Post History
You're in a tricky situation here: there's been so much written about women needing protection, that responding negatively to it is almost a knee-jerk reaction, whether justified or not. One way y...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2019-12-12T21:57:29Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/39835 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T10:04:02Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/39835 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
You're in a tricky situation here: there's been so much written about women needing protection, that responding negatively to it is almost a knee-jerk reaction, whether justified or not. One way you can address this is by acknowledging the problem. If you're telling the story from the man's POV, he can acknowledge that the woman would hate him being all protective, but he'd do it anyway because... If you're telling it from the woman's POV, she can hate the situation, even if she (maybe) acknowledges the necessity. This is the route Jim Butcher routinely takes in his _Dresden Files_ series. Another approach is to change slightly the focus of the scene. Instead of the man "protecting the woman because she is a valued teammate, his protégée and just saved his life", he is impressed by her performance, appreciative of what she just did for him, and _of course_ he's going to watch over her now, just as she's done for him a moment ago. The events are the same, but you're telling them in a way that builds the woman up, and downplays the man's role as protector.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2018-11-03T18:25:30Z (about 6 years ago)
Original score: 5