Why I Write "Strong Female Characters" by Greg Rucka
Why I Write "Strong Female Characters"
BY GREG RUCKA
MAY 22, 2012 12:00 PM
[...]
But there's a second part to the question. The unspoken part.
It's the part where I'm being asked and not, say, Laura Lippman. Because Laura is a woman, and it's presumed therefore that she knows how to write about women, what with having been one her entire adult life. By the same token, Laura Lippman is not asked how it is she can write such convincing, strong male characters. Implicit in her job as a crafter of fiction is the demand that she must. No question need be asked.
The source influences, of course, but it's not simply a matter of me being male that brings the question. For some, the question seems born from genuine confusion and curiosity. Yet for others - for many others, I think, it's not simply that they're asking How Did You Do This Thing? What they're really asking, I think, is this:
Why aren't more men doing it?
Why is it that so many male writers, when trying to write strong female characters, fail?
Why do they default to a shorthand, lazy equation, where strong equals bitch?
I can speak for myself, and I can share my suspicions. First? Many men simply don't see it. They don't read what they've written, or if they do, they're blind to the content of their words, or they just don't recognize that there's work to be done here. For many, sadly, stereotype is enough, and the implicit failings in such writing either don't factor or don't matter.
But second, and far more damning? I think it comes from ignorance. Plain and simple ignorance, a crime no author should be allowed to commit. [...]
why do so many writers seem to get away with such poor portrayals? If the audience is as smart as all that, why does this perpetuate? It's not that they don't care, nor even that they don't mind. More than any other reason, I think, it sadly comes down to this: it's what they've come to expect. It is, as the saying goes, par for the course. Or to put it in a worse light, when we fail to demonstrate the appropriate respect, we're living down to their worst expectations.
Gender isn't simply a biological trait; it's a societal one. The female experience is different from that of the male, and if, as a male writer, you cannot accept that basic premise, then you will never, ever, be able to write women well. A man walking alone through Midtown Manhattan at three in the morning may have concerns for his safety, but I promise you, it's a very different experience for a woman taking the same walk, and it's different again for a man wearing a dress. Think about it. That's a societal factor, and it's a gendered one, and this is not and can not be subject to debate. If you're looking to argue that sexism is a thing of the past, that the world is gender-blind, you're not only wrong, you're lying to yourself.
An ignorant writer is a poor liar, and a poor liar makes for a bad crafter of fiction.
Source
Read it all; it's fabulous.
BY GREG RUCKA
MAY 22, 2012 12:00 PM
[...]
But there's a second part to the question. The unspoken part.
It's the part where I'm being asked and not, say, Laura Lippman. Because Laura is a woman, and it's presumed therefore that she knows how to write about women, what with having been one her entire adult life. By the same token, Laura Lippman is not asked how it is she can write such convincing, strong male characters. Implicit in her job as a crafter of fiction is the demand that she must. No question need be asked.
The source influences, of course, but it's not simply a matter of me being male that brings the question. For some, the question seems born from genuine confusion and curiosity. Yet for others - for many others, I think, it's not simply that they're asking How Did You Do This Thing? What they're really asking, I think, is this:
Why aren't more men doing it?
Why is it that so many male writers, when trying to write strong female characters, fail?
Why do they default to a shorthand, lazy equation, where strong equals bitch?
I can speak for myself, and I can share my suspicions. First? Many men simply don't see it. They don't read what they've written, or if they do, they're blind to the content of their words, or they just don't recognize that there's work to be done here. For many, sadly, stereotype is enough, and the implicit failings in such writing either don't factor or don't matter.
But second, and far more damning? I think it comes from ignorance. Plain and simple ignorance, a crime no author should be allowed to commit. [...]
why do so many writers seem to get away with such poor portrayals? If the audience is as smart as all that, why does this perpetuate? It's not that they don't care, nor even that they don't mind. More than any other reason, I think, it sadly comes down to this: it's what they've come to expect. It is, as the saying goes, par for the course. Or to put it in a worse light, when we fail to demonstrate the appropriate respect, we're living down to their worst expectations.
Gender isn't simply a biological trait; it's a societal one. The female experience is different from that of the male, and if, as a male writer, you cannot accept that basic premise, then you will never, ever, be able to write women well. A man walking alone through Midtown Manhattan at three in the morning may have concerns for his safety, but I promise you, it's a very different experience for a woman taking the same walk, and it's different again for a man wearing a dress. Think about it. That's a societal factor, and it's a gendered one, and this is not and can not be subject to debate. If you're looking to argue that sexism is a thing of the past, that the world is gender-blind, you're not only wrong, you're lying to yourself.
An ignorant writer is a poor liar, and a poor liar makes for a bad crafter of fiction.
Source
Read it all; it's fabulous.