THE PACK Message Boards

I've noticed quite a number of fictional settings in which there is some kind of gender imbalance among werewolves, such as:
1) All werewolves are male, or nearly all are
2) All werewolves are female, or nearly all are

Often this is made explicit, it is actually stated that only one gender exists among werewolves, or that one gender (especially females) is quite rare among werewolves. Also, there are some other settings in which this idea is never stated, but a highly visible gender imbalance is present anyway (such as in the movie "Underworld").

What do you think about these gender imbalances? Do you prefer not to see them at all, ever? Do you like one sort of gender imbalance more than the others? And what might cause a gender imbalance?

For my part, I tend to not want to see gender imbalances, but if I do see them, I prefer imbalances in favor of the females, simply because there are way too many male werewolves in fiction already, and a female bias tends to even things out overall.

As to reasons why one gender might predominate, it is easy to think of them:

1) Only one gender is able to survive the transition from normal human to werewolf (I usually see this reason given in settings that favor male werewolves, but science has shown us that the female body is more resitant to disease, stress, starvation and many other extreme conditions than the male body, so if you want to get technical, this would probably be best in female-majority scenarios).

2) Female werewolves are rare because their first pregnancy nearly always kills them

3) Some hormone balance only present in one gender is needed to trigger the changes, so that one gender is latent, like a disease carrier (this could lead to interesting complications. Could a wanna-be werewolf of the "wrong" gender get bitten and then use hormone treatments to transform? Would gay or bisexual werewolves of the "wrong" gender be the only ones of their gender who transformed?).

4) In the same way that locations such as the Wild West and present-day Alaska have traditionally attracted a gender imbalance strongly in favor of males, if werewolfry is mainly passed on to willing volunteers, it might be that one gender has a much stronger urge to become werewolves than the other (this desire might be determined by cultural values, so that in some cultures the gender imbalance might be absent or even reversed). This would make sense in settings where lycanthropy was passed by bites or where it was a learned skill.

5) If who can become a werewolf is tightly controlled by pack leaders, they might institute a gender bias. This gender bias might then vary quite a bit from one pack to another, but there could also be widespread global trends that might reflect ancient traditions.

6) One gender is deliberately killed by another (I've seen this in one novel where all werewolves were female and the trait was hereditary. They kept their gender bias by killing all male babies they gave birth to).

How did two identical topics get here?

Admins, please fix this. I didn't mean to do it.

Edit: oh, wait, I fixed it.

I prefer no imbalances, but if there is going to be an imbalance, I prefer it to be in favor of females, since I am female.

I prefer no imbalances because that is how writers easily get their characters as top rankers. If there's no female werewolves and one woman just so happened to become one WHAM! instant fame. No need to explain why the focus is on her or him or whatever. They just became a Hit in a crowd. Between Harry Potter and Bitten I'm just tired of that theme...

It doesn't take much effort to make a character important because they are the last of their breed or the first or the only.

How original. I mean, we don't see "Stories of the Omega" blossoming -- because low-man-on-the-totem is just exactly that. Not at the big scene. He's rolling the dice in the back seat. Nothing original about that back seat since, you know, everybody's pretty much done their time there.

Lie.

I just... want something where a character has to WORK for their position. Where the person we follow isn't necessarily the odd one out but makes themselves something more.

It's called Character Development. In the realm of werewolves, as we all know, this is something that is hardly spoken in mass market. Freeborn should be the first exception.

I'm tired of Gender Wars and uniqueness based on genitalia. Give me a story -- a story about creatures, a story irregardless of what's between the legs and make characters move.

Please?

Excelsia wrote:I prefer no imbalances, but if there is going to be an imbalance, I prefer it to be in favor of females, since I am female.

After having given it more thought, I think I might prefer an imbalance in favor of males, if I was a female werewolf. If I was a female werewolf and there was an imbalance in favor of females, I wouldn't have anyone to fall in love with.

I prefer no imbalance or a slightly male favored imbalance. I say this because if the idea that ww operate like their lupine brethren with packs and rankings are used, there would need to be more males than females.

I prefer no imbalance...or a slight imbalance in favor of males 'cuz I am one.

But No imbalance is best.

It really depends on why there is an imbalance. I loathe the idea of werewolves being strictly one gender, although I could understand if somehow by chance, a werewolf pack wound up with only one gender (like in 28 Days Later where the only survivors were soldiers, or in The 13th Warrior where the village was full of women because all the men had died fighting). If there's going to be a gender imbalance, I'd rather it be be justified by history than anatomy.

Also, ideally a werewolf pack should have an equal or near-equal division between male and female (an odd-numbered pack doesn't need a herm). However, I'd also much prefer an all-male pack to a pack that is predominantly male with only one or two females that are only there for romantic element or gratuitous nudity. If a gender's role is going to be stereotypical, I'd rather it just be left out altogether.

Maybe I'm just cynical, but just once I'd like to see the black guy live and the girl have to save her own a**. But anyway, that's where my "something else" vote comes from: whatever it takes to keep it from being dumb as hell.

EDIT: Thought about it some more, and I'm going to withdraw my "equal representation" suggestion and just say I'd prefer "near-equal," regardless of wether it leans in favor of males or females. The reason being that if it turned out that there were exactly as many males as there were females, it'd look like the whole thing was being set up so A can fall in love with B, C can fall in love with D, etc. etc. and the whole thing ends like an episode of Gordon the Garden Gnome.

So at least two more guys than girls in the pack or vice versa please?

If culturally werewolfism is gonna be more prevelent in one side or the other, that's fine.

But, I don't see any reason to, make it so there's some biological reason why Werewolfism should favor one gender over another.

Personally though, I'd prefer no "drastic imbalences. If there's gonna be an imbalence, it shouldn't be so drastic that the audience could easily tell.

I like no imbalance but if their is one I dont cear but if its like a real wolf pack males out number females I think i herd that some where but I think it better when their is no imbalance but their would most likely be more males

I picked no Imbalance Simply because I'm sick of seeing it the way Jamie explained in the beginning(mostly males or more rarely females) but like terastas said, if there's going to be an imbalance so be it, just make it make sense, have a reason for the imbalance.

I voted "other" since gender imbalance could happen at any place in a whole story, for example.

There's too many stories with imbalances, both intentional and as a result of taking certain dogmas for granted. (There were no female werewolves in Underworld, for example, because the movie had only two ladies period--in parts that specifically called for women. All incidental characters were male.) I say, let's match the male to female ratio roughly 50/50, like it is in the real world, among both humans and wolves.

The imbalance in Underworld was sort of explained though. In that movie, the werewolf "virus" was almost deadly. Therefore, since the majority of women are not as physically strong as men, I suppose the virus would have a higher mortality rate in their case.

I persoanlly prefer no imbalance, cause it goes against nature for there to be genetically an imbalance. Nature allows things to evolve to increase #s (which usually means increased female fertility) and for there to be actually NO females would go against all of nature's laws.

I prefer no imbalances.

Moon Daughter wrote:The imbalance in Underworld was sort of explained though. In that movie, the werewolf "virus" was almost deadly. Therefore, since the majority of women are not as physically strong as men, I suppose the virus would have a higher mortality rate in their case.

I absolutely DESPISE s*** like this. If there is going to be an imbalance, it should be for a good reason, not some biological crap.

If there is an imbalance there should be a reason for it, be it social or what have you.

I also prefer no imbalances, cause I'm also sick of stories that favor male werewolves. If there is an imbalance then I would also like to see a good explanation for it.

For example: I liked the way how Kelley Armstrong in her book Bitten explained why there are only male werewolves: The Gen is only passed from male to male ,cause it is located on the Y-Chromosom. This is the reason why females (usually) die after the bite of a werewolf. I'm curious how she is going to explain why it was possible for her main character Elena to survive ... (I've just read Bitten and Stolen, the german version of Broken isn't released yet. So please: If there is an explanation, don't tell it to me ...)

Around 55% of all humans are female.

In nature, females outnumber males. It's just a fact. More males would be kind of useless considering just one can get multiple females pregnant. I would like a slight imbalance favoring the girls, simply because of the fact that there are more of us than there are of the guys.

Reilune wrote:Around 55% of all humans are female.

In nature, females outnumber males. It's just a fact. More males would be kind of useless considering just one can get multiple females pregnant. I would like a slight imbalance favoring the girls, simply because of the fact that there are more of us than there are of the guys.

Actually, according to numbers in the CIA word factbook, the world's population is 50.34% male, and 49.65% female.[1]






[1](There is a 0.0048% descrepency with the numbers I used to get the percentage, I don't think it's enough to change the figures significantly, however)

I prefer no Imbalance, but if thier has to be an imbalance, then theres gotta be more females ofcourse

Oh and the whole reason why Females are in such a close number in outnumbering males is because all of them males have been into war and were killed while the females were left untouched, but males are given birth than females.

what?

anyway, my thought work liek this.


I prefer no imbalance, ebcause what universe I use has n oreason for imbalance.

If there HAD to be an imbabalce, more men than women, becuase that eliminates tthe "harem" sort of grouoping. but then again, war would kill off the males more, because one fo teh essentials fo war is 'women and children first.' this has kep all species alive longest; a large number of female and a few males is more liekyl; to survive than lotsa males and a few females.

On Underworld viruses:

Then, how come there were female vampires? We had two, plus a minority of others sitting around and posturing? (OK, my previous comment was in part wrong; not quite all the incidental parts were male; just most.) For that matter, many of the vampire men seemed unusually soft and squishy--not the sort of people you'd expect to see survive the infection of an agent that rewrote one's physiology inside and out.

On CIA Factoids:

The 50.5%/49.5% breakdown is the correct one. Statistically, there are just slightly more males born than females, but males have a higher early mortality rate, evening things out around adulescence. In old age, women outlive men by an average of 5-7 years, all other factors being equal. (And yet, for some reason, women are pressured into feeling older younger, and our culture pushes for older men to marry younger women--yet another example of how mainstream culture goes 180 degrees against nature and logic.)

It is true that there is only a slight percentage difference between males and females, but. . . Somehow, I have a feeling that if a pack in a book or movie represented that statistic exactly, it'd look really stupid in the long run.

I'd honestly prefer a male/female ratio that relied on more than just the overall population. Sure, women outnumber men in the real world, but maybe men are more likely to be dumbasses and get themselves cornered into the "kill or shift" decision time.

I kind of think of the male/female ratio in terms of flipping a coin twenty times. You'd think it would land on heads just as many times on tails, but the likeliness of getting exactly 10 heads and 10 tails are not that far off from your chances of getting 20 heads or 20 tails (and if you're a math expert, please, don't give me the statistics and just let my point stand). Like I said in my last post: Not exactly equal, just close enough to it.

Terastas wrote: Sure, women outnumber men in the real world.

Scott just said that men outnumbered women you ding dong.