Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40377
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40377
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

## Get out of your own stereotypes, and stick with actual science.

When any male tells me he can't write females, I think they need to break through the false stereotypes of male and female roles.

There are only a handful of actual gender-related differences between males and females, and even those can fall on overlapping probability distributions. The rest is cultural.

My first suggestion is to presume that if people are not thinking anything sexual, they all think alike. Her thinking about engineering issues, politics, missions, entertainment, fine food, or anything else unrelated to romance or naked sport can be the same as a man's. You're in **space,** presume gender-equality is a done deal and embedded in the culture, that for 99% of jobs, physical strength or body size no longer matter -- and when it does matter, it is tested for, and either gender is truly acceptable if they pass the qualifying test.

This is not to say you must ignore all issues related to romance or having sex. Here are two wiki articles that cover most of the bases; [Sex Differences in Humans](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans) and [Sex Differences in Psychology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology). In both cases (for the purpose of being an **author** ) assume any ambiguous experiments claiming a difference between males and females is flawed, and NOT due to genetics or hormonal differences but due to cultural differences, so as an author you can eliminate that difference and make it easier to write your female.

On the sexual front, sexual dimorphism is real (differences in the body due to gender). Males are, on average, 25% more massive than females. In the vast majority of animal species on Earth, females bear all of the risks and physical burdens of pregnancy, and males bear (effectively) none; they need only be involved for a few minutes. Thus in most non-human species, what we see is males **competing** for females, aggressively, often in fights to the death. We do not see (in non-human species) females competing for males; they watch the males fight it out and mate with the winners.

Likewise in many species, females choice is obvious: Particularly in birds but in many other species, males tend to be flashy, larger, more colorful, and females smaller and drabber; the obvious conclusion is that males must not only win the competition of strength and violence against other males, but can also be rejected by the females as mates, if they don't look good doing it!

Finally, this sexual dimorphism makes men **expendable** , and this enters into our psychological differences as well. (See Roy Baumeister's non-fiction evolutionary psychology book, [Is There Anything Good About Men?](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/019537410X). Basically this argument is about reproduction of a group: If a tribe of 100 men and 100 women loses 90 men (and no women) in a war, the next generation of that tribe is not threatened. Even one man can impregnate all the women. But if they lost 90 women in a war (and no men), the ten women left cannot have as many children as 100 women, and the tribe goes extinct. In this sense, men are expendable, because in a lifetime one man can father hundreds (or thousands) of times as many children as one woman can bring to term.

This does translate to our baseline psychology, and may be important, and may be why we see men being more aggressive, combative, and competitive, particularly with other men. That may have a biological basis; evolution works over millions of years and it would be strange if our _bodies_ reflected this competition (in greater size and muscularity on average for males) and our _psychology_ did not evolve in lockstep with it.

This is not a matter of **intelligence,** there is no net difference to be found there, but there may be a difference in non-sexual interests, and sexual dimorphism likely also produces a difference in sexual attitudes, particularly there does exist an average difference in willingness to be promiscuous between men and women, even if women feel certain they will not actually get pregnant.

Like the birds (and many other species), females choose amongst male suitors, and the opposite is seldom true unless, in humans, a male has particularly high social status (in wealth, fame, political power) that would have made him the clear choice in any competition anyway.

There is a basic psychological reason male celebrities have female groupies and will have casual intercourse with hundreds of them, while female celebrities, although they have even more volunteers, will still typically have longer term sexual relationships (measured in years, not hours) with one man at a time. (Again, talking averages, not specific cases).

**_However,_** I hasten to say this only applies to sexual attitudes, thoughts, and scenes of sexual intercourse. Many stories can get away without including any of that. And further you should assume a girl in the sack need not be any less aggressive than a male in the sack about what she wants to happen. Presuming the lust is consensual, if she is there she has made her choice.

My general advice, as the headline says, is when it comes to sex, read up on the actual science and psychology of sex. And as an author doing research, sustain a bias on the side of equality, unless the reasoning for disparity seems convincing to you.

### That's how. Now, What.

Your female needs something to pursue, step by step. You have given her a goal, understanding her grandfather's treason, but I think this is too amorphous: What is her **plan** for understanding this? What information is she pursuing? What is she doing off-book or contrary to orders in order to pursue this information? How will she investigate the treasonous incident to accomplish this personal mission?

In particular, why would she become an **engineer** to try and understand this? What advantage does that give her? What can she sacrifice in pursuit of this understanding? Promotions? Cushy assignments? Is she trying to get transferred to her grandfather's ship so she can hack the systems? Or is she aiming to get posted at headquarters, for the same thing?

You have likely written more than I can see, I know, but I think you are focusing on the backstory because you don't have a front-story, you need something for her to be **doing** or she is not actually being **motivated** by her desire to understand, she is just idly wishing she knew, making her a passive character, instead of an active character with an agenda.

Original score: 7