In a sentence, the OP is nuts. The traits that it notes as the hallmark of feminine writing are really the signs of SF's maturation as a real literary form. Th

In a sentence, the OP is nuts. The traits that it notes as the hallmark of feminine writing are really the signs of SF's maturation as a real literary form. The old days of pulp and space operas were, as noted, generally male-centered. They were almost entirely plot-driven, with tissue-thin characters. Today's SF is a legitimate vehicle for the exploration not only of new worlds, but of philosophy and the human condition. This isn't because of females, but because the genre as a whole -- coming from writers of both genders -- have learned how to really create characters, and that lets us really explore their humanity. For example, Orson Scott Card's second series of Ender novels all retell the same story, just from the perspective of different characters (male and female). What could emphasize characters and their relationships more, and de-emphasize the plot itself, than this? (and yes, Card is male). Indeed, it seems to me that most of the SF I've read recently is like this to some extent, like the work of Robert Charles Wilson. To the extent that being able to address the hard questions is a good thing (and I think it is), this is very good for science fiction. And BTW, Frankenstein is not horror, it's proper science fiction. Its theme deals with man's apparent mastery of nature, and how that becomes his folly. (More properly, horror should be considered a sub-genre of fantasy.) And conversely, The Hobbit and Conan are not science fiction, they are fantasy, in that they deal with man (or halfling, I suppose) at the mercy of forces beyond his comprehension, trying to make sense of those forces. Indeed, Tolkein's work is THE canonical fantasy.