Yrurtj

There appears to be a difference in how men and women speak and write.

Linguists have found that writing by women is more "involved", while writing by men is more "informational". For example, women use more pronouns, men use more noun specifiers. Women use "the" differently than men. If you are interested in learning about male versus female linguistic styles, you can research this.

What is important is that you need to recognize that your protagonist doesn't sound like a man because of what she says alone, but also because of how she says it, and because of how you write the non-dialogue narrative of her thoughts, emotions, and perceptions. You write like a man, and therefore if you write a female charater's first person perspective, she sounds like a man.

As a solution I would recommend that you look at similar characters (the female marine/female engineer/tough girl) written by female authors and try to emulate their language.

Most authors are imprisoned in their own personal style, and experimenting with writing in the style of another author is a great exercise to make your own writing more flexible and to raise your awareness of the subliminal messages of your personal use of language. In this case, you unwittingly communicate "I'm a man". So learn to control that aspect of your writing by analysing and trying the styles of female authors.

This critique is always complicated because of how nuanced gender actually is.

This is actually a frequent problem with male authors. We tend to have experience and methods of thinking that are typically considered "masculine" and take them as the baseline.

This does not mean, whatsoever, that your MC should spend time sitting in her cabin painting her nails (or that she shouldn't, if that matches her character). It does mean that you might want to think more about what it actually means to be a woman in this setting.

How would she have been raised? How would gender impact her treatment by other characters? Would she be as likely to opt for violence to resolve disputes? And if so, what form does her violence take?

One of my characters is similar to the "badass" women tropes, but with a few key considerations.

Firstly, she can only occupy this position because she has the backing of powerful, local, political figures. Without the sanction this power structure, she would have long ago been murdered or married off. Her ability to approximate this trope is a function of privilege, and she spends a decent character arc understanding how even her oppression doesn't compare to that of other women in her setting, and figuring out what this means for herself and the world around her.

Secondly, she inhabits this role because she was born into a social class defined by the use of violence. She is adopting a masculine social function because the alternative is even worse to her, and she has no other options.

Thirdly, she has no magic in a magical world. She cannot rely on being as fast, strong and durable as her adversaries. Her utility involves leadership abilities such as tactical planning that makes her simultaneously invaluable and builds social capital for her. She makes herself socially invaluable and financially lucrative.

Fourth, she is functionally suicidal. Because of the above, every conflict is a potential death sentence. She relies on her squad to survive and throws herself into situations more daring than what most sane people would consider. This builds further social capital because she's not only the most talented leader, but her death-drive is mistaken for bravery, and results in shocking and unique maneuvers.

Fifth, she is %<#]@*= terrifying. When she engages in conflict she must be as brutal and horrifying as-is humanly possible. She depends on reputation to avoid conflict. She depends on her persona to maintain the social capital that keeps her free and safe(r). And every conflict is for all-the-stakes. There are no second chances. She is small, and relatively weak, without any fancy magical power to save her. She wins, every time, or she's dead. So when she comes, she brings everything to the table.

Sixth, she has a macabre, black, and biting sense of humor. People from oppressed demographics or upbringingings often do. Its a tool that (we) use to remain sane, and to fight in contexts when we don't have the power to directly engage people higher on the social totem pole. It's also born of a deeply fatalistic worldview, given her omnipresent threat of death.

Seventh, when she can't avoid conflict, and she can't bluster her way out of it, and she can't plan ahead or end it quickly, all of this influences how she approaches violence. Namely, at a distance. Using the great equalizer: technology. If you see her, or are within arms reach, its because she screwed up. She'd much rather punch holes in you at half a kilometer away.

So.
All of this is to say that I started from context and then built a character around the setting. This person could not exist as a man.
Her twin brother is completely different, and is (actually) the local political power that allows her to operate. Everything about how they engage with their world would change if their assigned gender changed. I didn't start with the idea for a wisecracking pistolero, who hides some serious trauma with a black sense of humor.
I started with a person in a specific context and thought: "How could a person with these demographic traits survive? What are the likely outcomes given these constraints?"

And then I got a character. If you're starting with a template, throw it out, and ask yourself why you made the person you made.
Let them grow and reveal themselves to you.

And, it's important to note that this is only one of multiple core female characters. My MC is totally different, and has a son that infinitely complicates her decisionmaking.
So it also matters what the different visions of femininity look like in your art. Without internal diversity, the piece will always feel like it lacks authenticity.

As a male writer who's had female protagonists, and plenty of female characters regardless of the protagonist's gender, I've not been told a female sounded like a man wrote her, but I have been told one could easily have been male, and that speaks to many of the same concerns. There were two main issues I had to fix in that instance.

Firstly, her traits were perhaps characteristic more of males than females, insofar as they were gendered at all. I usually write characters without trying to choose gendered traits for them - in this example, she was a young genius with a scarring past and dark streak - but that's not always a good thing. (I think it mostly is, though; it results in a work that needs tweaking after beta reader feedback, but so does anything.) Just to give some examples:

• She made two comments about masturbation. The first was her refusal to describe her cousin's beauty in detail, in case a reader fantasised because of it. The second was a clarification a phrase of hers didn't have risqué intent, as a reader might have thought it did if they'd noticed an extremely subtle but unintended pun. I deleted the first because, as part of other improvements based on feedback, I did include a description of the cousin anyway. This is because one of the main ways gender would affect my protagonist is her awkward relationship with that cousin, whose response to gender roles is more affected by puberty. As for the second, I kept it (albeit with a slight edit) because it underscores the character's ability to out-think most readers.


• She doesn't focus on being girly. A reader wondered whether she giggles, and what she thinks of make-up. I ultimately worked into the character's description of her cousin signs of envying her more straightforward femininity, which she mostly wraps in a transparent criticism of the effort.

Secondly, she didn't sufficiently address the consequences for her of being female in her society (the contemporary US). Ultimately, the problem women face is that people underestimate them. (You're welcome to dream up a fictional world where this isn't the case, but there are bound to be characters that would be underestimated, so it switches the question to how to write group X properly.) How should you, as a writer, make sure it's obvious a character endures this and understands that they do? I can't answer, because it depends on the character. In my case, she'd see it as a make-lemonade-from-lemons situation: if people underestimate her, she'll take advantage of that to trick them. That's the kind of person she is, someone who thinks her brain's job is to control people, not to show off all the maths she can do. I guess what I'm saying is: find what facts about your character reflect her reaction to being a woman. Her reaction, not that of the male writer who created her, but also created the world that makes her who she is.

There is a certain social image of what being a woman "means" - there are expectations both of how a woman would act, and how a woman would be treated. A particular female character is bound to engage with that image, whether she accepts it, rejects it, does something else with it. You, as a writer, cannot simply ignore that image - the image is already in the reader's mind.

What does that mean?

Before you write a particular female character, consider women's place in general in your world. Are they limited in any way by society? Are they the group that rules? Is there truly no difference between men and women in how they are treated, in what options are open to them, in what is expected of them?

Next, what character traits are considered "positive" in your world? Violence or diplomacy? Individualism or or social harmony?

You have assigned to your character behaviours that are in our world considered typically male, and typically "better", "stronger". You have sort of subconsciously decided that "strong" female character means "character who exhibits typically male behaviours", and you do not engage with that idea in any way.

Compare that to @user49466's example: the character's behaviour is understood as "typically masculine" within her society, her behaviour is compelled by the realities of her world.

There are other ways your character can engage the reader's expectations: the character's behaviour might lead to negative results, presenting "typically male" behaviours as weaker than "typically female" behaviours, whether exhibited by a male or a female character. The character might acknowledge the fact that she is very macho-man - whether this behaviour is compelled, or she just likes it that way.

There is also the way society treats your character: is she considered "stronger" because she is "manly"? Is she treated negatively because she's "not feminine"? Or are women like her as common as men like her, behaviour no longer being "typically male" or "typically female"?

There are many ways in which you can engage the gender expectations. Writing under the subconscious assumption that "strong" universally equals "manly" doesn't engage those expectations at all, instead very much intrinsically accepting them, for both men and women. Which, I guess, would be why your critic made the comment he did.

It's a real thing, but it may not be 100% language. I know a young woman who writes her men like girls.

General leanings which don't have to be adhered to but you do need to understand them:

• Women tend to be more empathetical and less up-front aggressive.




• Their antagonism is often plotted and discussed rather than flare-up "OY! You Slag!" sort of thing.




• They will defend home base much more strongly than men who tend to go on expeditions and attack.




• Women are typically more cautious as everyday life experience as 'underdogs' means 'a woman who stands her ground' is developed by others as 'stroppy bitch' and isn't productive.

The immediate answer to your question is to ask your readers for why they think she is male.

A useful example to consider is the case of James Tiptree, Jr, the pen name of Alice Sheldon. She wrote her stories (especially the earlier ones) from a male viewpoint, and the impersonation was so successful that Robert Silverberg referred to the theory that Tiptree was a woman as "absurd", and no less an author than Ursula LeGuin refused a contribution to an anthology on the basis that contribution was restricted to women (this was in the relatively early days of feminism).

Judgement of authorial gender is (or can be) an exceedingly tricky business. In large part, it requires playing to the preconceptions of the audience. Sometimes you can get away with putting your character into situations where "acting like a man" is the only way to survive. Soldiering/combat is probably the best example of this. The required characteristics - aggression, unflinching toughness and apparent disconnection from emotions are all survival traits under this sort of stress, so it's easier to accept this sort of behavior.

Outside of these situations, you're in muddy waters. The best advice I can give is to read widely, observe people in everyday interactions (so far as they relate to your proposed story), and think very hard about what you've seen. In general (at least in our culture) women tend to be more passive, less overtly agressive, more socially active/involved, and more concerned with emotion/feelings than men. To do otherwise is to be accused of "acting like a man". And actually acting like a man will, in many circles, get a woman labelled a bitch.

Of course, delineating these differences can be tricky, too. There is an underlying behavioral/emotional/sociological thread which, if violated, will make your writing ring false. Worse, this thread is not constant among all readers. Compare the behavior of most women nowadays with that recommended in the book "The Rules", which was very popular 20 years ago.

Good luck.

Why would you want to "fix it"? The critique is absurd. If the only way to write literature would be to create female characters that MUST sound like if they were written by a woman, or male characters that MUST sound like if they were written by a man, it would be a damn shame for literature itself, since so many nuanced characters would be lost by the constant policing on how a male and female should sound in the text.

Is also a non-sensical critique, because it comes from the notion that there are only certain ways a person of a given gender can be... why on earth would we only want to read what is considered to be by certain critics a "truly whatever-gender-form" character?

All you need to worry about is if the character has true depth, if the storyline is well developed and if your story overall has a better than average artistic quality.

Why are you considering letting others’ opinions dictate or influence YOUR story in the first place? Write whatever you want otherwise you will come across as pandering and complacent.