Can you give any details? Even if they're disguised details? How do you define 'boyish'? Seriously, I do not know what you mean. Not really a clue. OK, let's go back to my mother, because that went so well before. (!) My mother didn't use the word "boyish", she used the word "horsey". "Horsey" referred to a woman who had opinions and let that secret be known, who was intelligent and/or educated and let that secret be known, who was not physically or emotionally fragile, who had authority and exercised it, who might laugh rather than giggle, who might laugh without looking around her to make sure, first, that other people were laughing. My mother had a Vassar education, but her comments on social and political issues were seldom more eloquent than, "Well, I just don't think that's very nice." I can't speak to her opinion on scientific issues, because having one at all would be "horsey". I'm pretty sure that Mom thought that learning to balance her checkbook would be horsey; she certainly never did it. "Horsey" of course also implied that the woman looked or seemed like a horse, that she was unfeminine and unbeautiful, and therefore was not really a woman at all. Showing intelligence, etc, was irretrievably associated with being unfeminine and unbeautiful. The word was not a compliment to either women or horses. But my mother would be OK with "boyish" in the sense of "gamine"--a woman who is intensely feminine but in a fairly childlike way. Still fragile, still no dangerous authority, possibly intelligent but with the childlike appearance that ensured that no one ever took that intelligence seriously. Googling "audrey hepburn boyish" provides ample material. (Edited to add: Visual material. Because, really, looking much deeper than the visual would risk mining horseyness. I suspect that Audrey Hepburn had an unacceptable level of intelligence.) So I'm taking the question as seeking a way to create a female character who is "boyish" but not "horsey", so as to ensure that readers like my mother are not frightened and repelled. And you can probably tell that that's really not a goal I can get behind. Hence my need for details, because that may not be remotely what you're asking.
That really wasn't the point either. My point, I suppose, is that as far as I can tell you're writing women just fine, your critics want them to be more stereotypical, and you're trying to make those critics more comfortable by adding a measured dose of stereotype. And that bothers me. It's not my book, so the fact that it bothers me is really not the point, but it definitely bothers me.
Then again, if he genuinely thinks the way to write a female character is to make sure she's doing something "woman-y" like baking cookies, possibly there was an issue with his character... hard to really know without doing the reading.
Ok! Thanks for the help! Well, she works as an engineer, for starters. And dislikes anything stereotypically feminine, going to such a point that she dresses in gender-neutral work pants and shirt. She also has her hair cut short, but that's more to avoid having her hair get caught in machinery than anything. Her dislike of girly-things is because as she was growing up she was the only daughter of five children, and she was often mocked and left out of the sibling dynamic for being "just a girl". So I could explain her choice to act boyish through her thoughts/internal monologue and interactions with other characters? Ok then, sorry if I've just been a big pain in the butt on this thread.
You're fine, you're just not at all clear. The issue is--well, my issue is--why do you need a reason/excuse for her to be not-girly?
According to most of the women who read what I write, I do a fine job--and I realize you can't please everyone--and I do not intend to add in a pinch of stereotype for the sake of garnering a little approval from some bigot or other. The reason I found the quip about Mrs. Clinton to be instructive is that it serves as a real reminder that it's easy for human (not "woman") aspects of a character to be lost because they simply aren't important to the story, particularly when a piece has a faster pace. It's not that people don't complain about male characters who don't get much of a human side, but rather that the complaints take an entirely different (less toxic) form. Oh please. -.- In my most recent work, the scene I have gotten the most compliments on features a conversation between my protagonist and her father. She's cooking breakfast and burns it catastrophically, and he takes over while they talk. Utterly stereotypical, obviously. This is an example of what I mean when I say that baking cookies now and then is a good idea. I will also note that I wrote it before Chicken's comment on Mrs. Clinton.
Everything you've said sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation for her being the way she is. The description you're giving seems well-thought out and if you write as such I don't think you'll have any problems. What genre is it? If I may ask. ETA: You're not being a pain. Don't worry about that either.
There's nothing wrong with a character, male or female, cooking a meal or baking some cookies. But that doesn't mean every female character has to do something like that, or something equally stereotypically feminine. Do you see the distinction?
And that's perfectly reasonable; all characters, male and female, need to be human. And maybe you're not quite comfortable enough with writing women to let them expand and be human in a totally natural way? I know that for quite some time I wrote my male characters from "outside"; only in the past couple of years can I relate to them in at all the way that I relate to female characters. But to me that means that the thing doesn't need to be cookies or kids or anything remotely feminine; it could be something with zero feminine associations. And since you're analyzing this, I think I'd suggest starting with gender-neutral humanity, to see if the issue is indeed just humanity, rather than femininity.
You do realize that calling someone 'hon' in this context is condescending and rude, right? I think that's something you had an issue with a while back. People being condescending. Just saying.
You realize that calling a woman 'hon' because you disagree with her is really disrespectful, right? I did not see BayView call you, say, 'sonny'. I'm now immensely tempted to do so myself, but I may end up refraining.
Possibly he read "do you see the distinction" as being patronizing? It was meant as a genuine question, but based on the response, I'm assuming it wasn't taken that way...
Possibly, but still not OK. You were still in the discussion; I see the 'hon' as a "don't worry your pretty little head" headpat/shutdown.
I should clarify that I call people hon all the time, I'm originally a southern girl, but that I know it rarely reads properly in text so I try not to do it. As someone who regularly says it though, it still came across as condescending and intentionally so.
Actually, I did mean "hon" in a patronizing sense. It's interesting that Shadowfax found that to be somehow gender-related, though; I patronize both men and women the same way. Does that mean you're sexist, Shadowfax? The reason I said what I did is that I feel my views are very clear from the totality of what I've said here, and I feel that even a slightly objective reading of my comments would lead BayView to realize that her comments were off base. In fact, even the message she responded to demonstrates that the "baking cookies" I referred to was nothing remotely stereotypical or feminine in any sense of the word. The fact that both of them responded as they did clearly demonstrates to me that neither of them is actually reading anything I say, and so I'm no longer interested in responding to them in good faith. The plain fact is that I probably agree with a lot of what BayView has said, but she is unwilling to recognize that fact and would rather correct me on some position I don't even hold. That's fine; I'm not in any position to tell anyone else how to act. However, I do reserve the right to call you "hon" when you annoy me.
Well, I'll give you points for being honest, even if you originally went the passive-aggressive, teehee, take that, kinda way (which is sad and lacks imagination). I don't think you're reading things the same way though, or maybe, that what you're saying isn't coming across clearly. You flip back and forth - there's nothing feminine about baking cookies, yet the woman needs to bake cookies once in a while. *shrug* You do you.
Perhaps you can see where a person might get confused about what you're actually saying, even if they do read your posts?
That's a problem I've always had, I have trouble communicating my thoughts to others. Well, mostly because I don't want to just hand-wave her non-girlyness. Thank you, I needed to hear that. I like to keep my explanations reasonable and my descriptions well-thought out. It's hard sci-if, by the way. Ok, it's just that I know being a "noob" I may come across as a bit of a pain, thanks for easing my worries.
You're welcome, and I understand. What you have sounds fine to me, and I don't think you have anything to worry about.
I'm debating in my own mind as to whether non-girliness needs explanation. I'm not aiming any advice or criticism at you; I'm just quoting the bit that has me thinking. On the one hand, girls aren't genetically programmed to be girly. (One can argue against this, but it's a base premise in my own mental debate.) On the other hand, society pushpushpushes girls to be girly. Is "society's conditioning just didn't take with this one" enough of a reason? Or is an actual reason required? In my case, "Oh, dear God, I am NOT going to be my mother," was plenty of reason. There are countless potential reasons. But is a reason needed? Hm.
