If you are curious, I have a sample or two under fragments -> titles the good neighbor or my web site at http://www.christophergamble.com

Thanks,
 

As for shopping....I hate it when people think all women like to shop! I HATE SHOPPING! I'm not a tomboy either. I don't like spoits much, I'm not that steretype either. I just want to get in, get what I need, and get out with minimal fuss. I'd rather be playing cards or writing than shopping.

[This message has been edited by Christine (edited May 06, 2004).]
 

PLEASE!! Correct me if I'm wrong. I'd really like to still hold out hope that my book will someday sell.

As for gendered prose, supposedly there are some differences, but they don't have to do with flowery-- rather with the focus on relationships versus the focus on descriptions/objects. Want to find out if you're male or female? Try the Gender Genie. You might be surprised.
 

Even the first paragraph of this text rates me higher on the female side!

Regardless, per my style, I have always been most comfortable communicating this way. I have changed my style when needed, but I want to get emotion from the situations I describe, even when the most emotion is simply the nod of understanding that the sky is blue.

Thank you all for your guidance and understanding..

[This message has been edited by cgamble (edited May 07, 2004).]
 

Write the story as best you can. If you use too much description, cut back. Don't worry yourself with gender issues in your writing.
 

Anyway, the Gender Genie thinks I'm male--and that's after "analyzing" an essay I just wrote on adopting a dog. [But I'm not a male.]

[This message has been edited by sassenach (edited May 07, 2004).]
 

I read the beginning of your (cgamble's) piece describing the wars that the dragons started, and I (a male) didn't find it overly flowery at all.

I couldn't find the fragments you mentioned, though. A link?
 

And since you have read a few of the dragon story lines, I am open to any criticism you have the time to contribute...

As for the link that started this discussion and my own curiosity.

http://www.hatrack.com/forums/writers/forum/Forum11/HTML/000260.html

I'm off to research further the minds of those I want nothing more than to entertain.. or do i.. [evil laugh]

[This message has been edited by cgamble (edited May 07, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by cgamble (edited May 07, 2004).]
 

Do I worry about getting the right word? Avoiding "pet" usages and repetitive phrases? Finding sharp and evocative ways to say what I mean?

Of course. But none of that comes out of "style".
 

Rux
:}
 

For example, I'm a woman and I spent my childhood reading espionage novels (Robert Ludlum, anyone?) and hence my writing style is quite plain and 'male'. Every single piece of my writing that I submit to that Gender Genie comes back as 'male'. Silly stereotypes.
 

My non-fiction piece was rated male, and my short story results came back as female...

We humans are much too complicated for that kind of "computer rubbish!"

~L.L.
 

So we're already talking about a theory that would only be valid for deadies anyway. And only for the small sample of deadies they actually studied.

The have a link to some article explaining all this on the page. It clears up why the Gender Genie is so lame pretty quickly.
 

Could it be . . .

That because women's brains are more developed (on the average) toward language skills than mens? Possibly a little . . . or . . .

That women tend to read a little more literature?

I push all of my floweriness off on Dickens. I read TOO much Dickens. And Shakespeare. Old writers tend to be considered "flowery" because the speach isn't common modern vernacular.

I chalk it up to romantic stereotype. It is common knowledge (and quite true) that women enjoy romance novels. The romantic notions stemmed from chivalry, and romantic literary movements tended to be QUITE flowery and descriptive.

I say that women tend to read more flowery stuff. On the average they read less action (written from a quicker more modern styling) and more romance (tending toward the older styles). What you read gears you for what you write.

I don't know . . . yes . . . maybe . . . . . . .
 

[This message has been edited by Alias (edited May 17, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Alias (edited May 17, 2004).]
 

Hope there's a smilie missing after the driving statement!
 

remind me sometime to give you a lecture on "Avoiding Unnecessary Detail That Counters Your Argument 101"
 

Women, on the other hand, tend to avoid doing things that are particularly dangerous if they notice themselves doing them. But it also means that a woman going 90+ mph in a top heavy SUV is less likely to be aware that she is in any danger. Though a man doing the same thing will often grossly distort the risk (he wants to feel that it is very dangerous and think that it is actually quite safe--and has a similar dichotomy in how he wants various other people to perceive it), he is nonetheless aware of it.

If men weren't "better" drivers than most women, none of them would survive their first year of driving. But women could easily develop the same degree of reflexes and spatial awareness if they liked (look at the typical professional dance troupe if you think that men inherently have superior coordination or such). They just like not, in general.
 

Men are not better drivers by default of being men. They have more accidents per capita then women do.

And as far as spatial things, well, I can back an 18 wheeler fully loaded cattle truck between two silos (about a foot of space on each side of the truck if that) with no problem--can you?

I really hate gender stereo types---truly do.

Oh and gender genie claims I am male.

Shawn

[This message has been edited by srhowen (edited May 21, 2004).]
 

quote:

---

it also means that a woman going 90+ mph in a top heavy SUV is less likely to be aware that she is in any danger.

---

quote:

---

Why do you think men have to pay more for car insurance?

---

Because the man's much more likely to be doing 90+ in an SUV to start with?

Besides, I don't think there's much wrong with stereotypes. Most of the time, there's at least a grain of truth in 'em.
 

Stereotyping? Maybe not. But there are differences even in driving between men and women. MHO is that the stereotypes of women as bad drivers is merely that difference as has been perceived by the male animal and subsequently embedded in the public subconscious. After all, men were the first drivers, basically, so they set the standard.

[This message has been edited by Kolona (edited May 21, 2004).]
 

We don't have to like stereotypes, but there is a reason they exist as Jules mentioned. They can be used in writing for a quick effect when you just need a cardboard character for a few seconds or so in a scene. But then are we reinforcing the stereotypes? Probably.

The real problem is when they are used against us. I find it interesting that insurance companies can charge men more because they are MALE, which seems like discrimination. Apparently, there is some rule that allows them to use statistics to charge the way they do (just because more accidents are caused by males in general doesn't mean all males should be charged more, or all females less - start with a base cost and then charge based on your individual record). I wonder if it has ever been challenged in court? There are surely good male drivers (my husband is one) and poor female drivers (one of my sisters comes to mind). My dad's brother and wife have 4 kids - two female, two male. The girls both crashed into telephone poles not long after getting their licenses. I don't think the boys had those troubles. Of course, I remember dating a guy who trashed more cars than I'll ever own!

Any stereotype will have exceptions. We can use that in our writing too to great effect - like our loaded-semi-backing-between-silos gal Shawn (and I wouldn't even want to attempt it, but I have sailed a 28 foot boat backwards into a slip after making a 90 degree turn to port, then bringing her into the wind...) I realized late I could have been an engineer and might have liked it after discovering a talent understanding and manipulating spatial relationships.

My husband and I discovered we got identical combined SAT scores in high school. He's a software engineer, and I'm writing (and was teaching American History). So guess who got the higher math score, and who got the higher verbal score?

His verbal score was higher - probably from doing crossword puzzles. My dad got an 800 on the math score back when they didn't think it was possible and sent people from Princeton to find out he cheated (well, to check on him and a couple of others who got 800 on the verbal section). Based on stereotypes I should not have had the higher math score, but maybe genetics came in to play, regardless of my female status?

I submitted 3 pieces to Gender Genie. Two out of three were identified as being by a female author. I didn't bother to figure out why "the" is a male word and "and" is a female word.
 

Weird.

CVG
 

i think there is a good stereo type that can be applied, but only because "most" people teach their children to follow these stereo types, which is then enforced through school and friends etc. it has nothing to do with skill or aptitude, but merely prefernces that are embeded in each of us as we learn who we are.. if this is true, you could probably craft your speech and writting such that you could better reach your audience by merely being cognisant of their ingrained choices and the fact that we know a part of their lifestyle simply because they are in (a book store in the fantasy or science fiction section)..

now if i can find the passion to actually write one of these stories...
 

Certainly not reliable or scientific.
 

First -- it does not claim to be 100% reliable. When analyzing entire books, the algorithm had an accuracy rate of 80%.

It works based on probablities. Certain words will tend to be used more by one sex or the other when writing. The larger the sample of writing, the more likely that those trends will show up. That's why working with entire novels is likely to yield more accurate results than paragraphs, short stories or chapters.

Choices such as POV or voice may influence the ocurrence of certain words -- writing in first person will probably result in more uses of the words "me" and "myself," for example, but those words have low point value in the algorithm. (And maybe women are more likely to write in first person?)
 

I think women aren't as prone to be lazy as men. But I also think when the cards are on the tabel, in general, men are better at "being on their feet" and dealing with things.

Ex: (according to several teachers I've had) "We always like to have girls in the class because tehy always do the homework, and try. While the guys are lethargic, and more often don't pay attention in class than the girls. BUt when it comes to teh test daye statistically the guys outscore the girls."

It's not an issue of inherent superiority/ingferiority, but I think (in general) there are "fields" that exist, in whcih your gender may give you an advantage or disadvantage.

After all, all people are created equal BUT that doesn't mean Einstein and Dr King Jr would always have the same test score. At the same time EInstein couldn't have been half the orator. Every person has their inclinations, and I think to an extent so does every gender.

I think it's stupid to not stereotype genders at all, for example: look at play habits of young boys and young girls. While the girls are playing with the dolls, the boys are beating each other wioth sticks. It's not random, it's inherent.

Again, the balance can and does still exist even when not everything for both genders is the exact same.

Does anyone follow me, or am I rambling too much?
 

It's how they're applied. It's how they're reinforced. It's how they ruin peoples' lives, destroying their dreams and hopes.

That's what matters.

So what if 60% of group A exhibits characteristic 1? Or even it is 90%?

No, sterotypes aren't bad by themselves. That doesn't mean we don't have to understand them, extract the good in them, and treat every person as an individual.

*end rant*

quote:

---

Ex: (according to several teachers I've had) "We always like to have girls in the class because tehy always do the homework, and try. While the guys are lethargic, and more often don't pay attention in class than the girls. BUt when it comes to teh test daye statistically the guys outscore the girls."

---

Now, I'm just starting to teach her how to drive. So, what should I expect?
 

I'd recommend that you encourage her to think about the physics involved as she drives. When I have taught physics, one of the things I make a point of discussing with the students is why rollovers happen, and what they can do to prevent a rollover when they are driving.

I figure if they don't come out of physics knowing anything else, then at least there's a chance I've saved a life or two.
 

Others are risk takers. They drive like little angels when you're there, but the moment you're not looking they turn into the spawn of Evil Kenievel.

Boys have more of the chemicals that drive most risk taking behavior. But girls that define themselves as risk takers will actually compete to take more risks than the boys.

Where do brains come into it?

Nowhere. Academic behaviors like studying hard and planning your future tend to predict lower risk taking, as does being a girl. Disregarding the homework load for a strictly optional series of classes also doesn't make any list of factors I can think up off the top of my head.
 

Before this gets slammed, I've had a lot of experience being the only girl. It's hard. One of the reasons I loved earth science so much after the switch (although not the reason I switched) was because the guys there totally ignored gender. There's no stereotype about girls being bad in geology, and geologists are pretty laid back, so we were just another member of the class. Geology doesn't have anything near the competition you have in physics, and I'd argue it makes the entire discipline stronger. And it's not that I haven't spent as much time with geologists-- heck, for field camp we were all camping out or bunking in the same room. And gender just never came into it as relevant, never made a difference in who got treated how. They recognized you as female the same way they recognized you as, say, using a lot of sunscreen: part of the way you were, but, y'know, it's the rocks that matter. (I love geologists.)

In physics, the guys would stare if you answered a question. If you wanted to talk in a problem set group, you have to do what the guys did-- stand up, physically grab the chalk, and start yelling. (Think I'm kidding? I did that a few times. Doesn't make guys think well of you, since it's MALE behavior.) It's not that they're being unfair, it's that they're treating you like one of them, and girls aren't supposed to be guys, so they resent that or something. I've never fully worked this one out.

There's another argument I'd also make-- stereotype threat. When African American students are asked their race on a test, their performance goes down. Ditto when they're told it's a test of intellectual ability: both of these activate the bad at taking tests stereotype. Same thing happens for women and math. The really interesting one is giving math tests to Asian women, who have the "Asians are good at math" and the "women are bad at math" stereotypes. When you ask their race, their scores go up. When you ask their gender, their scores go down.

This is getting long... My favorite physics boy story: My freshman year, I went to an introductory picnic, and went to stand with a bunch of guys I vaguely knew who were talking about a problem set in advanced intro physics (I was in the medium class, since I hadn't had AP physics). Naturally, they were arguing about a problem set, rather loudly. Each one would take turns darting forward and yelling about it, until the rest of the group shouted them down. Finally, one of the two guys standing next to me said something that the rest of them grudgingly agreed with. The triumphant victor of a guy then turned to me and *put his arm around me*. Spoils of war.
 

The cunning thing to do would have been to point out that they were all wrong to agree with him (whether or not it was true).

The gracious thing to do would have been to accept the gesture as flattery.

But I'm guessing you did what I do and just sort of stood there feeling awkward and conspicuous.
 

This story was one of the reasons, a couple years later, for my proposal to the department undergrad guy to spend funds hiring supermodel girlfriends for the male physics majors. Fun for them, and a lot less pressure on the female physics majors. Sadly, the department chose not to go that direction....
 

I think I need to clarify something. I'm not sexist, I'm merely giving observations, I think that much should be clear. So very relatively speaking from my very limited point of view, I would make the following statement:

Men drift toward the hard sciences more than women do.

You may draw whatever conclusion you would like from that. I'm not suggesting they are less capable, but I am suggesting there may be an inherent factor based on gender that influences this. Maybe the female psyche is less inclined to find interest or motivation to apply itself to such fields, maybe the male psyche interprets things with clear-cut definition while the female takes thing in that are more vague and deep. Neither is better than the other but I would infer that for mathematics (which is the core of all hard sciences) it is easier to work with when thinking with clearer definition.

I personally believe that's the reason why women tend to be more "flowery" writers, and often produce thinkers and writers like Emily Dickinson while men produce Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Steven Hawking.

But just because I believe that doesn't make it true, and I can admit that. So I'm not sexist. Of course you never said I was, but I got the impression that you were offended by my comment. APologies if that was the case, hope this clears my view up some more. And if it does and you're still offended, well, apologies--but that's as far as I can go.

Women tend to be verbal learners; men tend to be visual.

Speaking as a woman who not only excelled in math and science in high school, but also went on to study computer science in college, I can tell you something true: Men predominate sciences. In my opnion, this begets itself.

Let me explain: How are math and science taught? I'll give you a hint, it isn't verbal. Ahh, you say, but that's the nature of math and science...but is it? I've seen studies done in which women are taught separately from men in math...and you know what happens...they begin to excel! These studies are soon squashed because idiot women think it's sexist, but just enough information has poked through that I have hope, and I wish the idiots would shut up and go away so we can see more evidence.

Math and science can be taught in les visual ways...they just are't. These courses are taught by men for men. And a combination of societal and peer pressures keep women from even esriously considering these fields.

I'm not a feminist. I'm a rationalist. And the two observations I've made about this entire subject are: 1.) We can't even study it because of idiot feminists who think the whole concept is sexist when in reality a study of the differences between men and omen is far more likely to accelerate women ahead in society. 2.) Without these studies making any asertions about the differences between men and women is supposition and irrelevant.
 

Sorry, I'm a visual-kinetic learner. I'm a girl. People like me are the ones that get all touchy about having classes broken into boys and girls. I agree that not everyone learns the same, but having classes that target learning styles rather than gender would even the playing field in a lot of different areas.
 

I, for one, am a very verbal learner. I literally went to a friend of mine after a math class one time and told him just to tell me in words what the teacher had shown us in pictures that day, and then I got it! I struggled to interpret the textbook, and only made it through sheer force of will and determination. Also, because I'm stubborn as heck and if someone tells me I can't do something I'm ten times as likely to do it!

But yes, dividing based on learning styles would be far more effective than by gender, it was just, as I said, a suggestion for how to improve the stiuation for women. I'm not the only girl I know who complained. I went ot an engineering university, completely male-dominated, and my girlfriends, generally speaking, either were exceptions to the verbal learning style for omen rule or wre just as stubborn and determined as I was. The others transferred to liberal arts schools by the end of the first year.
 

I studied CS at a university (Warwick) which attracts a large percentage of far-eastern and african students, so I got to see a lot of interesting things about different cultures

The gender split was very interesting; of about 70 european students in my year, there was only 1 woman. African, the split was a little less exaggerated, I think it was probably 20 - 3 or something like that; far-eastern was even less remarkable. 40-15 or so.

Of course, I see CS as primarily linguistic in nature anyway, and consider that studying a foreign language in place of the science that would normally be recommended for future CS students at A level was a very wise choice.

 

But there is a problem with segregated schooling...it implies that you need segregated workplaces too. Of course, this makes perfect sense, I think that it is silly we insist on trying to get men and women to work together.

But the fact remains, this is something our society insists upon. Whether or not it should is a different issue.
 

Rather than separating people, which is only going to perpetuate prejudice in the long run, I think we'd do better to focus on making information accessible in a variety of ways. Almost everyone does better interacting with material in more than one modality.

People with different learning styles could be taught separately, but that also raises difficulties. I think the best way to handle it would be to educate teachers more fully about learning styles (and also learning disabilities--you'd never believe how ignorant most teachers are!). Of course, that demands a more ideal system of education--most teachers are also already terribly overworked.

As far as the issue of men and women not working together, I think of a Saudi student who was in my sociology of ed class in grad school. When asked about gender roles, he mentioned some of the different careers men and women pursued in his country. When asked about the possibility of a female mechanic, he said, "But where would she work? With men?" It effectively closes off a lot of options for anyone with non-stereotypical interests.

In spite of the statistical differences between males and females (and they do exist, and they do matter in the sense that it's important to know about them and address them), the fact is there's so much overlap, splitting things on a male/female basis is often not useful from a strictly learning point of view. Now, if we're talking about addressing social issues (e.g. distraction, showing off, peer pressure, etc.), splitting the sexes during early adolescence might be a very good idea. Of course, I'd favor some overall changes in our culture's attitudes instead...
 

1) Would one or more of the women here explain to me what you personally believe "verbal learner" means?

2) How in the world does this discussion keep going in the Writer's Workshops?
 

There is also the issue of writing convincing characters of different cultures and both sexes.

And then there's the fact that we all seem to like discussing this sort of thing endlessly.
 

Anyway, verbal is spoken. Now, there is also a verbal/visual which involves the written word, and it is related, but studies have shown that combining verbal and verbal/visual modalities does not work. Basically, if you ask someone to read and listen to those words being spoken at the same time it doesn't add anything and they sort of interfere with each other. What does work, is to combine spoken words with pictures, to catch the learning styles of many people and to help make the words more meaningful. Also, in this way students are using both their occipital and temporal lobes to bring in the information, processing it in two different ways.

In math and science, in particular, the best thing is not to talk in equations. This amounts to verbalizing visual information, which does not give anyone another mode to learn it in. If you are explaining limits in Calculus, for example. Try to find a couple different ways to explain it. (Limits hung me up for the longest time because they kept talking in deltas and epsilons and I had no idea what that meant!) Explain that delta is change, but really explain it, don't gloss over the subject that is the crux of the issue (Like some Calculus teachers I knew...). Write, somewhere on the board, delta (go ahead and use the greek symbol, I'm just too lazy to go find it on my symbol thingy) = change. Tell them what kind of change you are referring to in this case, and show them how this change gets smaller and smaller. (You can and should use the graph as well, bot showing and telling always works best no matter what your learning style.)
 

You can describe the same attributes of a character in a way that would "peak" the interest of the typical western male reader, but bore the typical western female reader. certainly there is a happy medium, which i think may be found in slightly more vague writting..

so, there really is a point to all of this..

that said, schools should be seperated by learning style, but work should not. i dont know about everyone elses jobs, but i was under the impression that doing a job meant far more regurgitation than learning -- not that learning is not involved, its just that it is rarely the goal of a job.... ..
 

On the subject of writing: my perception is that most readers and writers of comic books and graphic novels are male. I had previously assumed the reason was related to the subject matter, but now find myself wondering if the medium itself is more appealing to the male brain than the female. Interesting.

On learning: my experience is that most girls who begin an engineering program finish it. They are able to learn the material and succeed. The problem is attracting them to the field in the first place. That is the purpose of my Engineering Summer Camp for Girls.

In my camp, I don't care if the girls learn anything or not. My goal is to help them enjoy engineering through the same sorts of hands-on activities that boys experience: they build and program robots using Legos.

I do talk to them about engineering concepts like force, torque, tension, power, friction, etc. I do this to help them realize that they are employing these concepts in the robots they design and build. Perhaps I should enhance these discussions, relying more on conversation and less on diagrams. Hmmm...

FYI in the past I have done the same class for both boys and girls. I tell them about an engineering concept (e.g. friction) and assign them a challenge (e.g. build a machine that can drive up a steep hill without sliding backwards) and give them a Lego "cookbook" of sample robot designs.

As a rule, the boys are much more creative. They will dive right in and come up with all sorts of outlandish contraptions. About 80% of the boys ignore the cookbook and come up with their own "Rube Goldberg" designs, even though a few don't work. They would rather fail than follow a recipe. I don't know why.

In contrast, the girls always follow the cookbook, and I do mean always. They never even try to invent their own designs. I don't know why.

When it comes to competition time, the girls' cookbook designs usually look and perform almost identically, the race to the top of the hill is always very close. 100% of the girls robots make it to the top, and they do it in about 60 seconds.

The boys' Rube Goldberg designs always look very different from each other, and their performance is all over the map. The bad ones fall apart or get lost halfway up the hill, and the good ones are so fast I can barely time them. Only 20% of the boys robots make it to the top, but the ones that succeed get there in 15 seconds.

I assume the difference in their approaches comes from motivation, a subject strongly related to writing, but I could not explain it. Can any of you explain it?

Why are my boys more creative but less successful than my girls?
 

As long as it doesn't turn into a flame war, I am willing to let this discussion go on.

As Survivor said, writers are teachers in a way.

Even more important, consider the fact that characterization is crucial to good story telling, and anything that can help writers of one sex better understand people of the opposite sex is worth exploring. After all, roughly half the people in the world are of the opposite sex. The better you understand them, how they learn, how they think, the better you may be able to communicate with them in your writing, and the better you may be able to characterize them in your stories.

Besides, I think it's interesting. <shrug>
 

A biologically successful male human could potentially sire tens of thousands of children, a moderately unsuccessful male might sire none at all (a totally usuccessful male will manage to kill off his entire genomic clan in the process of being totally unsuccessful).

With females, on the other hand, the most biologically successful can't bear much more than twenty children, no matter what, and the least successful are fairly likely to bear at least a couple.

Of course, this is an extreme way of looking at the problem (and as such is inherently flawed in a number of important ways), but it does shed light on the issue of creativity v. certainty in male and female behavior. Human males have a reproductive strategy that is inherently more like that of insects or viruses (no moral comparison intended, insects are very good and viruses...well, I'm sure they do something or other). Females follow what we think of as the typical mammalian pattern, few offspring carefully nurtured. From a biological standpoint, males stand to benefit from huge payoffs by being creative. Females don't stand to gain as much from their own creativity (though they can gain considerable ground through their sons).

In point of fact, females not only stand to gain very little from their own creativity, they stand to lose a great deal if their daughters are too creative...which brings up something quite interesting.

Men and women are both biologically programmed to encourage their grandsons to push the limits while discouraging their granddaughters from stepping off the established path. But I've gone over this before.

Over the long term, there is absolutely nothing to be done about this tendency. You can fight it using cultural tools, but the fact remains that women that behave like men don't reproduce all that well...and neither do men that accept such behavior in their mates. Even if you don't accept that the genetics matter, the nurturing does, the grandparents that didn't encourage boys to be boys and girls to be girls will have few grandchildren to continue their value system.

The only solution is....
 

Additionally, I would say that reproductive strategies probably should not have a large impact on fields and subjects that didn't exist a thousand years ago, and part of the woman's role is culturally determined rather than genetically. (Eg, in India, people who fight for environmental justice are almost entirely female, while here we see a split. In France the top chefs are male, and respected for it.)

Has anyone else here read Sherri S. Tepper's _The Gate to Women's County_?

*From psych studies. Not talking from, you know, things I suspect. All from social psych.