Something that's really starting to bug me.

[qualapec]

The idea that it's perfectly okay to say "I'm just not interested in male characters" without being called misandrist, but "I'm just not interested in female characters" will bring accusations of misogyny almost definitely.

Something doesn't add up.

Ignoring the fact that misandry and misogyny are horribly overused and, I feel, misrepresented, either

Comments

[eldrfire]

I think you brought up something interesting.

I think that it's not a sexist thing that you find it easier to write one gender character over the other. I think it's harder to write female characters because there's more pressure about them not looking one way or the other, following one stereotype or the other, because everyone's really hypersensitive about it these days. The main character of the novel I'm planning is female but she is still sort of an enigma to me compared to the main male character.

Another thing you mentioned is that characters should be basically the same if the genders are switched. If I were talking to an audience that doesn't have a lot of background in the idea, I would probably say the same thing, but this is a more nuanced circle so I will bring up this other point: My problem with that idea is socialization. Every person reacts to how they were socialized, and males and females are socialized in different ways. Even if there were no biological personality differences at all, an aggressive female character has to react to a different set of conditioned stereotypes than an aggressive male character does. How a character reacts to people around them is part of their personality, and it's based off of how other people react to them.

However, it can also get tiresome to have, for example, an action or comedy where a female is the main lead constantly having to make jokes about how "girls can do it to to" show that they are conscious of the socialization. But in general I think it's still true that to be very realistic you can't entirely ignore that issue.

Good thoughts, I agree with you that the double standard gets annoying.

[qualapec]

That is a good point. I don't think it's necessarily the root of my issue, but that raises a significant point. Sexism does exist - there's no question about that, but the climate can be highly over reactive. However, it's hard to determine whether those are valid complaints or are, themselves, based in early-ingrained sexism.

You raise a good point about socialization, but "realism" isn't necessarily something I care about to any real degree. There are always going to be exceptions to the norm, and my characters generally, somehow, fall within the exception. And "society" differs from one place to another - how douchey the United States Government was to the WASPS (a woman's air corps that flew supplies), whereas in the Soviet Union women were snipers, fighter pilots, tank drivers, and general infantry. I feel as though that goes to show how flimsy "society" really is when you're faced with a force that wants your complete annihilation. Society is a very relative thing.

When people argue that part of OUR society is to teach girls they're less, then why should I, as a writer, feel required in any way to perpetuate that? (hence my concern over having a male lead). And the idea of "society" also strikes me as dangerously similar to "Your male audience will be threatened if your female character doesn't fit into a certain range of stereotypes"

I think the differences between a character and their genderbent self shouldn't be any different than say, a character designed for 1945 and plopped in a diner in NY, 1999. A lot of superficial things will probably be different, but I feel as though they should basically be the same person. I should be able to take my characters and put them in an entirely different place and have them be the same person - I should be able to take my 1945 characters and put them in space in the year 3000 for that matter. I look at it as the same thing.

[eldrfire]

When you compare a Russian woman to an American woman, they've still both been socialized differently. The Russian woman was just socialized in a more gender-egalitarian way, but she is still shaped by her society.

For a character, being shaped by society includes rejecting what that society told you, but the fact that you had to react against it is part of your character.

If you switch a person's time periods, I think it would change them... I mean, as the writer you have control over that, but when dealing with real people things that seem normal at one time aren't at another... For example, an atheist character would have a lot harder time in 15th century Europe than in 21st century Europe. That shapes their beliefs and their character...

[eldrfire]

Wait sorry, that anonymous comment is mine; I forgot to log in

[qualapec]

Ah, no worries.

I definitely understand what you're saying, but I also think it ties into the dichotomy between character driven works and plot driven works. A lot of historical fiction bugs me because the characters strike me as incredibly unoriginal and entirely defined by their time period, which will always bore me. I'd rather write about an incredible person, who might not be realistic, than another story about the court of Tudor England (where, frankly, all the characters seem the same to me). It becomes more about what we think the time period was like than our own writing or even what it was really like.

For a character, being shaped by society includes rejecting what that society told you, but the fact that you had to react against it is part of your character.

This part I do very much agree with. My MC for my novel is VERY MUCH rejecting his societal standards, and that's a very significant part of his character and what makes him who he is. To that extent, I agree completely. Where I draw caution is the idea that the characters must absolutely submit to that, which feels too limiting to me as a writer.

For example, an atheist character would have a lot harder time in 15th century Europe than in 21st century Europe. That shapes their beliefs and their character...

This is very true, but those are part of what I would consider superficial qualities. Like, that character might not outright identify as atheist in the 1500s, but they might have the same sense of skepticism and dissatisfaction with the church (to be fair, the 1500s had a lot of that going on) as they would in the 21st century. I also don't think their speech pattern should change.

To use another example, a female lawyer dropped in the 1200s would not be a lawyer, but she should have the same sense of justice and analytical capability, and as a writer, I would want to put her in as close of a position that she could get to her modern-day profession - like perhaps because of her skills, she does a lot of investigating and law work.

However, I'm also starting to think the biggest difference here is the difference between character and plot driven works. And again, writing to the norm often bores me just for that reason, but I understand that it is a matter of preference.