Sorry for the lack of clarity. My attempt at expansion may or may not be helpful:
'Having the color come from sassiness, spunk, irreverence', is what I meant by "this kind of thing." It's also what I was calling unrealistic. It's a character cliche I particularly dislike, especially because it's almost exclusively foisted on women. One of the reasons I dislike it, beyond personal taste, is because by their very nature, sass and irreverence are directed towards people in positions of power and responsibility. (Otherwise it's not sass, it's bullying.) So disproportionately giving women those character traits stacks the deck against women characters having power and responsibility -- and adulthood, I think -- themselves.
(The exception, of course, is when sass/sarcasm is a front, a cover for insecurity or self-loathing or what-have-you -- also a cliche, but one I like. (Plus it doesn't read to me as sexist.) Or when it's bravado, an effort to create in yourself the very nonchalance you're trying to project - Buffy quipping as she slays, that sort of thing. That, I like. But Buffy has tons of insecurity issues to go along with her sass.)
So anyway, I thought you were suggesting those sorts of traits as a female substitute for either angsty repression or emotional flamboyance - what I meant by my last paragraph was that angstiness is as girly an trait as they come, so it's not unrealistic to give it to a female character. But! at the same time, it's not a well-regarded or a respectable trait, so it's no 'easier' (and therefore less interesting) for a female character (or a real woman) to be angst-ridden than for a male one.
As far as reading habits go, women in the vast majority of the books I read and enjoy have multiple and sometimes conflicting motivations for their actions, often try to hide fear, shame, and embarrassment from others, and so on. But I don't think this says much about my reading tastes; it's just a description of ordinary human behavior -- I don't know how to read 'hiding your feelings' as a gendered trait -- everybody does it, if they can. I'd agree that women are socialized to hide different sorts of emotions than men are, though.
I'm not arguing
I'm not...well, maybe I am arguing a little, but I'm not hostile about it. I'm certainly not trying to fight. I do think a lot of this comes down to personal taste in character types, which can't be argued. (for instance, you mentioned George RR Martin, which reminds me that my personal perpetual grudge against that kind of fantasy is the way ideas of nonconformity in women are structured -- I look mostly in vain for some acknowledgement that a girl who likes to read books by herself all day is just as a rebel and just as much in violation of her social role as a girl (like Arya) who likes to fight and ride horses. Not that I don't want to read about physical heroism! - but it's the angst vs. sass thing all over again. There are a billion different ways for women to be interesting.)
[This excessively long comment was brought to you by the Campaign for Respectable Female Angst.]
Re: I'm not really a writer
'Having the color come from sassiness, spunk, irreverence', is what I meant by "this kind of thing." It's also what I was calling unrealistic. It's a character cliche I particularly dislike, especially because it's almost exclusively foisted on women. One of the reasons I dislike it, beyond personal taste, is because by their very nature, sass and irreverence are directed towards people in positions of power and responsibility. (Otherwise it's not sass, it's bullying.) So disproportionately giving women those character traits stacks the deck against women characters having power and responsibility -- and adulthood, I think -- themselves.
(The exception, of course, is when sass/sarcasm is a front, a cover for insecurity or self-loathing or what-have-you -- also a cliche, but one I like. (Plus it doesn't read to me as sexist.) Or when it's bravado, an effort to create in yourself the very nonchalance you're trying to project - Buffy quipping as she slays, that sort of thing. That, I like. But Buffy has tons of insecurity issues to go along with her sass.)
So anyway, I thought you were suggesting those sorts of traits as a female substitute for either angsty repression or emotional flamboyance - what I meant by my last paragraph was that angstiness is as girly an trait as they come, so it's not unrealistic to give it to a female character. But! at the same time, it's not a well-regarded or a respectable trait, so it's no 'easier' (and therefore less interesting) for a female character (or a real woman) to be angst-ridden than for a male one.
As far as reading habits go, women in the vast majority of the books I read and enjoy have multiple and sometimes conflicting motivations for their actions, often try to hide fear, shame, and embarrassment from others, and so on. But I don't think this says much about my reading tastes; it's just a description of ordinary human behavior -- I don't know how to read 'hiding your feelings' as a gendered trait -- everybody does it, if they can. I'd agree that women are socialized to hide different sorts of emotions than men are, though.
I'm not arguing
I'm not...well, maybe I am arguing a little, but I'm not hostile about it. I'm certainly not trying to fight. I do think a lot of this comes down to personal taste in character types, which can't be argued. (for instance, you mentioned George RR Martin, which reminds me that my personal perpetual grudge against that kind of fantasy is the way ideas of nonconformity in women are structured -- I look mostly in vain for some acknowledgement that a girl who likes to read books by herself all day is just as a rebel and just as much in violation of her social role as a girl (like Arya) who likes to fight and ride horses. Not that I don't want to read about physical heroism! - but it's the angst vs. sass thing all over again. There are a billion different ways for women to be interesting.)
[This excessively long comment was brought to you by the Campaign for Respectable Female Angst.]