I think it's because the publishing world (especially in sci-fi/fantasy) is dominated by male authors and male protagonists, so "writing a good female character" is more prevalent than the opposite. It can be hard for an author of one gender to immerse himself in the head of the opposite gender; I have the same trouble writing men sometimes.
Plus, there's the whole feminist movement, so writing good female characters has a greater push than writing good male characters... Honestly, though, you write a good female protagonist the way you write any good protagonist--give her desires, thoughts, and emotions, and let her make her own choices. Just like any real person.
I'm a fan of the Sexy Lamp Test. "If you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp, and the story still works, you're a hack." I think it could work with males too, because really, anything is better than a sexy lamp.
Well, I have a couple explanations why, since I dont think its entirely universal.
1. Male authors arent good at actually understanding women, and most are pretty uncomfortable writing them as a result. This is why few male authors have more than token women in their work. They might be comfortable with certain types of women, and these authors tend to use a recurring archtypes. Many profoundly (otherwise) talented authors do this. They might not even have been aware, but the best are. Famous talented examples of the aware versions include Dostoevsky. Examples of unaware are common in, well, nerdier genres, famously scifi and fantasy... George Lucas comes to mind. Bad examples include the heaps of authors that have created entire alternate realities in which nobody is anything but cis-gendered straight people, and most of these worlds arent very original anyways.
2. Some male authors are just straight up chaunvanists. Whoever wrote Beowulf is a great example of otherwise great literature featuring collossal chauvanism. Grendel's mom was far more dangerous, but this is essentially ignored, or just seen as irrelevant. These authors can be good if they come from a strictly chauvanist society, but most are crappy. Imo, if you arent from an openly chauvanistic society, you dont get the excuse, as good critics arent going to be forgiving.
3. Some authors are worried nobody will publish their work if they have too many female characters, and thus only include a tiny portion of the cast as women, however well developed. Movies are TERRIBLE about this btw, but movies start as scripts! This is being challenged atm, but its hard to change old habits that made lots of money.
Part of the problem could be the myth of feminine mystique, the 'othering' socialization teaches. That said, most of the counters are pure mysogynistic crap (ie removing 'mystique' by assuming women are awful harridans out to destroy mankind), so this is a tough thing to address. This is the cause of stupid 'pickup artist' stuff, but it sells/generates interest because there will always be a-holes that cant understand why they dont get what they want. The legion of books and movies that do a great job at feeding this mentality is staggering, and probably jot going anywhere unfortunately.
Personally, I'd like to think I'm 1, but it might be more of a mix between 1 and 2. I'm not willing to be a hack, so I found a better outlet for creativity in engineering and metal working. Lots of people would like to be an artist, but most people arent capable of earning a living from it. Hobbies are fine, but usually are terrible ways to make a living.
In my reading, women authors tend to be better at writing men than vice versa, but this could be influenced by the fact that nobody will publish books that are as terrible at portraying men as male authors are at portraying women.
I also think that it comes down to some bit of inability to see past the outside. Some men think of women in specific roles- mother, lust object/receptacle (O.O), and so they tend to write a role rather than a person, and then never animate that character outside that role. Mothers do "motherly things", up to and including nagging, but never step beyond that or reveal themselves as real people. Writing is being able to create characters that are real- or seem "real".
Part of the way you can flesh out your characters is to write little "Mini-biographies" of them, along with a history. Then sit down and ask yourself about the character- what do they want out of life? What frustrates them? What do they take joy in? What is their favorite color and why? What memory or association do they have for that color making it a favorite. Think of it as getting to know a new acquaintance- what would you want to know about someone who you were getting to meet for the first time? Use that to flesh out the character. Don't make your character one or two dimensional- get inside their head, try to see what they see. I know it's hard, but it will come easier to you over time.
I was noodling around today, working on the start of a Baldur's Gate play through fic for my new character, Arianna Longbones. As soon as I started thinking about what growing up in Candlekeep must have been like for her, I was struck by the thought that growing up in a library wouldn't be easy for any child. Librarians want quiet and order, and children are sort of the antithesis of that. Two, Gorion's Foster Child was unwanted there by Tethtoril, and that he isn't shy about letting them know that, by attitude, if not words. Since she's a fighter, she probably trained with the guards, and I knew she's nicknamed "Longbones" because she was an awkward, gangly, gawky child growing up, thus earning the nickname (affectionately) from the guards there. But now, she's matured enough to be comfortable with her height, and so even though she's no longer a coltish young thing, she still answers to the nickname.
When I made her, I chose blues to be her colors- Sky blue is her favorite, for she spent long hours daydreaming after her chores when she was younger, and staring into the blue sky. She also has black hair and blue eyes, and she can sometimes be blunt and uncompromising, which is why she chose to be a straight fighter. However, she's also a sweet girl, Neutral Good in alignment, but not a fool. She's well-read and intelligent (INT 13), Strong (STR 18/99), Agile (DEX 18) and healthy as a horse (CON 18). Well-spoken but not exceptionally so (CHA 10) and neither a dull fool nor exceptionally wise (WIS 9). So when she was approached by Shank in Candlekeep, she gave her name willingly, but with Carbos, she was canny enough to try and conceal her identity… And so on.
She spends the first part of the game confused- why is she so important or bad that people would try and kill her? That people would PAY to have her killed? But she soon realizes that regardless of the answer, she needs to stay alive and stop whoever is gunning for her- even though she wants to know why.
And there is a little bit about how I go about creating my characters and getting into their heads. This may work for you- I hope it does. It works for all characters, not just women or men.
In a nutshell, it says that any story that has good female characters in it must:
1) have at least two women in it... 2) who are named, and who talk to each other... 3) about something other than a man.
The more the female character is defined by her relationship to some male character (love interest, husband, father, brother, son), the more she fails the test.
I think some men have a really hard time imagining that women have anything on their minds other than men.
Ugh. I hate the Bechdel Test. (Mostly because I fail it half the time... Not bias at all, no sir! >.>;; )
My problem is that the Bechdel Test restricts what a woman is allowed to say, and who she's allowed to say it with. You can have a female protagonist, for example, and a very strong male counterpart together. This female protagonist is smart, charming, and thinks independently from the male. She makes her own decisions, and she's not necessarily held down by what the man is saying. And this female protagonist could still fail the Bechdel Test because she doesn't ever communicate with another female character.
It also ignores context. Okay, so let's say you have a story where two female characters are talking about a man. Okay, you might roll your eyes and move on. It's two women fawning over a man, what else is new? But in the context of the conversation, they could be talking about killing/capturing/freeing themselves/trash-talking/something else that's clearly not "fawning over." Two women could be held captive by a male slaver, and since they're trying to break free from his captivity, they could be discussing how to get rid of him. These ladies still fail the Bechdel Test, despite their displays of independent thought.
Point being: The Bechdel Test does do a good job highlighting a lack of dialogue between women in film, comic books, and other works of fiction. But in no way should it restrict your own storytelling, or be used as the end-all-be-all method to gauge sexism in a work.
I used to do a fair bit of text roleplaying... IE no game, just storyline, so I got pretty decent at building character sketches, some pretty detailed, some even decent imho, but implementation isnt as easy. I can noun like nobodies business, but verbing isnt so pretty. A bit of an annoyance is when archtypes start overwhelming the characters too much. I also find villains much more interesting, so many ideas ended up collapsing under the weight of evil. Well, or are just too noun-heavy for a narrative to happen (...see the Silmarillion for whst too many nouns can do to the verbing!).
I like the Bechdel emphasis on multiple, independent female characters, but I also agree plenty of stories wouldnt pass despite being a fair representation. But, most movies and books dont pass, which suggests to me at least it can be a useful test. Its also totally possible for content to pass the test yet be extremely offensive.
I also like to look at how a movie deals with other disadvantaged groups. Hollywood still hss a way to go on this stuff, and still little incentive. Sexism and racism sell well, unfortunately.
@meagloth and @LadyRhian , anybody who can cite Calvin and Hobbes or Schoolhouse Rock to make a point instantly gains +100 cool points in my book. Awesome!
Ha! Verbing Nouns was around long before Calvin and Hobbes!
@LadyRhian point taken, though I don't know how well Mr.10' v-neck verb is going to further the pursuit of making language a complete impediment to understanding.
(Even more)Off-topic, did you know they still show this I school? like, now? in high school I saw the bill one, the noun one, and one other grammar one, just this year.
Almost no one in my sixth grade class had any trouble when we had to memorize and recite the preamble to the U.S. Constitution. The funny thing was, even though we didn't actually sing it, we all said it in exact rhythm to the song.
The only people who had trouble with the recitation were the kids whose parents didn't let them watch Saturday morning TV for some reason. Who says TV isn't educational? (Maybe it isn't any more, but it was back then.)
Oh, I have the 25th Anniversary Collection of these on DVD, along with a new one called, "I'm gonna send your vote to college", about the Electoral College here in the states. When I was a kid, I remember seeing a lot of the number videos. "Three is a Magic Number", "Good Eleven", "Figure Eight", "Lucky Seven Sampson" and "Naughty Number Nine". Along with others like "A Noun is a Person, Place or Thing", "Unpack Your Adjectives", "Interjections!" (which I always loved for the last line as the dejected cheerleader walks off- "Darn! That's the End.", "Interplanet Janet", "A Victim of Gravity" (in which an Elvis-like singer bemoans the fact that Gravity is always pulling things down), "I'm just a Bill" (I'm only a bill, sitting here on Capital Hill...), "No More Kings", "Mother Necessity", "The Shot Heard 'Round the World", and all those mentioned before. I know there was a parody of the "I'm Just a Bill" song done on "The Simpsons" as well.
Comments
Plus, there's the whole feminist movement, so writing good female characters has a greater push than writing good male characters... Honestly, though, you write a good female protagonist the way you write any good protagonist--give her desires, thoughts, and emotions, and let her make her own choices. Just like any real person.
I'm a fan of the Sexy Lamp Test. "If you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp, and the story still works, you're a hack." I think it could work with males too, because really, anything is better than a sexy lamp.
1. Male authors arent good at actually understanding women, and most are pretty uncomfortable writing them as a result. This is why few male authors have more than token women in their work. They might be comfortable with certain types of women, and these authors tend to use a recurring archtypes. Many profoundly (otherwise) talented authors do this. They might not even have been aware, but the best are. Famous talented examples of the aware versions include Dostoevsky. Examples of unaware are common in, well, nerdier genres, famously scifi and fantasy... George Lucas comes to mind. Bad examples include the heaps of authors that have created entire alternate realities in which nobody is anything but cis-gendered straight people, and most of these worlds arent very original anyways.
2. Some male authors are just straight up chaunvanists. Whoever wrote Beowulf is a great example of otherwise great literature featuring collossal chauvanism. Grendel's mom was far more dangerous, but this is essentially ignored, or just seen as irrelevant. These authors can be good if they come from a strictly chauvanist society, but most are crappy. Imo, if you arent from an openly chauvanistic society, you dont get the excuse, as good critics arent going to be forgiving.
3. Some authors are worried nobody will publish their work if they have too many female characters, and thus only include a tiny portion of the cast as women, however well developed. Movies are TERRIBLE about this btw, but movies start as scripts! This is being challenged atm, but its hard to change old habits that made lots of money.
Part of the problem could be the myth of feminine mystique, the 'othering' socialization teaches. That said, most of the counters are pure mysogynistic crap (ie removing 'mystique' by assuming women are awful harridans out to destroy mankind), so this is a tough thing to address. This is the cause of stupid 'pickup artist' stuff, but it sells/generates interest because there will always be a-holes that cant understand why they dont get what they want. The legion of books and movies that do a great job at feeding this mentality is staggering, and probably jot going anywhere unfortunately.
Personally, I'd like to think I'm 1, but it might be more of a mix between 1 and 2. I'm not willing to be a hack, so I found a better outlet for creativity in engineering and metal working. Lots of people would like to be an artist, but most people arent capable of earning a living from it. Hobbies are fine, but usually are terrible ways to make a living.
In my reading, women authors tend to be better at writing men than vice versa, but this could be influenced by the fact that nobody will publish books that are as terrible at portraying men as male authors are at portraying women.
Part of the way you can flesh out your characters is to write little "Mini-biographies" of them, along with a history. Then sit down and ask yourself about the character- what do they want out of life? What frustrates them? What do they take joy in? What is their favorite color and why? What memory or association do they have for that color making it a favorite. Think of it as getting to know a new acquaintance- what would you want to know about someone who you were getting to meet for the first time? Use that to flesh out the character. Don't make your character one or two dimensional- get inside their head, try to see what they see. I know it's hard, but it will come easier to you over time.
I was noodling around today, working on the start of a Baldur's Gate play through fic for my new character, Arianna Longbones. As soon as I started thinking about what growing up in Candlekeep must have been like for her, I was struck by the thought that growing up in a library wouldn't be easy for any child. Librarians want quiet and order, and children are sort of the antithesis of that. Two, Gorion's Foster Child was unwanted there by Tethtoril, and that he isn't shy about letting them know that, by attitude, if not words. Since she's a fighter, she probably trained with the guards, and I knew she's nicknamed "Longbones" because she was an awkward, gangly, gawky child growing up, thus earning the nickname (affectionately) from the guards there. But now, she's matured enough to be comfortable with her height, and so even though she's no longer a coltish young thing, she still answers to the nickname.
When I made her, I chose blues to be her colors- Sky blue is her favorite, for she spent long hours daydreaming after her chores when she was younger, and staring into the blue sky. She also has black hair and blue eyes, and she can sometimes be blunt and uncompromising, which is why she chose to be a straight fighter. However, she's also a sweet girl, Neutral Good in alignment, but not a fool. She's well-read and intelligent (INT 13), Strong (STR 18/99), Agile (DEX 18) and healthy as a horse (CON 18). Well-spoken but not exceptionally so (CHA 10) and neither a dull fool nor exceptionally wise (WIS 9). So when she was approached by Shank in Candlekeep, she gave her name willingly, but with Carbos, she was canny enough to try and conceal her identity… And so on.
She spends the first part of the game confused- why is she so important or bad that people would try and kill her? That people would PAY to have her killed? But she soon realizes that regardless of the answer, she needs to stay alive and stop whoever is gunning for her- even though she wants to know why.
And there is a little bit about how I go about creating my characters and getting into their heads. This may work for you- I hope it does. It works for all characters, not just women or men.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bechdel_test
In a nutshell, it says that any story that has good female characters in it must:
1) have at least two women in it...
2) who are named, and who talk to each other...
3) about something other than a man.
The more the female character is defined by her relationship to some male character (love interest, husband, father, brother, son), the more she fails the test.
I think some men have a really hard time imagining that women have anything on their minds other than men.
My problem is that the Bechdel Test restricts what a woman is allowed to say, and who she's allowed to say it with. You can have a female protagonist, for example, and a very strong male counterpart together. This female protagonist is smart, charming, and thinks independently from the male. She makes her own decisions, and she's not necessarily held down by what the man is saying. And this female protagonist could still fail the Bechdel Test because she doesn't ever communicate with another female character.
It also ignores context. Okay, so let's say you have a story where two female characters are talking about a man. Okay, you might roll your eyes and move on. It's two women fawning over a man, what else is new? But in the context of the conversation, they could be talking about killing/capturing/freeing themselves/trash-talking/something else that's clearly not "fawning over." Two women could be held captive by a male slaver, and since they're trying to break free from his captivity, they could be discussing how to get rid of him. These ladies still fail the Bechdel Test, despite their displays of independent thought.
Point being: The Bechdel Test does do a good job highlighting a lack of dialogue between women in film, comic books, and other works of fiction. But in no way should it restrict your own storytelling, or be used as the end-all-be-all method to gauge sexism in a work.
I like the Bechdel emphasis on multiple, independent female characters, but I also agree plenty of stories wouldnt pass despite being a fair representation. But, most movies and books dont pass, which suggests to me at least it can be a useful test. Its also totally possible for content to pass the test yet be extremely offensive.
I also like to look at how a movie deals with other disadvantaged groups. Hollywood still hss a way to go on this stuff, and still little incentive. Sexism and racism sell well, unfortunately.
@DreadKhan gains 26,000 XP
@DreadKhan: Level Up
Verb btw evolves into Adjective.
I just want to put it out there that Calvin was verbing nouns before it was cool.
Ha! Verbing Nouns was around long before Calvin and Hobbes!
A Fox did Mr. B observe,
A bushy sail among autumnal leaves,
Orange, gold and red perceived!
I write poetry...
(Even more)Off-topic, did you know they still show this I school? like, now? in high school I saw the bill one, the noun one, and one other grammar one, just this year.
The one I remember most is Conjunction Junction:
The only people who had trouble with the recitation were the kids whose parents didn't let them watch Saturday morning TV for some reason. Who says TV isn't educational? (Maybe it isn't any more, but it was back then.)