Writing a Story from Female vs. Male First-Person Perspective - A Lot Different?!

I'm assuming with our female body chemistry driving the narrative. Still trying to figure out how my lady-brain writes convincing, relatively successful books when every single POV character is a man.

 

Give us an example.

 

If you graph where men and women fall on the 10 aspects of the big five personality traits, there is vastly more overlap than exclusion.

The exclusion is only at the extreme ends of the curve. For example, with risk taking: women start businesses and fight in mma and fly combat missions and play extreme sports, when most men can’t/won’t do those things, despite the fact that men as a whole are more incline to take risks.

However, all or almost all Darwin Award winners are men, because risk taking as lunacy is mostly male.

If your female MC is on the fast track to earning a Darwin Award because of excessive, ill conceived, excitement seeking behavior, that might need some explaining.

For anything less, where is the issue?

 

Your statement brings up a point I heard when I was looking into Milo Yiannopoulos, he stated that women are a narrower range of IQs than men do, and as he put it, "This is why there are more male geniuses but also more men in prison." I don't know exactly how true it is, but it is a fascinating point.

 

It’s true according to Stephen Pinker. The average IQ is the same but males have more variability, as if nature is more willing to take a chance on how men are designed, because in nature the male is more expendable.

 

You know what this reminds me of?

Josh Lanyon.

Everyone used to say what an "authentic male voice" his writing had. Right up until the point where everyone found out Josh Lanyon was a woman.

 

I have serious doubts that about this, but the problem is that to really explore it we'd need a true measure of intelligence, rather than a mildly useful number with a fairly decent correlation with some types of intelligence. The fact that IQ goes up as various demographics improve their situation, when it should sit still irrespective of whether people are abjectly poor or incredibly advantaged, means that it's not the objective measure that we'd certainly like it to be.

 

Sounds about right

 

This is a little off topic, but the OP should read about Ching Shih. She was a pirate commander who at the height of her power commanded over 300 ships and and estimated 33,000 to 40,000 sailors. Might be interesting to compare to your crime lord.

 

I meant to comment on this. While she can totally have a temper and should if that’s how you pictured her, I don’t see it as “naturally”. A temper indicates a lack of total control, and I’d think that would be bad for any business, including crime.

 

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I keep thinking the same thing.

I think I've heard you talk about this character a couple times before. "Hot-tempered" makes her sound irrational, which is a bad trait for a crime boss. It makes me think of Tuco Salamanca in Breaking Bad. He was a crime boss, but only because he was born into a high-ranking family in the Mexican drug cartel. Everyone was terrified of him, but he was so unpredictable he'd murder his own men. He had multiple people (at least two of his associates and one of his own men) plotting to kill him or get his arrested, and ultimately he wound up dead.

If she's harsh but fair, "brutal" might be a better word.

Not trying to offend, just a random thing I keep noticing. Good luck.

 

Yeah that's fair.

 

I have to disagree. I think quite a few differences would disappear, if not most of them, but the fact remains that chemical and anatomical differences do make a difference in behavior and physical abilities. For instance, I guarantee a woman isn't going to be as worried about protecting her nuts in a fight as a man would be regardless of societal norms.

 

Can anybody think of an instance in the animal kingdom, where the female has to dress up and preen and be pretty in order to attract a male? I can't. It's usually the other way around. The males are the colourful show-offs, while the females tend to be drab and businesslike. Why did humans decide to do it the other way?

 

Sorry for the off-topic remark again but this one made me laugh. Maybe a woman isn't as likely to get hospitalized when kicked between the legs but it still hurts like hell (speaking from unpleasant experience). Man or woman, this is an area you really don't want to expose in a fight, as one good hit will end the thing pretty quickly.

On topic, imo the personality traits and skills required to be a crime lord would be about the same for a man and a woman. Cunning, ruthlessness, inclination to brutality, good judge of character (maybe a woman would need to be more thick-skinned in a society with bias against females).
So no, I don't think the narrative from his/her perspective would be much different but depending on her/his environment, the reactions to this character and the conflicts they face would change. But I see no reason why you can't have a female crime lord kicking ass.

 

I don't think "humans" did. There are quite a few cultures in which the men get dressed up and do mating displays for the women.

Another time when something seems innate to our species, but is actually determined by socialization.

(And let's not get into my own wash-and-wear style versus some guys I've known who would spend five times as long getting ready to go out).

 

I work with a 35 year old man who has a standing hair appointment every three weeks. His barber once went on vacation and he complained incessantly about having to wait a fourth week for a haircut.

 

Aye, okay that's funny. But you know what I mean. In our culture (at least until very recently) women didn't even get to choose a mate. They might, in some societies, get to say no to an offer of marriage. (In some societies that still isn't the case, especially if their parents want it to happen.) But a woman didn't ask a man to marry her. I remember when a woman asking a man to marry her just wasn't done. The woman had to put forth all her best assets, etc, to get a man to ask HER. I remember this time well. And I'm only 69 years old.

Remember Sadie Hawkins dances? I do. That was the ONE dance of the year where girls got to ask a boy to go with them to the dance. Again, it was a big deal. Very big deal.

In the animal kingdom, it's generally males who compete or even fight for a female's attention ...sometimes wearing pretty cool feathers and/or fur and scales. The much drabber females pick and choose the one they like the best. The others slink off, feathers drooping. Rape isn't something that happens much (I say much, because I have no statistics) in the animal kingdom either. A 'woman' says no, and the males back off.

So I say again: why are humans so different?

 

Well, a little bit of both. Let me put it this way to make things easier hopefully what I'm trying to get at. First...if you were writing a story from the First-Person perspective of a soldier in the military...would there be a huge difference between a male soldier vs. a female soldier? Would the thought process or emotions be a lot different...I mean should there be? You know if I had my audience read my character's story...and I have to admit my character can be quite a bit more aggressive and violent than most female characters would be in most stories (just has more testosterone in her)...would people think her unrealistic? Granted, my character is a criminal and she gets her hands dirty in a lot of stuff. We don't see a lot of females commit big crimes in today's American society...or worldwide society for that matter..typically when it comes to crime people always think of males doing it. Not saying I'm going to make her world's society be like that. I want males and females treated as equals in her society...they can apply for whatever the job they want and not seem deemed weird...I'm inspired by the anime Attack On Titan where you don't even think about that type of stuff when you watch that show. In their society on AOT, everyone blends together. I guess what I'm trying to get at is I don't want to go off the beaten path and have my character seem, in any way, unlikable. She is very human...and she has her moments of being physical and violent because she has a temper...but she can be funny as hell and there are plenty of moments where she's calm and happy and she can shed tears and cry. She may be a crime lord, but she has strengths and weaknesses.

Sorry if I kind of went off on a tangent there but hopefully that steers you in the direction of what I'm trying to ask or figure out. Stay true to her character when I'm inside her head or curb her mentality a bit? I know who she is inside and outside...what would she do in this or that situation? I know exactly all that. I think I should stick to what she would do and not worry about sticking to some society norm.

 

Very good. This whole male vs. female thing has always been something I've thought about. My character was born an antiheroine inside my head when I started writing her story and I will 100% keep it that way, would have never changed that. It's just the thought process piece I am curious about. But like you said, focus on the person rather than the gender. I know who my female crime lord is and how she would react to certain things. She may be quite a bit more aggressive or violent when placing her into a female subculture but who is to say she couldn't be as physically strong or violent-minded as a male? She has a confidence within herself that makes her believe she can win the toughest fights and she loves to pick fights with her, if she's tempted by someone inferior to her to a battle she won't shy away from it. It's in her blood.

 

Socialization.

 

Gimme a few years to get an anthropology degree and I'll get back to ya. You're paying, right?

Seriously, though, it's a complicated answer. Humans have more complex brains and social structures than other animals, and more diversity in our behaviors. Like Bay points outs, it hasn't always been the way it is now, and it's easy for us to be blind to other cultures that operate differently and make erroneous blanket statements as a result.

Humans are different from other animals, but we're also different from each other -- on levels from personal to cultural. There's just so damn many of us it's hard to apply anything to everyone.

 

Yes, but I was comparing the males to the females, not yesterday's male garb to today's male garb. I seem to remember that Regency females wore fairly elaborate and colourful costumes. These guys are dandified, but in comparison to the women of their culture? As for the African ones, I can't say, because you haven't included photos of their women, and I'm not familiar with the culture. But I'm willing to bet the women are pretty colourful as well.

I do think cultural gender stereotypes exist. Obviously they will differ between cultures, but that's not really the issue for a writer, unless they are writing about different cultures and lumping them all together. Whether these stereotypes are 'true' or justified in any way or apply to everybody within the culture is an issue that needs exploration. My own view is that they're not. But they do exist. To deny the stereotypes exist is to deny the evidence before us. I think we're working, as a culture, towards making them less important and less 'universal.' But are we there yet? I dunno. Those prom pictures are pretty recent....

 

The animals are mostly innately "fancy" or "drab" by sex, while human beings, sans clothes and grooming, are pretty much the same level of fanciness whether male or female. Our males haven't evolved colourful plumage or anything... sadly!

And lots of other animals aren't more fancy based on their sex, either - most mammals are more or less the same colour as others of their breed, etc.

Some birds, some fish... baboons? Are the red butts a male thing? Lions, but I don't know if manes are there to be fancy or if they're for protection in a fight...