I have two MCs in my book that share equal or near-equal standing for a reason: I'm trying to display a balance between male and female. Both of them are equally integral to the story and both of them will have pretty much an equal amount of development and screen-time. Balance is a nice goal to go for, I think, if it's such an arguement. My books other than the one I want to be my first novel alternate between the protagonist being male or female, depending on the story and how I saw it.
I feel I should point out that there is no reason a man -even a pretty macho one- wouldn't care for his children or enjoy cooking. That's kind of the crux of the matter: you can say "this is typically female" and "this is typically male", but that's kind of a slippery slope that leads to stereotypical gender roles. I think it's probably better to just look at real men and women and figure out how they actually tend to act.
That's kind of my point. A woman who likes dresses and cooking can't be labeled as 100% feminine, and a man who beats up everything that pisses him off can't be labeled as 100% masculine, either. Labeling characters as feminine or masculine is just the same problem as labeling one side 100% good and 100% evil - it makes for stereotypes and doesn't allow for much depth. If you stop thinking in such constraints, and just think of your characters as people, it doesn't matter if the girl likes to cook or if she prefers swordfighting. Actions are not what matter; it is what drives them that are important, in my opinion.
What about characters in TV shows like Charmed? Or Sex in the City, or Desperate Housewives, or Brother's and Sisters? Or in movies like The Thomas Crown Affair, An affair to Remember, Casablanca, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Practical Magic (book and movie,) Mists of Avalon...book and movie, and countless others. Women as the lead characters don't tend to be fully feminine, because we have the ying-yang within us. Flat two dimensional characters, who fit a stereotype of femininity, tend to be boring damsels in distress, and annoy most modern people. We want our women with a little bit of assertiveness, proactive problem solving, and the ability to kick some butt if need be, all while wearing cute outfits and worrying about their love lives. To me you can't define a character in this way. You can't say, why aren't there any feminine characters, because there are, they just also have that little dot of masculinity that is now acceptable to show. Women don't have to be wallflower characters anymore. They can have strength, courage, and fight against the face of danger. They don't have to be rescued, but wouldn't fight against it either (making them more feminine than a "Butch" type character like Xena.) This is where our definitions come into play as far as conflict goes. Here we have a discussion on what femininity is, and it has been established that the current definition according to Websters, says she is passive, genteel, nurturing, caring, kind, and of meek mental status. (I'm paraphrasing here.) But no one is solely feminine, just like no man is fully masculine...and when men are defined as such in characters, they tend to be just as two dimensionally flat as feminine characters. Action heros like Arnie's movies tends to be, or Chuck Norris, or Rambo...those are all classic two dimensional masculine characters. While these do appeal to men as their fantasy heroes, someone they wish they could be, it isn't realistic. Women have learned that stereotypical feminine characters aren't realistic. Thus we have stopped sticking to that stereotype. Men are also coming around too.
