Too many females?

A few here seem intent on a debate. Read my posts carefully you'll see I've stated clearly that though science and statics showed a general state or situation that it doesn't necessarily apply to specific individuals. In post #12 I specifically say individual 'personality over rules instinct.'

You seem to want to read into post things that aren't there and ignore what is. The fact that you even picked one small portion of a post to make a comment not pertinent to the post would seem by itself rather rude to the op.

 

^What do you mean 'individual personality overrules instinct'?

 

Individual experience can over ride biology. But again it's not on topic. Let's not be rude to the op. If you want to discuss (not debate) the topic then start a thread.

 

I'm not going to debate anything, I was just curious. But yeah, this thread seems to have gone off topic.

 

Holy moly, the arguin'. Don't worry, I've seen worse fights on the net. And this is interesting too.

Fact: women have more cones in their eyes, and are better able to see colors. Men have more rods, and are better able to see in the dark. Not that that's relevant to anything, but I digress.

Confession: I don't really like women in stories I read (note: I'm a girl). Women's emotional complexes tend to bend the plot in a certain way, making it less about the problem at hand (which is where male-driven stories go) and more about the woman's personal issues. While male-driven stories can be emotional, their stories are more about fighting outside circumstances than internal journeys, and I just prefer it that way. Well, that and a lot of authors make their female characters so self-righteous that I can't stand them, but that's only due to bad writing rather than just having women in a story.

The point is, there are people who do prefer female-driven fiction. So you have to ask yourself who your target audience is, and where you want to take the story -- outer conflict versus inner conflict. Deciding this will help you more. If you're feeling weird about having so many women, is it because they are taking the plot in a direction you didn't plan? Or were you trying to appeal to men in your plot but suddenly realized you have all these women in it? Really, though, it's less about how many women you have and more about how you write them.

 

Thanks again...but like I said earlier, we don't need to have this huge debate about men and women...I was just asking for some advice can we stop the debating? I think that in the end both sexes were made equal but of course different. We don't need to go over an analyse the 'science' because personally I don't care about the science for this issue. I just think that it's wrong to assume that a guys life is generally more simplistic than a womans. Can we just let it go after that?

As to everyone who's helped me, many thanks, I thought that it was a bad thing but know it's up to me to make what I will with it *this is going to be horrible* in any case, thanks for your help

 

What?!! I was was told that you're a 67 year old Bulgarian saloon bouncer named 'Ivan.' However, your explanation explains a lot...

This I understand. I have a very important female character for a sub-plot. To keep from falling into this seeming trap, I made my female character brash, brazen, and with a smart mouth. In other words, I write her as a teenage boy.

My answer to the problem was going to be asking you and my wife to help structure the dialogue.

 

"Truth is by nature self-evident. As soon as you remove the cobwebs of ignorance that surround it, it shines clear."

 

Where is this quote from? It sounds pretty philosophical, aroused my curiosity.

1st, on the subject of the man vs. woman debate: There are morons in this world. From personal experience, it's not just men, it's women as well. Let's look, for a moment, not on biology, not on science, but on experience. Facts are facts, but real-world knowledge is much more thorough than a few numbers.

For the OP's sake, would that 3:4 ratio make your story realistic? Note, in many fantasy novels, women will rarely be amongst the ranks of men, because they were (WERE, not ARE) seen as more frail. But there were exceptions in real life; Queen Elizabeth I (or at least, I believe it was the first) had ruled an entire nation as an independent queen, without the aid of a king. She had been expected to marry, to have some aid in the ruling of her nation, but she never did. She remained a stalwart leader despite any and all pressure of the cultural norm. Women could have had a say in life.

Now, leave the culture behind. Are any of the characters unnecessary, or does each one have a dynamic that can influence the remainder of the group? That synergy is hard to find, but if your 3:4 ratio has it, then run with it. Don't give gender another thought. I read a story looking at personality, not "who-should-be-with-who," and any competent reader will do the same. So long as the group functions (or dis-functions, as it may be) as you want it to, then ignore what others quarrel POINTLESSLY about.

 

I think we all need to look at who can make a better sandwich and then send that gender to the kitchen ..... (Being a male, I make a wicked good Turkey, Avo, Bacon sub... for your consideration.)

 

Gender of characters doesn't matter. You could have all male or all female, as long as their characterisations are solid, whether their sex organs dangle or not doesn't really come into it. If you're writing about amazons, mostly female chars. If you're writing historical fiction about the Roman legions it would be mostly male. It's usually a more even mix though.

Just for reference, my book has 12 female: 27 male chars. But more of the male chars tend to be spear carriers or mooks that are really there to fight and die. I guess it is still a bit biased to males though. I wonder why? Just more of them pop into my head. I'm female though.

tl;dr - I don't think you can have 'too much' of either gender. What the story needs is what the story needs, not arbitrary limits to remain politically correct or w/e.


Edit: Is it legal to put avocado in a sandwich?
Edit2: I can't count.

 

While true, sometimes trying to be fair actually gets in the way of the story. My novel has an academy. Because of current stereotypes, our male dominated clergy, and fears of outright cruelty, I made my school a boys' school.

The story never says that openly. However, every reference comments on 'the boys' or 'the cadets.' Now, currently we have open enrollment here. Girls can attend such academies. However, I didn't want to get into making a comment on society and slow down the narrative.

I have a tough female character. She represents the gender and even injects a little comedy relief. More to the point, she doesn't cause a hidden gender debate or slow down the plot.

 

Again not true. Last time I checked I was a guy, and I'm terrible at maths and much better at all those things which apparently only women can be good at. Please stop spouting sexist nonsense.

To link this to the OP's question, no there is nothing wrong with having lots of female characters, providing they're not in somewhere out of place, like a medieval army. With more gender variety there is an opportunity for more varied character development, as while one gender most certainly isn't more superior to the other as some people here seem to think, cultural upbringing can have a big effect on people's outlooks and personalities. So if a women is raised in a society where they aren't permitted to use physical force, your female characters may tend to be more cunning, or seductive perhaps. Just one example of many.

 

Just because a study says that in general one group is inclined to certain characteristics doesn't mean they are saying everyone will be the same. Statistics are about group tendencies not individuals. I find it extremely odd how people allow an emotional reaction to override common sense. Just because people are built differently doesn't mean they haven't got minds and wills of their own. I find female characters have more range because in general they take into consideration things men don't. Again the logic of men is straight forward, where a women's logic is more intuitive. One is not necessarily better then the other. Each would have positive and negative factors depending on the circumstances. It doesn't mean one individual should or would act in any particular manor. Our experiences, knowledge, environment and cultural factors will all have an influence. Biology is just one factor among many.

 

This is my problem. It's that 'man-woman' stuff. I like women, spent most of my life and way too money pursuing them. And if I had to do it all over again, I'd spend more time and money doing the same thing--just better.

How do you then put a woman in a foxhole? How do you expect even a strong woman lead to "think" like a man to advance the story?

Give you an example that demonstrates this.

This morning my wife fixes the mutts' breakfast. She doesn't think the boy is getting enough 'fiber.' In that pursuit, she ladeled on a goody dollop of pumpkin pie filling into his regular food. The dog looked into his bowl, looked up at me, and didn't eat it.

I told my wife to throw more chicken on the top of the pumpkin. She gave me the usual static which dates back to my mother. I told her that women will never grasp applying female derivatives into a male's life.

Reluctantly, she threw the chicken into the pumpkin and the dog ate peacefully, every bite.

At some point, a female soldier is going to perform as a woman--they create life, taking it is an abomination. It guides their values. Go to a woman's prison where that filter does not exist and you see only dysfunctional individuals acting with unbridled testosterone. Freaks, if you will.

Women must be women. You have to deal with that as an author. I can write about females, but sooner or later you have to remind them to "throw chicken on the pumpkin." Does that issue advance your story?

 

I don't get it. How is that logic limited to one gender? Your wife doesn't understand that dogs prefer chicken over pumpkin and suddenly all women have garbled logic skills? :S Please elaborate

 

It's from Gandhi.

 

Then you should probably quit saying things like "women's logic is..." and "logic of men is..." because it really is meaningless in reality.

 

As long as you don't write out that men and women are the same, you're fine. There are clear physical, chemical, and emotional differences between men and women, and to ignore them is to be ignorant. All you'll get is flat characters.

 

Chicken? Pumpkin? My dog loves vegetables. So whose logic is skewed - mine or my dog's?

 

It isn't absolute, but it is an overriding factor. Everything, including "chicken with pumpkin" is a Bell-Shaped Curve.

The same argument applies to men. In our Curve you get Mafioso and mercenaries at one end, and interior decorators at the other. The bulk of us clowns are in the middle.

 

There is a disturbing amount of near groundless generalization on this thread; 'woman's logic is ...' as if there is one single way woman think.

Sure, woman are different to men, but they are still people. Not robots we males assign specific emotional traits to, but complex, emotional creatures. You know, humans! And logic is universal regardless of gender.

 

If any person feels that it is "an abomination" to take a life, they will not become a soldier in the first place. That's kind of what soldiers do. Women who join the army are well aware of this - hell, I myself even tried to enlist as an aerial gunner for the US Air Force (other issues kept me from joining, but that's beside the point.)

Not everyone has the same values, even people of the same gender. I hang out with women almost exclusively, and even among groups of friends, there are definite differences.



Also, I think it's worth pointing out that a woman can be strong, but not particularly "manly." Katrina Hodge, anyone?

 

Men create life also.

Are you actually trying to say that the life goal of all women is procreation? What.

 

No because in general it's reality, the back drop, the landscape. I don't try to make my female characters act like men or male characters act like women. There is nothing wrong with them being who they are. I have marines in one of my stories who happen to be women. I write them as Marines that happen to be women. I don't write them as women who are marines. The story line is they are Marines with the focus of marines not at being women. They have the same training and act like any marine in that regard but being also as women they approach things slightly different then a man would. They give things a little more thought rather then rushing in immediately. A small difference but it matches the general reality and in one chapter saves their butt. I never say they are doing it because they are women. I ask my wife and daughter how they would approach something and then take their advice.