Well of Souls Forums

A guy has the advantage of first hand insight if writing for any male character based upon males.

As a women does for her sex.

I think regardless of sex, there is talent to go around, and there are writers who have a profound understanding of the opposite gender.


Yet have any of you notice if there are any differences as to how men and women approach writing opposite gender characters?

I have read more from male writers, and they can write women realistic enough.

I suppose women writers may not emphasize certain feminine aspects of themselves and may give it less thought since they take what they are for granted.

Yet men won't.

So strangely enough, women may come off more feminine with males writing them and less so with women writing them.

This is not a rule, it's just something I have noticed.

Both men and women at times go for paragons or ideals when it comes to the opposite sex since they can... at least fictionally. Whether in looks ir otherwise.

I think that it's very difficult to judge, since if you're male you're more likely to notice mistakes a female author makes writing male characters than mistakes a male author makes writing female characters.

I can think of both good and bad examples for both genders.

Arioch wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:10 pm

I think that it's very difficult to judge, since if you're male you're more likely to notice mistakes a female author makes writing male characters than mistakes a male author makes writing female characters.

I can think of both good and bad examples for both genders.

True.

As an example, the writer for the game Our Personal Space does an excellent job having the player see what it's like to be a wife on a new world space colony.

The writer is female too.

Yet in the sequel you play as the husband/dad and I simply thought he came off as too easygoing, though part it was less game mechanics than the original, which is the superior game in my opinion.

In the original, whether the wife had nicer (helpful) or meaner (selfish) choices on a given day depended solely on her mood, and her mood depended on whether she was rested or overworked. Yet if did not work enough thr colony would not like her or be willing to help her much, so it was very much a balancing act.

In the sequel there were no 'outer factors' effecting what available choices you had for good or bad, so making the right choice was just a matter of save, test, rinse and repeat.

The things that did not jive with me in the sequel was thr husband's interaction with the guy who tried to steal his wife in the original.

In the sequel he even offers your kid alcohol to drink even though she is underage, and though this does get back to the father, there are zero choices to confront thr guy about this, despite the fact that in the original the dad disliked him for nearly (or actually depending how you play) having an affair with his wife and making her pregnant!

I have a feeling that female writers tend to describe a feeling of situations, while male writers describes sequences of actions.

SVlad wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 29, 2021 3:40 pm

I have a feeling that female writers tend to describe a feeling of situations, while male writers describes sequences of actions.

Well... I guess that means women are natural POV writers, while males are more third person POV.



I will say I have noticed that both tend to do that.

Although plenty are good at both, like Cthulhu can write both POV and third person well although he is male.

In general, women tend to be more interested in people, and men tend to be more interested in things, which is probably why you see a lot of SF stories by male writers that are mainly about tech or high concepts, while SF stories by female writers are mainly about characters. But in my opinion, even though SF wouldn't be SF without high concepts and tech, interesting stories are fundamentally about character. There have been times when I stopped reading a book by a female author because it seemed to me that she didn't really care about (or properly understand) the SF premise for her story, but I think there have been a lot more times when I stopped reading a book my a male author because his characters were poorly written cardboard cutouts. My favorite SF authors are those that take the SF settings seriously, but recognize that good stories are about characters, not settings. (Usually. There are Gulliver's Travels type stories in which characters may take a back seat to the settings... but even in these, good characters are an important element of the story.)

As for the use of first-person vs. third-person narration, in my experience the vast majority of writers use third-person regardless of gender. The first SF writer that I read who effectively used first-person (and who inspired me to use it) was Robert A. Heinlein, who was decidedly male.

Manga is one form wherein a gender gap is more noticeable.  Men tend toward action, fanservice, and ecchi, while women tend more toward dialog, relationships, and slice-of-life.  This is not a hard-and-fast rule, but it is the way to bet.

Arioch wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:37 pm

In general, women tend to be more interested in people, and men tend to be more interested in things, which is probably why you see a lot of SF stories by male writers that are mainly about tech or high concepts, while SF stories by female writers are mainly about characters. But in my opinion, even though SF wouldn't be SF without high concepts and tech, interesting stories are fundamentally about character. There have been times when I stopped reading a book by a female author because it seemed to me that she didn't really care about (or properly understand) the SF premise for her story, but I think there have been a lot more times when I stopped reading a book my a male author because his characters were poorly written cardboard cutouts. My favorite SF authors are those that take the SF settings seriously, but recognize that good stories are about characters, not settings. (Usually. There are Gulliver's Travels type stories in which characters may take a back seat to the settings... but even in these, good characters are an important element of the story.)

As for the use of first-person vs. third-person narration, in my experience the vast majority of writers use third-person regardless of gender. The first SF writer that I read who effectively used first-person (and who inspired me to use it) was Robert A. Heinlein, who was decidedly male.

Well... scifi means different things to different people.

While some may not like soap opera with a mere starry background, it still passes as scifi and will be published as such lol.

I gather that Outsider is told from Alex POV after the story is completed.

Meaning we KNOW Alex survives as he is the narrator. The rest? Unsure, but I think it would be cool epilogue for an old man Alex to be walkiing around with Beryl on Earth who STILL looks young, just with somewhat longer ears.

I think there is a significant generational effect going on here as well. I happen to be re-reading the "Wheel of Time" series, which of course is infamous for it's treatment of gender (both have equal agency, but men and women speak different languages, and can never really understand each other). It's well written, and the characterization is excellent, but I'm old enough to remember when these things came out the first time. As time has gone by, each subsequent generation seems to have reduced gender norms and cultural expectations, to some degree, compared to the generation before it. Even the most classic and best written fiction from the 1960's is seen by many as problematic ("Dune", for example, now suffers from "white male savior" syndrome, which didn't really exist in popular consciousness when it was written). This doesn't mean that works in which male and female characters behave or think differently are inherently problematic, but it does mean that it has to become more nuanced, a more difficult writing challenge than it was (and will continue to become in the future).

Many writers, in my opinion, attempting to avoid making offensive errors, go too far to the opposite side of the spectrum, which I call the "female in a male body" syndrome. This is especially prevalent in the action genre. Dave Sims (the comic author who wrote the "Cerebus" series, and who had his own list of issues) once provided a test: take the dialogue out of context and show it to a random beta reader--if they can't tell which gender the character is, it's poorly written. That may be too simplistic, but suffice to say that balancing avoiding gender stereotypes with providing nuanced psychological differences is never going to be easy.

Personally, I will go out on a ledge and say that neither male nor female authors have an inherent advantage here. Either the author is relatively new at writing, in which case no one should be expected to do an excellent job, or the author is successful and experienced, in which case they will do well regardless of who they are.

The one exception are authors who are deliberately playing to gender stereotypes--a lot of manga and anime authors fall into this category. Porn, too.

One of my findings is that women tend to seriously mis-identify what men find attractive in women. They tend to expect guys to notice things like hair, facial features, perhaps the neck, jewelry, hands to some extent. Pretty much ever mentioning those in the context of a guy looking at a girl is a dead giveaway.

QuakeIV wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:23 am

One of my findings is that women tend to seriously mis-identify what men find attractive in women. They tend to expect guys to notice things like hair, facial features, perhaps the neck, jewelry, hands to some extent. Pretty much ever mentioning those in the context of a guy looking at a girl is a dead giveaway.

That is hilarious.

Should not the answer be obvious? What men do not have that they do?

I will say that often my sisters thought certain women were pretty who I thought were masculine looking, while often the men they liked to me looked effeminate somewhat (Leo during his Titanic days).


I have never looked at a woman's hands with interest unless they were deformed.

Hair, eyes, face, chest, body shape are the things I notice most, though I cannot speak for all I am betting many like me exist.

I think that women have two standards of beauty; that which they themselves think is beautiful, and that which they think men find attractive. Not all women realize there's a difference, and I think most tend to value the former over the latter even when they do. There's a reason why the models on the covers of women's magazines don't look like the models on the covers of men's magazines (and a reason why the covers of women's magazines feature female models, and the covers of most men's magazines feature female models instead of male models). I've said it many times, but I still think it's true: woman dress primarily to please themselves and other women, not men. Not all standards of beauty have to do with sex; some of it is purely aesthetic.

I also think that part of the reason that most men's magazines don't feature male models is that men are less susceptible to buying into external image models. I don't know whether it's because women or more prone to have poor self-esteem, or just because men are too lazy to give a damn what other people think about how they dress... or something else.

But now we've gotten substantially off-topic.

Part of it may be that girls are taught to compete against other girls on beauty and elegance while boys are taught to compete against other boys on skills and strength.

Arioch wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:03 am

I think that women have two standards of beauty; that which they themselves think is beautiful, and that which they think men find attractive. Not all women realize there's a difference, and I think most tend to value the former over the latter even when they do. There's a reason why the models on the covers of women's magazines don't look like the models on the covers of men's magazines (and a reason why the covers of women's magazines feature female models, and the covers of most men's magazines feature female models instead of male models). I've said it many times, but I still think it's true: woman dress primarily to please themselves and other women, not men. Not all standards of beauty have to do with sex; some of it is purely aesthetic.

I also think that part of the reason that most men's magazines don't feature male models is that men are less susceptible to buying into external image models. I don't know whether it's because women or more prone to have poor self-esteem, or just because men are too lazy to give a damn what other people think about how they dress... or something else.

But now we've gotten substantially off-topic.

Well... men have their self esteem, at least in western culture, based off their reputation, strength, and competition with others (men mostly because usually western men view it shamefully for a women to soundly defeat them in any male dominant activity).

Women have slightly less to measure their self esteem off, since they cannot ever hope to compete on equal terms physically with men... and obviously Loroi female's don't have this problem, which probably explains why they do not obsess over making themselves look as pretty as possible, since besides, sex is simply not as important nor a guaranteed right. It is privilege which must be earned... not sure if it can be taken away but I would not be surprised if it was with some punishments.

My mother said women dress up to compete with other ladies.

So while men may measure each other up off primal strength or technical skill, the ladies like to see who wore what best.

Cannot tell you how many times my sisters fought over who got to wear what and when.

If I knew that clothes were not simply clothes but a measure of self esteem I would have understood.

But I was boy who obsessed more on atheleticism than style so that was impossible.

So much that I tended to have crushes on tomboy girls who actually... at least to me... seemed to understand and like the stuff guys did.

Sexual attraction is probably the one area where gender stereotypes are the closest to being realistic, but I still feel it necessary to point out that brand marketing (such as magazine covers, the fashion industry, and other consumer items) is appealing to the lowest common denominator, and that actual real women manifest more variation among themselves (as do real men) than the genders' averages do.

My finding has been that trying too hard to appease the opposite party tends to result in a weak negotiating position, and additionally my observation has been that women tend to develop a feedback loop where they mainly look to other women to determine how they aught to look, and this incidentally tends to look good to men although usually not exactly so (and I think usually the practical end goal as far as that goes is indeed attracting men, on the macro scale, if not usually in the minds of individual women themselves).

edit:

Bamax wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:32 am

QuakeIV wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 02, 2022 12:23 am

One of my findings is that women tend to seriously mis-identify what men find attractive in women. They tend to expect guys to notice things like hair, facial features, perhaps the neck, jewelry, hands to some extent. Pretty much ever mentioning those in the context of a guy looking at a girl is a dead giveaway.

That is hilarious.

Should not the answer be obvious? What men do not have that they do?

I will say that often my sisters thought certain women were pretty who I thought were masculine looking, while often the men they liked to me looked effeminate somewhat (Leo during his Titanic days).


I have never looked at a woman's hands with interest unless they were deformed.

Hair, eyes, face, chest, body shape are the things I notice most, though I cannot speak for all I am betting many like me exist.

e: also i will be somewhat more crass and say i tend to notice the amount of fat, shape of breasts, shape of ass, overall relatively slender/feminine bone structure (i tend to find a large square jaw and broad shoulders to be weird looking). i will make the claim that i dont actually prioritize looks over all else, but with regards to looks this is what i tend to notice personally and i think that is pretty standard.

Arioch wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 02, 2022 9:03 am

I've said it many times, but I still think it's true: woman dress primarily to please themselves and other women, not men. Not all standards of beauty have to do with sex; some of it is purely aesthetic.

I think that perfume proves what you say.

If perfume were worn to lure men it would smell like fresh sawn wood, burning wood, gasoline, or BBQ. Most of it actually smells like flowers or what people wish flowers smelled like.

I'm only partially in jest here too.

Then what is cologne for, and more generally why do different cultures and historical time periods have radically different standards of beauty?

Aftershave(often mistaken as Cologne since they are often quite similar) is created for the reason of disinfecting the wounds you cause yourself shaving, the smell is to reinforce that you have infact applied it, and the pain is to reinforce the truth that you should not injure yourself, that is stupid.

Got no clue guessing out of my ass, but it sounded sorta cool.