My character said something sexist - but I'm not sexist

“How did you find out about the weapon?”

Click to expand...

“James said something weird about leaving his bullet pouch behind. It got me curious, so I wandered over to the High Priestess’ wing. One of Joline’s handmaidens was finicking about moving this gigantic rug, so I asked her if I could help. I mentioned the demon, then shut the hell up and helped her move the rug. Give a stressed woman a chance to speak. You can learn a lot that way.”

Click to expand...

Am I the only one who doesn't find this sexist at all? It's easy to see how one can be frustrated moving a heavy rug. And, in my experience, stressed women do prefer to talk. Given that the language centers in female brains develop more and faster than in male brains, we are more likely to react in words than physical actions -- we would take out our stress by talking, rather than by punching something or taking a jog. Not necessarily 100% of the time, but still. Even besides that, it's not exactly implausible for a guy to react similarly, as in him being stressed and then saying something he shouldn't.

My only complaint is that probably being stressed out about a rug isn't going to make the handmaiden talk about a demon. It seems more likely that she'd just complain about her chores/bosses rather than anything to the point.

I don't find it necessarily sexist outside of an established context either. You could easily substitute the words "person" or "man" for "woman" in that sentence.

However, there is a belief that some have (and not all of them men) that women talk more. It's not true overall, and it's likely based on stereotyping, anecdotes, confirmation bias, and unexamined cultural norms about who gets to talk more in normal interactions (men are often perceived as talking the same amount as women when the women are actually talking less) and so on. If such a passage is intended to reflect a view that the pov character thinks that women in particular talk more when stressed, and that he's somewhat condescending in this, then it likely would need more context before or after.

As many point out in conversations about men opening doors for women or helping them lift heavy objects, it's fine as long as it's cast as something people do for each other (regardless of gender) when it looks like it's needed, and not just as something men do to appear like gallant rescuers of damsels in distress when it really isn't needed at all. As in real life, it can be hard to tell which it is from an isolated incident, but I'm guessing the pov character's benign sexism (as this kind is sometimes called) may come out in other scenes.

Blinkk said:

This is actually great advice. I'm trying to see if I can work something like this into my novel, but I'm not quite sure this is the novel for that. I am toying with the idea of writing a stand-alone short story about Nate and he get challenged in this way in the short story. I really, really like your latter example.

I'm going to chew on this a little more.

Click to expand...

It's something to worry about and is a problem when your character has repugnant viewpoint X, AND the narrative seems to support him on it. I can't think of a direct example off the top of my head, but I know it's something that I've seen pop up more than once. A character has view X, even gets called out on it, but over the course of the show/story events support that their view is right.

That's when it gets icky.

Nerdilydone said:

so I asked her if I could help. I mentioned the demon, then shut the hell up and helped her move the rug. Give a stressed woman a chance to speak. You can learn a lot that way.

Click to expand...

Am I the only one who doesn't find this sexist at all?

Click to expand...

I think it's very sexist, an easily manipulated gossipy woman is rather insulting.

First, I agree with what's been said here. Write the character, don't worry about what people will think, your challenge as a writer is to write real characters and lots of people are sexist. It's especially important if it moves the story or is an important part of a character. So this is just adding to what has been said, I'm not arguing with any of that.

Where I think writers do need to be careful is not to further false stereotypes. It's fine for your character to repeat stereotypes. And let's face it, some stereotypes are valid including some gender based stereotypes.

If you are going to use a stereotype, first make an honest assessment, is it valid or not?

If it is, and you are sure you are being seriously objective in judging that, then using it in the plot shouldn't be an issue.

If it isn't, but the character believes it, again, that's fine but consider challenging that stereotype in some way: another character challenges the belief, or it fails to come to fruition.

Are we as writers obligated to not promote stereotypes? No, an author owes no one some obligation to better society. But Blinkk asked and I assume that suggests a desire to address sexism to some degree.

Re in the passage, I have no problem that the character is sexist. I do have an issue with the implied validity of the stereotype.

Valid studies are hard to come by. Here are a couple, but they are limited to a small sample size and use college students. Wider applicability is unconfirmed. Gender Differences in Gossip and Friendship

Friendship quality was positively correlated with gossip tendency in the males, but this effect was not present with the females. The information gossip scale was strongly associated with male friendship quality. This finding may be related to the greater emphasis on status with males, and that possession of knowledge and control of information is a method of attaining status. Physical appearance gossip was found to be more prevalent in females, but not related to friendship quality. This type of gossip may be a more of a competitive threat to the relationship in females. Achievement related gossip was also related to male friendship quality, which reflects the greater emphasis on individuation in male friendships.

Click to expand...

An exploratory analysis of sex differences in gossip

Contrary to popular beliefs, results indicated that the gossip of men and women contained similarities as well as differences. The data revealed that women spent more time gossiping than men and that women were much more likely than men to gossip about close friends and family members. However, no significant sex differences were uncovered regarding the derogatory tone of gossip and men and women were found to gossip about many of the same topics.

Click to expand...

The etymology of 'gossip' was intriguing (article behind a paywall): How the “Gossip” Became a Woman

“Gossip” has developed from a positive term applied to both sexes into a derogatory term applied to women. The idea of “gossip” as idle talk is relatively recent. No reference to that
meaning for the noun was identified by the Oxford English Dictionary (7) prior to the nineteenth century.“Gossip” originally referred to an idea encompassing both god-parent and family friend. ...

Click to expand...

Hopefully people get the idea, validate a gender based stereotype if you are going to use it.

It's easily remedied not to propagate false gender stereotypes. In the passage in question, whomever Nate is talking to could simply say something like, "I think it's because she likes you, I tried that with [x] and she never said a word about [y]," or Nate's attempt fails but he gets the information another way.


It's not our job to save the world. But if one is interested, then it may be worthwhile to pay attention how women are portrayed in fiction. It's not Nate's sexism that I see as an issue in that passage. It's the assumption* the gender stereotype is valid.


*If one has evidence it is a valid stereotype, then that's a different can of worms.

Nerdilydone said:

Given that the language centers in female brains develop more and faster than in male brains, we are more likely to react in words than physical actions --

Click to expand...

Broad generalizations like this, combined with assumption that all women/men will behave the same way, meet the definition of sexist.

JJ Litke said:

Broad generalizations like this, combined with assumption that all women/men will behave the same way, meet the definition of sexist.

Click to expand...

True. Whatever the underlying biology (and this is itself controversial from a science standpoint as well as a social one), there will be plenty of taciturn women and plenty of men who chatter like jays.

Regardless of differences in communication style between the genders (and there are likely to be some overall, even if they're more subtle than a difference in the amount of talking each do), the real sexism, imo, is the way whatever it is that is established as a female pattern is always fingered as problematic or inferior, and is often blamed (even by feminists) for things like the wage gap and the glass ceiling, or used to explain why women are interrupted or ignored more.

These biases can be tough things to expose and deconstruct in fiction, because we're bringing our own norms, values, and communication style to our narrative and dialog. IMO, no assumption should go unexamined, but if we spend too much time questioning everything, we don't have time to write (which is maybe my own problem lately).

Roxxsmom said:

I also sometimes discover flaws I didn't intend, like a character I planned on presenting as simply "insecure" is actually creepy and controlling.

Click to expand...

And which probably has its roots in deep insecurity. Your backbrain knew what it was doing.

I'll take a different approach.

Be honest. Write your characters as who they are.

Stereotypes exist because people do those things, however no one ever completely fits a stereotype. My wife likes to shop and has about a billion pairs of shoes, whereas I have 5 pair with 4 of them being motorcycle boots - the other is a pair of sneakers. My wife likes to gossip with her friends and complains that some of them are 'drama queens', when I'm with my friends we talk about motorcycles, argue about what kind of oil to use in our bikes, and places we've ridden... aside from that we drink beer and burp and fart a lot. Honestly, we don't talk about women that much.

IMO if you fall too far into feminism you become sexist, just as you can with racism and any other 'ism'.

People are who they are. Believable characters we create become real to our readers if we allow them to have faults.

indianroads said:

My wife likes to shop and has about a billion pairs of shoes, whereas I have 5 pair with 4 of them being motorcycle boots - the other is a pair of sneakers.

Click to expand...

Haha. My cousin and I were recently joking that we're not "real women" because we hate shopping so much. She does get a thrill out of shopping for hiking boots and maps, whereas I get the same thing in bookshops, but we seem to have missed out on the shoe-shopping gene.

indianroads said:

... Stereotypes exist because people do those things, however no one ever completely fits a stereotype. ...

Click to expand...

Not always. Gender stereotypes for both men and women fall on continuums of whether they are more valid or less valid. Like a horoscope, you can read it and believe it fits you perfectly when in a blinded study it turns out people are just fitting their circumstances to the horoscope rather than the other way around.

For some writers, it doesn't matter and they are under no obligation to give a shit. Readers are going to understand the stereotype in the OP, it will go unnoticed by most readers.

But some of us do want to avoid perpetuating certain stereotypes. Even though some women might be talkative and easily manipulated, so are some men. I would not chose to perpetuate the stereotype without a challenge but that is my personal choice, not some guideline I think writers need to follow.

On the other hand, simply saying the stereotype fits one's personal experience is not the best way to confirm its validity, rather it is the way such stereotypes are often falsely perpetuated.

autumnleaf said:

Haha. My cousin and I were recently joking that we're not "real women" because we hate shopping so much. She does get a thrill out of shopping for hiking boots and maps, whereas I get the same thing in bookshops, but we seem to have missed out on the shoe-shopping gene.

Click to expand...

This was exactly my point. Well rendered characters have flaws... unless you're writing for the Dudly-Do-Right cartoon - and even he had his faults (such as falling for a woman he had to 'save' all the time). I have a male friend that likes to shop - for clothes if you can imagine that. Me, and most of the other men I know, we live in t-shirts and jeans.

Back in the 70's I attended a lecture where the professor postulated that many of our gender roles are reversed. Men being the more artistic and creative, and women better at controlling wealth. Our brains are different, with women possessing more developed frontal lobes, and men having better parietal lobes. Anyway, it was an interesting POV, but he believed his theory was absolute, that it applied to all men and all women.

I say let your characters be who they are. If you get overly correct in your representations and admonish your characters for their faults, you could come off as preachy, which may turn off your readers.

Characters don't exist in a vacuum (unless it's a story set in a vacuum and quite frankly I've decided I'm now writing that story). Characters can't "be who they are". Characters and their personalities and purpose within a story are created by a creator. If the story you are telling is one where "this is how real flawed humans interact in the real flawed world", then have at it. But if that's not your story, if that's not your point, then you need to start asking questions of why a character thinks what they do. Is it because you the author feel that way (we know in this case it is not)? Is it because we are so used to the trope of the bad boy with the heart of gold who's less than PC but that's okay because he's a charmer (which is a pretty dated trope and overused)? Is it because you are commenting about how people from different parts of your fictional world interact? Etc etc and so forth.

We so often think creation just is, but we the creators are human, fallible and biased. We are a product of systemic systems that influence us greatly. For years I didn't notice that any character that was gender neutral in my writing - ie. cop, police person, grocery store clerk - for me I happened to always make male. That wasn't because the characters were just who they were, but was as a product of social conditioning to see men as gender neutral, and women as women/other. So from that point on I purposefully made sure that those small incidental characters were not just male (and not just white and straight for that matter). It's like how Geena Davis said that in a screenplay one needs to actively write "A crowd gathers half of which is female" because otherwise directors won't think of that, and it's why JJ Abrams consciously took that advice to heart and you can see the result in the Force Awakens.

We make choices subconsciously. But they are still choices. And as artists and creators it can only serve our own personal growth to continuously check in with ourselves and ask why.

BethS said:

And which probably has its roots in deep insecurity. Your backbrain knew what it was doing.

Click to expand...

I think it did, but it might have been pulling on some stereotypes. I recently read a book (written by someone who runs programs for abusive men) that states that the insecurity explanation is a myth and argues that controlling, abusive men are entitled jerks whose thoughts (that their partner is essentially a possession they have a right to control) drive their emotions, rather than the reverse. They're very good at appearing to be insecure, charming, needy, long suffering, and of "loving too much," however, whatever cuts them a break or makes their partner/family/therapists/law enforcement/the courts feel sorry for them. Ugh, either way. Abusiveness is an example of a hard personality trait to have in a character unless a large part of the story is going to be dedicated to that problem (and if so, I'd want to be relating to the victim and want them to be the focus).

I think the responses in the thread about this issue (not abusiveness, but writing characters with unsavory attitudes that could be attributed to the author) are running a spectrum from breezy to much more cautious. Some posters are maybe assuming that people who urge a more cautious approach are saying that stories should be populated with paragons of human virtue. I certainly don't think that. Who wants to read about a perfect character? I think the approach probably will depend on the nature of the flaw and how likely it is for the reader to think the author could share the pov character's world view. As the back and forth in this thread shows, not everyone agrees that the attitude portrayed is even sexist at all. This shows how complex this particular flaw (sexism) is.

I think that Toothpaste makes a good point about character's attitudes, including flaws, being informed by their world and experiences. The challenge for the author is making them appear to be an integrated whole. I'm sometimes baffled by character generators that come up with interests, attitudes and experiences randomly, as if they occur in a vacuum that is somehow independent from the overall character arc and story development and plot. Even something as innocent as a weakness for kittens can impact a story. And many readers will expect a knitting hobby casually mentioned in act one to become useful or important at some point (Checkoff's knitting needles?)

I'm guessing, though, that Blinkk's character's attitude about women is more than just a random quirk. It's something that maybe needs to be there, because it will drive his actions, influence what happens to him, and impact some aspect of his development.

I for one do not think books should be populated with paragons of human virtue (I adore an unlikeable narrator as a matter of fact). I just think they should be populated with deliberate thought out choices. And I just am not a fan of the idea that ideas just pop out formed in the ether and there's nothing one can do about it because it is what it is, the gods have spoken. As I said above, what we write is informed by our lived experiences, conscious and not, and we will never perfectly be able to deconstruct that, but we should at the very least give it the good ol' college try .

indianroads said:

This was exactly my point. Well rendered characters have flaws... unless you're writing for the Dudly-Do-Right cartoon - and even he had his faults (such as falling for a woman he had to 'save' all the time). I have a male friend that likes to shop - for clothes if you can imagine that. Me, and most of the other men I know, we live in t-shirts and jeans.

Back in the 70's I attended a lecture where the professor postulated that many of our gender roles are reversed. Men being the more artistic and creative, and women better at controlling wealth. Our brains are different, with women possessing more developed frontal lobes, and men having better parietal lobes. Anyway, it was an interesting POV, but he believed his theory was absolute, that it applied to all men and all women.

I say let your characters be who they are. If you get overly correct in your representations and admonish your characters for their faults, you could come off as preachy, which may turn off your readers.

Click to expand...

No one ever suggested characters should not have flaws. I don't know why you're trying to read that into the comments here.

Being aware of how characters are coming across is not "overly correct" or "preachy." It's the kind of awareness you need to be a good writer and convey the story as you intended.

JJ Litke said:

No one ever suggested characters should not have flaws. I don't know why you're trying to read that into the comments here.

Being aware of how characters are coming across is not "overly correct" or "preachy." It's the kind of awareness you need to be a good writer and convey the story as you intended.

Click to expand...

I'm saying that "punishing" a character because they say something sexist or racist can come across as being preachy. IMO the story comes first. As an old teacher used to say to me (far too often) Just tell the f***ing truth, and let your readers decide.

If a male character were to say something like, 'oh quit being such a woman about this', I would write what the woman was thinking, and maybe later have her spit in his tea - then let the readers decide who was the most out of line. I'm suggesting that going off on a several paragraph tirade about inappropriate speech might turn off some readers.

indianroads said:

I'm saying that "punishing" a character because they say something sexist or racist can come across as being preachy. IMO the story comes first. As an old teacher used to say to me (far too often) Just tell the f***ing truth, and let your readers decide.

If a male character were to say something like, 'oh quit being such a woman about this', I would write what the woman was thinking, and maybe later have her spit in his tea - then let the readers decide who was the most out of line. I'm suggesting that going off on a several paragraph tirade about inappropriate speech might turn off some readers.

Click to expand...

Again, no one suggested that's the only option for a response.

Writers shouldn't base their story on whether or not some readers may not like it. And how one character reacts to another doesn't need to be as one-dimensional as either spitting in their drink or going into a lengthy rant.

In case anyone was confused about my posts, the characters are whomever they are. It's not the character that I would change in the OP example.

The example went beyond the character and suggested the gender stereotype was valid. That wasn't a sexist character, that was echoing a gender stereotype in a scene.

That gender stereotype may or may not be valid. I leave that to the individuals to determine for themselves.

From my POV, it's insulting to portray women as gossipy and easily manipulated. It's not insulting to portray an individual woman as gossipy and easily manipulated.

There are men and women who are gossipy and easily manipulated. To find one such character in a novel is fine. My goal would simply be to bring such instances to people's attention so that when we do use gender stereotypes in a story, we recognize it. Then a writer can make a better informed choice if one wants to use it or not.

indianroads said:

'oh quit being such a woman about this'

Click to expand...

What do you mean when your character says this?

Blinkk said:

That's the interesting thing, though. His character just came out like that. I never planned to write him that way, but the more he grew off the page and the more he matured, that little bit of sexim came out. It caught me by surprise.

Click to expand...

Yep. I have had that happen with characters as well. As they develop, they come up with the most amazing personality traits or say the most outlandish things. I love when that happens because that means the character is alive in the book.

Blinkk said:

Weirdly enough, it fits him nicely, and it probably helps his personality trait that we are in a setting where a lot of men view women this same way.

Click to expand...

So it is part of the society of your world. Sounds like your character is doing what someone in that space would do, if they haven't self-actualized. Whether he gets the chance to self-actualize or not is up to you.

Blinkk said:

However, as a woman myself, I find his way of treating women a little sexist. Not in an overly-noticeable or brashly insulting way, but if a guy ever spoke about me the way Nate speaks about his manipulating women to "spill their secrets" I'd be annoyed.

Click to expand...

Different world, different rules. The question for you is how do you want women to be viewed in the world you have created? Do you want all women to be treated and thought of in such a manner? Do you want some women to be strong while others are this stereotype your character believes them to be? It would be really easy to address this in a fun way, if you don't want the stereotype to stick. Have your character go along manipulating women until he runs into the one woman he can't manipulate. And have them react and interact. That scene woven into your story would be interesting, I bet.

Good luck.

JJ Litke said:

Broad generalizations like this, combined with assumption that all women/men will behave the same way, meet the definition of sexist.

Click to expand...

So...quoting science is sexist? I was not making a broad generalization. It is proven science that language centers in the brain develop earlier in women. Neither is this an insult to women. We women, with our more powerful language centers, are able to process verbally, when the average man isn't as likely to be able to put his feelings into words as quickly or as well as a woman. This is why men are on average more aggressive -- they are better able to express through physical action rather than words.

Sure, not all women are the same. I never said we were. I am merely pointing out data that exists. But if you find science sexist, then there's nothing I can do for you.

Nerdilydone said:

So...quoting science is sexist? I was not making a broad generalization. It is proven science that language centers in the brain develop earlier in women. Neither is this an insult to women. We women, with our more powerful language centers, are able to process verbally, when the average man isn't as likely to be able to put his feelings into words as quickly or as well as a woman. This is why men are on average more aggressive -- they are better able to express through physical action rather than words.

Sure, not all women are the same. I never said we were. I am merely pointing out data that exists. But if you find science sexist, then there's nothing I can do for you.

Click to expand...

Your conclusions were the part I was addressing. Your misuse of studies to back up your broad generalizations is not a reflection of the studies themselves.

Blinkk said:

So...here's my question: Have you ever written a character who has morals and values that you don't agree with? Nate's way of manipulating women is natural to him and it doesn't bother him at all. He brags about it once or twice. It's very subtle, but Nate always views it in a positive light. It bothers me as the author. I don't agree with him. But if I change it, he won't be Nate anymore.

Has anyone else run into this before?

Click to expand...

I assume most people don't agree 100% with their antagonist (or if they do, then they're doing a bit of devil's advocate, and probably don't agree with their protagonist, as the 2 tend to have opposing goals)

You didn't think Nabokov was a big fan of child grooming and pedophilia, did you? ;-)

Nerdilydone said:

So...quoting science is sexist? I was not making a broad generalization. It is proven science that language centers in the brain develop earlier in women. Neither is this an insult to women. We women, with our more powerful language centers, are able to process verbally, when the average man isn't as likely to be able to put his feelings into words as quickly or as well as a woman. This is why men are on average more aggressive -- they are better able to express through physical action rather than words.

Sure, not all women are the same. I never said we were. I am merely pointing out data that exists. But if you find science sexist, then there's nothing I can do for you.

Click to expand...

so.....women tend to skew towards being more language-oriented. I am not sure there's been a lot of conclusive work showing "more powerful language centers" and even if it was it would have a hell of a time sorting out biology vs nurture and societal influence--did you know cabbies have more powerful spatial mapping centers? I doubt you'd claim they were born that way, or inherently cabbie-ish from birth....turns out the brain is remarkably plastic, and it can be shaped in many directions through repeated use/exposure/emphases

that said, the other part of your post that moves from questionable to just rubbish (he said aggressively, while scratching his balls, watching porn, and strangling a puppy, because hey, he has a penis) is the apparent assumption of causality when you say that men are aggressive because we lack your powerful language centers. That's a leap without any real evidence, unless you're in the trump sort of land of alternative facts and/or just tossing it out there as a fact on the barest of threads, like the whole wiretapping mess.

Men are unquestionably more aggressive. Physically. I'm not at all certain women are less aggressive, so much as the all-too-human trait manifesting itself in different and more subtle ways. And Women MAY have more powerful (as measured by overall activity in MRI, etc. and/or spatial studies) language centers.......but over-generalizations and their own inherent sexism aside, the inference that this must be why "man angry so man smash things" suggests your language center may be lovely, but perhaps its crowding out some critical analysis centers--correlation does not prove causality. Which is a big thing in the sciences....


* Note this rant has less to do with you bashing men (I know enough of them to say by all means, feel free) and more to do with the fact I take science, and its persistent tomfuckery in the general public, somewhat personally....so it was a response both to the deeply flawed implication of causality, and also the trite and condescending diss of Litke's comment with "if you find science sexist," which was a complete straw man....