An interesting article about writing female characters

[Toby Frost]

I'm always somewhat wary of these sorts of articles, but I think this one is pretty good despite its title and largely steers clear of jargon. In particular, it makes a point that I've thought for a while, particularly with regard to older SF: women are written badly not because the writer hates them, but because he sees them as fundamentally incomprehensible and incapable of rationality. I think a couple of points raised relate more to manga and romance, but it holds true generally.

"In reality, most humans make decisions the same way: by considering available information and past experiences, then trying to reach the optimal outcome. It’s a messy process, but it’s fairly universal, at least at the level most fiction operates."

Eight Absurdities We Force on Female Characters

 

[Mouse]

I find it sad that men need to be reminded that women are people too.

 

[zmunkz]

That was an interesting read, thanks for sharing. Coincidentally, I just listened to a Writing Excuses podcast about authorial blind-spots where Brandon Sanderson lamented the very issue for which his Mistborn cover is featured in the article. While I found all the points helpful and can certainly see cases where they each did damage, I sometimes I feel like there is no fair way to navigate some of this (as the article itself references in the first point). Even if you have multiple, diverse, female characters who are written primarily as people rather than women, one could find "implied" sub-text if they looked for it, when none was intended. It is also true that some people are stereotypes (indeed, which is how stereotypes originate). This makes small-cast stories particularly difficult to maneuver.

I realize part of the whole point of that article and others is to help identify un-intentional sub-text of this sort. Point well taken. But other times it feels like there are concepts you just can't touch, even if you want to, because it's inviting problems.

Take #8 this for instance:

No matter how it’s manifested, gendered magic systems earn the story a lot of extra scrutiny. Suddenly, every choice about how magic works seems like a grand statement about gender.* If women are better with fire then men, is that a statement about women being more hot headed? If a system has men gain their magic through long periods of isolation, is it saying that men aren’t fit to be part of a family?

I just finished reading the Wheel of Time series a week ago, which is perhaps the most known gender-separated magic system in popular fantasy, and honestly, nothing about the implied commentary on gender even slightly occurred to me. I can pick it out I suppose, at the blogger's promoting, with the differences in how men or women must use the power... but wow, I can only imagine what a drag the whole series would have been if I'd been thinking about that the whole time as a comment on genders (rather than how I took it: a comment on a fictional magic world).

Is it an inherent bias of my own (a blindness in this case) that I was able to read it without those kinds of constant reflections? Or is this a more a case of, you can find what you look for, meaning some readers will see this sort of thing and others won't?

Anyway, I very much agree with #1, 5, 6, and 7. #2 I do see what the author is stabbing at, though if we're talking bell-curve average male vs female, for the purpose of generality, it seems to be nothing more than a semantic issue... which the author also notes:

If a storyteller actually wants to know what tactics a physically weaker fighter would employ against a stronger opponent, they can ask that, but it should be decoupled from gender

#3 and #4 are good points to note, particularly to avoid any un-intentional defaults. However, I don't think either should be disqualified in general. I certainly know people who do fit both of those personalities (the endlessly-opaque, and the physically-non-intimidating-but-with-a-loud-bark). I don't think of these people as "absurdities."

Anyway... thanks again for sharing. These are difficult topics to get right.

 

[zmunkz]

I find it sad that men need to be reminded that women are people too.

The author of that blog is a man, so let's not over-generalize! ;-)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

The author of that blog is a man, so let's not over-generalize! ;-)

Yeah - but he’s still writing it on the subject of men writing female characters. So it’s hardly over generalising

 

[tinkerdan]

Looking at the picture and the admonishment below; I can't but think of this.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.

It's all William's fault.

I think rather than a reminder for male writers to learn how to write female characters. This is more a reminder that there are tropes out there that we need to be aware of and try not to fall into so easily, just as it goes with all writing.

I can't count on one hand the number of female authors I've read recently who have failed this same test.

I think that this article overlooks something important that often befuddles the situation and that is POV.

If the point of view is someone stuck in misogyny or misandry then the descriptions--that come from them--might be slanted toward these tropes. That doesn't mean that the character actions have to do everything to support that--it just means that there might be some of that 'stuff you shouldn't do' in the narrative no matter how hard you want not to do it.

 

[Toby Frost]

The article reminded me of re-reading The Day of the Triffids, which seemed to have aged well with one exception - IIRC, many of the women are nuts. To be clear about this, they're not portrayed as evil or promiscuous or stupid: it's more as if they've taken a hit of acid, and the sight of anything might send them off into an emotional spin about babies or dresses. Consequently, they have to be shepherded around in case any of them go crazy. The undertone is that "these people operate in a fundamentally bizarre fashion". The basic but important point that the article makes is that women respond to stimulus in a very same way as men: if the fire is hot, you take your hand away.

Even if you have multiple, diverse, female characters who are written primarily as people rather than women, one could find "implied" sub-text if they looked for it

I think it's true but rarely admitted that, if you try hard enough, you can be offended for any reason from any perspective about anything. But I don't think anything in this article is unreasonable. A real crackpot can "prove" that anybody is a bigot, but I hope (perhaps optimistically) that normal people would be able to see that it was nonsense.

I am extremely wary of saying this, but there are one or two loose generalisations that I would apply when writing female characters, the psychological equivalent of "women tend to be slightly shorter than men". However, these are very vague and can be immediately jettisoned depending on the individual character. There are a lot of times when you're not approaching a character as "a man" or "a woman": they are Fred or Jane and nobody else.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Ok, time to get controversial...

A big caveat is needed on point 2. While what he is saying is strictly true for some weapons, it is not true with larger weapons and empty hand combat. Men and women fight roughly the same with short blades (dagger, gladius, etc.) and light swords (saber, rapier, one handed and hand and a half swords, katana), but once you get into larger weapons (claymore, zweihänder, two handed battle axe, maul hammer), upper body strength and body mass becomes directly relevant for the sake of controlling the weapon and using it effectively. While I don't doubt that a woman is capable of lifting one of these, and that there are women capable of wielding them, and many men incapable of wielding them, men simply have a biological advantage on average by having a higher average body mass and higher average upper body strength. With women having an, on average, more balanced distribution of body strength, they would need to use their legs more in the swing of a heavier weapon, meaning their body is more committed to the attack, and they are more easily thrown off balance during the attack by a counterattack. Further, overhead attacks are harder to control when less upper body strength is involved.

In contrast, women actually have an advantage with stabbing polearms and rapiers, because they present smaller targets for attacks. Also, in broad terms and limited to my experience, women tend to be a bit more accurate, but men tend to be a bit faster with a rapier. While this can lead to a handful of slight adaptations (one petite woman I used to train with was encouraged to lean forward a bit to make her already small target that much smaller, whereas my 190 cm massiveness was an easy target, so I had to use my speed to my advantage) they are barely noticeable to the untrained eye and not necessarily sex tied, although the physical determinants are more common in one sex rather than the other.

Empty hand fighting is much the same. The more upper body strength one has, the more options exist for how to address an opponent. Against a significantly smaller opponent, I could realistically overpower their blocks and even if I don't connect with their body, I would still likely knock them off balance or onto the floor. I still remember sparring a young man who was about 25 kg smaller than me, and I threw a strong double punch attack that he boocked, but took him off his feet and launched him backward into a wall. That was an option for me, because of my size advantage. While there are certainly exceptions, the average woman doesn't have the size advantage, especially if fighting a man, so women are trained to fight differently. This isn't sexism as much as it is realism about who is likely to have the size advantage in a self defense situation.

And, yeah, firearms and magic are a great equalizer.

 

[thaddeus6th]

On weapons, didn't Samantha Swords win a world HEMA tournament a couple of years ago? Shadiversity, when not shouting about machicolations[sp], had an interesting video on the best weapon for women, and suggested the two-handed sword.

A potential problem with realistic fantasy/historical fiction is that whilst technique may trump raw strength (men having more of the latter), very few women received the training either. Of course, there is creative freedom to alter things, but historically female warriors were very rare (not unheard of, though. Artemesia[sp] captained a ship in Xerxes' fleet, and Cratesipolis (whose nickname means 'sacker of cities' or similar) led armies in Greece in the 4th century BC. Sichelgaita, Robert Guiscard's second wife, commanded contingents during battle in the 11th century).

The past is just more sexist than today. Kingdom Come Deliverance got some knocking for this, but that's the way it was. Fantasy has more leeway, but a world that's historically (mostly) accurate can come across to some as being unfair to women. (Should be noted the sexism wasn't 100% one way. A woman battering her husband would lead to the man being mocked, rather than helped, and women were never called up for military service, of course).

Away from weapons, it does seem (not just in this area but generally) writers sometimes get criticised for their characters or worlds being unjust or bigoted. As if the world or every single character reflects the author's personal perspective. Which destroys any hope of confronting prejudice in fiction because it can't exist if every single character has to be a happy-clappy lovely person.

I think sci-fi has a naturally easier ground in this area, as technical prowess and intelligence are much more even between the genders than physical strength.

That said, lots of people just wallow in taking offence, so if they want to find some, they will. I still remember a small Twitter dogpile I enjoyed in which I was attacked for the horrendous notion we should judge books based on their quality, not the race or gender of the author.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

The same applies to writing people of colour etc etc.
I find it sad that men need to be reminded that women are people too. - patriarchy in a sentence :/
I recently linked to a Radio 4 piece on FB and had a mini-rant about how modern creativity seems to be working explicitly against empathy - which after all is a fundamental skill for an author. Male culture says - men are the norm from which women deviate. I say - bollocks.

 

[Joshua Jones]

On weapons, didn't Samantha Swords win a world HEMA tournament a couple of years ago? Shadiversity, when not shouting about machicolations[sp], had an interesting video on the best weapon for women, and suggested the two-handed sword.

A potential problem with realistic fantasy/historical fiction is that whilst technique may trump raw strength (men having more of the latter), very few women received the training either. Of course, there is creative freedom to alter things, but historically female warriors were very rare (not unheard of, though. Artemesia[sp] captained a ship in Xerxes' fleet, and Cratesipolis (whose nickname means 'sacker of cities' or similar) led armies in Greece in the 4th century BC. Sichelgaita, Robert Guiscard's second wife, commanded contingents during battle in the 11th century).

The past is just more sexist than today. Kingdom Come Deliverance got some knocking for this, but that's the way it was. Fantasy has more leeway, but a world that's historically (mostly) accurate can come across to some as being unfair to women. (Should be noted the sexism wasn't 100% one way. A woman battering her husband would lead to the man being mocked, rather than helped, and women were never called up for military service, of course).

Away from weapons, it does seem (not just in this area but generally) writers sometimes get criticised for their characters or worlds being unjust or bigoted. As if the world or every single character reflects the author's personal perspective. Which destroys any hope of confronting prejudice in fiction because it can't exist if every single character has to be a happy-clappy lovely person.

I think sci-fi has a naturally easier ground in this area, as technical prowess and intelligence are much more even between the genders than physical strength.

That said, lots of people just wallow in taking offence, so if they want to find some, they will. I still remember a small Twitter dogpile I enjoyed in which I was attacked for the horrendous notion we should judge books based on their quality, not the race or gender of the author.

I will have to take a look for that video. It sounds pretty interesting. I think a case could be made for a light to medium two handed sword, but I still think a rapier is best for an average woman with some training. Then again, I think the rapier is a superior weapon to most slashing swords anyway... but, I am open to being persuaded differently.

Regarding technique and strength, you are right to a large extent. A skilled woman is likely to best an unskilled man in most contexts. That said, if you are talking near peers up to roughly an advanced level, strength can overcome a mild disadvantage in technique. But, I say that with a caveat that what sort of fighting style is used is directly relevant here. An Akidoka, for example, has a huge advantage over a Karateka, because Akido was designed to fight against styles like Karate. So, there can be a wider divergence of skill in that match up where the Akidoka has the advantage. That said, once you get to an expert level, speed and fight tactics are of much greater value than strength, as they will be targeting weak points of an opponent anyway. When 2 kg applied to the right part of the knee with the right setup can snap it backward, being able to deliver 50 kg to it or 100 kg doesn't matter so much. Where it can be a bit useful at that level is guard breaking, but that only becomes useful when your tactics have forced your opponent to block rather than parry and counter, and it will only give you a tiny opening to attack.

By the way, having read one and having nearly finished a second of your books, I think you do a great job presenting diversity in women in settings which are intrinsically unfair.

 

[Joshua Jones]

The same applies to writing people of colour etc etc.
I find it sad that men need to be reminded that women are people too. - patriarchy in a sentence :/
I recently linked to a Radio 4 piece on FB and had a mini-rant about how modern creativity seems to be working explicitly against empathy - which after all is a fundamental skill for an author. Male culture says - men are the norm from which women deviate. I say - bollocks.

Wait a minute. You mean to tell me that real people are not the sum of their stereotypes? What a thought...

 

[HareBrain]

I recently linked to a Radio 4 piece on FB and had a mini-rant about how modern creativity seems to be working explicitly against empathy - which after all is a fundamental skill for an author.

Link for non-FBers?

 

[thaddeus6th]

Joshua, from memory, the argument was that the weight isn't a huge increase over a one handed sword (standard sword, obviously a rapier is lighter) and the reach advantage is handy. Mind you, Lindybeige's excellent video(s) about the spear being underrated perhaps suggests an old fashioned stick with a metal pointy bit at the end is best for everyone. Except the person getting stabbed, obviously.

And thanks I don't want to divert stuff too much, but is that in the serious stuff or the comedy? [Got a hopefully interesting new female character in my Sir Edric WIP].

 

[Cathbad]

I find it sad that men need to be reminded that women are people too.

SAY WHA--???

 

[The Bluestocking]

I find it sad that men need to be reminded that women are people too.

Do NOT get me started about how many SFF stories and books written by men do NOT pass the Bechdel test when there are tons of things women talk to each other about that does not involve or revolve around men...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I co hosted a workshop last week when someone gave an eg of character description which was a woman thinking about her breasts and what clothes would make it harder to see them. Cue much merriment amongst the women.

And yes, it was written by a man

 

[thaddeus6th]

That reminds me of criticisms I've read of female fantasy armour (one I agree with, one I don't).

I do like bare midriffs. But on an armour basis, they might as well be called please-disembowel-me armour. Cutting or stabbing someone's naked abdomen is a lot easier, and more effective, than trying to pierce mail, leather or plate. It makes zero percent sense.

However, I do disagree with the criticism of so-called boob armour. Effectively, it's a breast plate, but for women, with curves to accommodate the feminine shape. There are two reasons I think that's fair enough. First off, if you've got D cups and are presented with a solid steel breastplate designed for a man, I can only imagine having your breasts crushed would be horrendous. If I had to wear steel underwear that was shaped for women, I suspect my cullions would be less than happy with the consequences. Second, the same type of thing happened for men. Some Roman breastplates for commanders etc had pecs and abs carved into them. Because it looks good (behold how muscular I am, etc).

 

[Vertigo]

I don't want to get too controversial but it's interesting to me that these sort of discussions almost always seem to be about how bad men are at writing women and very rarely about the inverse. And yet I would have to say that I have come across plenty of fictional men appallingly written by women.

 

[HareBrain]

Obviously you can only do your best and try to be observant and empathetic, but I think that can only get you so far sometimes. It seems to me, for example, that friendship between females is often quite different than friendship between males. The closer I am to my male friends, the more we (jokingly) insult each other. I don't observe that happening between my female friends. So I could try to write their kind of friendship based on observation, but to me it wouldn't seem as real; there would be something missing. I like to think that my female characters are reasonably portrayed (and women beta-readers seem to have found them okay, bar a few details I've tried to correct) but I'm pretty sure they'd be quite different if a woman wrote them.

Similarly, I have yet to meet a woman, either in real life or a writer, who really gets the kind of thrill that I might describe as "machine awe", like when a Spitfire flies close overhead or a Vulcan bomber takes off. That's probably not exclusively male, nor is it common to all males, but I'd say it's much more common in men than women. I'd be interested to know if any women writers here have tried to include that (or anything similarly "stereotypically male") or if they find it, because baffling, safer to ignore.