Boy minds and Girl minds, inside fandoms

[PokutoHokuto]

(This is a generalization, a simplification, so don't get all confused if it doesn't apply 100% of the times, it's not meant to be 100% precise and it's not claiming to be.)

Someone once said, that when little kids get fascinated with something, there is a clear difference in how they show their interest in that something, depending if they are boys or girls.
Moreso when the thing of interest is a fictional character.

Boys usually try to emulate their favorite character. Because boys want to have the qualities they like in their favorite character. The interest of boys, is to be as cool and interesting as the thing they admire, to become themselves cool and interesting.
To make an example, when a boy likes the characters of batman or superman, the boy usually wants to dress himself up like batman and superman, and play around as if he had superpowers and great adventures, or just to feel powerful like the originals.

Girls do the opposite of boys, they don't dress themselves up as the character they are interested in, nor they try to become more similar to the character they like, girls usually try to dress up the character, instead as themselves. As if playing dolls with the character of their interest.
To make an example, when a girl gets hold of a toy of batman, the most usual thing to happen is for batman to get dressed up like a girl and to play house with the other dolls. It's very unusual and rare to see a girl playing with a superhero toy by having the hero toy do hero things.
I'm not a girl so I can't say what goes inside their minds, but I would guess the girls don't want to become greater persons by absorbing the qualities of others they admire(like boys do), but I guess girls want to receive more attention, and anything they find interesting is for them a medium, or a wagon, or an opportunity, a package or a box, to add themselves in, so that when people will look at the interesting thing they will also see a part of the girl. The "interesting thing" for girls is a potential tool to redirect attention towards the girl herself.


Isn't this sort of similar to what happens inside manga and anime fandoms?
Or even inside other fandoms, like in videogames?
Some people read shounens, like dragon ball, or one piece, and want to go super saiyan in real life, and to feel all hyped as the characters are hyped. Those are the boys, or the people with boy minds.
Some other people read shounens, like dragon ball or one piece, and want to see yaoi and yuri shipping everywhere, or to feminize the characters, or to crossdress or genderswap the characters, basically to "dress up" the fighting series in a more girlish way, to have goku and luffy play house. Those are the girls, or the people with girl minds.

 

[PokutoHokuto]

Maybe it's "attention" the real center of this difference in reactions.
Boys care about their own attention towards something.
Girls care about the attention of others towards themselves.

Hence the boys wanting to take the qualities of the characters, and the girls wanting to take the attention the characters receive.


Btw, if the made up terms "boy mind" and "girl mind" confuse you, call them "Batman mind" and "Barbie mind", it's really the same, made up terms to talk about something. You won't find neither of those terms inside dictionaries, it's explained in the op post what they mean.
Sorry but with this thread you can't just read the title and discuss away.

 

[mylovenovels]

(This is a generalization, a simplification, so don't get all confused if it doesn't apply 100% of the times, it's not meant to be 100% precise and it's not claiming to be.)

Someone once said, that when little kids get fascinated with something, there is a clear difference in how they show their interest in that something, depending if they are boys or girls.
Moreso when the thing of interest is a fictional character.

Boys usually try to emulate their favorite character. Because boys want to have the qualities they like in their favorite character. The interest of boys, is to be as cool and interesting as the thing they admire, to become themselves cool and interesting.
To make an example, when a boy likes the characters of batman or superman, the boy usually wants to dress himself up like batman and superman, and play around as if he had superpowers and great adventures, or just to feel powerful like the originals.

Girls do the opposite of boys, they don't dress themselves up as the character they are interested in, nor they try to become more similar to the character they like, girls usually try to dress up the character, instead as themselves. As if playing dolls with the character of their interest.
To make an example, when a girl gets hold of a toy of batman, the most usual thing to happen is for batman to get dressed up like a girl and to play house with the other dolls. It's very unusual and rare to see a girl playing with a superhero toy by having the hero toy do hero things.
I'm not a girl so I can't say what goes inside their minds, but I would guess the girls don't want to become greater persons by absorbing the qualities of others they admire(like boys do), but I guess girls want to receive more attention, and anything they find interesting is for them a medium, or a wagon, or an opportunity, a package or a box, to add themselves in, so that when people will look at the interesting thing they will also see a part of the girl. The "interesting thing" for girls is a potential tool to redirect attention towards the girl herself.


Isn't this sort of similar to what happens inside manga and anime fandoms?
Or even inside other fandoms, like in videogames?
Some people read shounens, like dragon ball, or one piece, and want to go super saiyan in real life, and to feel all hyped as the characters are hyped. Those are the boys, or the people with boy minds.
Some other people read shounens, like dragon ball or one piece, and want to see yaoi and yuri shipping everywhere, or to feminize the characters, or to crossdress or genderswap the characters, basically to "dress up" the fighting series in a more girlish way, to have goku and luffy play house. Those are the girls, or the people with girl minds.

I get what you’re trying to describe, but I think this framework rests on a few shaky assumptions and ends up explaining too much with gender stereotypes rather than with how play and fandom actually work.


First, the idea that boys “become” the character while girls “use” the character as a prop isn’t consistently supported by observation or research. Kids of all genders do both kinds of play. Plenty of girls pretend to be superheroes, warriors, or Pokémon plenty of boys dress, customize, ship, or roleplay domestic or relational scenarios. What changes isn’t gender so much as what kinds of play are socially encouraged or discouraged. Boys are rewarded for power fantasy; girls are often nudged toward relational and aesthetic play. That doesn’t mean the underlying motivation is different it means the expression is shaped by social feedback.

Second, the claim that girls don’t want to “absorb admirable qualities” but instead want attention redirected to themselves is a big leap. Dressing or transforming a character doesn’t imply narcissism or attention seeking. It often reflects interest in relationships and emotions enjoyment of creativity and customization

this is just a messy thread with a lot of writing that's confusing
I dont get why no one is pointing how stupid this thread is out

 

[mylovenovels]

This argument isn’t just a simplification, it’s an unethical and unfounded generalization. It assigns motives like vanity or attention seeking to girls while framing boys as self improving, without evidence, and then retrofits fandom behavior to match that bias. Reducing creative play and fan expression to “boy minds vs girl minds” is stereotyping, not analysis, and it misrepresents how people of all genders actually engage with fiction.

I have alot to back up my statement and I know you arent trying to harm anyone

 

[mylovenovels]

@MinecraftStoryModeLover explain what you think

striking without explaining is a bit rude

 

[MinecraftStoryModeLover]

@MinecraftStoryModeLover explain what you think

While the way he explained it was rather poor, I can understand why he would call it "boy mind" vs "girl mind", because it is the exhibited behaviors in young children when introduced to fictional characters.

I could write a decent argument for it using scientific evidence, such as the variance in gray matter or white matter depending on sex (you can check this!) or the tendency for women to have verbal centers in both sides of the brain, rather than just one hemisphere like men (you can check this!)

Or I could just point to the fact that this is a societally observable phenomenon.

For example, the recent Little Mermaid live action remake made a very stark choice. They made Ariel black. The character is supposed to be Greek and was written by a Danish author who most likely never even saw a Black person. So why did they do it? The marketing team behind the movie said it was to give these young girls a role model that "looked like them."

I think a better way to phrase this question would be
"Do you subscribe to the idea that characters are models or that characters are mirrors?"

A model is someone you can try to emulate, but acknowledge as their own person. This means you can act like Batman (fight bad guys, use gadgets, be super cool) without being Batman.

A mirror is someone you want to insert yourself as, due to their relatable traits or perceived benefits.

I still don't disagree with the phrasing, but if you'd rather it not be gendered, there you go.

It just so happens that these categories are mostly divided on sex. This is why princesses are very popular with little girls, and why princes definitely are not popular with little boys.

You can make arguments against this point, but I think that the marketing department at Disney has well enough experience catering to their respective audience for these films and stories (what works for boys, what works for girls) that they're probably professionals at sex-based emotional neurology.

 

[MinecraftStoryModeLover]

Also sorry in advance if this thread totally devolves into an argument.

My opinion is that I definitely view characters in the "male-brain" way.
I like characters who do cool shit and I want to also do cool shit.

My favorite role model? The Man with No Name, played by Clint Eastwood, in the classic Spaghetti Westerns.

 

[mylovenovels]

I think this still overstates how cleanly these behaviors divide by sex and leans too hard on “observable” patterns that are heavily shaped by culture and marketing itself. (please don't drag me to the bottom pits of hell I'm so sorry to just feed you information like this but I just want to get my point across)

Neuroscience(bleh bleh) differences like gray/white matter ratios or language lateralization don’t map cleanly onto complex behaviors like fandom engagement, roleplay style, or identification with fictional characters. Even researchers in those fields are very cautious about drawing behavioral conclusions from those findings, because overlap between sexes is enormous and social conditioning plays a major role.


As for “models vs mirrors,” that’s actually a useful distinction but it doesn’t fall neatly along sex lines. Plenty of boys engage with characters as mirrors (self-inserts, power fantasies, customization, avatars), and plenty of girls treat characters as models (heroes, warriors, athletes, leaders). The difference is often what kinds of stories kids are offered and what behaviors are socially rewarded, not some hardwired emotional neurology.


Disney marketing doesn’t prove innate sex based psychology either it proves that companies are very good at reinforcing existing expectations. Princesses are popular with girls largely because girls are marketed princesses from birth; boys are discouraged from engaging with them, not neurologically incapable of doing so.


So even if you drop the gendered language, the problem remains: the argument treats social patterns as biological destiny and then uses corporate marketing decisions as evidence of human nature. That’s not rigorous it’s circular.

this thread could have been named better to be honest
The only reason I’m able to articulate this clearly is because I’ve had to argue against similar ideas in other threads before.

While the way he explained it was rather poor, I can understand why he would call it "boy mind" vs "girl mind", because it is the exhibited behaviors in young children when introduced to fictional characters.

I could write a decent argument for it using scientific evidence, such as the variance in gray matter or white matter depending on sex (you can check this!) or the tendency for women to have verbal centers in both sides of the brain, rather than just one hemisphere like men (you can check this!)

Or I could just point to the fact that this is a societally observable phenomenon.

For example, the recent Little Mermaid live action remake made a very stark choice. They made Ariel black. The character is supposed to be Greek and was written by a Danish author who most likely never even saw a Black person. So why did they do it? The marketing team behind the movie said it was to give these young girls a role model that "looked like them."

I think a better way to phrase this question would be
"Do you subscribe to the idea that characters are models or that characters are mirrors?"

A model is someone you can try to emulate, but acknowledge as their own person. This means you can act like Batman (fight bad guys, use gadgets, be super cool) without being Batman.

A mirror is someone you want to insert yourself as, due to their relatable traits or perceived benefits.

I still don't disagree with the phrasing, but if you'd rather it not be gendered, there you go.

It just so happens that these categories are mostly divided on sex. This is why princesses are very popular with little girls, and why princes definitely are not popular with little boys.

You can make arguments against this point, but I think that the marketing department at Disney has well enough experience catering to their respective audience for these films and stories (what works for boys, what works for girls) that they're probably professionals at sex-based emotional neurology.

 

[mylovenovels]

Also sorry in advance if this thread totally devolves into an argument.

My opinion is that I definitely view characters in the "male-brain" way.
I like characters who do cool shit and I want to also do cool shit.

My favorite role model? The Man with No Name, played by Clint Eastwood, in the classic Spaghetti Westerns.

I relate to both approaches, but growing up I was largely pushed toward superhero media because I had an older brother.

sorry for being a pain in the ass

 

[MinecraftStoryModeLover]

I think this still overstates how cleanly these behaviors divide by sex and leans too hard on “observable” patterns that are heavily shaped by culture and marketing itself. (please don't drag me to the bottom pits of hell I'm so sorry to just feed you information like this but I just want to get my point across)

Neuroscience(bleh bleh) differences like gray/white matter ratios or language lateralization don’t map cleanly onto complex behaviors like fandom engagement, roleplay style, or identification with fictional characters. Even researchers in those fields are very cautious about drawing behavioral conclusions from those findings, because overlap between sexes is enormous and social conditioning plays a major role.


As for “models vs mirrors,” that’s actually a useful distinction but it doesn’t fall neatly along sex lines. Plenty of boys engage with characters as mirrors (self-inserts, power fantasies, customization, avatars), and plenty of girls treat characters as models (heroes, warriors, athletes, leaders). The difference is often what kinds of stories kids are offered and what behaviors are socially rewarded, not some hardwired emotional neurology.


Disney marketing doesn’t prove innate sex based psychology either it proves that companies are very good at reinforcing existing expectations. Princesses are popular with girls largely because girls are marketed princesses from birth; boys are discouraged from engaging with them, not neurologically incapable of doing so.


So even if you drop the gendered language, the problem remains: the argument treats social patterns as biological destiny and then uses corporate marketing decisions as evidence of human nature. That’s not rigorous it’s circular.

this thread could have been named better to be honest
The only reason I’m able to articulate this clearly is because I’ve had to argue against similar ideas in other threads before.

I can understand the social argument, but it is a bit of a band-aid fix all solution that I really don't like.

Blaming society for observable trends is easy, but even in pre-modern societies, there is an abundance of evidence that so called "motherly dolls" have been around longer than any organized state.

Basically, if the explanation is societal norms, why does it predate society as we conceive it?

I don't really want to get into an in-depth discussion on this topic, and I don't think anyone can really reach a scientific consensus as the sample size is basically the entire population of children.
We'll agree to disagree.

 

[mylovenovels]

I can understand the social argument, but it is a bit of a band-aid fix all solution that I really don't like.

Blaming society for observable trends is easy, but even in pre-modern societies, there is an abundance of evidence that so called "motherly dolls" have been around longer than any organized state.

Basically, if the explanation is societal norms, why does it predate society as we conceive it?

I don't really want to get into an in-depth discussion on this topic, and I don't think anyone can really reach a scientific consensus as the sample size is basically the entire population of children.
We'll agree to disagree.

I don’t think “society” is being used as a band-aid explanation here. Social influence doesn’t require modern states or marketing it exists anywhere humans raise children. Even pre-modern or prehistoric communities had role division, imitation, teaching, and reinforcement of behavior, which is still social conditioning.

The existence of dolls doesn’t prove fixed psychological categories like “model vs mirror” or map cleanly onto fandom behavior either. Objects can persist across cultures while their meaning and use vary widely.

So I’m fine agreeing there may be some biological influence, but my issue is with treating these patterns as hard, explanatory rules rather than loose trends shaped heavily by context. I’m also okay leaving it at that.

 

[panzerkampfwagyu]

A small thing:
People are fully capable of enjoying media without projecting themselves into it.
Projecting is also quite a terrible way to enjoy media, as it requires the projection characters to not be offensive or actually flawed in any way, which severely harms the story as a result.

Like, the MMO trend of guys playing female characters. Some Projection-addicts tried to spin it as a trans thing, but the simple answer is: "If I have to look at an ass the entire time, I prefer it to be a woman's ass.", self-inserts are from my experience quite a minority in MMO characters, characters the player finds attractive, hilariously ugly or interesting to role-play as are more common, though that's my personal view.

I still remember that self-insert OC's were a pretty reviled thing during my youth, so it's quite annoying for that to have become the apparent main way of interacting with media.