Male as the assumed default.

strobe · 13-07-2011 07:34PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Im not a history guru so I cant join the dots timewise. However, while I know farming had a lot to do with the establishment of patriarchy and patrilinear descent, etc, most of the lit and narratives we are taught in school and are passed down have male protagonists.

Maybe it's to do with the fact that traditionally men were the ones with the cash and therefore it made fiscal sense for writers to use male protagonists as their main customers would be more likely to buy a book featuring lead characters they would be more likely to identify with?

Wibbs · 13-07-2011 07:50PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Greek and Irish mythologies had a good mix match, but even with the Greeks the epic tales were of the male heroic model,

yep, while the Greeks had godesses prancing about in the tales of ordinary people, even royalty women get little of a look in compared to the men. Helen of Troy may be famous through the centuries but in the tale itself she's very one dimensional indeed. To be fair to the Irish epics, women ordinary women are far more in evidence and have far more of a voice than the vast majority of classical literature. In the epic of The Tain, queen Meabh like Helen kicks off a war and the story, but unlike Helen it's all of her doing and she's got a helluva voice running through the narrative. It opens up and starts off with her and her husband the king reckoning he's brought the best parts to the marriage. Followed by her listing why he's talking through his bottom and doing a very good job of chopping his nuts off while she's at it.

We dont have women greats composers and authors, because half the population has been stuck in kitchens for most of their lives through the centuries. That, and art at that level takes a certain predatoryness [I CAN DO THAT!] and that is most unladylike.

On the first part one could argue that most of the other half were labouring or fighting, so it was really only ever the upper classes had the wherewithal to be artists. On the second part I'd somewhat agree alright. I'd add having children to the kitchen equation. Great artists and scientists can often be singleminded and abhor any distractions. Being pretty much the sole maintainer of children seriously cut into womens time to be so singleminded. Then there's the notion that some art in men springs from the fact they can't give life themselves so that need to give birth gives birth to art and science, but art in particular as a way to keep their name alive after they're gone. Their may be something to that.

metrovelvet · 13-07-2011 08:07PM

I read Helen as more of a plot device than a protgonist than heroine. OK I love the Greeks but I have to say, Homer really took the piss with Penelope hanging around faithfully for 40 years while her husband wanders the seas and has his little adventures. That seems to be what a lot of fictional women do, they wait.

Totally agree about the kids part, and kind of meant that in the kitchen comment, as well as the single mindedness of the big great artists. On the subject of male creativity, Margaret Mead gave a very interesting lecture about this, still stored in audio libraries, will try to think of where I found it.

southsiderosie · 13-07-2011 10:20PM

Is it the positive role model thing? Because I don’t want only positive female role models. I want the spectrum. Angry girls, happy girls, mean girls. Lazy girls. Girls who lie and girls who hit people and do the wrong thing sometimes. I’m pretty sure my daughters can figure out for themselves which personality aspects they should emulate, if only they see the diversity.

It’s not like this is hard. Dogs and Smurfs: we’re not talking about searing journeys to the depths of the soul. An elephant whose primary story purpose is to steal some berries does not have to be male. Not every time. Characters can be girls just because they happen to be girls.

Well an interesting case in children's literature is the success of the (female-authored) Harry Potter books. There are loads of female characters (some good, many bad), one of the main protagonists is female, hell, even some of the best quiddich players were girls...but they aren't seen as 'girl' books.

Granted I'm not trying to refute the argument based on a single case, but the popularity of those books among both boys and girls (and grownups) suggests that male readers are willing to pick up a book that a) is written by a woman and b) with strong female characters. Perhaps things would have been different if the main character was Henrietta Potter rather than Harry Potter (which is what the original article would suggest)...but I'm not so sure.

iguana · 13-07-2011 10:26PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Perhaps things would have been different if the main character was Henrietta Potter rather than Harry Potter (which is what the original article would suggest)...but I'm not so sure.

I think that would have made an enormous difference and I suspect that Joanne Rowling possibly thought the same.

JamJamJamJam · 13-07-2011 10:46PM

I've always found that maths problems feature a pretty equal share of males and females.

However, it always reminds me that I myself seem to assume that the character will be male. For instance when the question reads "An athlete runs at the speed of light (:p) for 2 minutes. She then runs at 2 km/hr for another 2 minutes.. (blah blah blah)", I notice it as somehow surprising or unusual that the athlete is female. If it was a male I would take no notice. This isn't something I'd ever dwelled on much. I just assumed that, since I am a guy, I would be more likely to expect a male character (I don't know how I came to this conclusion), and that girls would assume the opposite. But now that I think of it, I shouldn't have any reason to make such an assumption.

Good thread. Once again, my eyes have been opened: :eek:

krudler · 13-07-2011 10:55PM

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well an interesting case in children's literature is the success of the (female-authored) Harry Potter books. There are loads of female characters (some good, many bad), one of the main protagonists is female, hell, even some of the best quiddich players were girls...but they aren't seen as 'girl' books.

Granted I'm not trying to refute the argument based on a single case, but the popularity of those books among both boys and girls (and grownups) suggests that male readers are willing to pick up a book that a) is written by a woman and b) with strong female characters. Perhaps things would have been different if the main character was Henrietta Potter rather than Harry Potter (which is what the original article would suggest)...but I'm not so sure.

They put Rowlings name as JK to not make it so obvious she was a woman though.

I used to read Roald Dahl's books a lot when I was a kid and he wrote books with female lead characters and it never mattered to me a bit, Matilda, The Twits, The BFG, all have girls as the main character.

Stheno · 13-07-2011 10:55PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd blame the move to farming 10,000 years ago.

Helen Fisher an anthropologist who has done a lot of work in this are agrees with you

Interesting article imo (I'm a bit of a Helen Fisher fan, first came across her in the old testosterone debate). In another of her writings she cites the advent of tools as being a reason for the gender divide that society has developed.

Marriage has changed more in the past 100 years than it has in the past 10,000, and it could change more in the next 20 years than in the last 100. We are rapidly shedding traditions that emerged with the Agricultural Revolution and returning to patterns of sex, romance, and attachment that evolved on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago.

Let’s look at virginity at marriage, arranged marriages, the concept that men should be the sole family breadwinners, the credo that a woman’s place is in the home, the double standard for adultery, and the concepts of “honor thy husband” and “til death do us part.” These beliefs are vanishing. Instead, children are expressing their sexuality. “Hooking up” (the new term for a one-night stand) is becoming commonplace, along with living together, bearing children out of wedlock, women-headed households, interracial marriages, homosexual weddings, commuter marriages between individuals who live apart, childless marriages, betrothals between older women and younger men, and small families.

Our concept of infidelity is changing. Some married couples agree to have brief sexual encounters when they travel separately; others sustain long-term adulterous relationships with the approval of a spouse. Even our concept of divorce is shifting. Divorce used to be considered a sign of failure; today it is often deemed the first step toward true happiness.

These trends aren’t new. Anthropologists have many clues to life among our forebears; the dead do speak. A million years ago, children were most likely experimenting with sex and love by age six. Teens lived together, in relationships known as “trial marriages.” Men and women chose their partners for themselves. Many were unfaithful—a propensity common in all 42 extant cultures I have examined. When our forebears found themselves in an unhappy partnership, these ancients walked out. A million years ago, anthropologists suspect, most men and women had two or three long-term partners across their lifetimes. All these primordial habits are returning.

But the most profound trend forward to the past is the rise of what sociologists call the companionate, symmetrical, or peer marriage: marriage between equals. Women in much of the world are regaining the economic power they enjoyed for millennia. Ancestral women left camp almost daily to gather fruits, nuts, and vegetables, returning with 60% to 80% of the evening meal. In the hunting and gathering societies of our past, women worked outside the home; the double-income family was the rule, and women were just as economically, sexually, and socially powerful as men. Today, we are returning to this lifeway, leaving in the “dustbin of history” the traditional, male-headed, patriarchal family—the bastion of agrarian society.

This massive change will challenge many of our social traditions, institutions, and policies in the next 20 years. Perhaps we will see wedding licenses with an expiration date. Companies may have to reconsider how they distribute pension benefits. Words like marriage, family, adultery, and divorce are likely to take on a variety of meanings. We may invent some new kinship terms. Who pays for dinner will shift. Matriliny may become common as more children trace their descent through their mother.

All sorts of industries are already booming as spin-offs of our tendencies to marry later, then divorce and remarry. Among these are Internet dating services, marital mediators, artists who airbrush faces out of family albums, divorce support groups, couples therapists, and self-improvement books. As behavioral geneticists begin to pinpoint the biology of such seemingly amorphous traits as curiosity, cautiousness, political orientation, and religiosity, the rich may soon create designer babies.

For every trend there is a countertrend, of course. Religious traditions are impeding the rise of women in some societies. In countries where there are far more men than women, due to female infanticide, women are likely to become coveted—and cloistered. The aging world population may cling to outmoded social values, and population surges and declines will affect our attitudes toward family life.

Adding to this mix will be everything we are learning about the biology of relationships. We now know that kissing a long-term partner reduces cortisol, the stress hormone. Certain genes in the vasopressin system predispose men to make less-stable partnerships. My colleagues and I have discovered that the feeling of romantic love is associated with the brain’s dopamine system—the system for wanting. Moreover, we have found that romantic rejection activates brain regions associated with profound addiction. Scientists even know some of the payoffs of “hooking up.” Casual sex can trigger the brain systems for romantic love and/or feelings of deep attachment. In a study led by anthropologist Justin Garcia, some 50% of men and women reported that they initiated a hook up in order to trigger a longer partnership; indeed, almost a third of them succeeded.

What will we do with all these data? One forward-thinking company has begun to bottle what our forebears would have called “love magic.” They sell Liquid Trust, a perfume that contains oxytocin, the natural brain chemical that, when sniffed, triggers feelings of trust and attachment.

We are living in a sea of social and technological currents that are likely to reshape our family lives. But much will remain the same. To bond is human. The drives to fall in love and form an attachment to a mate are deeply embedded in the human brain. Indeed, in a study I just completed on 2,171 individuals (1,198 men, 973 women) at the Internet dating site Chemistry.com, 84% of participants said they wanted to marry at some point. They will. Today, 84% of Americans wed by age 40—albeit making different kinds of marriages. Moreover, with the expansion of the roles of both women and men, with the new medical aids to sex and romance (such as Viagra and estrogen replacement), with our longer life spans, and with the growing social acceptance of alternative ways to bond, I believe we now have the time and tools to make more-fulfilling partnerships than at any time in human evolution. The time to love is now.

Logical Fallacy · 13-07-2011 11:21PM

krudler wrote: »

They put Rowlings name as JK to not make it so obvious she was a woman though.

That is definitely part of it. There is also the midly elitist side of things as well.

If J.R.R was good enough for Tolkien.

And H.P was good enough for Lovecraft etc etc

goose2005 · 14-07-2011 10:49AM

This has been a great year for male writers, with women shunted aside for major prizes and all-new hand-wringing about why it is so. Because, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but male writers get taken more seriously. Also, stories about men, even if written by women, are considered mainstream, while stories about women are “women’s fiction.” This despite the fact that women read more than men, and write more, and are over-represented generally throughout publishing.

tbh this is a very questionable opening. Among recent Booker winners, The Gathering, the Inheritance of Loss, and the Blind Assassin all had female protagonists, and women have won 3 of the last 5 awards.

As for all dogs being stereotyped as males, I think it's because dogs have stereotypically male characteristics - they're active, energetic, etc. In my experience, birds and cats are often called "she" even when gender is unknown - I can even recall someone calling a peacock "she" because in humans, ornamentation is a female thing.

Wibbs wrote: »

Linkeh S? AFAIR all XY women while identifying as and being women are infertile.

I'd blame the move to farming 10,000 years ago. Along with that comes notions of property and defence and handing on of same. Physical strength is much more at play. The physically strong are best placed to defend and increase boundaries. Ergo men, or certain men would control more resources. Resource heavy males would be lauded and selected by more women increasing the effect. The wealth of equal experience in gender roles in the previous tribal types would be skewed more to the male side in the farmer. This would also bring along concepts like valuing virginity and all that stuff in women because of paternity. A concept valued in previous tribal societies, but not nearly so much when property and lineage suddenly becomes far more important.

Entirely false, in all hunter-gatherer societies men seek virgin wives and seek to control women's reproduction.

Hatshepsut of Egypt another strong woman(and very well liked Pharaoh) some of whose statues even have a false beard attached. Her cartouche is often "male". Though she was well regarded their heads couldn't quite get around the concept.

Actually all pharoahs wore false beards.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I read Helen as more of a plot device than a protgonist than heroine. OK I love the Greeks but I have to say, Homer really took the piss with Penelope hanging around faithfully for 40 years while her husband wanders the seas and has his little adventures. That seems to be what a lot of fictional women do, they wait.

Actually it was 20 years, of which 10 was war and 7 was as Calypso's prisoner. You could just as easily ask why Odysseus bothered to risk his life so much just for some woman. Moreover, even Penelope's waiting, and refusing to take a husband because she believed Odysseus was still alive, took great courage.

Wibbs · 14-07-2011 12:34PM

goose2005 wrote: »

Entirely false, in all hunter-gatherer societies men seek virgin wives and seek to control women's reproduction.

You'll note I didn't say they didn't, however I did say it became more important. Plus it is incorrect to state all HG societies seek virgin wives. They often seek younger wives and virginity usually comes with that. They also seek out younger women who are widowed and have kids, thereby proving their fecundity. The latter is a common one in various New Guinean HG cultures. HG cultures can't be lumped in as an homogenous group anyway and various cultures practice different things, but pretty much all settled agrarian societies are notable for this preference(nomadic cultures tend to be more like HG).

Actually all pharoahs wore false beards.

Early kingdom Pharaohs tended to have real beards. Shaving was the norm later on and then false beards(and head wigs) were worn as another item of regal clothing. Regardless the point still stands. Outside of a traveling freakshow women with beards is an incongruous match. It's a male secondary sexual characteristic. If the gender roles were completely reversed in a society it would be akin to the odd male ruler in that society donning false breasts as a sign of office.

Actually it was 20 years, of which 10 was war and 7 was as Calypso's prisoner. You could just as easily ask why Odysseus bothered to risk his life so much just for some woman. Moreover, even Penelope's waiting, and refusing to take a husband because she believed Odysseus was still alive, took great courage.

They still both act as a foil to the male character(s) who drives the story. One could even argue that Helen is the woman in peril/prize/to blame for the whole thing. In the Irish epics Meabh is far more among equals in driving the story.

*EDIT*

I can even recall someone calling a peacock "she" because in humans, ornamentation is a female thing.

Incorrect. In some cultures inc our own ornamentation is a female thing, in quite a few others throughout history that role very much fell to the male. The aforementioned New Guinean cultures a very good example. It's the men who wear the makeup and extremely ornate headdresses. They're not alone in that.

Logical Fallacy · 14-07-2011 01:27PM

goose2005 wrote: »

Actually it was 20 years, of which 10 was war and 7 was as Calypso's prisoner. You could just as easily ask why Odysseus bothered to risk his life so much just for some woman. Moreover, even Penelope's waiting, and refusing to take a husband because she believed Odysseus was still alive, took great courage.

I agree with the last part...but didn't Odysseus hook up with Circe for a year after she turned some of his men into piggies?

Monkey61 · 14-07-2011 02:26PM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

That is definitely part of it. There is also the midly elitist side of things as well.

If J.R.R was good enough for Tolkien.

And H.P was good enough for Lovecraft etc etc

Except that in the case of JK Rowling, she was asked to use initials solely because the publisher feared that boys wouldn't pick up a book with an obviously female author. She had to choose a middle initial as she doesn't have a middle name.

And even though I am a girl, and a lover of children's literature, I probably would have been put off by the central lead being female. I can't even explain why. I just generally prefer male characters in books/films etc.

Anyway, great article, something which would always have been in the back of my mind but I never actually thought of it that clearly.

Unregistered. · 14-07-2011 02:31PM

This has been a great year for male writers, with women shunted aside for major prizes and all-new hand-wringing about why it is so. Because, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but male writers get taken more seriously. Also, stories about men, even if written by women, are considered mainstream, while stories about women are “women’s fiction.” This despite the fact that women read more than men, and write more, and are over-represented generally throughout publishing.

As the father of two girls, one aged five and one ten months, I know why. It’s because of dogs and Smurfs. I can’t understand why no-one else realizes this. I see these knotted-brow articles and the writers seem truly perplexed. Dogs and Smurfs: that’s the answer.

Let me walk you through it. We’ll start with dogs. I have written about this before, but to save you the click: people assume dogs are male. Listen out for it: you will find it’s true. To short-cut the process, visit the zoo, because when I say “dogs,” I really mean, “all animals except maybe cats.” The air of a zoo teems with “he.” I have stood in front of baboons with teats like missile launchers and heard adults exclaim to their children, “Look at him!” Once I saw an unsuspecting monkey taken from behind and there was a surprised silence from the crowd and then someone made a joke about sodomy. People assume animals are male. If you haven’t already noticed this, it’s only because it’s so pervasive. We also assume people are male, unless they’re doing something particularly feminine; you’ll usually say “him” about an unseen car driver, for example. But it’s ubiquitous in regard to animals.

Now, kids like animals. Kids really ****ing like animals. Kids are little animal stalkers, fascinated by absolutely anything an animal does. They read books about animals. I just went through my daughter’s bookshelves, and they all have animals on the cover. Animals everywhere. And because publishing is terribly progressive, and because Jen and I look out for it, a lot of those animals are girls. But still: a ton of boys. Because of the assumption.

Here’s an example: a truly great kids’ book is Lost and Found by Oliver Jeffers. I love this story, but on page 22, after being called “it” three times, an otherwise sexless penguin twice becomes “he.” This would never, ever happen the other way around. The only reason a penguin can abruptly become male in an acclaimed children’s book without anybody noticing is because we had already assumed it was.

Then you’ve got Smurf books. Not actual Smurfs. I mean stories where there are five major characters, and one is brave and one is smart and one is grumpy and one keeps rats for pets and one is a girl. Smurfs, right? Because there was Handy Smurf and Chef Smurf and Dopey Smurf and Painter Smurf and ninety-four other male Smurfs and Smurfette. Smurfette’s unique personality trait was femaleness. That was the thing she did better than anyone else. Be a girl.

Smurf books are not as common as they used to be, but Smurf stories are, oddly, everywhere on the screen. Pixar makes practically nothing else. I am so disappointed by this, because they make almost every kids’ film worth watching. WALL-E is good. I will grant them WALL-E, because Eve is so awesome. But otherwise: lots of Smurfs.

Male is default. That’s what you learn from a world of boy dogs and Smurf stories. My daughter has no problem with this. She reads these books the way they were intended: not about boys, exactly, but about people who happen to be boys. After years of such books, my daughter can happily identify with these characters.

And this is great. It’s the reason she will grow into a woman who can happily read a novel about men, or watch a movie in which men do all the most interesting things, without feeling like she can’t relate. She will process these stories as being primarily not about males but about human beings.

Except it’s not happening the other way. The five-year-old boy who lives up the street from me does not have a shelf groaning with stories about girl animals. Because you have to seek those books out, and as the parent of a boy, why would you? There are so many great books about boys to which he can relate directly. Smurf stories must make perfect sense to him: all the characters with this one weird personality trait to distinguish them, like being super brave or smart or frightened or a girl.

I have been told that this is a good thing for girls. “That makes girls more special,” said this person, who I wanted to punch in the face. That’s the problem. Being female should not be special. It should be normal. It is normal, in the real world. There are all kinds of girls. There are all kinds of women. You just wouldn’t think so, if you only paid attention to dogs and Smurfs.

Is it the positive role model thing? Because I don’t want only positive female role models. I want the spectrum. Angry girls, happy girls, mean girls. Lazy girls. Girls who lie and girls who hit people and do the wrong thing sometimes. I’m pretty sure my daughters can figure out for themselves which personality aspects they should emulate, if only they see the diversity.

It’s not like this is hard. Dogs and Smurfs: we’re not talking about searing journeys to the depths of the soul. An elephant whose primary story purpose is to steal some berries does not have to be male. Not every time. Characters can be girls just because they happen to be girls.

P.S. Don’t talk to me about Sassette. Sassette was like the three millionth Smurf invented. You get no credit for that.

Did a woman write that?

Morag · 14-07-2011 02:52PM

Why do you ask?

If you had read the thread or indeed where the piece was linked from then you'd know that answer.

LeeHoffmann · 14-07-2011 03:45PM

If you had read the thread or indeed where the piece was linked from then you'd know that answer.

or indeed as far as the second paragraph!

As the father of two girls

Unregistered. · 14-07-2011 04:06PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

or indeed as far as the second paragraph!

tl;dr :P

Mallei · 14-07-2011 04:12PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Ah but it's not completely the fault of Judaic religions, western philosophy and medicine has it's roots in ancient Greece and you can't say they were under the influence of the books of Moses. Modern medicine still works of the premise of a woman being a man with bits missing and extra stuff inside and it's only in the last 50 years or so that is slowly changing.

This is something that's always bothered me. If a man goes to a doctor (female or male) with a male problem, he's seen to and dealt with. If a woman goes to the same doctor with a female problem, she's referred to a speciality "woman's" clinic. A man and his sexual organs are the "norm", a woman and hers must be sent to a special place for women. A case in point - a normal GP will deal with giving a man a vasectomy; a woman must go to a special woman's clinic for the mirena.

On the general note in the OP about men and women in fiction, I believe that this fundamentally comes down to the biological differences between the genders. Women on average are far more empathetic than men (I include the "on average" caveat so that this post isn't subsumed by the flaming of irate male posters). I think it is therefore not surprising that they find it easier to deal with main characters of the opposite gender.

I read a theory once that when a woman reads a novel, she is empathising with the main characters. Male or female, she can feel their pain and understand them, and their gender doesn't really come into it because she can associate with them. Men, on the other hand, don't so much feel the characters as become them. Men, lacking the same level of empathy, instead tend to put themselves in the place of the main character, so where a woman would be watching and empathising with the main character from outside, a man will read the book imagining he is the main character. Which means they really struggle to associate with a female main character, because they can't place themselves in her shoes in the same way.

I also think most men simply find strong female characters threatening and dismiss them out of hand. It's easier to have a strong male lead because "men want to be him and women want to be with him", but that's a separate issue.

LeeHoffmann · 14-07-2011 04:37PM

Mallei, any links for that theory? Sounds fishy to me. I'm always wary when people start talking about innate traits or gender traits and that's what it sounds like to me. I don't buy it, but maybe some men could tell us whether they imagine themselves as the character when reading books! And is there a big difference between empathising with characters and imagining you are the characters in the story?

I also think most men simply find strong female characters threatening and dismiss them out of hand.

What makes you think that??

Mallei · 14-07-2011 04:45PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

What makes you think that??

Men are scared of strong women because they threaten the status quo of the patriarchal society we live in. That's not up for debate, surely?

Wibbs · 14-07-2011 04:53PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Mallei, any links for that theory? Sounds fishy to me. I'm always wary when people start talking about innate traits or gender traits and that's what it sounds like to me.

Well enough studies have shown women to have higher EQ's on average and are more likely to empathise with an external character. Not that men can't(and I don't think Mallei is stating that), but more women do it naturally so to speak.

I don't buy it, but maybe some men could tell us whether they imagine themselves as the character when reading books!

They can and do, but again(I think) Mallei is saying they're less likely to and when they do it's far easier for them to put themselves in the male role than the female.

And is there a big difference between empathising with characters and imagining you are the characters in the story?

I'd say so. Imagining you're the hero(or heroine)/main character is different to empathising with the condition of the another character. EG I might read a James Bond book and imagine myself as Jimmy, but would feel sorry for/emptahise with a character who gets killed in the plot

LeeHoffmann · 14-07-2011 04:54PM

Men are scared of strong women because they threaten the status quo of the patriarchal society we live in. That's not up for debate, surely?

yeah I think it is. It's a very strong statement! I don't know too many men that I would think are threatened by strong women. Really confused about whether you're being serious here?

Mallei · 14-07-2011 05:01PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

yeah I think it is. It's a very strong statement! I don't know too many men that I would think are threatened by strong women. Really confused about whether you're being serious here?

I was being tongue-in-cheek, but I do believe there's some truth behind the joke.

That's a debate for an entirely separate thread, though.

iguana · 14-07-2011 05:33PM

The portion about initialled writers on this thread has reminded me that I too am guilty of assuming male as default in a lot of cases. For years I ran a book shop with a popular crime section and I always assumed PD James was a man. Possibly because the surname "James" put the image of a male in my head but more honestly it's because, in my head, the book covers looked like the covers of books written by men. It wasn't until I read Children of Men and saw her picture on the inside cover and read the little blurb about her, that I realised PD stands for Phyllis Dorothy, So I guess that the moral is; don't judge an author by her book cover.

(Even worse I always think of small fluffy dogs as female first.:o)

Stheno · 14-07-2011 05:36PM

Mallei wrote: »

This is something that's always bothered me. If a man goes to a doctor (female or male) with a male problem, he's seen to and dealt with. If a woman goes to the same doctor with a female problem, she's referred to a speciality "woman's" clinic. A man and his sexual organs are the "norm", a woman and hers must be sent to a special place for women. A case in point - a normal GP will deal with giving a man a vasectomy; a woman must go to a special woman's clinic for the mirena.

Are you saying a GP will perform a vasectomy but not give a woman the Mirena? Any GP I've been to the exact opposite would be applied, the man would be referred to a specialist clinic, and the woman gets her Mirena onsite in the GP's office.

Exile 1798 · 14-07-2011 06:16PM

Male is the default in much language and culture, which is ironic given that female is the biological default.

LeeHoffmann · 14-07-2011 06:23PM

I was being tongue-in-cheek,

ok, I'm not great at subtlety! Thanks for clearing it up.

but I do believe there's some truth behind the joke.

strongly disagree with you here but, as you say, that's a topic for another thread

metrovelvet · 14-07-2011 07:57PM

iguana wrote: »

The portion about initialled writers on this thread has reminded me that I too am guilty of assuming male as default in a lot of cases. For years I ran a book shop with a popular crime section and I always assumed PD James was a man. Possibly because the surname "James" put the image of a male in my head but more honestly it's because, in my head, the book covers looked like the covers of books written by men. It wasn't until I read Children of Men and saw her picture on the inside cover and read the little blurb about her, that I realised PD stands for Phyllis Dorothy, So I guess that the moral is; don't judge an author by her book cover.

(Even worse I always think of small fluffy dogs as female first.:o)

I did that with Pat Barker, also because she wrote about WW1. Maybe a lot of people did this too and it helped sales. Amazing trilogy btw.

metrovelvet · 14-07-2011 08:09PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Well enough studies have shown women to have higher EQ's on average and are more likely to empathise with an external character. Not that men can't(and I don't think Mallei is stating that), but more women do it naturally so to speak.

Ive read testosterone inhibits empathy.

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd say so. Imagining you're the hero(or heroine)/main character is different to empathising with the condition of the another character. EG I might read a James Bond book and imagine myself as Jimmy, but would feel sorry for/emptahise with a character who gets killed in the plot

If you are empathising with one of Bond's victims [talking about books here, not the movies] than you are not truly identifying with Bond himself, because Bond is coldhearted and really wouldnt give a crap.

The predominance of the male protagonist probably has a lot to do with the predominance of male literacy and education too, or male writers. It may just be 'easier' for them to write out men, to script a man than it would a woman as the main character. There are a few exceptions that stand out, Madame Bovary,Anna Karenina, and Hedda Gabler, just off the top of my head, all three of whom commit suicide, ahem ...leading to that old predictable cul de sac, the eradication of the feminine.

pickarooney · 14-07-2011 08:15PM

I imagine George Sand fooled a lot of first-time readers too. I wonder how many men are writing romantic fiction under female pseudonyms.

Male as the assumed default.

Comments