Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


How many people does it take to say that the gender inbalance in SF outlets is a problem before it's seriously acknowledged, and accepted, as a problem?

Reasons, blame, motives, agenda, solutions and reason aside.

When is it allowed to be just ... an issue?

When will we be able to get past that discussion and start looking deeper at the more interesting aspects of it?


Jan. 12th, 2009 02:56 am (UTC)
OK. Will get back to you on this.
Jan. 12th, 2009 04:09 am (UTC)
Some stats ...
Notwithstanding uncertainty about the percentage of female submitters, here's a summary of the ASIM results to date.

There've been 37 ASIM issues, 13 edited by males, 23 by females. (And before you ask, there's also an issue (#23) edited by a collaborative team of male and females - I've discounted this, but I don't think it's inclusion would change matters much).

With male editors, 26% of ASIM-published authors to date are female (33 of 127 authors)
With female editors, 41% of ASIM-published authors are female (100 of 242)
Ignoring editor gender, the percentage is 36%. (133 of 369)

So, yes, it looks like some editor-gender influence.

There's also an interesting chronological trend in the female-author percentage:

2002: 33%
2003: 41%
2004: 27%
2005: 29%
2006: 31%
2007: 38%
2008: 47%

Note that, although 2004 was apparently ASIM's most male-dominated year, there's a consistent trend in subsequent years of improving female presence. Is this because more women are submitting? I don't know. But it's not that 2004 was a male-editor year - four of the six issues were female-edited.

Anyway, them's the figures. Conclude from them what you will ...
Jan. 12th, 2009 04:14 am (UTC)
Re: Some stats ...
Eeee, as one of those female editors (actually two of those female editors, haha) it's really cool to see these stats.

With the co-editing team, was it really co-editing or, as sometimes has been known to happen, one of them selected the stories and someone else ended up coming in to do the editing part?
Jan. 12th, 2009 04:16 am (UTC)
Re: Some stats ...
I don't know, I'm sorry. But 25% of the authors in issue 23 were female (3 of 12 total).
Jan. 12th, 2009 04:19 am (UTC)
Re: Some stats ...
A little from column A, a little from column B. Initially selection was by a female editor; further selection was by a male/female team working in concert; some of the editing was done by an additional female editor.

(The male = me.)

(I may also be partly responsible for the slump in female pubs in 2004 - #15 had all male authors but one.)
Jan. 12th, 2009 04:32 am (UTC)
Re: Some stats ...
oh yeah that's right. *points finger at YOU*
Jan. 12th, 2009 04:38 am (UTC)
Re: Some stats ...
*mumbles*: 'mnotsexist.

Jan. 12th, 2009 04:40 am (UTC)
Re: Some stats ...
Jan. 12th, 2009 04:38 am (UTC)
Re: Some stats ...
Well, issue #15 would have contributed. But I've seen exactly the same breakdown for other issues, including female-edited ones.

In any case, it's rare to get gender parity in any particular issue. Issue 10 and issue 28 achieved that Nirvana, and issue 4 also came very close, but most issues end up being either female-dominated or male-dominated. More often the latter. And it's also the case that none of ASIM's female-author-dominated issues have been male-edited.
Jan. 12th, 2009 04:31 am (UTC)
Re: Some stats ...
thanks - very interesting!

Latest Month

March 2016


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow