# Markets Overflooded with Male Villains - Why?



## Marthix2011 (May 5, 2013)

Why are there so many male villains in all of these stories we read, TV show & movies we watch?  I want to see more female villains.  

In general, who do you fear more?  A male villain or a female villain?  Which one makes for a better read?  Why?  Or does it matter?  

If you have a female protagonist, which is the more intriguing antagonist matchup?  Male or female?


----------



## Skodt (May 5, 2013)

Males are the dominate species by default of strength. Not saying no women is strong, but men are just thought of as stronger. Also in tells such as Hitler, Stalin, ect.. it was always a male villain. It is a stereotype now, and a hard one to break. 


[h=2][/h]


----------



## Rustgold (May 5, 2013)

Men are seen as inherently evil by modern western society, and going back fifty years women were mere damsels in distress.  Then you have the fact a male writer having a female villain is opening themselves up to claims of sexism, and you end up with a combination which results in men dominating the 'evil' category.

Interestingly, in certain cultures, women are seen as good-for-nothing.  On another front, if you look at pre-Christian/Muslim stories, you have a high number of both male & female villains (although some of these females condemned as villains were in my view righteous, and it was the so-called heroes who were the real villains).

As Skodt says, it's just the stereotype of our society; and one which ignoring puts those doing so on unstable ground.


----------



## Staff Deployment (May 5, 2013)

Skodt said:


> Males are the dominate species by default of strength.



Spiders.
Scorpions.
Frogs.
Toads.
Anglers.
Lions.
Bears.
Mantis.
What's wrong with you?


----------



## Rustgold (May 5, 2013)

Almost Staff.  Male Lions & Bears are still stronger (& more dangerous) than their female counterpart (although I wouldn't want to face either, regardless of gender).


----------



## Staff Deployment (May 5, 2013)

Mother bears protecting their cubs are definitely more dangerous than a single male, and female lions generally act as the hunters in the pride (that's the rationale there).

Skodt's claim is rather ludicrous, regardless.


----------



## Rustgold (May 5, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Skodt's claim is rather ludicrous, regardless.



Only if you're talking about non-humans, which Skodt clearly wasn't.  I don't think it's fair to take his words out of context.


----------



## JosephB (May 5, 2013)

I seriously doubt it has anything to do with men being seen as inherently evil -- because men are usually the heroes. (Although woman might be seen more often as "good" and nurturing.) And I doubt it's about men not writing women villains because they’re afraid of a backlash of some kind. 

 More likely, it's not as much about stereotyping as it’s a reflection of real life – and I’m not talking about bears and lions. Women are underrepresented in positions of power -- they still aren’t viewed as powerful -- and villains need to be powerful to be threatening. On that level, people don’t take women seriously as villains -- unless they use their sexuality as a lure or weapon.


----------



## luckyscars (May 6, 2013)

I've considered this before. I often think its because society has certain expectations about women. There are, of course, female villains - from Cruella De Ville to Annie Wilkes - and, ironically, as a man I always found the idea of an 'evil woman' (or girl) tended to be scarier than a male counterpart. But, hansel and gretel aside, the motivations tend to be different in women than men. More complex perhaps. In general 'evil men' tend to be motivated by desires that are far more simplistic than women, which is attractive to many writers. Captain Hook wants to kill Peter Pan, Norman Bates wants to keep his dead mother alive, and so on. Male villains tend to be motivated by a combination of a few things: Domination and Power, Sexual Desire or Financial Gain. 

While there's plenty of scope for role reversal and there are no absolutes here, female villains tend to be more complex in nature and that makes them intrinsically more difficult to be made into 'villains'. Take 'Flowers in the Attic', the book about the mother who neglects her kids while leading a double life of leisure. There is no doubt she is evil when it comes to her actions, but establishing her motivations for doing so is incredibly difficult, which becomes part of the book's allure. Even by the end when we realize that her motivations, however vague they are, are essentially selfish and thereby evil, it is still not easy to answer the question of why she does it in the first place. Even though we find her despicable, there is a sense  of humanity in her choices and, as a result, a level of depth that doesn't exist in the Childcatcher. 

Stephen King's Misery is another good example of this. Annie Wilkes is clearly psychotic and we see her execute all kinds of awful acts on the narrator. But we do end up feeling sorry for her too. Not to the extent we feel any affection towards her, but enough that we know we are dealing with a human being - albeit one who is insane. Again, its about complexity. Annie Wilkes exhibits emotion. She exhibits kindness sometimes. She certainly has 'a heart'. In essence, she is not a monster but a woman who does monstrous things.

This isn't an issue of gender bias but of expectations. We are used to men being 'dangerous' and detached and women, even immoral ones, being emotionally available. It would be very hard to write a simple 'good vs evil' story with a woman antagonist without doing one of two things: 1) Transforming her into something that was far enough removed from a 'real woman' that we could overlook the fact she was female (e.g a fairytale witch) or 2) Developing her into a kind of anti-villain - a villain that retains at least some distinctly female, and therefore 'good', qualities.


----------



## Kyle R (May 6, 2013)

I think males are the more popular choice for villains because a lot of final showdowns break down into the simplest, most primal form of confrontations: physical fighting. And, in general, males are stronger than females, so they make more intimidating foes in that regard.

Instead of strength, the "bad girls" are usually overpowering in other ways, such as cunning and deception (the manipulator), or sexuality (the seductress), or likely a combination of both. The exceptions are where the female baddies are endowed with strength through supernatural powers of some sort, like witches or vampires, or, in the case of the female baddie from the movie _Species_, alien strength.

In any case I agree with Joseph that power is a good requisite for a successful villain, regardless of gender. If she isn't physically formidable, then make her powerful in some other way(s).

But don't rule out the female toughguy, too! Here's a clip from a James Bond film with Pierce Brosnan, where he fought a female baddie who crushed men's ribcages with her legs of DOOM. 

[video=youtube;8yFvaOnFRVk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yFvaOnFRVk[/video]


----------



## Rustgold (May 6, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> But don't rule out the female toughguy, too! Here's a clip from a James Bond film with Pierce Brosnan, where he fought a female baddie who crushed men's ribcages with her legs of DOOM.



James Bond is nothing but the male version of a chick flick, or a Mills & Boon which is pretending not to be.


----------



## Kevin (May 6, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Spiders.
> Scorpions.
> Frogs.
> Toads.
> ...




Dahlmer
Kosinki
Bundy
Pinochet
Stalin
Jack the ripper
Ghengis
Attila
Timur the lame
Tamerlan
Cain...

Little boys, it's what they're made of:  slugs and snails and puppy dogs'....

Anne of green gables, the hun


----------



## Staff Deployment (May 6, 2013)

Yes, that sure is a list of evil men! Here's a list of my favourite types of power cord adapter.

[spoiler2=Favourite Types of Power Cord Adapter]Why would you click that[/spoiler2]

(disclaimer I'm not being confrontational; I just wanted to make that joke)


----------



## popsprocket (May 6, 2013)

Seems to me that it's definitely rooted in older Western culture where women were considered inherently weaker than men no matter what.

But then you also run into the political correctness issue - would it be okay to have a male protagonist physically/mentally harm a female antagonist? We so deplore domestic violence that presenting a situation where a man hurts a woman is viewed unfavourably by the readership, no matter what context or internal logic may be present. That is to say that you risk ruffling some feathers by portraying that kind of violence as a 'necessary' thing.


----------



## Sam (May 6, 2013)

From personal experience, people tend to have differing opinions regarding females in fiction. I remember one particular woman coming up to me on the street, a week or so after I organised a book signing of _DoD_, and very much berating me for depicting violence towards women in it. Her harangue lasted about thirty seconds, and she stormed off before I could make a rejoinder. I remember thinking about it for weeks afterwards, attempting to figure out what the heck her problem was. The only violent scene towards a woman happened at the very end, a necessary evil to ensure the continuation of the series. Beyond that, the other women in the novel weren't harmed in the slightest -- to say nothing of the men who were tortured and killed.  

I can just imagine that woman meeting up with a couple of her girlfriends and discussing me in terms of being a misogynist. I shudder to think what she will think of the sequel, where my main antagonists are two -- for lack of a better term -- evil women who kill men like it was going out of fashion. I suppose I'll be labelled a misandrist then.  

Ah the joys of writing fiction.


----------



## Kevin (May 6, 2013)

Women are more often portrayed as kryptonite; and less as dynamite...


----------



## Skodt (May 6, 2013)

Staff Deployment said:


> Spiders.
> Scorpions.
> Frogs.
> Toads.
> ...



Clearly this question was not directed towards non-humans, but even your list is a little off. Yet, that wasn't the topic of the thread.


----------



## Rustgold (May 6, 2013)

Sam said:


> I can just imagine that woman meeting up with a couple of her girlfriends and discussing me in terms of being a misogynist. I shudder to think what she will think of the sequel, where my main antagonists are two -- for lack of a better term -- evil women who kill men like it was going out of fashion. I suppose I'll be labelled a misandrist then.


You won't, you'll still be called a misogynist for suggesting that women are capable of such things.  The misogynist word is a weapon.  You only need to look at how certain older popular books are condemned &/or rewritten (or politics) to see the aggressiveness of such weaponized words.  Maybe there are more books with female villains, but why would any publisher beg for their neck to receive a smiting?  Your personal experience is a case in point.

It's sad, but it's our society.


----------



## Kevin (May 6, 2013)

Heh...but still, I might've kissed Poison Ivy in that cheesy Batman movie. Uma, ooma, ooma. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwBtpF6JzrQ


----------



## DPVP (May 6, 2013)

Sam said:


> From personal experience, people tend to have differing opinions regarding females in fiction. I remember one particular woman coming up to me on the street, a week or so after I organised a book signing of _DoD_, and very much berating me for depicting violence towards women in it. Her harangue lasted about thirty seconds, and she stormed off before I could make a rejoinder. I remember thinking about it for weeks afterwards, attempting to figure out what the heck her problem was. The only violent scene towards a woman happened at the very end, a necessary evil to ensure the continuation of the series. Beyond that, the other women in the novel weren't harmed in the slightest -- to say nothing of the men who were tortured and killed.
> 
> I can just imagine that woman meeting up with a couple of her girlfriends and discussing me in terms of being a misogynist. I shudder to think what she will think of the sequel, where my main antagonists are two -- for lack of a better term -- evil women who kill men like it was going out of fashion. I suppose I'll be labelled a misandrist then.
> 
> Ah the joys of writing fiction.



Makes me wonder how people would react to my story if it ever gets published. because the horrors; male and female combatants kill and get killed, and at one point the protagonist beats up a female spy.


----------



## JosephB (May 6, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> You won't, you'll still be called a misogynist for suggesting that women are capable of such things.  The misogynist word is a weapon.  You only need to look at how certain older popular books are condemned &/or rewritten (or politics) to see the aggressiveness of such weaponized words.  Maybe there are more books with female villains, but why would any publisher beg for their neck to receive a smiting?  Your personal experience is a case in point.
> 
> It's sad, but it's our society.



Out of curiosity, what are some novels that have been condemned or rewritten because they were considered misogynist? And who's doing the condemning? And I'm not talking about a few feminists on the fringes of academia. Authors from Hemingway to Mailer to Roth have been labeled sexist or  misogynist over the years -- can't see that it's had much of an effect.

Otherwise, I doubt a publisher is going care if they have something on their hands that they think will sell. Feminists and people who think along those lines have complained about _Fifty Shades of Gray_ -- doesn't  seem to be stopping anyone from buying it and it didn't stop anyone from publishing it in the first place.


----------



## Folcro (May 7, 2013)

I think of a villain like Cerce Lannister. She combines matters into her villainy that are very womanly, and make her extraordinarily interesting. Then I wonder, were Cerce Lannister a writer... would she be able to face the complexities inside herself and place them on paper? Would any man dare try to look inside her mind?

I, for one, would like to see it done more often. I found her fascinating.


----------



## Marthix2011 (May 7, 2013)

Folcro said:


> I think of a villain like Cerce Lannister. She combines matters into her villainy that are very womanly, and make her extraordinarily interesting. Then I wonder, were Cerce Lannister a writer... would she be able to face the complexities inside herself and place them on paper? Would any man dare try to look inside her mind?
> 
> I, for one, would like to see it done more often. I found her fascinating.



The more interesting villains are the ones we can relate to the most.  The more human they are, the more emotionally they connect to us.  Male or female, that shouldn't matter.  I think it's a bit sad of the stereotype.  But hey, you can make a male or female villain just as powerful or crazy as you want.  As long as it's your story, you have that power.


----------



## Folcro (May 7, 2013)

Marthix2011 said:


> The more interesting villains are the ones we can relate to the most.  The more human they are, the more emotionally they connect to us.  Male or female, that shouldn't matter.  I think it's a bit sad of the stereotype.  But hey, you can make a male or female villain just as powerful or crazy as you want.  As long as it's your story, you have that power.



Perhaps. It's often said, and I tend to agree, that men and women are different. Even if they are not, their interactions with the world differ, which seems to alter the dynamic (generally) in what kind of character they might be. For example, carrying a child to term can have a profound effect on one's life, altering their motivations and persona, which was part of what made Cerce interesting. I would compare it to writing a book about a child born a slave. It doesn't mean that child is inherently different from other human beings, but simply that their experiences make for a unique narrative. As it applies to villains, a person's back story is one of the things I find most fascinating. Not at all trying to stereotype women.


----------



## Rustgold (May 8, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Out of curiosity, what are some novels that have been condemned or rewritten because they were considered misogynist? And who's doing the condemning? And I'm not talking about a few feminists on the fringes of academia. Authors from Hemingway to Mailer to Roth have been labeled sexist or misogynist over the years -- can't see that it's had much of an effect.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, I doubt a publisher is going care if they have something on their hands that they think will sell. Feminists and people who think along those lines have complained about Fifty Shades of Gray -- doesn't seem to be stopping anyone from buying it and it didn't stop anyone from publishing it in the first place.


Right of the top of my head, Nancy Drew.  You've had the Hardy Boys rewritten.  The Famous Five (arguably the worse published series ever - in terms of writing quality) has been roundly condemned for sexist & racial impurities (I think FF is the only series of that type & era which hasn't been rewritten).
You see, there's plenty that have been rewritten for PC.  I'm not one to write bs.


----------



## luckyscars (May 8, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Out of curiosity, what are some novels that have been condemned or rewritten because they were considered misogynist? And who's doing the condemning? And I'm not talking about a few feminists on the fringes of academia. Authors from Hemingway to Mailer to Roth have been labeled sexist or  misogynist over the years -- can't see that it's had much of an effect.
> 
> Otherwise, I doubt a publisher is going care if they have something on their hands that they think will sell. Feminists and people who think along those lines have complained about _Fifty Shades of Gray_ -- doesn't  seem to be stopping anyone from buying it and it didn't stop anyone from publishing it in the first place.



While I don't care at all if a book is 'demeaning' to women (or men for that matter...) I do care about books that do not depict women (or men) in a way that I find to be true. For example, most of my hatred for Twilight has got nothing to do with the fact it is badly written or cliche ridden. That's where my dislike for it comes from, but my hatred for it is because Bella Swann is such a terribly wooden, soulless and uninteresting portrayal of a teenage girl (in fact, a female in general). I can't stand anything about her, and again it is not just because it is a bad book. It could be the best written thing since Don Quixote and I'd still hate that character because she is godawful.


----------



## Dictarium (May 8, 2013)

Historical precedence, really. In the history of our world, all the most cruel, evil, scary, and threatening individuals have been men. Women just aren't as much of an imminent threat to any given reader. They now have to stretch their imagination just thaaaat much more to put themselves in a world where there has been or presently is a woman-in-power who can legitimately scare them or a woman serial killer who isn't written off as a statistical anomaly. When there's a man-in-power, one a) has a list of things that previously equally scary male leaders have done which can fuel a sense of fear and loathing and b) has the added fear that one knows that at any given time another person like the one being examined could crop up, making the threat bigger than the person themselves.

I am in no way trying to be sexist, just working in the bounds of the world with which I'm presented.


----------



## JosephB (May 8, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Right of the top of my head, Nancy Drew.  You've had the Hardy Boys rewritten.  The Famous Five (arguably the worse published series ever - in terms of writing quality) has been roundly condemned for sexist & racial impurities (I think FF is the only series of that type & era which hasn't been rewritten).
> You see, there's plenty that have been rewritten for PC.  I'm not one to write bs.



Oh yeah, I’ve heard of the Nancy Drew revisions. That's the best you can do? From what I understand, the books were rewritten mostly to eliminate anachronisms, include contemporary language and technology so they would appeal to today’s audience. They were also revised to remove some of the more blatant racial stereotypes -- not surprisingly, that started back in the 60’s.  

But I wouldn’t be surprised if changes were made to reflect women’s changing roles -- considering the books were originally written in a day when women had very few career options beyond homemaker, teacher or nurse. Maybe someone who’s completely out of touch with reality might see that as a negative or as something that happened over concerns the books were misogynistic.

Otherwise, Nancy Drew is a cookie cutter, formulaic, ghost written series for kids. This is not like redacting “nigger” from Huckleberry Finn or otherwise tampering with classic literature. And revisions are nothing new. Apparently, the Nancy Drew books have been evolving from the beginning to more closely reflect a changing audience and the period in which they were written. Wouldn’t be surprised if it was the same with the Hardy Boys.

I see how you've tried to shift this to PC in general -- not what we were talking about. And I’m not familiar with the Famous Five.  But I’d love to know what you think was rewritten specifically in any of the three series you mentioned because of complaints or concerns the books were somehow misogynistic. I’m all ears.

*PS* -- Addressing this "PC" thing -- given we're not talking about Mark Twain here and that the books have evolved from the beginning to reflect the time and audience -- let me ask you, if you're revising the books to include cell phones, do you think it's a good idea to change dialog like this spoken by a black character -- 

_"Say,  robber boy, is you imitatin' a lady's voice to th 'o' me off the scent?  If you is, it won't do any good 'cause I's a natural-born, two-legged  blood houn'."_

Is that your idea of PC? Just curious. Because once you start tampering with the original for any reason, any argument about maintaining the integrity of the original work (such as it is) goes out the window.


----------



## JosephB (May 8, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> While I don't care at all if a book is 'demeaning' to women (or men for that matter...) I do care about books that do not depict women (or men) in a way that I find to be true. For example, most of my hatred for Twilight has got nothing to do with the fact it is badly written or cliche ridden. That's where my dislike for it comes from, but my hatred for it is because Bella Swann is such a terribly wooden, soulless and uninteresting portrayal of a teenage girl (in fact, a female in general). I can't stand anything about her, and again it is not just because it is a bad book. It could be the best written thing since Don Quixote and I'd still hate that character because she is godawful.



Not sure how much caring you should do about "truth" in a book about sparkly vampires. While I'd agree the depiction of women is less that ideal, the concern (not yours necessarily) should be over whether or not girls will act out or make decisions based on what they read in Twilight or books in general. I tend to think not -- any more than anyone is influenced by what they read. I have two daughters, and while they're not old enough to read Twilight yet, we won't stop them from reading it. If we haven't laid down a foundation that fosters a healthy sense of self-worth and good decision making by then, it will probably be too late anyway. Then there's the old forbidden fruit thing. Otherwise, I can't really worry about anyone else's kids. Plus, we've got a few years yet -- wouldn't be surprised if no one's reading by then.


----------



## Tettsuo (May 8, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> Historical precedence, really. In the history of our world, all the most cruel, evil, scary, and threatening individuals have been men. Women just aren't as much of an imminent threat to any given reader. They now have to stretch their imagination just thaaaat much more to put themselves in a world where there has been or presently is a woman-in-power who can legitimately scare them or a woman serial killer who isn't written off as a statistical anomaly. When there's a man-in-power, one a) has a list of things that previously equally scary male leaders have done which can fuel a sense of fear and loathing and b) has the added fear that one knows that at any given time another person like the one being examined could crop up, making the threat bigger than the person themselves.
> 
> I am in no way trying to be sexist, just working in the bounds of the world with which I'm presented.


This 100%.

Just turn on the news and you'll see violence, corruption, horror and destruction being committed by men far more than women.

Men deserve to be labeled and seen as the villain the majority of the time because men commit the majority of villainous activities.


----------



## Folcro (May 8, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> This 100%.
> 
> Just turn on the news and you'll see violence, corruption, horror and destruction being committed by men far more than women.
> 
> Men deserve to be labeled and seen as the villain the majority of the time because men commit the majority of villainous activities.



Well, if I might add to this, it's probably the testosterone that causes men to commit the more "theatrical" crimes--- murder, rape, blowing things up, taking over a country (which men are in a historically better position to do) and doing bad things with their power. To say men deserve to be labelled might be a tad harsh.


----------



## Staff Deployment (May 9, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> Most of my hatred for Twilight has got nothing to do with the fact it is badly written or cliche ridden. That's where my dislike for it comes from, but my hatred for it is because Bella Swann is such a terribly wooden, soulless and uninteresting portrayal of a teenage girl (in fact, a female in general). I can't stand anything about her, and again it is not just because it is a bad book. It could be the best written thing since Don Quixote and I'd still hate that character because she is godawful.



You cannot separate the bad writing from the horrible characterization.
...Well you _can_, but that's not the point. They're not independent variables – they are strongly correlated. Given an improvement in the writing of a book, we would also expect to see an improvement in the characterization, and vice versa.

(Did you like the way that was worded? That's courtesy of the statistics lecture I just sat through)


----------



## Dictarium (May 9, 2013)

Folcro said:


> Well, if I might add to this, it's probably the testosterone that causes men to commit the more "theatrical" crimes--- murder, rape, blowing things up, taking over a country (which men are in a historically better position to do) and doing bad things with their power. To say men deserve to be labelled might be a tad harsh.


Speaking as the author of the 100%'d quote, it's not so much that men are inherently evil as it is that they've been more demonstrably publicly evil, malicious, and villainous throughout recorded history. Am I saying that the most evil person to ever live may not have been a woman? Not at all. Just that the most prominent (or, at least, well-recorded) of the evil-doers of history are (almost) all male.

And sure, testosterone *may* play a small role in it, but I feel that's like blaming the dogs teeth for biting the neighbor's little boy rather than the dog itself (or the owner or whomever needs blaming). I feel it's more just that men have, traditionally, had more political and general power than women and so have had the resources to carry out these evil tasks and deeds. Even men who acted on their own and without the use of political sway/influence may have had a more formal understanding of stealth, the act of killing, weaponry, poison, etc. due to having gotten a formal education in a time when women did not or could not.


----------



## Folcro (May 9, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> Speaking as the author of the 100%'d quote, it's not so much that men are inherently evil as it is that they've been more demonstrably publicly evil, malicious, and villainous throughout recorded history. Am I saying that the most evil person to ever live may not have been a woman? Not at all. Just that the most prominent (or, at least, well-recorded) of the evil-doers of history are (almost) all male.
> 
> And sure, testosterone *may* play a small role in it, but I feel that's like blaming the dogs teeth for biting the neighbor's little boy rather than the dog itself (or the owner or whomever needs blaming). I feel it's more just that men have, traditionally, had more political and general power than women and so have had the resources to carry out these evil tasks and deeds. Even men who acted on their own and without the use of political sway/influence may have had a more formal understanding of stealth, the act of killing, weaponry, poison, etc. due to having gotten a formal education in a time when women did not or could not.



Good point. Still, though, if a man is not properly guided in life, I can see him falling into aggression more so than a woman. They say this might tie with the reason men are usually more successful at suicide than women, as they tend to choose the more violent methods (guns instead of pills).


----------



## Rustgold (May 9, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Oh yeah, I’ve heard of the Nancy Drew revisions. That's the best you can do?  blah blah blah



You whinged for examples, I've given examples.  Don't wish to accept them & want to whinge some more, don't care, it's your problem.


----------



## Rustgold (May 9, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> Speaking as the author of the 100%'d quote, it's not so much that men are inherently evil as it is that they've been more demonstrably publicly evil, malicious, and villainous throughout recorded history. Am I saying that the most evil person to ever live may not have been a woman? Not at all. Just that the most prominent (or, at least, well-recorded) of the evil-doers of history are (almost) all male.



If you examine cases where a husband & wife have committed 'evil acts', you'll see in a majority of cases the women getting favorable treatment regardless of their role.  Even when the wife is the instigator, the husband is condemned equally, but if the husband instigates, the wife is seen as the helpless lackey.

Case in point.  In Australia, we had the so-called gangland wars.  The two leaders of the rival families were in fact women; who ordered their men to do the hits etc.  Now who were the ones sent to jail for life?  No, not the female family heads.  This is how our society is.


----------



## JosephB (May 9, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> You whinged for examples, I've given examples.  Don't wish to accept them & want to whinge some more, don't care, it's your problem.



No whinging. I wanted to know of curiosity because it's interesting  to me how people can pull stuff like this out of thin air and believe it  as "fact." So I simply asked you to provide examples to back up this notion of yours that books have been rewritten over complaints that they were somehow misogynistic. Not surprisingly, you couldn't do it. The revisions to Nancy Drew had nothing to do with that. People have offered a couple of sound theories as to why women are underrepresented as villains -- it certainly  isn't because publishers or authors are concerned about accusations of misogyny. Pointing that out doesn't mean I have any kind of "problem."


----------



## JosephB (May 9, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> If you examine cases where a husband & wife have committed 'evil acts', you'll see in a majority of cases the women getting favorable treatment regardless of their role.  Even when the wife is the instigator, the husband is condemned equally, but if the husband instigates, the wife is seen as the helpless lackey.
> 
> Case in point.  In Australia, we had the so-called gangland wars.  The two leaders of the rival families were in fact women; who ordered their men to do the hits etc.  Now who were the ones sent to jail for life?  No, not the female family heads.  This is how our society is.



How women are treated in the criminal justice system is a hold-over  based more on the chivalric belief that women are the weaker sex and more easily led astray like you're saying -- but it's not about men being inherently evil. There's a difference -- so Dictarium is on the right track. And while women benefit, the system is still male dominated -- they’re the ones who perpetuate any double standard. But there's no doubt women receive lighter sentences across the board for the same crimes.


----------



## DPVP (May 9, 2013)

Folcro said:


> Well, if I might add to this, it's probably the testosterone that causes men to commit the more "theatrical" crimes--- murder, rape, blowing things up, taking over a country (which men are in a historically better position to do) and doing bad things with their power. To say men deserve to be labelled might be a tad harsh.


probably unlikely that its testosterone that makes people violent when you consider that women commit domestic abuse as much as men and are more likely to be the abusers.


----------



## Ariel (May 9, 2013)

Women are not devoid of testosterone nor are men devoid of estrogen.  Most likely violence stems from a combination of factors that include but are not limited to: wealth, power, and personal history.


----------



## Rustgold (May 10, 2013)

JosephB said:


> No whinging. I wanted to know of curiosity because it's interesting  to me how people can pull stuff like this out of thin air and believe it  as "fact." So I simply asked you to provide examples to back up this notion of yours that books have been rewritten over complaints that they were somehow misogynistic. Not surprisingly, you couldn't do it.



That's not true.  I provided several well known examples, which you chose not to accept simply because to didn't suit your desire to continue whatever war you believe there is in your own aggressive mind.  It's a war that only you are in.  Quite stupid really.

Fact is, there's a combination of factors, just like there is with this overall topic.  To attempt to create a singular reason for anything with multiple factors is simplistic, and is acting in denial of the complexities of reality.  Things in life typically have more than one factor at play, from the examples I've given, to why RL villains get to be so.  To act in ignorance of this is never intelligent.  And simplistic thinking is almost always a villains best asset.  And men are typically best at this.


----------



## JosephB (May 10, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> That's not true.  I provided several well known examples, which you chose not to accept simply because to didn't suit your desire to continue whatever war you believe there is in your own aggressive mind.  It's a war that only you are in.  Quite stupid really.
> 
> Fact is, there's a combination of factors, just like there is with this overall topic.  To attempt to create a singular reason for anything with multiple factors is simplistic, and is acting in denial of the complexities of reality.  Things in life typically have more than one factor at play, from the examples I've given, to why RL villains get to be so.  To act in ignorance of this is never intelligent.  And simplistic thinking is almost always a villains best asset.  And men are typically best at this.



It may feel like a "war" to you, but it sure isn’t on my end. If you make a statement and claim that it’s fact, you shouldn’t be surprised if someone comes along and asks for some kind evidence to support that claim.

You said that books had been revised over complaints they were misogynistic. I simply asked for examples. 

But the examples you gave are ghost-written children’s books -- two if them put out by the same publisher. And none of the changes made to _Nancy Drew_ had anything to do with some outcry or concerns over misogyny -- rather, they were about anachronisms and racial stereotypes -- I strongly suspect it’s the same with the _Hardy Boys_ and the _Famous Five._ And even if it had happened, would these books in any way be a good representation of current popular fiction or what goes on in the publishing industry? I don't think so.

You’re right in that there are multiple reasons why women are underrepresented as villains. But there simply is no evidence to support the single reason you provided -- that publishers are afraid of a backlash over claims of misogyny -- certainly the examples you gave don't do it.  That's the "reality." If you have a problem with providing the reasoning behind your opinions, then maybe you should avoid these discussions.


----------



## Ariel (May 10, 2013)

Guys, there is no debate.  You're both saying the same thing--there are multiple factors as to why males are most often the villain.

I have another point.  The most successful female villains are those which aspire to move beyond stereotypes--instead of passively accepting fate they are women with ambitions, the will and the power to move situations as they see fit and to best suit them.  Despite their backgrounds and motivations these women create fear because they refuse to take a backseat to their male counterparts.

Regina from "Once Upon a Time" is a perfect example of this--she's a good villain.  She foils the main character throughout the first season and even though her motivations are revealed and you feel bad for her you never root for her--her methods are too extreme.  She wields power both mystical and in the real world.  She's controlling and ruthless.

From the same show there is Rumplestiltskin, who is just as manipulative.  He is just as effective without using brute strength.

So perhaps it isn't brute strength that makes a successful villain but a believably powerful character that is ruthless enough to work for their own gain.


----------



## JosephB (May 10, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> Guys, there is no debate.  You're both saying the same thing--there are multiple factors as to why males are most often the villain.



Yes, I'm saying there are multiple factors -- just pointing out something that isn't one of them. But you're right -- it's hardly a debate.


----------



## Marthix2011 (May 10, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> Women are not devoid of testosterone nor are men devoid of estrogen.  Most likely violence stems from a combination of factors that include but are not limited to: wealth, power, and personal history.



Exactly.  In terms of being a villain, women can be just as aggressive, ambitious, and crazy as men.  Especially in a fictional universe, you can set up your own system of "who's who."


----------



## FleshEater (May 25, 2013)

My wife is having a Lifetime Movie Network day. If you need your fix of female protagonists or antagonists, just spend a day watching Lifetime Movie Network. This thread came to mind after the third movie was on.


----------



## dale (May 25, 2013)

Marthix2011 said:


> Why are there so many male villains in all of these stories we read, TV show & movies we watch?  I want to see more female villains.
> 
> In general, who do you fear more?  A male villain or a female villain?  Which one makes for a better read?  Why?  Or does it matter?
> 
> If you have a female protagonist, which is the more intriguing antagonist matchup?  Male or female?



men are more known to be methodically evil. women are generally only known to be evil under emotional or passionate circumstances.
there are exceptions to this, of course. but that's probably the reason. i have a methodical female villain in my novella, though.


----------



## Thinking Aloud (May 26, 2013)

Please excuse the amateur opinion, but regardless, here goes:

Basic psychology tells us that males are, actually, more predisposed to mass violence.  Looking through history, all of your major evil dudes have been evil _dudes_, with the exception of Catherine the Great but that's neither here nor there.  Anyways, and as I understand it, the male brain responds differently to pain than the female brain.  When a male is injured, he thinks "I am right and everybody who is wrong must die."  This is why you have all of these shootings and acts of mass violence in which the perpetrator has always been male.  Females, on the other hand, are more predisposed to self-harm.  The female brain says, "I have been hurt, and I'm going to make them all see how badly I've been hurt."  The female brain is much less inclined to acts of violence: that's why most shooting, stabbing, and other "violent" means of murder are conducted by males, while poisoning, suffocation, and drownings are preferred by females.  Please don't mistake this for sexism: it's just what I've managed to claw together from AP psychology class.

But relating this to writing, there's a certain natural "feel" to a male villain.  I believe that this is because history and the workings of the male brain all tell us that a male is more likely to create "evil" situations.  It's not a matter of weak vs strong--in which males are physically stronger than females-- it's the fact that males or more willing to give into their violent, "evil" urges.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
-Thinking Aloud


----------



## Ariel (May 26, 2013)

Does the mentality arise from the physicality of the form or does it arise from societal position and standing?  Men have been the leaders and power-holders of society for millennia.  Men and women are taught as children not just to speak and act differently from one another but to think differently from one another.  Is that because it is inherent or because it is how society needs us to mold our children?

Basically, I'm asking if this is nature or nurture.  Because, as you're putting it T.A., it's nature.  While I recognize that there are mental disorders and genetic problems that can lead to "evil"--I have trouble with believing that nurture and society does not play a role.  

Further, blaming the actions of "evil" on mental disorders essentially begs us to forgive evil-doers of their acts. Saying "whoops, they're just genetically disposed towards violence" does not change the fact that s/he have hurt others.

The truth is that women are just as likely to commit acts of violence--it isn't that our brains are less wired towards hurting others--it's that _society_ is less willing to believe violence of a woman.

One of the first large scale school shootings was done by a female--Brenda Spencer--in 1979.  She did not gain widespread media coverage though the technology was certainly in place.


----------

