?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

You know what's fun to read in the debate on gender disparity in SF? Really stupid comments like this:

I've never seen hard numbers on the gender breakdown of SF readers . . . but I would venture to guess that the gender breakdown of SF readers closely corresponds to the gender breakdown of SF writers.

The gender disparity in published SF isn't the result of bias in the editorial story selection process. The gender disparity exists because men, in general, are more disposed to enjoy reading SF than women, in general, are. More men than women enjoy reading SF, and thus more men than women write SF.
- Sam Hidaka

Let's review, cause I'm a female engineer, I have with the maths! Here's a dude talking about something as though he knows what he is talking about after stating up front, straight up, that HE HAS NEVER SEEN THE HARD NUMBERS and thus in fact KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT THIS. Ah, that's good to know. Cause that means that, based on no facts, the patriarchy can reassure me that I am in fact not experiencing any prejudice at all. PHEW! I was getting a little hysterical there for a minute. But now?! Now I am reassured. I shall go back into the kitchen and bake some cookies.

See, it's like before women had the vote. Before we had the vote, more men voted than women. True facts! [1] No, hang on, wait, it's not like before women had the vote. Cause back then, men decided that women couldn't decide stuff for themselves. And so they decided it for us. See here, this is nothing like that. This has nothing to do with the editorial selection process. Well, it couldn't do, could it?! I mean ... after all, he's deciding what I don't want to read for me. Without ever asking me.

Noone actually in the middle of this rather interesting discussion is actually suggesting quotas, lowering the bar (!!) or biasing processes towards selecting women writers. What we ARE suggesting is that editors broaden their scope and taste. We're suggesting that editors consider that the audience is broader and more diverse than just the editor and his/her tastes. we're suggesting editors might want to take a moment to self reflect on what stories they pick and why. We're talking about editors being responsible for selecting stories that appeal across a spectrum of SF readers (which PS would increase sales ...) and not just the ones that conveniently represent the interests, perspectives and life experience of the editor. We're suggesting that editors look out beyond their own self imposed boundaries and explore the Other. You know, like what this genre is supposed to be all about.

[1] Might more women read more SF if, like, there were more women written INTO the SF? Anyone got a chicken? I have this here egg.

/rant

Comments

bibliofilen
Jan. 21st, 2010 11:57 pm (UTC)
That is just idiotic. A majority of readers are women, even if we posit that SF attracts less female readers than other genres it would still have to be a phenomenal drop to make women readers just a small percentage.

This reminds me of when at age 15 I saw a list of the "100 best novels" at the library and became furious at how few women there were. I then made a decision to only read female authors for a whole year, and this was at a period in life when I read at least one book a day. I discovered so many great authors over that year that it skewed my reading for life.

Actually I just realized that I cannot even think of any good male sf-writers active today. Lois McMaster Bujold, Julian May, Elizabeth Moon, Ursula Le Guin, Marion Zimmer Bradley - all women.

Btw I was horrified when I mentioned Adams' The Long Dark Teatime of the Soul (best title ever!) in a bookshop recently as someone wanted humourus literature involving airports. At first noone knew what I was talking about and then the clerk said "Oh yes, but those are long out of print now.". It's as if books, like food, were to go bad after a certain date.

Ehm, sorry for rambling.
girliejones
Jan. 22nd, 2010 04:09 am (UTC)
Rambling is good.

And comment was stupid, sexist, illinformed and unthought out.

Latest Month

March 2016
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow