I don't think you should be able to tell it's a man or a woman unless that's specific to the character.

IE: a rapist or a whore.

Think of them as a person rather than a member of a sex.

But I for one don't mind a bit of stereotyping.

I always wondered, there are loads of kid's books that have a 12 year old boy as protagonist. And none of the 12 year old boys I knew behaved anything like that.

>>2404
Because that's not as entertaining of a story.

"Oh no! My best friend is lost in the woods! I guess I'll just tell his mom and go home and play video games."

>>2401
All the women I write about are whores

From secretaries to housewives (those are actually the only two acceptable jobs)

>>2409

Now you're just pandering to gender roles, and the incredibly sexist ones at that.

The only one I written was as mock porn. She had the same kind of creepy issues most of the characters in the particular fetish stories had while having her teetering between decent person and obsessive freak. IE I only care about gender if I'm looking in the right kind of story and if she is metaphoric, done well enough for it to work or have meaning outside of “this is what I think of women in general”.

>>2409
Damn it, Miller, go home.

Miller isn't exactly bad at writing women, he's just a chauvinistic asshole. That's the way he thinks about women and that's reflected in his stories.

Concerning female characters: Have two women talk about something else than men and clothes at some point in the story.

Spend time among whatever group you want to depict in your writings. This is easier said than done, but it helps. Draw from a pool of personalities, experiences and attitudes.

Just do your best to keep things fair and realistic. They're characters first and representations of their gender, race or religious background second (if not third, or fourth..) If you make boring characters, you'll make boring *female* characters, and stories that touch upon female issues (if you plan to write any) will be just that much more stilted and abrasive to read.

Just realize that no matter how you characterize it, whether you succeed or fail, somebody is going to find something wrong with it- real or imagined.

Are Miller's females that bad? I've only read his Batman stuff and can't think of anything whoreish. I mean I guess Sin City but I mean everything about that movie/comic was over the top

>>2422
>Have two women talk about something else than men and clothes at some point in the story.
This actually happens??

>>2422
See, here's the thing that always bothered me about that. Say I'm writing a story where the heroes are discussing how to defeat a villain and a female character comes up with a plan. Is that "talking about men"?

>>I don't think you should be able to tell it's a man or a woman unless that's specific to the character
See this is a simplistic answer. This is the way you can only get a midling female character. Yes creating a character who is defined only by being a woman is a bad way of doing it. But that doesn't mean that it never factors into things. Your life, and nearly all your social interactions are defined in part by your gender. How people react to you, what their expectations are, what is appropriate and not, etc. Think of some well rounded characters from a favorite series, and then rule 63 them. Then imagine them all behaving in EXACTLY the same way. Things will take on an entirely different meaning.

>>2555
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Is it a strike against guys or woman on a pedestal to have a girl come up with the plan?

It depends entirely on the depth of the character itself. Having Wonder Woman be on par with Captain Marvel when it comes to dealing with magical threats isn't 'writers handicap/favor' in the least. It's her background, fits the concept and it gives her privy to information and data that the other characters just don't have access to. So she's in a prime position to react like a Thinking character and act like a Bruiser, especially when forced to in her own title.

Now, Ms. Mary-Drop Gumbubble Rainbowhair, the half-vampire/pixie blessed by the Mystical Lovetroll Tree. It's not the character concept itself that is completely irredeemable, it's the bad writing. Her strengths in a team story don't lend themselves to dealing with characters like Galactus or Juggernaut. Somebody with a character like that could definitely fall into the Saturday Morning Morality Story trap and suddenly she's showing up the male characters in aptitudes that by all rights she shouldn't have specialization in, except when dual discipline calls for it or opportunity that's well written. That's only a gender oriented situation if the writer makes it into one.

tl;dr: it depends entirely on the writing behind the action, and how it could be spun or misinterpreted.

>>2558
>Think of some well rounded characters from a favorite series, and then rule 63 them. Then imagine them all behaving in EXACTLY the same way. Things will take on an entirely different meaning
Usually they become very interesting female characters that I like to watch or read about because they actually have an identity aside from their sex and the gender role that comes with it. But I'm a terrible women and way too gender neutral so my opinion probably doesn't count.

>>2567

This is true. For instance, see /pco/'s fascination with rule 63'd Rorschach and Nite Owl. Female Rorschach is especially interesting, as you have to maintain that crazy right-wing conspiracy theorist who never bathes and hates women thing, but it has to be approached from an entirely different angle.

The best method is to write characters as human beings with their own thoughts, abilities and motivations first, put in gender where it's relevant, and try not to fall into any especially stupid cliches. My own pet peeve is the "but women are always kinder, softer and more nurturing! If they become evil it's because of past trauma/the big bad world making them that way, so it's not really their fault" thing that's always goddamn everywhere. Women can be just as nasty, cruel, amoral and downright horrible human beings as anyone else.

The problem with writing a so-called neutral female character(you write a character and then simply add "female" to the end), is that some people criticize it for not really being female, but instead just a man who is called a woman. They may ask what's the point in having the character be a woman, if she exhibits no feminine qualities.

What I wonder, is that is it because they have some expectations of female characters(sexist perhaps?), or is it truly so that female characters themselves are somehow fundamentally different from males and as such should be written to be so. Or would that in fact be poor writing? It puzzles me greatly.

I have always been fond of the Ellen Ripley style of character writing:

Write as story with the central protagonist as a man. Then when the script is finished change his gender to female.

FEMINISM, EAT YOUR HEART OUT.

>>2683
well, women themselves are naturally wired a bit different then men. Simply writing a character and then pasting a gender on it leaves the character seeming more asexual then anything. Gender is just another aspect of the character that must be considered, an honestly I don't see how it cannot be. Even in the case of an asexual being, one must keep said asexuality in mind when writing them.

That men write bad female characters...

I think that argument is somewhat flawed. Okay in comic books yes frequently the women just become sex objects for the readers if no one else. But that's really the only problem, to my mind. If a woman is a one-dimensional whore then that's a problem of characterization, and not solely male chauvinism. (and in cape comics, frequently they are working with a cast that is larger than ensemble, and growing all the time. It's tough to make a consistent, memorable characterization when the character may only be present for like a page. Add to this the less than stellar talent and lo...)

And they say men do this more often than women? big surprise. But I think men and women also look for different things when reading characters. Men prefer action, women prefer drama, and the characters of each tend to reflect that. American culture, at least, is also geared towards disparity; a man is a man if he has loads of sex with different women, but a woman is a whore if she just has frequent sex with even a single guy.

I think this only becomes an issue if people want to make it an issue, y'know? Not everybody writes like Frank Miller.

>>2690
Works for villains, too!

>>2683
It's just a conflict between different schools of feminism and gender studies.
Some believe that there are fundamental differences between men and women that have to be maintained. Others believe that these differences are just gender roles that have to be overcome and that men and women are essentially the same.
The former wouldn't want a women to be written like a man with breasts, because she lacks female traits (like for example compassion, motherliness, passiveness, restraint). A person who only knows women who fulfill the female gender role and/or believes in the inequality of men and women may find a gender neutral women badly written and a women with male traits horrible.
It should depend on your own opinion whether you listen to those people or not.

>>2567
>>Usually they become very interesting female characters that I like to watch or read about because they actually have an identity aside from their sex and the gender role that comes with it. But I'm a terrible women and way too gender neutral so my opinion probably doesn't count.
Not neccesarily bad characters, no. But certainly very different characters, without their behaviors changing.
Take for example, Daredevil Noir. Without changing around anything about Bullseye or Daredevil, but changing Bullseyes gender, suddenly there's a sexual dimension to their relationship. What else do you expect when you have a woman who thinks about Daredevil ALL the time, has been known to dress in his clothes, and then goes out and engages in spandex wrestling with him at least once a month?
Now, it's just as interesting character, it's very different from Lenard, he comes across as entirely asexual. Both may be good, but if you were going for asexual, you can either change his behavior around, or make him a man.
However, the very things that make 616 Bullseye seem asexual have nothing to that effect about the female variation: A woman who doesn't seek out any romantic or sexual relationship, and doesn't ever seem to use her vast wealth and power for sexual gratification, ever, doesn't strike us as quite as odd. While this may smack of double standards, it's also representing a societal fear, and therefor expectation.
If a man breaks into a woman's apartment, strangles a lovely young woman with a phone cord, the natural fear of that woman, and us by extension, is that he intends to rape her, especially if this character is of low moral repute. By making such clear how much he's distant from that, he defies a societal fear/expectation, and the action takes on a distinct consequence.
Meanwhile, if a woman assaults a man in the same way, even a strapping young man, unless this is a porno, or he's fooling himself, rape is not high on his list of concerns. The fact that she clearly distances herself from doing anything does not strike us at odd, and therefor does not reflect on her in any way.
The same can go for numerous positive qualities as well. Actions taking place in a vacuum cannot carry the complete meaning, every action takes on a different implication based on who is doing it. If that was true, I could take all the information about characters from a book, and it would not make any difference, and indeed, most books would lack background information entirely.

Sorry if I went on a long and highly specific rant.

>>What I wonder, is that is it because they have some expectations of female characters(sexist perhaps?), or is it truly so that female characters themselves are somehow fundamentally different from males and as such should be written to be so. Or would that in fact be poor writing? It puzzles me greatly.
It is because society has differing expectations for men and women, and therefor a woman acting in the exact same manner is treated entirely differently, even today.
Imagine if to take an extreme example, you took the story of Jacky Robinson, but made him white. Suddenly the story makes no sense whatsoever. Or to use women, you could take Soong May-Ling. One doesn't need to believe that Gender Roles are firm factual rules, but one needs to recognize their existence.

>>2720
An interesting view, thank you. I may have learned something.

>“How do you write women so well?"

>"I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”

If I ever wrote something the characters' gender would be determined by coin flip after the story was already written and I'd just have left placeholder pronouns in place. Or just write it in Lojban and not even give them a gender. I'm not really a big believer in gender.

>>2752
>I DON'T BELIEVE IN GENITALIA

>>2756
>>I DON'T BELIEVE IN GENITALIA
effecting someone's personality.

>>2758
But gender is important and while it isn't the sole defining factor of an individual it is one of the big ones.

>>2761
So are religion and culture and so on, but they don't always have anything at all to do with the character in question.

>>2769
Yes, yes they do.

>>2774
Does say police officer's belief in god really gonna be important in his confrontation with the murder in say a mystery book or whatever?

>>2785
Depending on what his beliefs are and how strong they are then it just might.

Kind of related: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenderFlip

>>2787
The funny thing to me is, there is a difference, and it's biological. To say a character has no aspects of sex to them is to ignore the little stuff that can make a fictional world more vivid.

If you say there isn't then you've never tried to pick up a woman before. Men and women think in completely different ways, and it stems directly from biology. To slap a gender over an otherwise neutral character polarizes it even more. For example, imagine Azula as Azul. All of "his" actions take on a completely different context, simply because he's male.

As long as there are no lines between the sexes that cannot be crossed, something fundamental separating them, like what separates a psychopath from a normal person, you cannot use it to define a character.

You can't say a character behaves a certain way just because they are a certain gender. It's bad writing.

>>2874
But that's the thing. There are lines between the sexes. There is a disconcernable different between males and females that goes beyond a physical level. If there wasn't then I'm not seem there being transsexuals in the world because, what would be the point?

>>2876
Best steer clear of bringing transexuality into the question. That's a whole other bag of blasting jelly that you really don't want exploding here.

>>2876
Perhaps there are factors you haven't considered. For example, one might find the societal role of the opposite sex more appealing. One might find the physical features more appealing. One might have let social roles delude him or her into believing that there are fundamental differences between male and female psychology and might feel his or her own is more inclined to that of the opposite sex. Or one might simply be gay and wish to more easily attract members of the same sex (or what once was or may not have ever been members of the same sex). Or any number of hypotheticals. Basically, what I'm saying is, you're narrow-minded.

>>2878
Have you ever even met a transsexual person? Seriously, get your foot out of your mouth.

Putting that aside as it's not the point here, the way men and women are treated is different. The things expected of them are different. The way people react to them are different. The way they react to those around them are different all in ways that are based solely on their gender. No, it's not the only factor but it is a big enough one that to ignore it would make you a bad writer.

>>2785
Sure.
Does the detective believe there is such a thing as evil?
Bam, I opened one theological question right there that shapes how he interacts with the Murderer.

>>2879
oh hey good job missing my own point doofus. maybe you should learn some critical thinking skills

>>2881
the irony, it kills me.

We may be narrow-minded but you're the one trying to argue against the biological differences between men and women, down to how they think.

>>2900
No one argues against the biological differences of men and women. I simply don't believe that genitalia and a bunch of proteins affect the way men and women think as much as you do. Transsexualism is actually an argument against your idea. If the core differences between men and women are physical how can there be transsexuals? I know that there are studies that try to find biological causes for transsexualism but there are conflicting results and no answer has been found yet.

>>2906
have you ever tried to make a decision with a woman as part of the process? They think in an entirely different train then men do, and it's not societal, it's biological. And that's what's at the core of the Transsexualism debate; the idea that through mutation or mishap, that a womans' brain ended up in a man's body, or vice versa. It's why transsexuals have to undergo an intense psychological evaluation before the Doctors say "okay we'll switch your gender".

>>2908
>have you ever tried to make a decision with a woman as part of the process? They think in an entirely different train then men do,
I am a woman and I often made decisions with men and women, I never noticed this entirely different train. Perhaps you should show me something - anything - to back up your statements. Even your personal experience would be fine if you just explained it in greater detail.

>>2923
In before WHEN I WALK INTO A BAR...

>>2924
basically this, actually. No better place to showcase the difference of the sexes than the meat market.

Unfortunately I have no example of cooperative decisions, as I'm not very personable. However women are more prone to emotional reactions, and while they can be logical, it's generally a logic based on feelings rather than observations or necessities.

Anytime a girl wants to stay with a guy when he's quite obviously a complete douchebag, it's generally due to how that guy makes her "feel", i.e. because he keeps her on an emotional rollercoaster, she assumes it's something special and will keep pursuing the relationship, even when it's quiet clear to all her friends that he's just a douche.

Granted it's harder to pull this on smarter women, but it's still very effective.

Emotions define more of a womans' psychology. It's a biological thing, helps them raise children after they've had them. Men, not so much, unless it's the first time a girl sucks your dick.

>>2929
The great lie men tell women is that they don't have them figured. The great lie women tell men is that no, they're totally not boning that other dude.

>>2930
And just to clarify, yes women's great lie is pretty much socially enforced, both through lax attitudes and culture.

>>2929

Since women react more to emotions and feelings, they find emotional situations and actions more interesting, and should be interested in what causes those emotions.

Thus, the reason you see so many self tests in women's magazines, the emotional payoff from knowing yourself is the reward.

Feeling great and happy, is that a reward good enough?

-: I was in the parking lot trying to textmessage a friend to pick me up after a car crash.
-:Andrew, my bikerfriend decided to check how much can drive on the wrong side of the road trying to check how long time it took until anyone would begin honking like that blue guy named skeeter, from doug's life.

HONK HONK!
the truckdriver's confusion of why a brown green looking cube suddenly appeared on his path.

-:my own confusion was more if Andrew was serious or joking around when he said he thought it was really cool if you were planning suicide, and just ram into the biggest and most powerful thing you can see, go out with a bang.

Or a HONK! HONK! in this case, I thought to myself as I held onto the right side of the car's door opener, trying to think if I should hold on or just open the door and jump out.

In all those micro seconds and thoughts, Andrew seemed to managed to honk back, while at a precisly a second later, somehow managed to steer his brown green hypercube to the left. Succesfully avoiding the gigantic monster like truck in the procces.

And succesfully drove into the biggest ditch that ever existed in the east coast. Of Calefornia.

If we wrote this more emotionally, or take ANY story that contains details and more logical to it, and turn it emotionally, it will seem more interesting to women. It says something on how men and women think, and if we understand THAT, then we can use it to draw in the interest of male and women audience. Or at least have some BASIS for drawing it in more effectively.

>>2943

-: I was in the parking lot trying to textmessage a friend to pick me up after a car crash, one of the biggest embarrasment I ever felt in my entire life for choosing to hang out with, that embarrasment, was named Andrew.
-:Andrew, my bikerfriend decided to check how much can drive on the wrong side of the road trying to check how long time it took until anyone would begin honking like that blue guy named skeeter, from doug's life.

HONK HONK!
the truckdriver's sudden feeling of bewildment,confusion and dropping his jaw in shock of why a brown green looking cube suddenly appeared on his path. Panic, fear, unable to react or move, dreadfulness came over him.

-:my own confusion was more if Andrew was serious or joking around when he said he thought it was really cool if you were planning suicide, and just ram into the biggest and most powerful thing you can see, go out with a bang.

Or a HONK! HONK! in this case, I thought to myself as I held onto the right side of the car's door opener, trying to think if I should hold on or just open the door and jump out. I have never been so scared or opened my eyes like a deer in headlights in ALL of the 2 hours I have been driving with Andrew.

In all those micro seconds and thoughts, Andrew seemed to managed to honk back while smiling and laughing at the terrorised truckdriver. A man in a cube made a man in a gigantic monster feel fear. While at a precisly a second later, somehow he managed to steer his brown green hypercube to the left. Succesfully avoiding the gigantic monster like truck in the procces.

And succesfully drove into the biggest ditch that ever existed in the east coast. Of Calefornia.

Put in some more emotion to it, apart from spelling errors and that you can probably do ALOT more to it, one still gets the point (hopefully so you dont need more explaining)

If we wrote twillight, where everyone is handsome, but bella would react negatively to it, and shunning him even if he is handsome just because of her emotions, it highly would make twillight readers turn against edward if they were highly emotional.

Intelligent women will know that once an emotion takes hold of them, its hard to resist not following that emotion, most of these women experienced it before, and succesfully understood why they began to feel that emotion anyway.

It's like a women testing men if they are men, telling them to do needless things or if they would react to it, compare to being unreactive and just tell her she is wierd in a playful/friendly way. They can't help it, its in their genes.

I had sex with a girl who was punching me in a nonplayful and a more serious way, funny enough I turned it around her and called her an angry jealous lesbian, mad because she thought I would steal her girl for the night, since I never spoke to her at all, and focused on the other two girls just to take away attention and make her jealous. I told her two friends that I ought to speak to mister angry lesbian some, its the polite thing to do. After I got to have sex with her later that night, I asked her why she punched me all the time, she: Because I thought you would go away.

Why did you have sex with me then? were you actually attracted to me and felt fear something was going to happen? and it did?

When women feel those emotions, they wont like it,not one bit. Of course, when I know women will do this, then I know what to do an act.

I personally think gender is first important if it comes down to dynamics.

But I think if you want to write a woman or a man,doesn't really matter, you should at least have some cultural background:
From which family did the person grow up? From which social layer is that person's origin and with what kind of philosophy or religion was the person raised and how influenced it his/her personality and gave a certain opinion to life?

It's really important to consider this in historical romans and stories you want to write.
That's why Miller's 300 is considered as ahistorical bullshit making me kick this asshole so much in the nuts because he portrayed pre-Islamic Persian culture and it's people and the Spartans on a really wrong level.

>>3214

Though it isn't as dramatic an effect, I remember Orson Scott Card's novel "Lost Boys" (maybe slightly different name but it was the idea of the story at least).

In all his novels he's kinda bad about writing characters that are any different from any other if he's writing from their point of view, but in Lost Boys he had this husband and wife whose young boy started playing some computer game with some kid's ghosts in the actual game.

He ended up referring to the main daddy-o going on a business trip though, and having some awkwardness with trying to hide his underwear from him. The story was unclear about why this was such a big deal to him, but it became clear when a google search turned up how Orson Scott Card is Mormon and they have some weirdness with their special underwear they use for whatever reason. This was just a minor part of the story though, but it really just made for a head scratching experience because the guy setup the whole bit so poorly, due primarily to the fact that most guys aren't so bothered about keeping their luggage secret on business trips with someone.

Also despite the fact the story involved his kid playing with dead children, he never really got too involved with it and instead had the dad basically meeting and being disgusted with nearly everyone around him, keeping the wife in a just this extremely vague state of housewifiness.

So I suppose the main point I'm trying to get across is that you generally don't want to just setup bits in a story without any setup for explaining why someone would feel the way they do, such as with magic underwear, whether it is involving a man or a woman.

Though I suppose you could always check out some of Charles Tilly's works in order to help with characterizing people.

>>2400
Is this comic good?

At the very least, you could do this.

http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php

huhuhuhu

Women are NOT less rational than men. This is one of the most fucked up sexist myths still alive in our times. Sadly, both men and women seem to eat it up.

Emotions and rational thinking are not some polar opposites. To but it very simplified, emotions are fast, intuitive thoughts.

Men and women are more emotional in different situations.

For example, if men are so rational and don't let their emotions lead them, why are the prisons filled with them? Which gender is more likely to act upon impulses and get into a fight - often for ridiculous reason.

On the other hand, which one is more likely to use social skills to compromise the situation before it gets dangerous?

These differnces are because men and women handle differnet situation differently.
Men are better at solving external problems with actions. At worst, that leads to them resorting to caveman like violence.
They are bad at understanding (their own or others) internal issues. This also explains their anger management problems. They can't work the emotions, so they just explode some day.

Women understand internal and social issues and are good at working with their emotions and other people. Women rather use words than fists. They are also better as seeing "the whole picture" including other peoples POV. The bad side of this is that women tend to suffer more depression & etc. because they can't let go of their emotional problems.

If women really were irrational, the mankind would had died off loooong time ago. Women have to not only think of their own self, but their kids as well, long to future. And women show all the time that they are more responsible and rational when raising their children.

Of course, our society with it's shit double standards probably highly exaggerates these differences, which is really a shame. Women and girls are "protected" from all risks and are expected to settle for mediocry and live a safe life as a mom and wife. Of course they don't learn how to handle risks if they are never allowed to!

Same for men. Little boys get punished and mocked if they show emotions. A man who cries is a "sissy faggot" and that's how we create grown up men who just surpress their emotions - unill they snap and it aint pretty.

If only people would realize this. But unfortunately these kind of destructive norms profit somebody - in this case, men, who will keep on leading the world because, you know, can't let some woman ruin it with her PMS craziness. Even if women getting more power would turn this world into much more humane place.

>>3787
You make some very good points, but I've never bought the whole "women in control = peace" thing. Females and males have equal capacity for grudges, xenophobia, and general assholery.

>>3787
OR, more men are in prison because they're expected to be the bread winners in their family and due to circumstance bread winning must involve illegal activity.

"intuitive emotion" does not equate to logical capacity or even to correctly interpreting a situation. It can be accurate, yes, but it is by no means any more accurate than a logical conclusion. And just because women are better at seeing the "whole picture" does not mean they are not prone to acting like caustic, passive-aggressive bitches about it.

I agree with you about the roles placed upon people by society though.

>>3787

Or MAYBE women are less likely to get violent because society has conditioned them into regarding violence as useless for them because women are physically weak.

I don't think there's ANYTHING different about the way a woman thinks and the way a man thinks, except for their internal weighing of risk.

Violence is an OPTION for men. Flirting with a cop is an OPTION for women. The opposite don't do it as often because it's less likely to WORK.

i swear you kids are so predictable and brainwashed these days.
there are biological differences between the genders, down to the brain and consciousness and perceptual levels
no, recognizing this and working with it does not make you sexist. making arbitrary value judgements based on it does.

>>3801
While I respect that opinion would you please, for the love of all that is good and grand capitalise your sentences if you're going to call people 'kids.'

>>3805

Maybe he's too old to press the shift key.

>>3805
>expecting adherence to grammar on a *chan

>>3806
Maybe he's biologically predisposed to typing like a moron.

>>3807
Only by striving to overcome our faults can we achieve progress! We must stave off complacency!

>>3809
Actually ignoring your faults and playing to your strengths is much more effective

>>3807
Dude, this is /writ/ not /b/. You might as well say it’s acceptable for people to miscount on a mathematics board.

>>3794

>OR, more men are in prison because they're expected to be the bread winners in their family and due to circumstance bread winning must involve illegal activity.

Women also have to take illegal action often to support themselves and their kids. Prostitution is the best example. But men remain vast majority even in countries where you don't practicly ever need to steal to eat.

>"intuitive emotion" does not equate to logical capacity or even to correctly interpreting a situation.

Nobody claimed that.

> acting like caustic, passive-aggressive bitches

Blah blah blah, your girlfriend left you or cheated you or whatever. Fact remains that women have to be afraid of men everywhere they go, not the opposite.

>>3795
>Or MAYBE women are less likely to get violent because society has conditioned them into regarding violence as useless for them because women are physically weak.

Society didn't make men physically stronger. Evolution did. It had a reason.
Man evolved strong because he profited from using physical violence. They hunted, women gathered. Therefore they must have biological tendecy to it.

>>3813
>Women also have to take illegal action often to support themselves and their kids. Prostitution is the best example. But men remain vast majority even in countries where you don't practically ever need to steal to eat.

I was actually thinking drug dealing, which is a business that has a majority of America's prisoner population as Black Males, simply because no other avenue is really open to them. It's not just a matter of eating. These people have children, have lives, and have rent to pay. And many of them will be sent away for Possession with Intent to Sell, a charge and an activity that, while it encourages violence, is not in and of itself violent.

>Nobody claimed that.

>>3787 implied it in "her" final little paragraph. The truth is that men and women are differently logical, one relying on reasoning and the other on emotion and intuition (which is really just very fast subconscious reasoning). But neither method is innately superior; men are more aggressive because biologically it helps them get mates and defend those mates and offspring. Women are more emotional because it helps them form bonds to their mates and offspring and makes them better care-takers, biologically speaking. But none of this implies that the world would be better off if women ruled it. Have you ever seen two girls together that don't like each other? It'd make the Cold War seem like a light breeze.

>Blah blah blah, your girlfriend left you or cheated you or whatever. Fact remains that women have to be afraid of men everywhere they go, not the opposite.

Actually I was talking about >>3787 since "her" stance was p much "pro-womyn". In fact, intuitive or emotional responses do imply that the responses are less than rational, as they're not based directly on reasoning but rather on gut reactions. And no, women do not "have to be" scared of men everywhere they go, it's just that most of them are, society encourages it, and few go out of their way to make themselves, mentally or physically, more physically equal to men. Many martial arts are based not on power but on the ability to use an opponents power against themselves, making smaller and weaker opponents equals to larger ones.

Hey look I can attack a post point by point too!

>>3813
>>Man evolved strong because he profited from using physical violence. They hunted, women gathered. Therefore they must have biological tendecy to it.
You should take an anthropology class. It's a fun feeling to know what you're talking about.

>>3801
I bet you think that about races too right? Fuck yo shit

>>3821
General differences between genders is more significant than general differences between races.
This is established knowledge based on proven neuroscience. As some Anonymous Channer, you do not get to debate this. Your opinions do not count against reality, and you don't have the requisite knowledge to counter-argue.

>>3822
>As some Anonymous Channer, you do not get to debate this
... Aren't you an anonymous Channer? Doesn't that ultimately mean you cant debate for your point either?

>>3822
ACTUALLY (he said, twiddling his pipe), being anonymous means that the nature of your argument must be solid enough to avoid that loss of identity.

So while I do agree with you, I challenge you to do something to stop the other guy from responding.

>>3826
Also this, thank you Bob, for pointing out the blindly obvious

p.s. the true arguer knows it's all just bullshit anyway. If any of us knew that much about men and women, would we be here?

>>3828
What the fuck is a "truer arguer?"
Is that even English?

>>3831
you added an r, and yes it is.

Come on. Are we actually discussing all this to win a fight or is it just damned interesting?

Heh. A history professor of mine once got the class started on a conversation about why people would be opposed to having a female president. One point that became pretty prominent was that a woman would be more prone to being irrational when either menopause or "that time of the month" rolled around, and just being generally emotionally incapacitated due to being a woman.

The professor said, "Ah, yes, so it's the female hormones that we don't want running our country," he gave a thoughtful pause, then continued with amusement, "As if testosterone hasn't laid waste to the earth!"

I heard somewhere that, when it comes to IQ, men and women average about the same. For men, there are more of them on the extreme ends of intelligence and stupidity, but for women, more of them are just in the middle. Whether or not this is true, it's still something interesting to work with writing-wise. Makes men into the more varied, unstable ones, while women can be the ones who are predictable, yes, but dependable.

Had a teacher in high school who was known for breaking up scuffles between students. One day he gave me his take on the gender differences in the fights: "Boys fight to intimidate. Girls fight to kill."

Only saw a cat fight once, but damn, I agree with my teacher because of it. The girls were both bent forward, grabbing fistfuls of each other's hair, yanking and thrashing each other around by these fistfuls as they screamed and spun in rapid circles through the halls. They literally clawed at each other's throats when the teachers attempted to separate them. Shit was frightening.

I once heard that when whites came to the Americas and attempted to educate the natives, it was a new idea to the indigenous folk that their girls shouldn't receive an education along with their boys, that a girl couldn't possibly understand what a boy could.

One way to approach gender in writing, I think, is to consider the character's own opinion of their sex, gender, and their expected role in society. You might get a woman who wants to be an ideal woman...Motherly, hard-working, patient, suffering without complaint; you might get a woman who suspects that maybe women really are inferior, so she has conditioned herself into suppressing what she sees as "feminine" personality traits, whether or not any of them actually manifest all that much in her personality; you might get a woman who genuinely doesn't care, acts as she pleases...here is where you could get a character who "might as well be male" because it doesn't matter (there's that male default thing, huh)...Except when it comes to other character's reactions to her, and their own opinions regarding gender behavior. So take your pick for what suits your purpose.

You don't have to actually write any of their inner ideas about gender out, but I guess if you keep them in mind, it could help make the characters more believable.

Gonna bring up that first professor again. He also told us, "There is nothing more inspiring than a 9 year old girl...And there is nothing more tragic than a 13 year old girl." Ignore how pedo it sounds, what he was talking about was how, in elementary school, girls tend to have better grades, pick things up quicker, participate more...But by jr. high they've begun to dumb themselves down, stamp out any intellectual competitiveness, because while "smart asshole" can work for a guy, it's (supposedly) far less attractive on a woman, and if a woman is smart and confident, she'll just become a target for harassment--and who really wants to deal with that if there's an easy way out of it?

>>3834
There's only a few times that come to mind where gender roles actually played to detriment. The Silent Hill movie, for example, had the lead character changed from male to female (ostensibly because the character acted too feminine). But then in the final product, you get that awkward scene where the Cop gets suspicious of a Woman looking for a Child.