posted
In my own work, i have always tended toward dramatic language reminiscent of gone with the wind era. During a discussion of a story i have written, I have found instances where some people ( oddly enough males so far ), have found my writting overly "flowered". I have seen ( from here and other places ) women had the opposite comments. I was wandering if there does exist a gender bias toward or against certain types of writting.
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
posted
There has to be a gender bias. I mean, look at us. I don't care what the feminists have been saying for the past fifty years, men and women ARE different. Let's compare reading likes with driving styles. You're going on a vacation. Dad wants to just GET there. Mom wants to stop at all the historic sites along the way. Shopping. Dad wants to take his list, get what's on it, get the @$#%& out. Mom browses, window shops, compares prices. I've been reading a lot of short stories lately. While some people seem picky on the subject, there are sure a lot of SFF writers who use old-fashioned, flowery language and are making moeney at it. Go with what you feel comfortable with, but keep in mind, you'll have to sell to someone who likes that same style. So don't go overboard to the point that you limit your market. If the editor you're sending a manuscript to is a guy...
posted
What a strange thought. Actually, I agree that men and women have their differences, but I'm not sure it's in writing style preferences. I'd have to see a little more of what you mean, and I'd definitely want to see some proof. (In the form of a study...men/women....likes/dislikes.) It would actually be pretty simle to set up some preliminary findings. Come up with some examples of what you mean...come up with a couple authors with wildly different styles and ask people to state their gender and preference. (for those gender-neutral aliases out there)
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.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited May 06, 2004).]
posted
No offense meant, Christine. I'm not big on stereotypes either. And I'm no shopping lover. In fact, I hate it. And I'm the "Let's just get there!" person, while my husband is the one who likes to stop at all the scenic views. But am I a typical woman? What is the typical woman who is going to pick my book up off the shelf? Judging by the sales of romance novels there is a reader 'stereotype.' And as writers (especially if we want to sell enough books to make something like a living), I think we need to keep audience in mind when we write. It would be wonderful if I could write whatever is in my heart and guarantee that it will find a publisher and an audience. If we want to sell our short story to a publication, we had darned well better send them something the editor is going to latch on to. Otherwise, kiss those dreams of a writing career goodbye. Romance novelists write for their audience. Some writers begin their careers writing fluff pieces just to get their names out there and their words in print. SF writers write for their audience also. And if a SF writer writes something that the typical woman will love, but the typical guy will hate, he then further eliminates more potential audience. In closing, a writer's style doesn't matter at all--as long as he isn't all that concerned with getting published.
PLEASE!! Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd really like to still hold out hope that my book will someday sell.
posted
In the SF stories that women will love, well, if you mean romance I'd point out Sharon Lee and Steve Miller; Catherine Asaro; Mercedes Lackey; Anne McCaffrey... and in fantasy, Harlequin just founded an imprint, Luna, that publishes fantasy with a strong romantic component.
As for gendered prose, supposedly there are some differences, but they don't have to do with flowery-- rather with the focus on relationships versus the focus on descriptions/objects. Want to find out if you're male or female? Try the Gender Genie. You might be surprised.
posted
As a beginning writer I've been doing alot of reading, particular advice articles from published authors. One of the articles from Marion Zimmer Bradley mentioned that anyone who can create a coherent scentence can be a writer, if they follow the formula and write what the editor wants. As of a couple of years ago, women made up 40% of the SFF market, which means editors need be more aware of the gender bias issue you mention. In the last issue of Forum from the SFWA, there was an article and an ad that mentioned an emerging market that marries traditional romance novels to science fiction and fantasy. I could be wrong, but I took it to mean that at least some editors have realized that gender bias does exist and are striving to find something that appeals to everyone, the knight in shining armor rescuing the robotic woman trapped on a distance planet by the evil magic wielding step mother.
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2004
|
posted
Ok, I looked at gender genie, and gosh am i confused. I submitted several of my writtings, and my style shows up most often feminie.
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..
[This message has been edited by cgamble (edited May 07, 2004).]
posted
The gender genie was interesting. When I did me first paragraph it came up as clearly male, but when I submitted the first several pages, the numbers were closer, though still clearly male. Now, I am a female, but it looks like my writing doesn't resonate that way, at least according to the genie.
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2004
|
posted
It seems after everything I have heard from you fine people, that gender and age does not matter, and that our audience must then suffer from a standard personality set. Wouldnt that be interesting, if we could better identify the people we wanted to talk to, and bring them personally into the story --
Posts: 76 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted
I agree with Survivor. Tell your story the best way you can. If you worry whether ot sounds too feminine or too masculine, you're not writing your best work. You're writing for some perceived market, and your work probably won't sell because you heart and soul weren't in it.
posted
Erm...for the gender genie, it's no wonder the results are so erratic: the keywords it is using for females include 'she', 'her', 'me', and for males 'said'. A piece of dialogue ends up male. If the POV character is female, then you end up female. I know women are supposed to use more female character as their POV characters, but I don't think it's an absolute of writing. I submitted two different bits of writing, and got two different results (and I do mean very different).
Posts: 121 | Registered: May 2002
|
posted
Frankly I don't think there is a 'male' and 'female' style of writing. Everybody writes according to a way that they are comfortable with. In fact, people have a tendency to emulate authors that they admire. Hence our writing styles come from what we read.
For example, I'm a woman and I spent my childhood reading espionage novels (Robert Ludlum, anyone?) and hence my writing style is quite plain and 'male'. Every single piece of my writing that I submit to that Gender Genie comes back as 'male'. Silly stereotypes.
posted
Yeah, someone should try putting some Andre Norton into that thing, see what comes out. She's the most masculinist writer I've ever read.
Posts: 8322 | Registered: Aug 1999
|
posted
Yeah, I never said it was accurate... Personally, on my fiction, things other people like come up female, and stuff nobody likes comes up male. I've never figured out why. Probably something to do with personal style, or the things I can write as convincingly interesting.
Posts: 253 | Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted
Well, you have to remember, it was written based on some work by a bunch of guys who looked at various historical authors and wrote a paper about how the women used certain words more than the men.
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.
The have a link to some article explaining all this on the page. It clears up why the Gender Genie is so lame pretty quickly.
posted
I have oft been accused (in my writing, not my posts here) of being rather flowery.
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.
posted
I don't think it would be fair to say, "developed," as the reason. That connotes things I don't want to get into. But while we're at it, I think men are inherently better drivers than women , despite their tendency to take greater risks.
[This message has been edited by Alias (edited May 17, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Alias (edited May 17, 2004).]
posted
What was once an attempt to understand the minds of my perspective audience has gone out of control. thats so sad.
Posts: 76 | Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted
Maybe we could say women tend to be more language-oriented and men are better with spatial stuff. That would explain why women are more often cool with flowery language, and men are better drivers. Makes sense to me, and men are DEFINITELY better drivers than women (said the man who wrecked his car half a dozen times in 2 years).
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
Males typically invest more in their driving ability. Far from making them safer drivers, this actually makes them more prone to do truly stupid things. The difference is that a man is usually aware that he is doing something stupid and dangerous and is doing it on purpose (I've fallen victim to this impulse myself). The felt danger is why men do these things.
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.
If men weren't "better" drivers than most women, none of them would survive their first year of driving. But women could easily develop the same degree of reflexes and spatial awareness if they liked (look at the typical professional dance troupe if you think that men inherently have superior coordination or such). They just like not, in general.
posted
that's ridiculous--and a stereo type. Why do you think men have to pay more for car insurance?
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
[This message has been edited by srhowen (edited May 21, 2004).]
posted
I read about a car company/dealership (?) that "took a chance" hiring women to drive their cars on and off the semi trailers. Now they prefer women because they've had far less dings and scrapes on the new cars.
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.
[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited May 21, 2004).]
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?
I submitted 3 pieces to Gender Genie. Two out of three were identified as being by a female author. I didn't bother to figure out why "the" is a male word and "and" is a female word.
posted
My experience has always been that women tend to be better at maths, at least until you get to the highly abstract levels. If there's a stereotype that says otherwise, I don't know where it came from. Posts: 626 | Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted
I submitted three times (one fiction, two nonfiction) and got a 2 out of 3 male rating. An interesting note: I keep a Story Journal, where I write problems with the story, but also with life in general. It's not a blog, because who'd want to read my petty thoughts? But that's not the interesting part. I submitted the two nonfiction segments from different parts of this journal, and gone a 1 out of 2 male answer.
posted
ive read through this entire thread, and actually have a conclusion. the gender genie is broken ! no, just kidding..
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)..
now if i can find the passion to actually write one of these stories...
posted
I think the Gender Genie is really dumb. It uses certain keywords to determine gender? Then it could depend on sooo many things besides gender. POV, what voice yoru writing in, etc.
posted
OK, a little background on the scientific basis of the Gender Genie.
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.
Choices such as POV or voice may influence the ocurrence of certain words -- writing in first person will probably result in more uses of the words "me" and "myself," for example, but those words have low point value in the algorithm. (And maybe women are more likely to write in first person?)
posted
Coincidence or not ... I can't really say, but I recall being in high school and as I advanced through the harder sciences the numbers of females dwindled. In chemistry the ratio was 1 female to every 2 guys, in AP Chem it was 1 to 4, and in AP Physics it was a class of ten men, and no women at all.
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.
posted
There's nothing inherently wrong with sterotypes.
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.
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."
My fourteen-year old daughter just finished her fourth college physics course. She was definitely the smartest kid in her classes (actually, the smartest person), and scored great on the tests. But she didn't pay attention "when it wasn't useful. Which was most of the time. In fact it was almost all the time." And the only reason she did as much homework as she did (which wasn't nearly all of it) was because it counted a lot toward the grade, and she does want to continue taking these courses.
Now, I'm just starting to teach her how to drive. So, what should I expect?
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.
I figure if they don't come out of physics knowing anything else, then at least there's a chance I've saved a life or two.
posted
Depends on her risk taking behavior. Some kids are low risk takers. They'll do things behind the wheel that make you cringe, with you sitting right there. But they won't go out and take stupid risks when you aren't looking.
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?
Nowhere. Academic behaviors like studying hard and planning your future tend to predict lower risk taking, as does being a girl. Disregarding the homework load for a strictly optional series of classes also doesn't make any list of factors I can think up off the top of my head.
posted
Having taken physics and math and hard science at the college level, gender does come into it-- but not where you think it would. (And I'm female. Just realized I should confirm that. ) I don't think it has anything to do with inherent ability. It has everything to do with how willing you are to put up with the guys, how able you are to become one of them. (And the ratio of girls to guys is terrible and only gets worse as you go on.)
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.
This is getting long... My favorite physics boy story: My freshman year, I went to an introductory picnic, and went to stand with a bunch of guys I vaguely knew who were talking about a problem set in advanced intro physics (I was in the medium class, since I hadn't had AP physics). Naturally, they were arguing about a problem set, rather loudly. Each one would take turns darting forward and yelling about it, until the rest of the group shouted them down. Finally, one of the two guys standing next to me said something that the rest of them grudgingly agreed with. The triumphant victor of a guy then turned to me and *put his arm around me*. Spoils of war.
posted
er... uh. Well, I actually went out with him. Although, in my defense, only once. Once he'd freaked out because I worked out a relativity problem intuitively (I mostly stink at physics, but twin problems make a surprising amount of sense) I pretty much realized there wasn't any hope there. (I really do love geology. Geology guys get psyched when something works out, and they get all excited and impressed if you can go under a theotolite tripod at the top of a sand dune without disturbing the balance. I think that's the closest geology equivalent to twin problems.)
This story was one of the reasons, a couple years later, for my proposal to the department undergrad guy to spend funds hiring supermodel girlfriends for the male physics majors. Fun for them, and a lot less pressure on the female physics majors. Sadly, the department chose not to go that direction....
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.