Do women writers poorly portray male characters?

Question

Do they make them into what they want them to be? For example, one writer portrayed a widower to be so faithful to his wife after death that all other women disgusted him. Not realistic.

It seems they idealize men in their books. Whereas men are so good at portraying women and all of their many obnoxious faults due to nature (Thomas Hardy being the master).

Any thoughts?

Answer 1

I guess it's all up to the writer and the writer's vision for the characters.  

Answer 2

Among female mystery writers, it is a mixed bag. the men in Patricia Cornwall's Kay Scarpetta series are uniformly unsympathetic. Sue Grafton seems to be a bit more balanced. Even her male villains frequently possess some kind of charm.

Answer 3

It depends who they are and who you are. Everyone has their own idea of people and so not everyone agrees...Everyones different in the end.

Answer 4

You read crappy female-written novels. And have a very negative, stereotypical view of women. I hope you're not saying that men lack what you call "obnoxious faults due to nature."

Try Ellen Hopkins. She's realistic. Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson is good too. Portrays the faults and weaknesses of both sexes. Especially Hopkins. I love that author.

Those are more modern novels, though. Speak, especially, is aimed more at teens. The only classic, female authors i can think of are Kate Chopin and Jane Austen. Their books were okay.

[Thomas Hardy is my homeboy. As is Bram Stoker.]

Answer 5

It depends on the writer. Some women understand men better, and some don't. Its the same with men portraying women.  

Answer 6

I think it depends on your own gender. I read mainly female authors these days because it annoys me so much how badly (in the sense of inaccurately and stereotypically) most male authors portray women. (Hardy is better than some, worse than others.) I think women in general are much better at portraying men than men are at portraying women, but if I were male, there's a good chance I'd disagree, as you apparently do. It all depends on perspective.

However, I have to say, if you think all women are full of "obnoxious faults due to nature," you've got issues, dude. Hardy's characters, male and female, are human, with human faults, not "male" or "female" faults. I think it's interesting that you put the faults of his female characters down to the fact that they're female, while ignoring the faults of his male characters, who include rapists, shiftless losers, adulterers, ne'er do wells, and a man who sold his own wife and child to escape from poverty. Would you consider these faults to be a realistic portrayal of the innately obnoxious nature of men? I'm curious.

Answer 7

CLEARLY YOU AIN'T READ HARRY POTTER.

Answer 8

I don't know about Hardy - for example, the widower who gave up every chance of happiness because her son didn't want her to marry (a short story) seems very similar to your faithful widower example. Ali Smith's charactorisations are excelled. D H Lawrences women do not strike me as well don at all - more his very biased perception of them than reality.

Overall - excluding many classics - I find women authors do charactorisation better although not as much on action and men focus more on action at the cost of charactorisation - but this is a very rough generalisation  and not universally true. Classics are different again.