Authentic portrayal of both genders

[Kumquatqueen]

I'd argue it was more take a woman and remove any admission or awareness of physical fear, add more fear of not 'making it' in life.

But readers generally want fantasy people, not sensible real ones, the ones who aren't scared to walk down that dark alley with the person/being they've just met...

Realistic people - feel free to read any of my stories. Most characters are mash-ups of multiple real people I've known, suitably anonymised and put in varied situations.

 

[AlexBailey]

And men staring into mirrors, admiring their face, brushing their finger, lovingly across their perfectly trimmed moustache, and ogling their fitted suite and how fine they look in it, isn't vanity. Neither is their obsessives pride in accomplishments, rights? No, it's only mainly excessive pride in one's appearance or accomplishments; conceit. Oh wait, that's definition of Vanity. My bad,

Lol. That’s autoandrophilia. It also falls under the category of “assuming others will judge them by their own values.”

 

[Bramblethorn]

If you are a scientific-minded person, you might gleam some insights of interest from reading into some evolutionary psychology, e.g., you could start with Roy F. Baumeister's short essay "Is There Anything Good About Men?" or dive into the deep end with David M. Buss' seminal "Evolutionary Psychology." Thereby you might gain a better understanding of what characterizes the male half of the human population, in tought, word, and deed.

Be aware that an awful lot of evo-psych is quackery. Much of the appeal is that it's possible to come up with a plausible-sounding evo-psych explanation for just about any behavioural trait, but evo-psych often doesn't stop to verify whether that explanation is actually correct. (If the trait even exists, that is...) Evo-psych isn't totally devoid of value, but it's worth stopping to ask frequently "do we know this is true, or does it just sound good?"

It also has a tendency to lump everything into simplistic stereotypes, ignoring individual variations.

For instance, I am informed by a review of Buss's book that it features the assertion "Women also report feelings of more regret, feelings of being used, and depression following hook-ups or one-night stands (Campbell, 2008)." (Campbell, A. The Morning after the Night Before. Hum Nat 19, 157–173 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-008-9036-2.)

Let's unpack that a bit. Looking at the paper...

A British television station (Channel 4) mounted the data collection instruments on their web site between December 2004 and February 2005. Titled “One Night with You,” the introduction explained that the quiz was designed to investigate people’s “next-morning” feelings about one-night stands. The participants were informed that their replies were anonymous and they should answer as truthfully as possible.

So for "women" here, read "the kind of women who are interested in Channel 4 and who are willing to answer a self-selected web survey". This raises some major questions of representativeness, none of which seem to be acknowledged in Campbell's paper. I'm well aware that research is hard and it's much cheaper to run this kind of self-selected survey than to use more rigorous approaches; unless somebody's willing to provide buckets of funding, it may be the only affordable option. But anybody depending on this kind of method should be aware of the large risk of selection effects causing biases, and should be cautious in making sweeping claims from such findings.

For example, the paper mentions that only 2% of respondents were older than 60. Per ONS, about 16% of the UK population was aged 65+ at the time this survey was run, so the sample is obviously very unrepresentative where age is concerned, but the paper doesn't acknowledge this, or discuss how that could skew the results, let alone consider other ways in which the sample composition might be skewed.

Moving on...

Responses were received from 3,363 individuals (1,909 men and 1,454 women), of whom 2,956 (88%) self-identified as heterosexual. Homosexual and bisexual participants were excluded from the present analysis...

...okay, so we're further to "heterosexual women, the kind who are interested in Channel 4 and who are willing to answer a self-selected web survey."

Respondents were asked to describe how they felt after their most recent one-night stand. They were given a list of six positive and six negative statements, e.g. "Sexually satisfied and confident", "Scared about a possible pregnancy or contracting a sexually transmitted disease", and asked to respond to each on a four-point scale: 0 = "Definitely not", 1 = "Not really", 2 = "Somewhat", 3 = "Definitely".

Those scores were then aggregated to give a 0-18 score for the positive items, and similarly for the negative items. Buss talks about the negatives so I'll focus on those, but the story from the positive items was pretty consistent with this.

The first point to note is that the male and female scores are pretty similar: male mean=5.89, female mean=7.34. In non-technical terms: both men and women typically responded 'not really' when asked about regretting their one-night stands, with women slightly more likely to have regrets than men.

The second point is that the individual variations within each gender are much larger than the difference between the average man and the average woman: male SD = 3.11, female SD 3.53.

If you were to plot those scores on a graph, you'd see something like this (using a normal approximation):

The real story here is that differences between "average woman" and "average man" are dwarfed by variation between individuals, and that both genders mostly didn't have a lot of regrets about one-night stands - if we can take these results as representative of broader populations.

But evo-psych prefers to massage this kind of thing into simplistic stories about how our cave-man history leaves men wired for promiscuity and women for monogamy.

(Perhaps I'm being unfair to Buss; I haven't read his book, and maybe he adequately discusses the nuance and limitations of this kind of work. But if he has, he'd be just about the first evo-psych author who did.)

 

[JuanaSalsa]

...The second point is that the individual variations within each gender are much larger than the difference between the average man and the average woman: male SD = 3.11, female SD 3.53.
...
The real story here is that differences between "average woman" and "average man" are dwarfed by variation between individuals, and that both genders mostly didn't have a lot of regrets about one-night stands - if we can take these results as representative of broader populations...

Lovely. I simply swoon for data analysis. It's so nice when people care about statistical significance.

 

[Winter_Fare]

I'm grateful for all the different suggestions but I'm probably not up for rereading Wuthering Heights and by academic juices are all used up with studying already.

Stereotypes of male behaviour, like aggression and dominance are useful to an extent I guess??? Nothing new though, and sometimes it feels lazy to fall back on them.

I love the more subtle suggestions, and I'll take another look through tomorrow xxx

 

[Winter_Fare]

The real story here is that differences between "average woman" and "average man" are dwarfed by variation between individuals, and that both genders mostly didn't have a lot of regrets about one-night stands - if we can take these results as representative of broader populations.

I'm 40 years old, female, and the only thing I regret is missed opportunities *sigh*. They didn't measure how many people regretted not having one night stands at all! Lazy.

 

[Auden James]

Be aware that an awful lot of evo-psych is quackery.

You are free to think of evolutionary psychology what you will; ever since the replication crisis that started in the last decade almost all of psychology is in deep waters. I simply wanted to point out an ongoing research program that because of its very subject matter might be of special interest to the OP.

Apart from that I don't see where Campbell's findings contradict Buss' statement, since the assertion, as suggested by you (if I understand you correctly), that there may have been more items in the survey which men and women answered relatively the same than in a different way does not at all invalidate the differences presenting themselves between the groups in a small but significant, especially in regards to Buss' statement, number of items. Put differentely, men and women may have more things in common with regards to how they deal with hook-ups or one-night stands afterwards than they differ in, but the small things that they differ in are rather significant, at least from a psychological perspective.

I'm grateful for all the different suggestions but I'm probably not up for rereading Wuthering Heights . . . .

Another—perhaps less taxing and definitely more modern—suggestion would be Philip Roth's "Portnoy's Complaint," which puts a special emphasis on the male first person narrator's sexual nature.

 

[SimonDoom]

Something to keep in mind is that authenticity is only part of what people seek when they read stories. People also seek fantasy. Many women want to read about men who are exaggerated projections of what they desire. Same thing with men reading about women. It's often the case that people don't want to read about people who represent statistical means; they want to read about people who represent outliers. That's true of erotica and it's true of other types of fiction. Christian Grey is an absurd character, but he obviously turned on a lot of women readers. Sherlock Holmes is a completely unrealistic character. That's his whole appeal. The list goes on and on.

I think it's more important to make your characters artful and interesting than to make them authentic in the sense of conforming to statistical averages.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I'm 40 years old, female, and the only thing I regret is missed opportunities *sigh*. They didn't measure how many people regretted not having one night stands at all! Lazy.

I think that the best approach in writing realistic characters of any gender is to first determine the important qualities of the character; are they smart or dumb, kind or cruel, etc. Once you've outlined the basics of the characters personality, then you interpret those qualities through a gender lens as befits their place in the story.

 

[Auden James]

Christian Grey is an absurd character, but he obviously turned on a lot of women readers.

I'd cautiously put forward that it may not have been exactly his "character" (in the sense of Greek "ethos" or similar concepts) that drew the women readers in but rather his property and status as a billionaire, albeit unconsciously perhaps.

 

[LupusDei]

Just to add to the useless pile of stereotypes:

When a man tells a thing to a woman, she's asking how you feel about it?
When a woman tells a thing to a man, he's asking how I should act on it?

Neither would understand the other's question, or at best see it it as excessive and intrusive.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd cautiously put forward that it may not have been exactly his "character" (in the sense of Greek "ethos" or similar concepts) that drew the women readers in but rather his property and status as a billionaire, albeit unconsciously perhaps.

That's part of it. But it was also his extremely exaggerated personality traits:

He was extremely jealous of other men and any attention they gave to his woman.

He was domineering.

He was very controlling.

He wanted to engage in BDSM activities where the woman would be bound and subjected to pain.

He was highly competent -- he ran a business and could fly gliders, etc. He got things done.

He had highly exaggerated traits that are associated with masculinity, not just lots of money. That was a big part of the fantasy.

 

[Auden James]

Yeah, but would these traits have been part of any (woman reader's) fantasy if he had been a beggar instead of a billionaire?

The answer to this question, I think, reveals what really drove the whole Shades fantasy . . .

 

[SimonDoom]

Yeah, but would these traits have been part of any (woman reader's) fantasy if he had been a beggar instead of a billionaire?

The answer to this question, I think, reveals what really drove the whole Shades fantasy . . .

I don't think you have to boil it down to one thing. 50 Shades is, basically, a gothic romance, with bondage and crops.

Would Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind have been a successful romantic hero if he had not been rich and aristocratic? No, he would not. But that doesn't mean his wealth was the essence of his appeal. Ashley Wilkes had wealth and aristocracy, but he lacked Rhett Butler's animal magnetism, which was an essential part of the romance.

Fantastic wealth was a big part of the Christian Grey fantasy appeal, but it wasn't enough. His personality was part of it.

You're not going to be able to make a successful erotic story out of a character whose only trait is that he's rich. It's not interesting enough.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I don't think you have to boil it down to one thing. 50 Shades is, basically, a gothic romance, with bondage and crops.

Would Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind have been a successful romantic hero if he had not been rich and aristocratic? No, he would not. But that doesn't mean his wealth was the essence of his appeal. Ashley Wilkes had wealth and aristocracy, but he lacked Rhett Butler's animal magnetism, which was an essential part of the romance.

Fantastic wealth was a big part of the Christian Grey fantasy appeal, but it wasn't enough. His personality was part of it.

You're not going to be able to make a successful erotic story out of a character whose only trait is that he's rich. It's not interesting enough.

Not a lot of ladys buffin' the muffin over Jeff Bezos.

 

[SimonDoom]

Not a lot of ladys buffin' the muffin over Jeff Bezos.

Jeff Bezos porn. I don't even want to think about it.

Oh, and "buffin the muffin." You've got a way with words, Melissa.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Jeff Bezos porn. I don't even want to think about it.

Oh, and "buffin the muffin." You've got a way with words, Melissa.

Thanks. Maybe I should spend more time writing and less time fucking around here.

 

[SimonDoom]

Thanks. Maybe I should spend more time writing and less time fucking around here.

No, both types of contributions are appreciated. Please continue.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Apart from that I don't see where Campbell's findings contradict Buss' statement, since the assertion, as suggested by you (if I understand you correctly), that there may have been more items in the survey which men and women answered relatively the same than in a different way does not at all invalidate the differences presenting themselves between the groups in a small but significant, especially in regards to Buss' statement, number of items.

Note that "significant" in this context doesn't mean the same thing that it means in ordinary language.

It doesn't mean "important" and it doesn't even mean "probably real". All it means is "unlikely to be due to sampling error alone". But in a study of this kind, sampling error is the least of one's concerns. "Statistical significance" says nothing about the possible non-sampling error, e.g. non-representativeness of respondents due to the medium used.

FWIW, I wasn't talking about specific items within the overall "negative experience" score, but the paper does include an item-by-item breakdown. Perhaps worth noting that one of the items where men and women had the largest differences was in response to "Worried about the loss of your reputation if other people find out" - which probably says less about any innate, evolutionary-based difference between men and women than it does about how society treats "promiscuous" women vs. men.

Again, it's not that these things aren't worth examining, or that differences can't exist - but that evo-psych has a bad tendency to over-simplify and stereotype the results, and to make unsupported claims about why the differences exist, while making some heroic leaps in the data analysis.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Lovely. I simply swoon for data analysis. It's so nice when people care about statistical significance.

I hear ya. But never forget the non-sampling error!

 

[JuanaSalsa]

I hear ya. But never forget the non-sampling error!

Of course, and that's really only the beginning. The most important thing to worry about, as a consumer of social data, is the researcher's inherit bias and their scientific rigor to accommodate for it.

How much have they let their opinions shape the study? Did they (unconsciously) select biased language that would drive people to select certain answers? Did they omit important options? Did they randomize the order of questions and answers? When they went to do the data analysis, did they ignore that data which did not support their point, or did they explore everything?

As a researcher of physical phenomena, at least I can perform a gauge R&R to validate my test method and I can clearly define my controlled and uncontrolled variables, so I'm already ahead before I even get to the data analysis. And when I'm done, I have tangible results that can be directly applied to solve physical problems.

Studying things is so much easier, and more productive IMO, than studying people. I think it's much harder to be a good people scientist than a good physical scientist, but it's so much easier to succeed as a bad people scientist than as a bad physical scientist.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Not a lot of ladys buffin' the muffin over Jeff Bezos.

That rocket, though...

 

[MillieDynamite]

Lol. That’s autoandrophilia. It also falls under the category of “assuming others will judge them by their own values.”

Actually, the man I saw do this last is a narcissist. And he don't give a shit what anyone thinks, he's God's gift to the world, and women in particular. In other words, like many men with money, he's a fucked up jerk.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Of course, and that's really only the beginning. The most important thing to worry about, as a consumer of social data, is the researcher's inherit bias and their scientific rigor to accommodate for it.

How much have they let their opinions shape the study? Did they (unconsciously) select biased language that would drive people to select certain answers? Did they omit important options? Did they randomize the order of questions and answers? When they went to do the data analysis, did they ignore that data which did not support their point, or did they explore everything?

As a researcher of physical phenomena, at least I can perform a gauge R&R to validate my test method and I can clearly define my controlled and uncontrolled variables, so I'm already ahead before I even get to the data analysis. And when I'm done, I have tangible results that can be directly applied to solve physical problems.

Studying things is so much easier, and more productive IMO, than studying people. I think it's much harder to be a good people scientist than a good physical scientist, but it's so much easier to succeed as a bad people scientist than as a bad physical scientist.

You also have to consider that some people lie even when no one can find out you lied. People lie to themselves, I regret doing that, all the while planning when they can do it again. Anonymity doesn't insure honesty. Especially when sex is involved.

 

[JuanaSalsa]

You also have to consider that some people lie even when no one can find out you lied. People lie to themselves, I regret doing that, all the while planning when they can do it again. Anonymity doesn't insure honesty. Especially when sex is involved.

Very true and something I don't consider nearly as often as I should.