lay for itinerant white guys passing through town.

Continuing his investigation  he meets a younger First Nations  woman in a bar and she tries to seduce him. 

The only other women in the story are old and white.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 24, 2019)

MichelD said:


> I didn't realize it while writing it, but reading my first draft of my novel I see that I don't portray women very well.
> 
> My protagonist's wife is dead.
> 
> ...


While "easy" women do exist, and he might know where to find them, I'm more worried that your piece might come off as racist against First Nation women since both of the two which appear are "easy." Now, if the "seduction" issue is actually just there to foreshadow something bad happening to this second (or the protagonist figuring something about the case, or otherwise has some change of character--such as concern for her well being), younger woman, then you've got yourself a reasonable thing. 

A lot of it's up to your execution. If it's not totally necessary to said "easy" lays, don't do it. Just nix the whole thing. Why the hell are these women all over him, anyway? 

Also, there's nothing against older women being total cougars. Just 'cause they're old and white doesn't mean they're dead.


----------



## BornForBurning (Aug 24, 2019)

> First Nations woman who was an easy lay for itinerant white guys passing through town.


Hardly unrealistic tbh. But if all the female characters are trying to seduce your MC, you may need to learn to reign in the sexual part of your brain. It can make you do some very poor writing.


----------



## MichelD (Aug 24, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> Hardly unrealistic tbh. But if all the female characters are trying to seduce your MC, you may need to learn to reign in the sexual part of your brain. It can make you do some very poor writing.



No, I don't think I'm trying to show my MC as some kind of stud. He is surprised at the first incident and that turns into a romance, and the second incident can easily have the "seduction" part excised.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 24, 2019)

MichelD said:


> I didn't realize it while writing it, but reading my first draft of my novel I see that I don't portray women very well.
> 
> My protagonist's wife is dead.
> 
> ...



I don't think there's anything intrinsically misogynistic about this, but I haven't read it in context. 

That being said, if you think you're not portraying women really well, chances are you're not.  

A couple of things: First of all, if you want to be published then yes you do have to be aware of the times in which we are living in, that the values - _particularly in terms of gender politics - _are different now. You can't write women (or men, for that matter) as two dimensional sexual objects. It just doesn't fly. Especially if this is supposed to be read and enjoyed by, you know, women.

But that doesn't mean you cannot write about whatever you want to write about, of course. And, like I say, there's nothing intrinsically problematic about a woman picking a man up in the bar...which means if your story has a 'problem with women' it must be about the way in which you are writing women.

Some ideas on that:

- Avoid describing your female character's appearance beyond what is absolutely needed. 

- If you must describe her body, try to avoid doing so in a way that is obviously male. Yes I know your MC is a man so that sounds counter-intuitive, but he doesn't need to be a walking erection. Avoid the old "she boobed, boobily down the stairs" stuff. Nobody needs extended descriptions of what her breasts or genitals look like. The number of times I've read stories written by men who feel the need to talk at length about the color of areolas or whatever. It's awful.

- Make sure you show her as being a person, not just an object. I get she's probably not a main character, but at least give her something. Is she reading a book at the bar? Eating peanuts? Don't have her just be there 'boobing' around.

- I would probably reconsider the woman who was 'an easy lay' unless its absolutely fundamental. Why not make her a gay man? If she must be a woman, please give her a personality also. I get that she's dead, but she can still have agency. Why was she an 'easy' lay? What was her motivation for that? Where did she live? Was she found with a piece of interesting jewelry that can hint at a character beyond 'easy lay'? Something!

- The old acquaintance who he sleeps with...does she have a name? She needs a name. She needs a name and she needs a home that illustrates her as an individual, not Jill Random. Why does she 'let him into her bed'? Just because she's a 'slut'? Just because he's so irresistibly handsome? Are there old feelings there? Is he a cad? This is all important and will make the difference.


----------



## Phil Istine (Aug 25, 2019)

Firstly, I needed to look up what is meant by a "first nation" person.  I took a guess and it appears that my guess was correct.  It's possibly a term we are less familiar with in the UK, because it's been a thousand years since anyone successfully invaded and settled here in numbers, and before that it was another thousand.  Indeed, I'm as likely to be descended from a first nationer as an invader, though more likely a mix of both.

I'm not so sure that your story necessarily looks bad on first nation women or women generally.  If you are concerned about that you could have another such character with different personality that balances up any negative impressions.  Or you might be able to present it as manipulation and coercion caused by poverty, thus gaining some sympathy for them.


----------



## Ma'am (Aug 25, 2019)

My thoughts:

- First, avoiding offensive stereotypes starts with recognizing them. So I'm not saying you wouldn't, but do be sure to listen even if your first instinct might be to defend yourself instead. I get it that what's posted here is only a small sample though, and might well not include everything.

- Don't describe a woman as "an easy lay." Especially not while then mentioning a man's sexual exploits without derision and possibly even with admiration. 

That is pretty much the definition of objectifying women and misogynistic. It is treating women as "products" who lose value with "use," while treating men as full human beings whose sexual business is their own free choice with no reputation smear attached. 

- As I think you've already hit on, don't focus on young women as being the only female sexual desirable beings while casting off the older ones as non-sexual--especially if the man is older himself. 

That is also misogynistic objectification, if older men are portrayed as sexually desirable while older women are not.

- Careful with anything that hints of fetishing women of color as porntastic exotics. Just being aware that it is a de-humanizing thing that exists should help with that, if needed.

- I suggest running your work by some women, women of color if possible. See what they think of the full manuscript. People who belong to a group that's being maligned will often notice more than those who do not.

- Mixing it up some might make it more fresh and interesting, too. For ex., maybe have the man desire a woman who is considerably older than he is_._ Or show a young woman as a businessperson or in another role, without mentioning her attractiveness level at all. 

You might want to check out the "Bechdel test" for further ideas. I just learned of it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test

Of course, any given situation could just be how a particular story happens to play out. But if it all goes a certain way, then it all adds up to offensive stereotyping.

It's also possible a character could perceive and treat women in a misogynistic way, maybe without even realizing it. That's different from having the stereotypes written in as part of the overall tone of the book. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## JesterTRT (Aug 26, 2019)

I've hit this snag a lot. I end up just writing my female characters the same as every other character. Give them their own personality, and then just write them the same. It works to a point, but I'm certainly never going into the romance field, that's for sure.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 26, 2019)

JesterTRT said:


> I've hit this snag a lot. I end up just writing my female characters the same as every other character. Give them their own personality, and then just write them the same. It works to a point, but I'm certainly never going into the romance field, that's for sure.



There’s a lot of truth to this. I think as men we tend to consider women as being something of another species (a better one, often) and it’s just not true.

The other day my wife was complaining about how some other woman at work had used some “natural” deodorant and how bad her body odor had been all day. I was surprised at how weird that sounded to my ears, coming from a woman. The idea that a woman could have bad body odor is something that is really obvious, but then I considered that as part of a narrative and could not really imagine a story that included a stinky woman, at least not one who was otherwise “normal”. Maybe a monstrous old hag or a witch or something. But not an ordinary woman.

Why? Because that’s not how women are usually written.

But it should be. Not necessarily BO in particular, but these minor, everyday challenges that absolutely form a part of life for “us guys” generally affect women too and it’s important to remember that.

There are of course differences between sexes and genders, and that should be reflected in writing, but they pale into insignificance in most situations compared to similarities. A story that treats its male and female characters as mostly the same (as characters) is probably going to be better than one that paints them in stark contrasts. 

So, unless you’re really sure that in this aspect A Woman would behave differently to the same character as A Man, I find it better to ignore the issue as much as possible.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 26, 2019)

JesterTRT said:


> I've hit this snag a lot. I end up just writing my female characters the same as every other character. Give them their own personality, and then just write them the same. It works to a point, but I'm certainly never going into the romance field, that's for sure.



Yeah, If you're carbon-copying female characters somehow with your writing style despite giving them different personalities, then you'll have a problem with any genre, I'm afraid. 

I write gay psych thrillers, where you're less likely to see female pov, and in this genre you have to avoid any stereotypical associations to women: the lass who's best friends with the gay guy and who's always butting into his life. The mother figure who's there where the father figure wasn't. The woman as the secratary.... Or the reverse: making all women have negative roles: the killer, the woman who tries to break up the gay relationship etc....

Dimension. All characters need dimension. And a woman who wears a suit to her garage is going to offer just an interesting story as the woman who works on the engine or who sits on reception duty, adding slow doses of arsinic into Mr Jessop's coffee because he keeps leaving his dentures on the Land Rover dashboard for her to... tidy up. So most times it's not really about what is/isn't between their legs to me, but what story they build around themselves, in their own unique world.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 26, 2019)

Tough chicks & strong women are in right now.
Write a buncha women like they were from a 1950s movie and you risk banishment by 50% of readers.

In Hollywood, the greatest bastion of liberal thinking, women still only get 25% of the lines, and are often used as sex symbols & plot devices. This is why I like Charlize Theron movies: she does not tolerate those roles anymore...and she kicks ass like a blonde John Wick.


----------



## BornForBurning (Aug 30, 2019)

> Tough chicks & strong women are in right now.


And it honestly sucks. I guess according to 90% of writers, a 'strong' woman is just a woman who acts like a man but has nice thighs. I have no idea how this mythos of women traditionally being treated as 'weak' in American media started. Like I watched the first Terminator last night and Sarah Connor is a _wonderful _female character. She's sweet and feminine but has this compelling inner strength that really makes you fall in love with her as a character. She's never shot in a way that makes you think the cameraman was ogling her and as the movie plays out you see how a strong woman is supposed to lead a man. Compare that with Scarlett Johansson in those horrible Avengers flicks. Flat and one-dimensional, with a face painted like a barbie doll. Oh but its 'empowering' because she's a woman and shoots a gun and makes snide comments about the male villains. Ugh. You mention 1950's movies but girls in film noir have always been sultry and powerful. But I guess because they aren't cussing like a sailor or shooting a gun people see that as patriarchal now.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 30, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> And it honestly sucks. I guess according to 90% of writers, a 'strong' woman is just a woman who acts like a man but has nice thighs. I have no idea how this mythos of women traditionally being treated as 'weak' in American media started. Like I watched the first Terminator last night and Sarah Connor is a _wonderful _female character. She's sweet and feminine but has this compelling inner strength that really makes you fall in love with her as a character. She's never shot in a way that makes you think the cameraman was ogling her and as the movie plays out you see how a strong woman is supposed to lead a man. Compare that with Scarlett Johansson in those horrible Avengers flicks. Flat and one-dimensional, with a face painted like a barbie doll. Oh but its 'empowering' because she's a woman and shoots a gun and makes snide comments about the male villains. Ugh. You mention 1950's movies but girls in film noir have always been sultry and powerful. But I guess because they aren't cussing like a sailor or shooting a gun people see that as patriarchal now.



Reminds me of Lindsay Ellis' videos on feminism in Transformers. There's a great one on the Framing of Megan Fox and Male Gaze (plus a lot of other great videos on writing and film).


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 30, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> And it honestly sucks. I guess according to 90% of writers, a 'strong' woman is just a woman who acts like a man but has nice thighs. I have no idea how this mythos of women traditionally being treated as 'weak' in American media started. Like I watched the first Terminator last night and Sarah Connor is a _wonderful _female character. She's sweet and feminine but has this compelling inner strength that really makes you fall in love with her as a character. She's never shot in a way that makes you think the cameraman was ogling her and as the movie plays out you see how a strong woman is supposed to lead a man. Compare that with Scarlett Johansson in those horrible Avengers flicks. Flat and one-dimensional, with a face painted like a barbie doll. Oh but its 'empowering' because she's a woman and shoots a gun and makes snide comments about the male villains. Ugh. You mention 1950's movies but girls in film noir have always been sultry and powerful. But I guess because they aren't cussing like a sailor or shooting a gun people see that as patriarchal now.



This. I don't want guns and stockings. I want a woman I could walk out the door and argue with on the street. The latter is realistic, anything else just a dull Hollywood stereotype.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 30, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> This. I don't want guns and stockings. I want a woman I could walk out the door and argue with on the street. The latter is realistic, anything else just a dull Hollywood stereotype.



This has me wondering about critical reception on Elena. She's one of the few female characters in the book. 

The last beta never got to read the stuff I've written since the 40K mark, but she hadn't liked my portrayal of her (said it was 'woman-hating' even). By 90K, I think she's a strong, fascinating woman who's been maligned because of her husband's unreliable POV (and he's currently wrestling with how off his perceptions of her may have been over the last six months). 

Even taken at face value, she's managed to bring something as powerful, dangerous and horrible as Pinocchio under heel (she's the only thing he's afraid of even). And it's not because she's some butt-kicking Barbie in leather pants and heels; it's because she's smart and has outmaneuvered everyone else. While her husband has consistently portrayed her as cold with him and the baby, by the 90K mark, he's having to reckon with how off he's been because she's been remarkably nurturing with him and the baby--but isn't acting like this is something new or unusual. Turns out he's crazy (and projecting his own old mother onto her), and she actually is a caring mother and wife who's so much smarter than he gives her credit for. This book's crazy. Hope readers'll stick around to see how wonderful she actually is.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 30, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> but isn't acting like this is something new or unusual.



I think this is the crux of the issue. Some of the strongest women I know just get on with the job -- most of them dress to get on with the job and life in general, not dressed up in high heels as kicking someone's ass. Some put women in power positions and still manage to sex the role up and do as much damage.


----------



## BornForBurning (Aug 30, 2019)

> This. I don't want guns and stockings.


I don't have a problem with guns and stockings per sae. Bombastic action-pulp with female leads are cool in theory. However most stories with such content are unbearably vapid. They don't show convincingly why a woman would pick up a gun in the first place. Physical combat is not a woman's natural instinct. You have to show how they would be brought to that place.


----------



## Rojack79 (Aug 30, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> I don't have a problem with guns and stockings per sae. Bombastic action-pulp with female leads are cool in theory. However most stories with such content are unbearably vapid. They don't show convincingly why a woman would pick up a gun in the first place. Physical combat is not a woman's natural instinct. You have to show how they would be brought to that place.



Umm would my female lead make the cut then? I mean Fenrir is more of an Amazon archetype mixed with a little proud warrior race plus a dash of team medic and cold huntress. It's all due to her environment and the way she was raised yet at the same time I wanted to show that she was intentionally sheltered from the world at large and needs to learn about it as she go's. I don't know, I personally like women that can kick ass with the men and yet still be feminine. That just the group of woman that I grew up with so for me it's kind of the norm.


----------



## Amnesiac (Aug 30, 2019)

The problem is, women are strong in ways that men aren't. Even physically, women are naturally more flexible, lighter on their feet, and naturally more agile. Women tend to be in touch with their emotions and often have very rich inner lives, which makes them mentally, emotionally, and spiritually strong. Women also tend to be quicker with their words, and thereby, devastating opponents, when the situation calls for it. Also, threaten a woman, or even hurt her, and she'll likely just find someplace to heal, and she'll even shrug off threats. However, threaten or harm her children, and she'll rip your throat out with her bare hands. These are strengths, as I have observed, of women. There is some crossover, but women are women. Men are men. I wish film makers and writers would quit trying to make women into men. Whenever I see this, I just shrug and know that I'm watching lazy screenplay writing.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 30, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> I don't have a problem with guns and stockings per sae. Bombastic action-pulp with female leads are cool in theory. However most stories with such content are unbearably vapid. They don't show convincingly why a woman would pick up a gun in the first place. Physical combat is not a woman's natural instinct. You have to show how they would be brought to that place.



I've gotten that tired of the gun-and-stocking portrayal, I'll rarely pick up a novel or watch a movie with a woman in main lead. It's why I write MM fiction. The female leads I like are so rare nowadays. I can think of only one that I've really liked in the past few years, that being Laurene from _Black Spot, _a French-canadian thriller series:

[video=youtube;j3ZdbwbtCg8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3ZdbwbtCg8[/video]


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 30, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> I've gotten that tired of the gun-and-stocking portrayal, I'll rarely pick up a novel or watch a movie with a woman in main lead. It's why I write MM fiction. The female leads I like are so rare nowadays. I can think of only one that I've really liked in the past few years, that being Laurene from _Black Spot, _a French-canadian thriller series:



The saddest part is that isn't this part of the problem? Women being pissed that we're being mirepresented in fiction... that we're being turned into men in fiction... and rather than writing strong women, we're writing men instead?


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 30, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> And it honestly sucks. I guess according to 90% of writers, a 'strong' woman is just a woman who acts like a man but has nice thighs.





Aquilo said:


> I've gotten that tired of the gun-and-stocking portrayal, I'll rarely pick up a novel or watch a movie with a woman in main lead.





seigfried007 said:


> The saddest part is that isn't this part of the problem? Women being pissed that we're being mirepresented in fiction... that we're being turned into men in fiction... and rather than writing strong women, we're writing men instead?



You know who's a really good example of a strong female character that almost everybody's heard of? Fraulein Maria. Yes, that's right, _Fraulein Fucking Maria_. The nun who becomes a governess from _The Sound Of Music. _I shit you not. I'm not a fan of the movie or anything, but think about it... 

Fraulein Maria is a woman whose zest for life knows no bounds and who clearly doesn't give a fuck about the rules or expectations of her station when they come into opposition with what she wants or believes is right. Think about what she does in that movie. She pisses off the nuns because...I don't know but there's a song about it, then becomes a governess for some strange man and his seven children (I think there's seven, might have it mixed up with the dwarfs and the dancing woodcutters) at which point she sings a song about being confident. She takes the job and DOES THINGS. 

She empowers the children in her care, brings them happiness, makes clothes out of curtains and when the boss tells her she's nuts she essentially tells him to go fuck himself because he's an ass. Then after he realizes he's an ass she shags him, marries him, and finally comes up with a plan to beat actual NAZI's and carries a kid who has to weigh at least fifty pounds over the _Alps._

But she also does these while not acting 'like a man'. She doesn't necessarily act 'like a woman' either, she just acts the way an otherwise ordinary intelligent, creative, and empowered human being would in that situation. In many respects, she's actually fairly conventional - she starts out as a nun for chrissakes, and ends up getting married to her boss and becoming a mother-figure. It _screams _patriarchy, doesn't it? Except she's totally comfortable in the 'patriarchy', and somehow she manages not to be a victim of it. She owns her space.

So, I think the whole tendency to view and debate the issue in terms of women acting as men/men acting as woman is inherently futile. I understand that debate, because there's a tendency in Hollywood, etc for screenwriters to just give the woman a gun and an 'attitude' and pretend they have a Strong Female Character...but I think most people see through it. Or they damn well should. There's no such thing as a divide between weak and strong female characters. What there is, is a divide between characters who resemble living human beings and ones who don't.


----------



## Amnesiac (Aug 30, 2019)

Like I said, lazy screenwriting.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 30, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> Like I said, lazy screenwriting.



Not just screenwriters, though. Most of the stuff I read on here isn't much better, honestly.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 30, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Y
> So, I think the whole tendency to view and debate the issue in terms of women acting as men/men acting as woman is inherently futile. I understand that debate, because there's a tendency in Hollywood, etc for screenwriters to just give the woman a gun and an 'attitude' and pretend they have a Strong Female Character...but I think most people see through it. Or they damn well should. There's no such thing as a divide between weak and strong female characters. What there is, is a divide between characters who resemble living human beings and ones who don't.



I think you can have strong female characters and weak ones, just the same as strong vs weak male characters. Not everyone in life is always strong or weak, but there are certainly domineering assholes and leaders who get shit done... and total doormats and people who go along to get along. These people exist in real life, so that certainly qualifies them as real "characters." 

However, I do think the character should foremost be as close to a believable human being as possible, and the reader should be left to determine whether the character is then strong or weak. I suppose one might say it's better to have a "strongly written" character as opposed to a "strong" character.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 30, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> but there are certainly domineering assholes and leaders who get shit done... and total doormats and people who go along to get along. These people exist in real life, so that certainly qualifies them as real "characters."



Are you sure?

I don't think there are many 'total doormats'. Maybe a handful, but most of those who we would describe as 'total doormats' in real life are actually as ordinarily complex as you...they're people who, for whatever reason, find it hard to be assertive in the ways that you perceive. It just so happens you perceive them as doormats, probably because you don't know them very well and don't understand the reasons for why they behave that way. But those reasons HAVE to be incorporated into a fictional doormat, too. 

And that's sort of my point. It's entirely pointless to talk about characters in terms of broad brushes, in terms of archetypes, in terms of 'that's a man thing' or 'that's a woman thing' or 'that's a doormat thing'. 

Men may be labeled as the ass kickers of the world, but as a man I guarantee every woman alive has kicked as many or more asses than I have...because I have kicked zero asses. Not one ass have I kicked. No men I know have kicked asses either. Most men statistically _don't _kick asses. The vast majority of people are complex, contradictory animals with individual, non-gendered agency. The vast majority of us are Fraulein Marias, at least sometimes, at least privately. We are not total door mats just because we let 3 million people walk over us.

What does it mean, say, to talk about aggression being a male trait? What it means is based 100% on stereotype. Based on statistics such as crime stats or whatever that only take into account a tiny slice of the male population and therefore can only speak for a tiny slice of the 'male experience'. And that's bullshit.

In a sociology class it might make sense, of course, to talk in terms of macro-trends and gender statistics. I'm not saying men aren't, as a gender, more aggressive or women, as a whole gender, aren't more sensitive or whatever. But this is writing. Trying to reflect such 'traits' in stories where it is _individuals _and people's responses to them that matter is misguided.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 30, 2019)

Learned helplessness is real thing. I've known a lot of people who are doormats. I'm typically one of them. If I stand up for myself and get loud or violent, there's a 100% chance that I'm totally wrong. If I need to stand up for myself, there's a 100% chance that I won't do it. 

I've never implied that a "total doormat" can't be a realistic character. Obviously, a strongly written character of any temperament will have perfectly good reasons for being "strong" or "weak" generally in life. "Strong" and "weak" are just generalized terms for the lump sum of that character. 

A strong character will have weak moments, breaking points, and weaknesses, just like a weak character will have their strengths, will have their blowing point, and strong moments. Because they're well-written, well-realized characters, and no one's 100% strong or weak all the time (and even the concepts of strong vs weak are entirely subjective and debatable).


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Learned helplessness is real thing. I've known a lot of people who are doormats. I'm *typically *one of them. If I stand up for myself and get loud or violent, there's a 100% chance that I'm totally wrong. If I need to stand up for myself, there's a 100% chance that I won't do it.



That's the operative phrase, typically. Being typically doormattish is real, being a total doormat isn't. Acting in a way that is typically male is real, acting like a total man isn't.

My only point here is  that it's redundant to talk in terms of 'women acting as men' because you can't 'act like a man', you can only act like a _stereotyp_e of a man, and stereotypes are empirically disprovable. 

So, in order to be meaningful, I think it's really important to first of all reject the notion that gender norms are important to character design, or that assumptions can be made about the personalities/behavior of men or women based on the fact they are men or women (besides the obvious - it's reasonable to assume most women sit down when they pee). It's important to not use phrases like 'women who act like men' because it actually translates into nothing of importance in a story.


----------



## BornForBurning (Aug 31, 2019)

> What does it mean, say, to talk about aggression being a male trait? What it means is based 100% on stereotype. Based on statistics such as crime stats or whatever that only take into account a tiny slice of the male population and therefore can only speak for a tiny slice of the 'male experience'. And that's bullshit.


Lucky no offense but you are the most stereotypically male poster on this entire board.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> Lucky no offense but you are the most stereotypically male poster on this entire board.



How so?


----------



## BornForBurning (Aug 31, 2019)

> How so? :smile:


Communication is a space dedicated near-entirely to intellectual combat, occasionally for actual pragmatic purposes but oftentimes purely for its own sake. which is exactly how a discussion board should be viewed in my opinion


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 31, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> Communication is a space dedicated near-entirely to intellectual combat, occasionally for actual pragmatic purposes but oftentimes purely for its own sake.


Ah, so it's a nice way of saying "Will argue about absolutely anything with anyone, anytime, anywhere just to have something to do"?


----------



## ironpony (Aug 31, 2019)

MichelD said:


> I didn't realize it while writing it, but reading my first draft of my novel I see that I don't portray women very well.
> 
> My protagonist's wife is dead.
> 
> ...



I would say it depends...  Does the first nations woman who seduces the protagonist have some sort of connection to the murder?


----------



## ironpony (Aug 31, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Tough chicks & strong women are in right now.
> Write a buncha women like they were from a 1950s movie and you risk banishment by 50% of readers.
> 
> In Hollywood, the greatest bastion of liberal thinking, women still only get 25% of the lines, and are often used as sex symbols & plot devices. This is why I like Charlize Theron movies: she does not tolerate those roles anymore...and she kicks ass like a blonde John Wick.



But isn't okay for a woman to be tough and strong but still be seductive and sexual though?  Charlize Theron was, in Atomic Blonde, and she still seduced the other female character in it, so doesn't she count as strong but still a seductress?


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Ah, so it's a nice way of saying "Will argue about absolutely anything with anyone, anytime, anywhere just to have something to do"?



Pot, kettle, sooty bum.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> Communication is a space dedicated near-entirely to intellectual combat, occasionally for actual pragmatic purposes but oftentimes purely for its own sake. which is exactly how a discussion board should be viewed in my opinion



Man you almost got me there!


----------



## Bayview (Aug 31, 2019)

I agree that it makes no sense to talk about women and men as if they are monoliths. This just leads to stereotypes, and that's not how I want to write. So "women who act like men" isn't a useful phrase, for me.

I'd ask some of the people lamenting the loss of the way female characters used to be written to name some of those female characters. We've had Sarah Connor, so far... who else?

Is part of the problem that we're mostly looking at action movies? Or SUPERHERO movies?!? I mean, action movies are based on action, right? If there's a female character in an action movie, she's either going to be doing some action or she's not going to be doing a hell of a lot, probably. And for the superhero movies, we can accept that there are visiting gods and aliens and humans who are able to defy laws of physics simply because of a spider bite or some radiation or whatever else, but we can't accept that some of the female characters will be more physically aggressive? Is that what we're saying?

I feel like there are loads of well-written, nuanced, carefully drawn, realistic female characters on screen these days. But they're probably not in action movies or superhero movies. Because the male characters in those movies aren't exactly realistic themselves.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 31, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I agree that it makes no sense to talk about women and men as if they are monoliths. This just leads to stereotypes, and that's not how I want to write. So "women who act like men" isn't a useful phrase, for me.
> 
> I'd ask some of the people lamenting the loss of the way female characters used to be written to name some of those female characters. We've had Sarah Connor, so far... who else?
> 
> ...


Ellen Ripley. 

One of my favorite "strong female characters" ever. She's just the bomb in every way. 

I'm relatively fine with women in action movies or taking on more masculine roles, but my problem is more that they're new definition of a strong female character, typically poorly written, and don't obey the laws of physics, even when they're not superheroes. It's like a woman has to take on a traditionally male role (action hero, brutal, snide, vicious, butt-kicker, aggressively sexual, etc.) in order to qualify as "strong," and that's something I completely disagree with. There are so many ways a character can be "strong" or "female." There's more than 3 billion of us on the planet--that's a lot of kinds of women, and we're not Atomic Blondes, but that doesn't make us "weak female characters." 

The other thing I find hurtful about the modern 2-D action woman stereotype is that she still exists largely for the sexual gratification of the male audience and cast. She's there to look good and kick ass--at the expense of her character and the laws of physics and realism. Tough women quite often aren't Hollywood beautiful. It's part of why I love Ellen Ripley as a character. She's never sexualized in the series like other "action women." No leather pants and butt-kicking and fem-dom going on. No sexualized nudity or sex scenes. She doesn't exist to be sexualized--she's just an awesome character who happens to be female--and acts like a woman, no less. She's very nurturing and protective of Newt, she develops romantic tension with Hicks, she has realistic relationships with everyone around her (not because she's female but because she's just that well-written and acted). 

While one might argue that parts of Alien 3 revolve around her being a rape-in-waiting, it should be noted that those guys probably rape each other, too, though her being female does raise her chances. This situation also led to an interesting distinction between nasty people and the alien, also, because despite aliens being portrayed as basically unknowable murderous incubi (it's not really sex, but they definitely force stuff in people and make us gestate their babies) they still don't go after people for sexual gratification--it's just because they're animals and out to reproduce (unlike the case of human rape). 

In some ways, she's most sexualized in 4, but then it's more because of how she talks and moves (and she's actually a different character).


----------



## Bayview (Aug 31, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Ellen Ripley.
> 
> One of my favorite "strong female characters" ever. She's just the bomb in every way.
> 
> ...



I only watched the first two Aliens, but I agree, Ripley rocks.

I'd say the other characters in those movies were pretty 3-dimensional, too... like, the male characters were given weaknesses without being totally dismissed, Vasquez is fantastic (even though she'd probably qualify for the "acting like a man" problem some people are pointing out), Hicks is great because he's strong and reliable without being ambitious or needing to be in charge all the time... great characterization all round.

Is the problem people are seeing in modern movies not so much that the women have become cartoonishly kick-ass but rather that the movies in general (at least in the action/superhero genres) are cartoonish? Like, not just the female characters but ALL the characters are unrealistically strong/tough/cool/etc.?


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 31, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I only watched the first two Aliens, but I agree, Ripley rocks.
> 
> I'd say the other characters in those movies were pretty 3-dimensional, too... like, the male characters were given weaknesses without being totally dismissed, Vasquez is fantastic (even though she'd probably qualify for the "acting like a man" problem some people are pointing out), Hicks is great because he's strong and reliable without being ambitious or needing to be in charge all the time... great characterization all round.
> 
> Is the problem people are seeing in modern movies not so much that the women have become cartoonishly kick-ass but rather that the movies in general (at least in the action/superhero genres) are cartoonish? Like, not just the female characters but ALL the characters are unrealistically strong/tough/cool/etc.?


I love Vasquez though. She came off as so brutal and mean and butt-kicking--but she wasn't Hollywood beautiful. She had some _thicc arms_. Tough as nails, mean as sin--but unlike most Hollywood tough women, Vasquez actually looked the part of a tough person. She was built, and everything about her character design and execution combined to reinforce this more realistic toughness. Vasquez had to earn her toughness (unlike modern Hollywood stereotypes who don't have the muscles or toughness of will and character to earn all those leather pants and heels buttkicking scenes). Plus, she used firearms, which is more realistic than such a small woman kicking people in the face and going all martial arts badass. 

Vasquez came off as almost a transsexual even--without necessarily stating anything about her preferences and desires. She and Drake had more of a tight bromance than a romance, it seemed to me, but it was never explicitly stated that I can recall.



> Hudson: "Hey Vasquez, have you ever been mistaken for a man?"
> Vasquez: "No, have you?"



Had such a lady crush on that character as a kid. She was everything I wanted to be at the time.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 31, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> I love Vasquez though. She came off as so brutal and mean and butt-kicking--but she wasn't Hollywood beautiful. She had some _thicc arms_. Tough as nails, mean as sin--but unlike most Hollywood tough women, Vasquez actually looked the part of a tough person. She was built, and everything about her character design and execution combined to reinforce this more realistic toughness. Vasquez had to earn her toughness (unlike modern Hollywood stereotypes who don't have the muscles or toughness of will and character to earn all those leather pants and heels buttkicking scenes). Plus, she used firearms, which is more realistic than such a small woman kicking people in the face and going all martial arts badass.



Oh, absolutely, Vasquez was fantastic. My point, though, is that EVERYONE in that movie, male or female, was given realistic strengths and weaknesses. Modern superhero movies have, like, Thor's hammer able to project him through space as though he's actually flying, the Hulk defying all laws of conservation of mass, Captain America being mysteriously super-strong in ways that are, again, essentially supernatural... so it's not as though the female characters being strong than their body mass suggests is possible is that much of a stretch, you know?

To me it feels like an issue with the genre in general rather than an issue with the female characters exclusively.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 31, 2019)

Bayview said:


> Oh, absolutely, Vasquez was fantastic. My point, though, is that EVERYONE in that movie, male or female, was given realistic strengths and weaknesses. Modern superhero movies have, like, Thor's hammer able to project him through space as though he's actually flying, the Hulk defying all laws of conservation of mass, Captain America being mysteriously super-strong in ways that are, again, essentially supernatural... so it's not as though the female characters being strong than their body mass suggests is possible is that much of a stretch, you know?
> 
> To me it feels like an issue with the genre in general rather than an issue with the female characters exclusively.


The body mass issue is one I have with characters who aren't superheroes or gods. If they're supposed to be realistic humans and yet still defy natural laws, I have problems with them. If there's at least some flimsy supernatural/pseudoscientific explanation, I'll roll with it, no problems. I dislike flimsy characters more than flimsy science (though I'm not fond of flimsy science presented as fact, but that's another matter entirely). 

Damn straight, loved all the characters in Aliens.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 31, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Ellen Ripley.
> 
> One of my favorite "strong female characters" ever. She's just the bomb in every way.
> 
> ...



I feel that a lot of times nowadays, whenever a woman character has flaws or weaknesses that people pick on her more, and call her a 'weak female character' as the term goes, and people are more harsh on it compared to male characters with flaws.  Would I be right in that assumption?

Right now, I'm working on a story, with a female character, who has some marital infidelity issues, but I feel that when I show it to people they may be more harsh on her for it, cause she is a female, compared to male, and ask why did you write her this way...  It seems that female character flaws are under the microscope more, unless I'm wrong?


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 31, 2019)

ironpony said:


> I feel that a lot of times nowadays, whenever a woman character has flaws or weaknesses that people pick on her more, and call her a 'weak female character' as the term goes, and people are more harsh on it compared to male characters with flaws.  Would I be right in that assumption?
> 
> Right now, I'm working on a story, with a female character, who has some marital infidelity issues, but I feel that when I show it to people they may be more harsh on her for it, cause she is a female, compared to male, and ask why did you write her this way...  It seems that female character flaws are under the microscope more, unless I'm wrong?


It does seem that way. 

Of course, it's been my impression that women in general are harsh on themselves and each other when compared to how we view men. Men are expected to have flaws, but women must strive to be perfect. We're never strong enough, submissive enough, smart enough, dumb enough, pretty enough, innocent enough, seductive enough to measure up to our own expectations of womanhood--in part because everyone has a different idea of what womanhood and feminine wiles should entail. There are a lot of competing social expectations on women.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 31, 2019)

Even though Ripley is also a good character, I feel that she also does not have any moral flaws, it seems, like a character like Rambo, I guess you could say (the movie Rambo, not the book Rambo), in the sense that everything she does it right, and she is always the most smartest or most righteous character in the room.  Unless maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 31, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> The saddest part is that isn't this part of the problem? Women being pissed that we're being mirepresented in fiction... that we're being turned into men in fiction... and rather than writing strong women, we're writing men instead?



It's a good point, it really is, but in gay psych thrillers and gay romance in general, we're met daily with the argument: 'women can't write from a Gay man's pov'.That goes the same for men writing women main leads. So where I'm pissed that women aren't being portrayed realistically, writing MM is a way for me to show there really are no clear lines between male and female, just one long continuum we all share. I have no issue with writing male povs, mostly because I know they're not that different to me. But that seems to get lost along the way with some. 




Bayview said:


> Is part of the problem that we're mostly looking at action movies? Or SUPERHERO movies?!? I mean, action movies are based on action, right?



Action crosses into most genres, though: it just varies in scope, where the stereotype can still bleed through. I really like Laurene from _Black Spot_ (thriller) and I've got a real soft spot for Venelape from _Wreck-it__ Ralph_! If we're talking old times: Lady Macbeth from _Macbeth_, where Shakespeare plays with those stereotypes associated with gender and swaps them around. Dean Koontz did an amazing job in _Lightning_ too, his main female lead started in a wheelchair, where the guy resorted to time travel in order to see her life play out in order to see why she still held so much strength, and she was such a well-drawn character, one we saw grow up and move from foster home to foster home. I absolutely loved Ginger Weiss, a surgeon from Koontz's _Strangers_. She saw her life start to collapse as fugue states took over her life.

In general, I'm no feminist. I don't go into a read or movie thinking stereotype, I go in thinking people and lives. The dissapointment comes when I'm given the stereotype and portrayal is given a firm cardboard cut-out of "God, not again". I want those memorable men, women and stories that stay with me years. But finding them lately is hard.


----------



## ironpony (Aug 31, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> It's a good point, it really is, but in gay psych thrillers and gay romance in general, we're met daily with the argument: 'women can't write from a Gay man's pov'.That goes the same for men writing women main leads. So where I'm pissed that women aren't being portrayed realistically, writing MM is a way for me to show there really are no clear lines between male and female, just one long continuum we all share. I have no issue with writing male povs, mostly because I know they're not that different to me. But that seems to get lost along the way with some.



What does MM stand for?  If a man can't write a man woman lead well though, does that mean they cannot write women supporting characters well either though?


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 31, 2019)

ironpony said:


> What does MM stand for? If a man can't write a man woman lead well though, does that mean they cannot write women supporting characters well either though?



Ah, sorry: MM = male/male romance, you also get m/f (male/female), ff (female/female) etc. Basically LGBTQ+ writing. And I think if they're struggling with the main lead (male or female authors) then they might have difficulties with secondary characters too. Characterization is about dimension, but every character will live and breathe in their own, and it comes down to portraying that individuality, not what magazine cutout you think you should copy and paste into that dimension.


----------



## seigfried007 (Aug 31, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> It's a good point, it really is, but in gay psych thrillers and gay romance in general, we're met daily with the argument: 'women can't write from a Gay man's pov'.That goes the same for men writing women main leads. So where I'm pissed that women aren't being portrayed realistically, writing MM is a way for me to show there really are no clear lines between male and female, just one long continuum we all share. I have no issue with writing male povs, mostly because I know they're not that different to me. But that seems to get lost along the way with some.
> 
> In general, I'm no feminist. I don't go into a read or movie thinking stereotype, I go in thinking people and lives. The dissapointment comes when I'm given the stereotype and portrayal is given a firm cardboard cut-out of "God, not again". I want those memorable men, women and stories that stay with me years. But finding them lately is hard.



I'm writing Pinocchio, so I'm not going to judge anyone for writing the opposite sex. Single-sex stories are pretty much impossible and certainly unrealistic, so eventually every writer has to get their feet wet in portraying the opposite sex. I've written a lot of male and female POVs, so it's no object for me to switch hit on them. 

David's not hard to write because he's male--he's hard to write because he's David.  

Same for Pinocchio, come to think of it. Jared was easy to write--total dream character to write once I got going with him. Elena's a woman so you'd think she'd be so easy for me to write, but _noooooooo_. It's not her sex that's the problem, but rather it's who she is and how the POV sees her that make her difficult to write sometimes.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 31, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> It's not her sex that's the problem, but rather it's who she is and how the POV sees her that make her difficult to write sometimes.



And I think this is how it should always be: having difficulty not because of what is/isn't between their legs, but because of their story and what they've faced.


----------



## Rojack79 (Aug 31, 2019)

I hate my phone. I had a whole rant ready to go about men and women and how we really need to judge the character not there sex but nope my phone decided to just shut down mid writing. Great!

 My basic point about the post was to just judge the character by how well they are portrayed not by what sexual orientation they have. Can a man have more feminine qualities than a women? Yes! And can a women have more masculine qualities? Also yes! 

It all comes down to who is doing the writing and if there characters are being well written or not. In today's age there will always be someone who doesn't like what you've done with character A but then someone else won't like character B. Just tell those people to grow up and move on or better yet just don't bother sweating what they think or have to say. 

I sure won't and I'm turning Fenrir the most masculine monster in history into a woman for my current story. If people are really going to be up in arm's over a characters gender then thay have some serious insecurity issues with there own sexuality and balancing out there masculine & feminine halves.

As a great example I am a straight mocha/Carmel man from Arizona. I love all things cute including bugs, puppies, and my little pony. I have a stuffed animal collection in my room as well as played with dolls in my younth growing up amungst my two sisters and there friends all of which were girl's. I also own a katana which I legally carry for self defense and I plan on getting some guns here soon. I also know several different martial arts as well as fencing  (not that shitty sports fencing they teach in college, actual rapier fencing with realswords.) Does this make me more masculine or feminine?

 Personally I don't really care about what others think of me. I'd rather be judged by my actions than my perceived male or female traits.


----------



## Dluuni (Aug 31, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Ah, sorry: MM = male/male romance, you also get m/f (male/female), ff (female/female) etc.


I've switched to mlm, wlm, wlw, nln, nlm, nlw, etc. Male and Female are loaded and have issues. At one point in one of my drafts, I had a segment where there were three characters interacting talking only about each other, all three characters had a uterus, and it completely bombed the Bechdel test because not only was there only one woman, but they were talking about the one man in the group. 



Rojack79 said:


> If people are really going to be up in arm's over a characters gender then thay have some serious insecurity issues with there own sexuality and balancing out there masculine & feminine halves.


Alas, they have the power to decide what is or is not allowed onto the shelves.


Rojack79 said:


> Does this make me more masculine or feminine?


I don't care, what are your pronouns? That's really all that matters, although style of dress and presentation, voice, etc. matters a lot towards how people see you when they meet you. If it's too vague, the discomfort appears. The other stuff is mostly irrelevant as long as you can pin down the first impression stuff. I don't understand why people obsess so much over gendering everything, I assume it's the Sapir-Whorf at work; Latin was obsessed with gender to an unhealthy degree and all the Romance languages retain it. I get policed over how I present to an unhealthy degree sometimes. It's silly.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 31, 2019)

ironpony said:


> I feel that a lot of times nowadays, whenever a woman character has flaws or weaknesses that people pick on her more, and call her a 'weak female character' as the term goes, and people are more harsh on it compared to male characters with flaws.  Would I be right in that assumption?
> 
> Right now, I'm working on a story, with a female character, who has some marital infidelity issues, but I feel that when I show it to people they may be more harsh on her for it, cause she is a female, compared to male, and ask why did you write her this way...  It seems that female character flaws are under the microscope more, unless I'm wrong?



I think a lot of this comes from the fact that there aren't MANY female characters in a lot of works, especially action-type movies or books. If we have very few female characters, I think we expect a lot of them! For the first several installments of the Avengers movies, as I recall, there was only one female character. If she'd been "weak", that would mean 100% of female main characters in that ensemble cast would be weak. I don't like those numbers.

If we want to be able to write women who appear stereotypical, we can easily avoid criticism by also including some women who _aren't_ stereotypical. Later installments of Avengers introduce a woman who's strong because she's brilliant, a woman who's strong because she's got mystical mental powers, a few more women who kick ass physically, etc.

I'd say if we want better female characters we need MORE female characters. Yay!

(And back to the OT, if you have multiple female characters and they all have some traits in common, then, yeah, I'd give those traits a pretty hard squinting-at to make sure they're justified.)


----------



## ironpony (Aug 31, 2019)

When it comes to there being more women characters in action movies lately, do action movie fans want this though?  I was talking to my gf about the new Cliffhanger remake, where they said it's going to be a female lead, and she said she doesn't understand this new movement where Hollywood wants to female-ize action movie characters, because she says, most women don't even like action movies, and would rather watch different genres.  So if that's true, and that men mostly watch action movies more so, is it the men that want more women action heroes, perhaps even more than the women, if a lot of women do not watch them, as she says?


----------



## Bayview (Aug 31, 2019)

ironpony said:


> When it comes to there being more women characters in action movies lately, do action movie fans want this though?  I was talking to my gf about the new Cliffhanger remake, where they said it's going to be a female lead, and she said she doesn't understand this new movement where Hollywood wants to female-ize action movie characters, because she says, most women don't even like action movies, and would rather watch different genres.  So if that's true, and that men mostly watch action movies more so, is it the men that want more women action heroes, perhaps even more than the women, if a lot of women do not watch them, as she says?



I'm not sure what the audience breakdown is for action movies... I know plenty of women who watch them, but that's not exactly rigorous science! But I don't see any real connection between audience gender and character gender. I watch lots of movies with male MCs; no reason men won't watch movies with female MCs, right?


----------



## ironpony (Aug 31, 2019)

Yep there no reason why they don't just wondering if men want it more in action movies than women since they watch them more.  As I guy, I don't care if in an action if the main character is female or male and it all depends on the story and other factors.


----------



## Bayview (Aug 31, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Yep there no reason why they don't just wondering if men want it more in action movies than women since they watch them more.  As I guy, I don't care if in an action if the main character is female or male and it all depends on the story and other factors.



But we aren't actually sure men DO watch action movies more, right? I mean, I know lots of women who watch them, your girlfriend doesn't - neither sample size is likely large enough for any scientific rigour.


----------



## BornForBurning (Aug 31, 2019)

> As a great example I am a straight mocha/Carmel man from Arizona. I love all things cute including bugs, puppies, and my little pony. I have a stuffed animal collection in my room as well as played with dolls in my younth growing up amungst my two sisters and there friends all of which were girl's. I also own a katana which I legally carry for self defense and I plan on getting some guns here soon. I also know several different martial arts as well as fencing (not that shitty sports fencing they teach in college, actual rapier fencing with realswords.) Does this make me more masculine or feminine?


100% masculine bud. I could go on about this for hours but basically just because your expression of masculinity doesn't fit into some pre-conceived stereotype doesn't mean it isn't masculine. Just break this down in your head. Of _course _a normal, masculine man would love cute things. We were created for the purpose of protecting and nurturing things that are smaller and more vulnerable than we are. Our _children. _And of course you are interested in fencing and firearms. How else are you expected to protect your family? Sometimes people see like Arnie for example and they're like, "oh, that's a man." Wrong. I mentioned Terminator 1 already in this thread but the whole damn point of that film is that being a man is more than big muscles. It's passion, it's wild, unconditional sacrifice for the people you love. You do need big muscles because otherwise you'll be too weak to defend anything, but big muscles are nothing without moral purpose. arnie is awesome though no offense meant to him





> Vasquez came off as almost a transsexual even--without necessarily stating anything about her preferences and desires. She and Drake had more of a tight bromance than a romance, it seemed to me, but it was never explicitly stated that I can recall.



It's a romance, they briefly kiss. I always loved that. Such a great inversion of expectations.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 31, 2019)

I gotta say: all of you sound like you have had a very limited exposure to tough women...outside of cinema.

Having worked with women in the military as well as in a correctional environment, I have known women like Vasquez and Ripley.
I have served with them, and under them. Penny punched like a man, and Sherri was unafraid to walk into any unit in the jail...including super-max...and we had death-row inmates and sociopaths stored in there.
I never, not one single time, doubted them in a backup call.

I've known other women who survived field duty in the New Mexico sandbox. Just imagine treading around in 100F heat, in full mopp4, carring an M16 and 30 lbs of gear. 
They could shoot a rifle, shoot a pistol, and a few could even shoot a Sixty.


And Born, your aversion to firearms blinds you._ Why would any woman want to pick up a firearm?_ To protect her own.
My wife took over my 1911 years ago. That's her gun now.

And being a tough woman doesn't just mean that you can kick ass and shoot guns.
As an example; Simone Biles. That girl is special, and has the inner strength of carbon steel.

How about all the women who compete in American Ninja Warrior.
That's an obstacle course so tough that most MEN can't finish it.
Just last week I watched a plucky little woman make it up the Tower of Power and press that buzzer like a boss.


And women have been tough for millennia.
In 1938, Jacqueline Cochran was the first woman to win the Bendix Trophy.
She was considered one of the greatest female aviators of her decade.
Much better than Amelia (who won her fame by marrying a dude who owned a newspaper.)


----------



## Dluuni (Aug 31, 2019)

And on the masculinity/femininity angle, this bit was a head scratcher.. 


seigfried007 said:


> Vasquez came off as almost a transsexual even--without necessarily stating anything about her preferences and desires. She and Drake had more of a tight bromance than a romance, it seemed to me, but it was never explicitly stated that I can recall.


One of my friends is a transgender man (FtM) who likes wearing dresses and makeup and jewelry. Doesn't make him less of a man. That's not what defines him. Just gets him funny looks. I usually don't bother with makeup. Indeed, there are some very butch and/or lesbian trans women. My husband does crochet. Masculine/feminine, male/female, orientation, and man/woman are seperate concepts that only loosely correlate, usually.
Plus, Alien had a transgender woman, Lambert.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 31, 2019)

Vasquez was a femme brute.


----------



## Aquilo (Aug 31, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I gotta say: all of you sound like you have had a very limited exposure to tough women...outside of cinema.



But you're still dealing the stereotype here. The whole point is that there are different variations on what's seen as tough, certainly from my pov as a woman. It takes a tough lass to hold down three part-time jobs, then coming home to feed the kids, all to start work again at six. It takes a tough lass to be on the streets at 15 with nowhere to go. It takes a tough lass to walk away from your first fight with a broken nose at school, all because you were seen to not agree to like what the popular girl did when it came to mainstream music. Not everyone's version of tough will be the same, and that's what should make writing interesting: the variation. 




> Having worked with women in the military as well as in a correctional environment, I have known women like Vasquez and Ripley.



Most are saying they like women like Vasquez and Ripley, or that variation of tough.  I'd LOVE to read about Sherri who was unafraid to walk into any unit in the jail...including super-max... where you had sociopaths in cages. It's the unrealistic portrayals, where tights aren't laddered, makeup is still on, latex is still hugging the body better than a condom, showing off her twin puppies as she effortlessly flits through the air without a hair out of place.... that's what annoys.  Ripley looked like she'd been in a fight after she fought, and dammit -- she was sexy for it, right along with Vasquez. So it's not about manning them up, just realistic portrayals of women in war, even if they fighting aliens at the time....


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 31, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> But you're still dealing the stereotype here.




10-9? 
These were real people, not stereotypes.
These were the kind of women the stereotypes were written about.


----------



## luckyscars (Aug 31, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> 10-9? I copy you 2 by 2.
> These were real people, not stereotypes.
> These were the kind of women the stereotypes were written about.



I feel like the point is not that stereotypical anythings don't exist, merely that the very issue of stereotyping is oversimplified.

For example: A real-life tough woman, which do exist, may have a lot of similarities with the fictionalized tough-woman, and to that extent they may seem to fit a stereotypical tough woman image. 

However, by virtue of the fact they are real and not-fictionalized, they almost certainly aren't a Tough Woman in every aspect of their lives, because that would be ridiculous. Real life Tough Women probably do get scared, they probably do cry. Once or twice they might - shock - even put on a dress or do a Martha Stewart bake day or whatever it is that non-tough women, that _people_, do. 

The problem Hollywood and bad writers more generally have, is that they find it difficult or impossible to blend in different, even rather contradictory, characteristics while maintaining a strong identity. 

That's why I like Fraulein Maria. Fraulein Maria kicks ass, doesn't give a shit, likes to sing, is romantically inclined and yet still neither comes across as a Butch nor a Weepy Wendy.  

Another really good example, I think, of a strong female lead character who was also 'Not Manly' (not on Fraulein Maria's level, but not bad) was Sandra Bullock's Dr. Ryan Stone in the movie _Gravity. _Very good science fiction thriller in which the lead woman was able to express 'feminine' emotions without ever once coming across weak or deferential.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Aug 31, 2019)

And I thought you didn't like musicals. :wink:

Sandra Bullock does like the strong-willed women roles. Blindside, Miss Congeniality, Gravity...


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2019)

I saw this episode of the Jim Jeffries show and immediately thought of this thread.
This anti-poaching squad is entirely female, led by a sniper with 12 tours in Afghanistan.
Tough chicks are a thing.

[video=youtube;yc7_uxQiKLQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc7_uxQiKLQ[/video]


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 4, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I saw this episode of the Jim Jeffries show and immediately thought of this thread.
> This anti-poaching squad is entirely female, led by a sniper with 12 tours in Afghanistan.
> Tough chicks are a thing.


Yeah, we know, Ralph. 

We just think realistic tough chicks are a good thing--as opposed to the Hollywood stereotype which disobeys all laws of physics as she stabs people with her stilettos and roundhouse kicks ass in leather pants, which are so tight that you could tell the year her pocket change was minted in. That's what we don't like. 

We also think there's more than one kind of tough lady. They don't have to literally kick ass and snipe people to be tough ladies. Aquilo and luckyscars did a really good job of listing some super tough lasses earlier in the thread. Raising kids, fighting Nazis, living on the streets--more than one way to be a tough lady.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Yeah, we know, Ralph.
> 
> We just think realistic tough chicks are a good thing--as opposed to the Hollywood stereotype which disobeys all laws of physics as she stabs people with her stilettos and roundhouse kicks ass in leather pants, which are so tight that you could tell the year her pocket change was minted in. That's what we don't like.
> 
> We also think there's more than one kind of tough lady. They don't have to literally kick ass and snipe people to be tough ladies. Aquilo and luckyscars did a really good job of listing some super tough lasses earlier in the thread. Raising kids, fighting Nazis, living on the streets--more than one way to be a tough lady.




Oh, I didn't know you spoke for the tribe. :smug:

Sure, there are some tough women in pedestrian roles.
But we are writing fiction here.
To compete in the modern market, in a JJ Abrams world where everything explodes in big, flaming balls of fire, you need characters that are decidedly NOT pedestrian.
Sure, if you are writing a realistic novel then your characters should conform to realistic norms.
Oh, wait...this woman killed a guy with a stiletto heel.
Myth busted!

[video=youtube;UMFxgj5HTaI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMFxgj5HTaI[/video]


----------



## Sir-KP (Sep 4, 2019)

I'm probably wrong here, but I just build/treat my female characters as characters.

I've seen tough ones, smart ones, blunt ones, tomboy ones, slutty ones, thot ones, as well as neurotic ones.

As key points have been written in the thread, just write them necessarily. Don't objectify (anyone) unless you're writing an erotica where it belongs.



Ralph Rotten said:


> *Tough chicks & strong women are in right now.*
> *Write a buncha women like they were from a 1950s movie and you risk banishment by 50% of readers.*



See, this is exactly my concern considering I'm living in this age though I think I could say I'm more in the 'safe spot' in this case, but I DO like the idea of cool, tough, unyielding-type action girls (and definitely good looking too). I made these female characters as *them*. Not _'I'm gunna swap the badass' gender to female cuz I can'_.

(While it's too early for me to speak) I really refuse to be categorized as some sort of liberal or cuck writer - whatever the term is for a guy who get mentally whipped over this.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 5, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Oh, I didn't know you spoke for the tribe. :smug:
> 
> Sure, there are some tough women in pedestrian roles.
> But we are writing fiction here.
> ...


Not errybody writes pulp, Ralph  

The rest of us largely stick to mostly "realistic" characters. Plus, having mostly 'realistic' characters gives those tough ole broads more bang. They're a powerful, interesting thing because they stand out in the crowd. Having all women be like that is unrealistic and cheapens women who are that kind of tough.

I don't think any given female character has to literally kick ass to be tough or a strong female character.  I know "they're in" but that doesn't mean I have to like them or write them in every female role in a given book. I've written kickass ladies, myself. Not literally kicking ass doesn't make a woman "pedestrian".

In Pinocchio, Elena's not pedestrian, but she's never going to kick anyone's literal ass. More than one way to make a strong, interesting female character than handing her a weapon and sending her into physical battles. In her case, her brains and genuine love for the protagonist and her son are the weapons, and the battle is one of the mind. This woman's resilient as f***.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 5, 2019)

Honestly any character I create I want them to be realistic. Fenrir my main female characteris "tough" in more than one way as well as vulnerable. One thing some people seam to forget is to make there characters vulnerable. For example Fenrir loves using her witchcraft to heal but at the same she also fears what others will think of her for multiple reasons, i.e. the church slandering witchcraft, The fact that she's not human, esctra. The main point I'm trying to make is don't bother worrying if your female characters are tough. Make them realistic. Make them relatable.


----------



## Amnesiac (Sep 5, 2019)

12 tours in Afghanistan? That's a little over the top. Why not three? Five? Twelve years at war... I think far fewer tours would be more believable, but then, it's not my story. It just stretches the bounds of credulity.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 5, 2019)

Ralph Rotten said:


> 10-9?
> These were real people, not stereotypes.
> These were the kind of women the stereotypes were written about.


 
Your version of a tough woman fits the stereotype. Tough women in your view is not the only version of tough to other people.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 5, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> 12 tours in Afghanistan? That's a little over the top. Why not three? Five? Twelve years at war... I think far fewer tours would be more believable, but then, it's not my story. It just stretches the bounds of credulity.




I think the reason that he is out saving animals in Africa is because of the 12 tours.
He has realized that animals are better than people


----------



## Amnesiac (Sep 5, 2019)

Heh... It only took one tour for me to realize that.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 5, 2019)

Amnesiac said:


> Heh... It only took one tour for me to realize that.


Not a single tour was taken for me....


I be ahead of the curve....


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 5, 2019)

Keep in mind that I am not advocating that every female character be Atomic Blonde.
Not all women are Charlize Theron, and even she is not really Atomic Blonde.

But I am pointing out that there really are these ass-kicking women out there. They do exist, and I have met a few. 

Also, consider how you are using your women.
Are they plot devices, there to subsidize the narrator? Are they a part of the solution?
Do they actually contribute to the story, or are they all Disney princesses?
Often when we examine this component in our writing we find we are actually a bit sexist.


----------

