I lost interest because, even if that was intended as a joke, the language says a lot to me about the underlying attitude. Why would you ever refer to professional female writers that way? I've been trying to wrap my head around whether the reverse would ever happen. Noone would ever refer to writers like Jeff Vandermeer or Cory Doctorow or China Mieville as "boy writers". There's even a more stark comparison in the guidelines themselves which asks "Gents" not to apply. Male writers = Gents; Female writers = girls. It's hard for me to get past, clarifications or no.
In fact, let's look at the clarification. A wise woman called Mr Cohen to explain to him why his language was offensive. And um, he opened his apology post with "It appears I have accidentally ruffled some feathers... ". You know, I don't even know where to start with that. Chooks? Hen houses? *shakes head*
Anyway, I've mostly lost interest with that aspect of the discussion.
I was reading this interview by Graham Sleight of Farrah Mendelsohn over at Omnivoracious about her new book On Joanna Russ. It's a really interesting interview. But check out this little snippet I found in the comments today:
What perpetuates the idea among men that women don't write SF is that too often they are content to write about feminism and being female. When female writers start applying their talents to writing on and about a wider palette, they are likely to find a broader interest. It would be interesting for example if more female science fiction writers seemed more interested in well, science for example, than they are in their own identity issues. So long as every discussion of female sci-fi writers in inherently a discussion of feminism, don't expect this to change.
The words that jumped out at me in this paragraph are "broader interest". What a piece of work is man! I am utterly fascinated by the arrogance of that statement, that because something is not directed at him, or resonates within him and draws on his own experience, it therefore (by definition!) is not broad or of broader interest. If 50% of the world is female, and it's not, it's more, then surely something that speaks to half the world, or addresses issues relating to half the world's population, can not be of narrow focus! And in fact, more women read than men, so surely then something that speaks to the greater populace and audience can hardly be accused of less than broad appeal? And what should women be writing about if not about being female? Should they write about ... being male? Because of course what this man *really* means is that he only wants stories that *he* can relate to. He doesn't want stories to challenge or push his own personal boundaries, perspective or viewpoint, he doesn't really want to explore ideas of other or outer or not-like-me. Frankly, I wonder why he reads science fiction at all. Or rather, what he is saying is that he wants science fiction to continue to be a subset of stories about white, middle class American men.
I'd get angry but ... I feel embarrassed for him. How boring and um ... narrow.
There's a really interesting sub-thread in
January 7 2010, 07:44:41 UTC 2 years ago
January 11 2010, 07:23:06 UTC 2 years ago
January 7 2010, 08:12:05 UTC 2 years ago
January 7 2010, 08:25:13 UTC 2 years ago
And the apology from Doug made it clear that he still didn't get it. He honestly didn't get the difference between 'gents' and the 'girls only,' 'ladies' comments. The difference being that he is a man, and there are some terms that just come off as less okay when a man says them.
He at least has shown he is capable of learning when he has offended and apologising when he doesn't even get why women are upset. That's a kind of important step, and does at least show respect if not, you know, actual understanding.
January 11 2010, 07:22:23 UTC 2 years ago
And the apology from Doug made it clear that he still didn't get it. He honestly didn't get the difference between 'gents' and the 'girls only,' 'ladies' comments. The difference being that he is a man, and there are some terms that just come off as less okay when a man says them.
Yes, made me sad. Also the number of men who have told me offline that I overreacted on the apology. Which you know ... is also the bit about not quite getting it.
He at least has shown he is capable of learning when he has offended and apologising when he doesn't even get why women are upset. That's a kind of important step, and does at least show respect if not, you know, actual understanding.
I guess.
Anonymous
January 7 2010, 10:29:01 UTC 2 years ago
http://geekfeminism.org/2009/08/19/where-a
January 7 2010, 10:31:10 UTC 2 years ago
January 7 2010, 20:25:28 UTC 2 years ago
January 7 2010, 10:30:34 UTC 2 years ago
Anonymous
January 7 2010, 12:41:06 UTC 2 years ago
I was astonished by the tone of the Realms guidelines. Ann and I would never have used terms like "girls" or "ladies" for antho guidelines. I even asked Ann, "if you were editing an antho solo and it was only open to women writers, would you jokingly use the term 'girls' or 'us gals'?" As I thought, the answer was "Hell no--it's not professional."
Meanwhile, it seems to me Realms would solve a few of its problems by having fiction editor Shawna McCarthy do more of the public stuff for Realms, because while I know from personal experience Cohen is a good managing editor...he sucks as the public face of the mag.
JeffV
PS Awesome post.
January 7 2010, 12:44:31 UTC 2 years ago
That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
January 7 2010, 12:50:24 UTC 2 years ago
January 11 2010, 07:20:26 UTC 2 years ago
Thanks :)
Anonymous
January 7 2010, 13:34:13 UTC 2 years ago
January 11 2010, 07:18:52 UTC 2 years ago
January 7 2010, 21:34:52 UTC 2 years ago
No, it is not!!! World-wide, there are roughly 1.05 boys born for every girl, and this translates to 1.01 males per female world wide. So in fact 50% of the world population is female, due to rounding, but it's actually slightly less, and not the majority.
January 8 2010, 02:18:49 UTC 2 years ago Edited: January 8 2010, 02:21:13 UTC
Interestingly, that's not the ratio in Australia nor USA: http://www.geohive.com/earth/pop_ge
January 12 2010, 20:52:29 UTC 2 years ago
January 14 2010, 02:35:29 UTC 2 years ago
January 8 2010, 07:16:48 UTC 2 years ago
Same with the whole racial interpretations of the IQ tests given to US soldiers during Vietnam. The lower scores of black soldiers proved black people were incapable of being educated. RATHER THAN the idea that black people were denied places in schools, denied access to materials for study/homework, etc.
The use of evidence to support pre-existing theories, eh?
-----
* Where 'character' was a measure of moral standing, not a measure of personality or comic stand-up, or any other modern interpretation of character.
January 9 2010, 01:50:06 UTC 2 years ago
I'd also be interested to know who wrote those psychology tests, what their assumptions were, who judged them, and in what contexts they were applied. My Old Man was involved in writing questionnaires for young people on training courses, and the setting of questions to be fair and impartial is a very complex skill.
Btw, I'm here via
January 9 2010, 07:28:59 UTC 2 years ago
>the setting of questions to be fair and impartial is a very complex skill<
Yes. People often underestimate it. People think because they can answer a questionnaire, they can write on. Kinda like writing books. ;)
January 10 2010, 23:43:31 UTC 2 years ago
January 11 2010, 04:51:30 UTC 2 years ago
This reminds me of one of the stories I read in Larbalestier's Daughters of the Earth which featured a story that men at the time flipped off as "diaper fiction" because it was a post apocalyptic future but focussed on the women and children and what life would be life for them. I kind of want to know in futuristic worlds what day to day life will be like. I'm (morbidly) fascinated with the idea that men would consider that "small" because its not focussed on the "big" ideas about the future when really, truthfully, those sort of ideas lack detail and specifics.
2 years ago
January 12 2010, 14:59:34 UTC 2 years ago