If you are curious, I have a sample or two under fragments -> titles the good neighbor or my web site at http://www.christophergamble.com

As for shopping....I hate it when people think all women like to shop! I HATE SHOPPING! I'm not a tomboy either. I don't like spoits much, I'm not that steretype either. I just want to get in, get what I need, and get out with minimal fuss. I'd rather be playing cards or writing than shopping.

PLEASE!! Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd really like to still hold out hope that my book will someday sell.

Even the first paragraph of this text rates me higher on the female side!

Regardless, per my style, I have always been most comfortable communicating this way. I have changed my style when needed, but I want to get emotion from the situations I describe, even when the most emotion is simply the nod of understanding that the sky is blue.

Thank you all for your guidance and understanding..

Anyway, the Gender Genie thinks I'm male--and that's after "analyzing" an essay I just wrote on adopting a dog. [But I'm not a male.]

I read the beginning of your (cgamble's) piece describing the wars that the dragons started, and I (a male) didn't find it overly flowery at all.

And since you have read a few of the dragon story lines, I am open to any criticism you have the time to contribute...

As for the link that started this discussion and my own curiosity.

http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum11/HTML/000260.html

I'm off to research further the minds of those I want nothing more than to entertain.. or do i.. [evil laugh]

[This message has been edited by cgamble (edited May 07, 2004).]

Do I worry about getting the right word? Avoiding "pet" usages and repetitive phrases? Finding sharp and evocative ways to say what I mean?

My non-fiction piece was rated male, and my short story results came back as female...

We humans are much too complicated for that kind of "computer rubbish!"

So we're already talking about a theory that would only be valid for deadies anyway. And only for the small sample of deadies they actually studied.

Could it be . . .

That because women's brains are more developed (on the average) toward language skills than mens? Possibly a little . . . or . . .

That women tend to read a little more literature?

I push all of my floweriness off on Dickens. I read TOO much Dickens. And Shakespeare. Old writers tend to be considered "flowery" because the speach isn't common modern vernacular.

I chalk it up to romantic stereotype. It is common knowledge (and quite true) that women enjoy romance novels. The romantic notions stemmed from chivalry, and romantic literary movements tended to be QUITE flowery and descriptive.

I say that women tend to read more flowery stuff. On the average they read less action (written from a quicker more modern styling) and more romance (tending toward the older styles). What you read gears you for what you write.

[This message has been edited by Alias (edited May 17, 2004).]

Women, on the other hand, tend to avoid doing things that are particularly dangerous if they notice themselves doing them. But it also means that a woman going 90+ mph in a top heavy SUV is less likely to be aware that she is in any danger. Though a man doing the same thing will often grossly distort the risk (he wants to feel that it is very dangerous and think that it is actually quite safe--and has a similar dichotomy in how he wants various other people to perceive it), he is nonetheless aware of it.

Men are not better drivers by default of being men. They have more accidents per capita then women do.

And as far as spatial things, well, I can back an 18 wheeler fully loaded cattle truck between two silos (about a foot of space on each side of the truck if that) with no problem--can you?

I really hate gender stereo types---truly do.

Oh and gender genie claims I am male.

Shawn

quote:

---

it also means that a woman going 90+ mph in a top heavy SUV is less likely to be aware that she is in any danger.

---

quote:

---

Why do you think men have to pay more for car insurance?

---

Because the man's much more likely to be doing 90+ in an SUV to start with?

Stereotyping? Maybe not. But there are differences even in driving between men and women. MHO is that the stereotypes of women as bad drivers is merely that difference as has been perceived by the male animal and subsequently embedded in the public subconscious. After all, men were the first drivers, basically, so they set the standard.

We don't have to like stereotypes, but there is a reason they exist as Jules mentioned. They can be used in writing for a quick effect when you just need a cardboard character for a few seconds or so in a scene. But then are we reinforcing the stereotypes? Probably.

The real problem is when they are used against us. I find it interesting that insurance companies can charge men more because they are MALE, which seems like discrimination. Apparently, there is some rule that allows them to use statistics to charge the way they do (just because more accidents are caused by males in general doesn't mean all males should be charged more, or all females less - start with a base cost and then charge based on your individual record). I wonder if it has ever been challenged in court? There are surely good male drivers (my husband is one) and poor female drivers (one of my sisters comes to mind). My dad's brother and wife have 4 kids - two female, two male. The girls both crashed into telephone poles not long after getting their licenses. I don't think the boys had those troubles. Of course, I remember dating a guy who trashed more cars than I'll ever own!

Any stereotype will have exceptions. We can use that in our writing too to great effect - like our loaded-semi-backing-between-silos gal Shawn (and I wouldn't even want to attempt it, but I have sailed a 28 foot boat backwards into a slip after making a 90 degree turn to port, then bringing her into the wind...) I realized late I could have been an engineer and might have liked it after discovering a talent understanding and manipulating spatial relationships.

My husband and I discovered we got identical combined SAT scores in high school. He's a software engineer, and I'm writing (and was teaching American History). So guess who got the higher math score, and who got the higher verbal score?

His verbal score was higher - probably from doing crossword puzzles. My dad got an 800 on the math score back when they didn't think it was possible and sent people from Princeton to find out he cheated (well, to check on him and a couple of others who got 800 on the verbal section). Based on stereotypes I should not have had the higher math score, but maybe genetics came in to play, regardless of my female status?

Weird.

i think there is a good stereo type that can be applied, but only because "most" people teach their children to follow these stereo types, which is then enforced through school and friends etc. it has nothing to do with skill or aptitude, but merely prefernces that are embeded in each of us as we learn who we are.. if this is true, you could probably craft your speech and writting such that you could better reach your audience by merely being cognisant of their ingrained choices and the fact that we know a part of their lifestyle simply because they are in (a book store in the fantasy or science fiction section)..

First -- it does not claim to be 100% reliable. When analyzing entire books, the algorithm had an accuracy rate of 80%.

It works based on probablities. Certain words will tend to be used more by one sex or the other when writing. The larger the sample of writing, the more likely that those trends will show up. That's why working with entire novels is likely to yield more accurate results than paragraphs, short stories or chapters.

I think women aren't as prone to be lazy as men. But I also think when the cards are on the tabel, in general, men are better at "being on their feet" and dealing with things.

Ex: (according to several teachers I've had) "We always like to have girls in the class because tehy always do the homework, and try. While the guys are lethargic, and more often don't pay attention in class than the girls. BUt when it comes to teh test daye statistically the guys outscore the girls."

It's not an issue of inherent superiority/ingferiority, but I think (in general) there are "fields" that exist, in whcih your gender may give you an advantage or disadvantage.

After all, all people are created equal BUT that doesn't mean Einstein and Dr King Jr would always have the same test score. At the same time EInstein couldn't have been half the orator. Every person has their inclinations, and I think to an extent so does every gender.

I think it's stupid to not stereotype genders at all, for example: look at play habits of young boys and young girls. While the girls are playing with the dolls, the boys are beating each other wioth sticks. It's not random, it's inherent.

Again, the balance can and does still exist even when not everything for both genders is the exact same.

It's how they're applied. It's how they're reinforced. It's how they ruin peoples' lives, destroying their dreams and hopes.

That's what matters.

So what if 60% of group A exhibits characteristic 1? Or even it is 90%?

No, sterotypes aren't bad by themselves. That doesn't mean we don't have to understand them, extract the good in them, and treat every person as an individual.

*end rant*

quote:

---

Ex: (according to several teachers I've had) "We always like to have girls in the class because tehy always do the homework, and try. While the guys are lethargic, and more often don't pay attention in class than the girls. BUt when it comes to teh test daye statistically the guys outscore the girls."

---

I'd recommend that you encourage her to think about the physics involved as she drives. When I have taught physics, one of the things I make a point of discussing with the students is why rollovers happen, and what they can do to prevent a rollover when they are driving.

Others are risk takers. They drive like little angels when you're there, but the moment you're not looking they turn into the spawn of Evil Kenievel.

Boys have more of the chemicals that drive most risk taking behavior. But girls that define themselves as risk takers will actually compete to take more risks than the boys.

Where do brains come into it?

Before this gets slammed, I've had a lot of experience being the only girl. It's hard. One of the reasons I loved earth science so much after the switch (although not the reason I switched) was because the guys there totally ignored gender. There's no stereotype about girls being bad in geology, and geologists are pretty laid back, so we were just another member of the class. Geology doesn't have anything near the competition you have in physics, and I'd argue it makes the entire discipline stronger. And it's not that I haven't spent as much time with geologists-- heck, for field camp we were all camping out or bunking in the same room. And gender just never came into it as relevant, never made a difference in who got treated how. They recognized you as female the same way they recognized you as, say, using a lot of sunscreen: part of the way you were, but, y'know, it's the rocks that matter. (I love geologists.)

In physics, the guys would stare if you answered a question. If you wanted to talk in a problem set group, you have to do what the guys did-- stand up, physically grab the chalk, and start yelling. (Think I'm kidding? I did that a few times. Doesn't make guys think well of you, since it's MALE behavior.) It's not that they're being unfair, it's that they're treating you like one of them, and girls aren't supposed to be guys, so they resent that or something. I've never fully worked this one out.

There's another argument I'd also make-- stereotype threat. When African American students are asked their race on a test, their performance goes down. Ditto when they're told it's a test of intellectual ability: both of these activate the bad at taking tests stereotype. Same thing happens for women and math. The really interesting one is giving math tests to Asian women, who have the "Asians are good at math" and the "women are bad at math" stereotypes. When you ask their race, their scores go up. When you ask their gender, their scores go down.

The cunning thing to do would have been to point out that they were all wrong to agree with him (whether or not it was true).

The gracious thing to do would have been to accept the gesture as flattery.

I think I need to clarify something. I'm not sexist, I'm merely giving observations, I think that much should be clear. So very relatively speaking from my very limited point of view, I would make the following statement:

Men drift toward the hard sciences more than women do.

You may draw whatever conclusion you would like from that. I'm not suggesting they are less capable, but I am suggesting there may be an inherent factor based on gender that influences this. Maybe the female psyche is less inclined to find interest or motivation to apply itself to such fields, maybe the male psyche interprets things with clear-cut definition while the female takes thing in that are more vague and deep. Neither is better than the other but I would infer that for mathematics (which is the core of all hard sciences) it is easier to work with when thinking with clearer definition.

I personally believe that's the reason why women tend to be more "flowery" writers, and often produce thinkers and writers like Emily Dickinson while men produce Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Steven Hawking.

But just because I believe that doesn't make it true, and I can admit that. So I'm not sexist. Of course you never said I was, but I got the impression that you were offended by my comment. APologies if that was the case, hope this clears my view up some more. And if it does and you're still offended, well, apologies--but that's as far as I can go.