How can men learn to better identify with female characters in literature and film?

Great question and fascinating and insightful yet, from my point of view,  somewhat depressing answers.:-)   I get the sense from reading the answers that the men answering the question believe there aren't a lot of great female characters in literature; that the books written by women "tend to be categorized as "women's fiction' ;and men will only really identify with female characters if they act a certain way that they find compelling, (with the exception of a few great female authors like Austen etc.)  Or if they find themselves in situations that for some reasons seem more interesting. But I see lots of great 20th century female characters on my bookshelf, written by women in novels that I wouldn't consider "women's fiction": the females in Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Wolf, Out, by Natsuo Kirino, On Beauty by Zadie Smith,Birdie in Caucasia, The Falls by Joyce Carol Oates, Trudi Montag in Stones from the River.  These are all compelling novels that find characters dealing with life, death, racism, war. Why should any of these novels be called "women's fiction," if introspective novels by Vonnegut, Philp Roth, Wallace Stegner, Hemingway aren't considered "men's fiction"?  No one says that the Rabbit series by Updike is considered "men's fiction", do they?  All of these novels offer introspection, relationship issues, life and death struggles etc.  But we just consider them damn good novels,  that's it, we don't categorize them in a way that books written by women are categorized, right? So, I guess my answer is to read some different novels and think about them in the same way as you would the novels listed above.:-) Hollywood though is a different story....

Great question. The answer has many parts. Let's unpack.         Because of the asymmetry in the percentage of male directors to female(latest figures: 93 % to 7 %), the dominant storytelling style is male, meaning that the central character is almost always male and females, if they appear at all, are subsidiary characters, sex objects, or there to create a conflict that the hero must resolve.         Historically females have been able to crossidentify with male characters, from Odysseus to Stephen Dedalus. It is less common for heterosexual men to crossidentify with Elizabeth Bennett, Jo March and Bridget Jones, perhaps because when the focus is on the female hero, it goes against the dominant storytelling traditions as well as suggesting to certain men that girl stuff is not for them. (Interestingly, in the first two decades of films close to 50 per cent of the screenwriters were women.)          Creating more opportunities for female storytellers would be great, but it won't change the fundamental problem of males having difficulty identifying with female protagonists. How do we help males to identify with females? In part, it's a cultural problem. A two year-old girl who dances around in Daddy's shoes or trousers is considered adorable. A two-year-old boy who picks up Mommy's lipstick or puts on her shoes triggers anxiety and the boy gets the message early on that girl stuff is bad.        The solution is two-pronged: Socializing young boys and girls equally and creating equal opportunities for male and female storytellers.

I think it greatly depends on the character. Its popularity shows that many men empathized with Ripley from Alien and Aliens (but perhaps not so much in Alien IV as the character was less sympathetic). No doubt this was because Ripley is a classic action hero - like Bruce Willis or Will Smith - out of her depth, but driven into action to survive - but feminine nonetheless. I imagine there were few men who could not identify with Clarice from Silence of the Lambs - with the feeling of being out gunned and manipulated - trying to stand out and make a name for ourselves; it was hard to identify with Lektor, although we certainly liked and admired him. And Amelie is another character men can identify with - shy, held back by our fathers, obsessive. Another that jumps to mind is Julie Roberts in Erin Brockovich. Her tenaciousness, arrogance, determination to do things her way are not especially women's issues and yet the character was framed by her femininity. I'm sure many men like myself were able to sympathize and identify with her. The problem is that the film industry suffers from the same problem as any other - it is mostly controlled by men. Search, as I have just done, through IMDB top 250 films and look for films with female protagonists. There is a dearth. Is this because fewer films with female leads are being green lit? I think this is true - there is certainly no shortage of great women actors. On the subject of literature things are only a little different. Literature written by woman tends to get categorized as "women's fiction" and so almost becomes a genre on its own. Men simply aren't browsing this section. But whenever I read a book with a strong female character I have few problems identifying with her, unless the situation is completely outside my frame of reference. In classic literature the characters of Austen are excellent - battling against the expectations put upon them - embarrassed by family members - able to find humour in life. A modern example can be found in the work of Jane Rogers. A favorite of mine is Her Living Image. Following an accident the lead character is hospitalized, and her life altered. However the story continues to document her life had the incident not occurred. The two characters are eventually drawn together in the same plot. I could identify with this character - it's about the life we could have had - the choices we didn't make. And about fate. And so I disagree with Streep a little. One of my favorite films - Silkwood - has her cast in the female lead and men will have no problem identifying with this character. Men can identify with female characters but it depends on the character. Because of this I would concede that they will probably find it easier to identify with a man - but the flip side to this is that there are a great many more male leads in popular culture than women. 

I just discovered Homeland. It's a refreshing show, for many reasons, but man, am I IN LOVE with the main character. Not in a  romantic way,but  in a way I can identify a female character, and one that's hard hitting, gets respect, a bit crazy, and someone I can identify with--her life, though, is about protecting the country (or so she thinks), she gets respect from her colleagues, and it's refreshing to see the mentor ship between her and Saul.  Yes, she's attractive(that's a good thing too, to see blondes being multi dimensional), she can think, she's creative, an she has problems. Finally someone that's more like a person than just a woman. Like says, we need better female character written. I would argue, to put women more like people, rather than have their identification as strictly within a woman prism, and that's easier than  ever, as the context allows this. Considering the rating of Homeland, and in general,  I honestly doubt men would mind seeing an attractive woman on screen who has brains, personality, and has issues in her life like anyone else, and a man can emphasize, and relate to this. Also, I'm a Homeland fan, but that's unrelated.

"Literature written by a woman gets characterized as women's fiction"?? I don't think so.  Margaret Atwood, Eudora Welty, Carson McCullers, Virginia Wolff, Alice Munro, Dorris Lessing, the Brontes, Joyce Carol Oates, Harper Lee, Isabelle Allende, A.S. Byatt, Lillian Hellman, Kay Boyle, Gertrude Stein, Jane Austin... I can go on, but I think (hope) I'm making a point here. And the point is that there is a tremendous amount of literary fiction (novel, short story, and plays) written by women that persons of either (any) gender can, and do, 'relate to'.  (And, no, Margaret Atwood is not described by any serious reader of fiction as an author of "women's fiction", whatever that means...) The label "women's fiction" means different things to different readers (and writers), but like the term "chick lit" it is insulting, and marginalizing.  It almost always refers to works of fictions, overwhelmingly novels, that are not considered literary, and that are largely formulaic and predictable.  Although "good" women's fiction or chick lit can be a very pleasant way to pass an hour or two reading; think a 'beach read' designed to peak female interest... The reason there are classes in 'women's fiction' in college settings--as a commenter above alludes to--is because historically fiction written by women has not been included in college reading lists as frequently as that written by men.  In response to this, many feminist teachers and professors in the 60's and 70's began to structure curricula to meet the needs and desires of their students to be exposed to more work written by women.  I believe that on campuses today one will be somewhat less likely to find course in 'women's fiction', and that this reflects the considerably more common inclusion of works written by women, and other under-represented categories of writers, in college English and literature courses. I agree that Streep's comments are problematic, and feel sorry that she grew up with what sounds like a meagre library to browse!

Short answer: Men probably can't do as Ms. Streep wishes.   Long Answer: Men are different than women. Women are different than men.   While our intellect states that this shouldn't matter or that we collectively should be able to ignore them or  somehow "work past them", biologically, we can't. And efforts being expended to make people see past the biological are probably doomed to failure.   I have personally viewed a sizable number of films. Many have female protagonists. While I can appreciate the characters within the film, at a certain point I'm going to be able to "relate" (as much as one can relate to a fictional character) to the male characters (protagonist or antagonist) than I would the female characters.   Regardless of skin color, age,ethnicity, nationality, motivations or a host of other intangibles, I am more in tune with the actions and reactions of the male characters than I am the female ones. The males take actions which I would view as being the actions I would take in most situations and their thought processes (or rather the thought proccesses shown on film) are aligned towards what I'm thinking.   This isn't the same when I'm watching a female character. While I can empathize with certain situations in which they find themselves, after a certain point their motivations and their actions aren't going to be aligned with what I believe that mine would be. What they are doing creates a dissonance within my thought processes and to continue to watch the film (and to enjoy it) I have to put myself outside of the situation and watch it dispassionately.   Women (at least those portrayed in the media) respond to things in a different manner than men would and men , not being women, often can't relate to that. Things which a male character would "blow off" would create serious issues for a female one. Things which a female charcater might easily accepted would be viewed as weakness when/if attempted by a male one.   I'm not a biologist nor am I an anthropologist, but I would have to imagine that these differences are the same or very similar throughout the various societies around the world. This would likely mean that there is a biological component to them which (like most biological components) can never be completely restrained. People may be able to harness it for other purpose or channel into areas which are more productive, but they are ultimately held hostage to the biological imperatives of their gender.   Not to be be uncharitable to Ms. Streep and her opinion, I suspect that her reasoning behind making the arguments that she is might be the fact that she is a performer in a business and her performances aren't garnering her the same financial returns that they are her male contempararies. Men aren't flocking to see Ms. Streep's films and she is attributing that to men be unwilling to identify with female characters.   She may be right.   Or..it may be that men aren't fans of the fare which Ms. Streep is wont to perform in. Or they don't like the characters which she portrays. Or.. they don't like Ms. Streep personally or as a performer.   Or it may be some combination of all of the above. Or none of the above.   However, there are differences between men and women. While for some men and many women these differences aren't insurmountable , for many they are. This is demonstrated in many areas throughout our society (not only in the arts) and while it may advance humanity for all of us to be able empathize with one another and be able to "relate" to one another regardless of gender, that may not be possible.