Too many females?

Well from your last post, you didn't appear to be taking individual differences into account. Now perhaps studies show that men are slightly more inclined to certain things, and women to others. But the individual differences pretty much make this obsolete, especially in today's society when most of our evolutionary instincts have been overridden. So an author should not really be taking these studies of yours into account when writing, they should be taking each character as they come. And as to the whole "I didn't mean that men were inferior and I'm baffled as to why people are offended" thing, of course people are going to be offended and think you're sexist if you say that one gender is less complex than the other. I apologize for having such an emotional, female response.

 

No, but it influences judgement at some visceral level.

For example, despite my lifestyle, I worry about children and immersing them in all of these violence issues. Having said that, I do not want or need children. To many, that's a dichotomy.

I think the overriding issue there is the difference between an individual child and the problem as seen globally. And I've watched my wife tear herself to pieces over the same concerns we are outlining here.

Now, what does this do to the story?

 

As an engineer you should understand the difference between a mean and a population. Go back to those studies, and read something like Susan Pinker's "The Sexual Paradox". and check what they really say. There are average differences, but any behaviour shown by women is also shown by men (apart from ones that require specific biological apparatus, and both sexes have such behaviour), so the range of behaviour is the same.

 

Good point. A character should never have their personality on the 'average' of a population, whether college students, male, female, asian, irish, police officer, whatever category. A person that is smack-dab in the middle of all the averages does not exist.

Sure, your character will probably share some traits with the group they have in common. For a medic, they would probably have the trait of compassion, but not always. For a fisherman, they would have patience... but not always. There are many different jumbles traits in the world. Also, a carbon-cutout character is usually a cliché of stereotypes. No character should have any trait just because they usually have it. That's boring.

 

Again if you'd actually read the posts I have stated that from the beginning and repeated several times but many seem to ignore the fact. They read only what they wish to see or pick out one line that catches their eye.

 

I have a drawing room novel (i.e. non-fantasy, mostly based on dialogue and description). I just had a count and I have 5 main female characters. I have a lot of characters who aren't named (the judge, the butler...) and are periphery, and I have characters who are named fully, but died years ago, but are talked about or imaged a lot. If I count only characters with names who speak, I have 7 females and 15 males. If I extend this to unnamed but speaking, or not speaking but named, the number of men doubles or trebles and I add 1 female character. My main character is female, however, and her input or observant opinion intrudes on every single interaction between characters.

So is the book too male or female dominated?

As a further aside, I can't imagine much worse than being told to go and spend time once a week with all female friends. I have some lovely female friends, but can't cope with all-female group dynamics* (I have had different experiences online, but that is not the same). I am much more comfortable as the one female in an otherwise all-male group. What do you think about this?

*this refers to all female groups I have found myself in (beyond a critical number, usually 3), not a single particular female group of my friends, e.g. it could be colleagues, members of a board or panel, friends of a friend I have met, my mother's friends, et cetera.

 

Please... stop. If your mind tells you anything in this format: "women are like this, men are like that" - just stop. You admit the incredible nuance of the human condition, so isn't it logical to drop the generalizations?

 

Not enough information on individual personalities or group dynamic to make any type of judgement. The possibilities are numerous. The one fact that stands out is you make the distinction between male and female and acknowledge some difference. Most people don't go out of their way to deliberately counter biology. They generally just try pursuing the things that interest them and just try to cope with the daily demands of life.

 

How, you can't deal with the numerous possible characteristics of each individual that exists. We deal in generalities because otherwise the complexities of existence can't be dealt with rationally because of the number of variables. But again biology, generalities are only the canvas, not the personalities that may be painted on it from experience and knowledge. Do statistics and generalities frighten you or do you keep giving such things more import then they deserve. They are only tools like all numbers and are only useful when applied within the proper context.

 

Using a generalization, because of the large number of variables, no matter the 'proper context' is a logical fallacy - would you not agree?

A generalization is not the same as a statistic.

 

Female characters is to me a really interesting topic. I have always written female leads, don't know why, ok, I am passionately pro equal rights and I feel the plight of women deeply, but I don't focus on that in my stories because I like glamorous/mysterious/suspenseful stories, I love sci fi, basically all the typical themes that would require a male lead. And you are right, @Gonissa, it is very interesting how the inner comes out more in female characters. But that can translate into an intuitive, analytical, strategic abilities which actually give heroines an advantage.

I am always torn before I start writing my heroine, mainly about "what will people think of her". I doubt her where I would not even blink if it was a man. I suppose I was really surprised to see how deeply the stereotypes were affecting me, of all people, me who consciously never ascribes to stereotypes. I aimed to make them fully independent of men, but for some reason I always end up giving them a male ally, and all of a sudden, the story makes sense.

To go back to the OP question - listen to your instinct. There's never anything generally wrong with a concept or a fact (in your case more female than male major characters) but if your female characters don't feel right, explore them better and definitely anticipate major changes either in the story or the line up or most likely both. But in the end it is all worth it because good female characters are always fascinating to readers.

ps. Re: chicken vs pumpkin debate, my greyhound Wolfie adored pumpkin, but my bitch Maggie wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Best not judge woman's sense of logic based on the amount of pumpkin in a dog bowl.

 

No. it is perfectly acceptable to use an average, mean or other forms of generalization since often the extremes on either side will cancel each other out. If that wasn't the case none of the technology we have today would work. It's used all the time. A statistic is a form of generalization but not identical in purpose or meaning. Waves are composites that provide measurable values of amplitude and period but are only a general approximation of the actual signal which may have many components within it.

 

Right. That's why we don't form statements like men are [x] and women are [y]. That is why such thinking is flawed, especially in character creation - because that way of thinking tries to deal with the vast potential variables by denying their existence.

Now, the context of this discussion is character creation. This is the important part. You are a writer, and you are NOT trying to account for every possible variable of human behavior. You are choosing from that spectrum specific attributes and combining them, then dropping them into a reality to explore how those attributes interact with each other and the environment in shades of time, space, and emotion. By the way, this environment is created in the same way, through choices of specifics to render meaning in a variety of ways. Key word here - specifics. Also, nuance (I wrote it subtextually.)

In writing, as everybody is telling you, generalizations are the wrong way to go about storytelling.

 

If a story was about a whale would the story take place in a desert. Biology of a character as I have stated is just the canvas upon which a personality is built. I'm not telling a story by generalizations, that's your assumption. And people don't seem to be telling me not to write generalizations. What they seem to be saying is ignore reality and make the characters into some mold they have in their mind rather then letting the characters be them self. What I hear, is don't write a women as a women. Write her as some bland cartoon. Pretending women don't have a biology and history, good and bad, that makes them who they are. That men don't have a biology and history that makes them who they are. We all are products of the past. Use it. Learn from it. But if you ignore it you'll simple repeat the same mistakes over again. I don't write cartoon characters that pop into existence from nowhere. I write based on the human experience which comes from everything they are and what they have learned, not phony personalities that exist on some ghostly figure without form. Each character is unique but not isolated from a foundation of reality.

 

@psycho - what's troubling is your foundation of reality, where the brashness and directness of men is as irrefutable and unvarying as whales existing in water, is not founded on any sort of real reality. Your female marines that can think things through on account of their innate femaleness smacks of cartoon to me.

Gender roles != biology.

 

The things that make a woman a woman and a man a man are more then just what they look like physically. It's every biological characteristic nature has found fit to saddle us with to increase our changes of survival. To start with an empty physical shell without the biology and pretend that’s all there is would be dishonest to the character, the story and the reader. The biology for any given women will vary greatly but there will still be a norm. It you write only about the extreme ends of the biologically range that's your choice. But I chose to write about average people who do extraordinary things to meet extraordinary challenges. Most people are in the norm but you seem to be saying we shouldn't write about them. To me that makes no sense.

So they are robots or hollow shells. Or did they give up who they are in training. Listen to what you're actually saying. You're saying women and men are hollow physical shells without instinct or biological needs. That under no circumstances of extreme stress instincts won't come through. We as humans deal with our instincts everyday, biological and learned. That is not a stereotype, that's just the way it is. If you had a talent that could help you survive would you use it or think to yourself oh I can’t don’t that because it might be seen as sexist?

What roles? no one is playing a role just trying to get through the day.

 

On that note, are your male characters raping? Males on average rape more than women. It is a biological phenomenon reaching back to animals of most species. So, in theory, a story about men should include their tendency to rape people. According to science.

Or does character building not work like that?

 

Not pertinent to the story but if it was, yes. I would be hard pressed to figure out how to get a women to rape a man or find the motivation for a women to do it, except maybe revenge. But I would consult a few women and get an opinion. Just like I would consult with someone from another culture before attributing a specific cultural trait to them.

 

Please stop this conversation about rape. Please. This isn't exactly in good taste.

 

What the crap. Rape is not about sex.

 

You like to take one line and make an issue of it out of context. You exclude the part that said if I was writing about it I'd have to consult a women to understand. If you want to take cheap shots that is your problem.

 

No one is suggesting that men and women are empty shells. We're suggesting the exact opposite. You're the one saying that people are robots, their behaviour programmed by gender. Yes their are biological differences between the sexes, and these cause averages in how men and women behave. But individual differences must be taken into account. There's nothing wrong with your female marines being more rational than their male colleagues, but it's just plain wrong to say that they're more rationale because they are women. An author who keeps to stereotypes and generalisations as you seem to do will only fill their works with bland, offensive, one dimensional characters.

 

Does anyone here actually read posts? No, I didn't say they are programmed by gender I said it's one of many factors, that is all. I didn't say they were more rational, you just did. I said men will often rush into a situation while women will likely take an extra second or two to think. In the story I make no mention of the reason why, I only asked my girls what they would do and followed their advice.

 

I'd say do what's most natural for you. There does a come a pleasure though (for the reader too I'm sure) on exploring instances that you are not too familiar with. Like 'What if this' happened, what if the person acted like this or that. Each character will have his/her own complexion and turmoil inside. What gives them life is the believability you give him/her behind the scene. Take into consideration biological differences and your character may think a bit differently if he/she is the opposite sex. But this shouldn't deter you from writing. Each person is different, a male can think femininely and vice versa.

 

Yeah I read posts. I was actually bored so I read ALL the posts...
Your oversimplified views are a little scary superpsycho. Same as a couple other posts on this thread. I can't believe these points of view still exist today. We really do live in the stone age.
I know writing is the best feeling ever, but please, for books' sake, go outside and meet actual live humans once in a while. You'll realize that simple stats, stereotypes, generalizations, etc are all dated, aren't science, and are way too simplistic to apply to the real world. It just becomes so obvious!