On Getting It, Not Getting It, Talking About It, And Why Numbers Matter Sometimes
Like girliejones and callistra and I think some other female LJ users, I received an anonymous LJ donation today, which was rather lovely, and considering the pattern (barring all ever evidence) makes me think there is some awesome pro-feminist millionaire reading through the latest debate on women in science fiction (particularly here and here), awarding LJ brownie points for some of the more enlightened posts. Or you know. Coincidence? Certainly if benpayne doesn't receive one of those contributions after his rather marvellous satire on the male response we've been hearing to this argument for many years it would be a shame. I certainly feel very supported today, for whatever reason it happened (damn you, anonymity!) which is nice. And it made me feel guilty enough for using all my energy over there and not blogging anything here for ages that look! Here I am.
Sadly I may have used up much of my feminist ranting over on GJ's blog, but rest assured, I'm sure there will be more in the future.
One of the things that occurred to me during the discussion - which brought up some really interesting issues, chewed them up and spat them out - is that the participants not only divided into the fairly simple "women who get it," "women who don't get it," "men who get it," "men who really try to get it but don't quite get there," "men who think they get it but they don't," "men who are a little close to getting it than last time," and of course the classic "men who reeeeeealllly don't get it," but also and perhaps more significantly, the participants divided up into readers, writers, editors and publishers (many being more than one)
This meant of course that, as ever, many people were having entirely different conversations, mostly with each other.
For instance, GJ often looked at the situation through the eyes of an editor or publisher, and lots of people saw her primarily as that (AKA why are you worried, this is an opportunity for you), though her main posts and indeed her main drive throughout the discussion was as a reader. A reader whose needs were not being met. To this end, and also because it's a long time since I ever considered myself a serious short story writer, even a potential one, I also contributed largely from the reader's perspective - not just a reader who has been consuming science fiction and fantasy from childhood, but a reader who has, thanks to the lastshortstory project, read a larger percentage of the last two years of published short fiction in the spec fic than... well, let's just say most of the other people in the discussion.
There are many gender issues with a discussion like this. As I think was pointed out more than once, for most men it's almost impossible to enter the fray at all without looking somewhat like a dick, unless they are being unconditionally supportive. As soon as they start questioning the issues, their gender adds a different weight to what they are saying. If said men are also writers, and the subject of gender parity comes up, it immediately makes them look selfish and controlling if they think there isn't a problem - and in many cases, it is rather easy for said male writers to look (whether or not this is true) like they are desperately trying to preserve their current privileged position in order to sell more stories, and to prevent themselves from losing sales to a woman. Male editors have their own issues - usually looking wildly around, waiting for the bricks to start raining down on them along with accusations of sexism. (to be fair, sometimes they do, though this particular argument was pretty low on editor bricks. go us! it certainly had to be reiterated more than once that just because a discussion is about sexism does not mean that every man within arm's reach is automatically a sexist unless, you know, they say something that really justifies such a label)
Female writers, unless they happen to have major pro fiction sales, might easily come off as being bitter, having sour grapes, or attempting to improve their chances of getting trunk stories published at high rates without anyone bothering to read them. Generally, women writers who do get published, are anxious not to have said publications invalidated by any suggestion of positive discrimination. Female editors have to be really careful not to have accusations of anti-male bias (oddly often louder than the anti-female) thrown at them. So yeah, women have their own problems of perception in gender discussions such as this. No one gets off scot free, unless they can participate without revealing their gender.
In this particular wave, I found that the reader perspectives were the most interesting, and I really enjoyed looking at the questions of - why men like to/don't like to read female stories or female authors, why women are more socialised to enjoy/understand/get male stories than vice versa, why some people don't think of gender in their fiction at all, why some people can't help but think about it all the time. These are awesome questions, and I'd love to see more discussion on them. Particularly positive discussion about authors and protagonists people really love, who provide them with a different gender perspective than their own.
The trouble with a question like 'why do female-authored stories only make up about 25% of the professional spec fic short story scene' is that there is no easy answer. In fact, the lack of an easy answer has been used to silence this discussion over and over, for years. [some men have an annoying tendency to demand that women provide an answer immediately, and to dismiss the issue as a problem if one is not immediately forthcoming] "Not enough women write and submit stories to those magazines" is the failsafe answer, the one raised most often, and the one which tends to squash the original argument except when extended by the far more awesome question of "Why not, and what can we do to change that?"
But there are other answers, too. The idea of a "quota" tends to enrage some, and intrigue others. Fantasy, for instance, has a much higher percentage of female authored stories accepted than male, from those submitted, which means it has a roughly half and half (I think) mix, running up to about 60% female authored content. Coincidentally (perhaps) it's one of the pro publications that I personally enjoy most - and one which tends to read 'gender neutral' to me, as in I am less likely to be thinking gendery thoughts when reading it, simply because the gender balance is so comfortably female-friendly that I don't notice it.
In the case of Fantasy, you can see why they have made that editorial choice - to appeal to female readers. Not to make female authors happy. It works in my case. I also supported Strange Horizons for many years, financially and as a reader, because the female-friendliness of it made the magazine feel welcoming to me, and I enjoyed the content (sadly I think the quality has dropped off in recent years, I only find a few stories per year now that I truly love).
I don't think a quota is necessarily an answer, but I don't think it is all that bad an option, if a magazine is seeking to attract the female purchasing audience. Women writers do tend to write and submit less (at a statistical level, obviously there are many quite prominent and successful exceptions) and I would assume from my own past experience that many of them would assume a magazine with such a policy would be a good place to send their best stories first, rather than one that only publishes 25% female names and almost no stories with substantial female thematic content. A quota could potentially be a good way to poach the cream of female authored stories from other markets, though of course if everyone did it, then the editors would have to come up with some other tactics.
Now, not all pro or semi pro magazines need to be quite that female friendly. As GJ has said elsewhere, more than 25% would be nice. If they want me as a reader to be interested. But the reason why statistics are sometimes really useful (apart from being an emotion-free source of information, vital in a discussion of gender politics) is it allows us to see the scene as a whole. Not just the occasional female-friendly pocket. Which is why I really look forward to seeing her results, and taking part in some of the discussions that will inevitably follow. Throwing stones is not a priority. Discussing the issue and seeing what solutions we can come up with really is. For me as a reader and a critic, it's a really, really important thing. It would be lovely to see a spec fic scene that has a greater balance of gender contribution and content, not necessarily every market doing so, but so that it evens out across the board. I honestly believe there is a female readership to support that, and that it could be a healthy thing for a more vibrant short story scene.
But then there's the other problem. The one that comes up from time to time - and to be frank is an annoying distraction in the middle of the 'why are female stories still so underrepresented' discussion, but it won't go away. People have asked about the content - are the stories there to be published, is there a huge backlog of brilliant, underrated female-authored fiction out there?
The trouble with this question, valid though it is, is that it assumes that people taking part in this discussion want more fiction published. And um. I don't. Sure, as a writer I think we need to have LOTS published. But as a reader and a critic... there's so much fiction published that is just ordinary. Banal. Boring. Forgettable. And we're not just talking about the oceans of unpaid webzines out there with ironic titles, bizarrely specific themes and grabby graphics. We're talking about serious, well respected, professionally edited magazines. BORING. And yes, the majority of said boring stories are written by men but don't get excited, it's just cos the majority of the fiction published in those magazines are written by men.
Part of me wants to start a campaign for the publishing of less fiction. Less time wasting. Fewer stories with nothing to say. But that doesn't work either, because when those numbers shrink, sadly so does the diversity. We need oceans of crap published in order to make room for those stories that are a bit odd, or unusual, or say something new/special/cool from an unfamiliar perspective. And so that women have a fighting chance of being catered to at all.
*cough* apparently I still had some juice left in me. I leave you with no easy answers. But lots of crunchy questions. Make of them what you will.
Sadly I may have used up much of my feminist ranting over on GJ's blog, but rest assured, I'm sure there will be more in the future.
One of the things that occurred to me during the discussion - which brought up some really interesting issues, chewed them up and spat them out - is that the participants not only divided into the fairly simple "women who get it," "women who don't get it," "men who get it," "men who really try to get it but don't quite get there," "men who think they get it but they don't," "men who are a little close to getting it than last time," and of course the classic "men who reeeeeealllly don't get it," but also and perhaps more significantly, the participants divided up into readers, writers, editors and publishers (many being more than one)
This meant of course that, as ever, many people were having entirely different conversations, mostly with each other.
For instance, GJ often looked at the situation through the eyes of an editor or publisher, and lots of people saw her primarily as that (AKA why are you worried, this is an opportunity for you), though her main posts and indeed her main drive throughout the discussion was as a reader. A reader whose needs were not being met. To this end, and also because it's a long time since I ever considered myself a serious short story writer, even a potential one, I also contributed largely from the reader's perspective - not just a reader who has been consuming science fiction and fantasy from childhood, but a reader who has, thanks to the lastshortstory project, read a larger percentage of the last two years of published short fiction in the spec fic than... well, let's just say most of the other people in the discussion.
There are many gender issues with a discussion like this. As I think was pointed out more than once, for most men it's almost impossible to enter the fray at all without looking somewhat like a dick, unless they are being unconditionally supportive. As soon as they start questioning the issues, their gender adds a different weight to what they are saying. If said men are also writers, and the subject of gender parity comes up, it immediately makes them look selfish and controlling if they think there isn't a problem - and in many cases, it is rather easy for said male writers to look (whether or not this is true) like they are desperately trying to preserve their current privileged position in order to sell more stories, and to prevent themselves from losing sales to a woman. Male editors have their own issues - usually looking wildly around, waiting for the bricks to start raining down on them along with accusations of sexism. (to be fair, sometimes they do, though this particular argument was pretty low on editor bricks. go us! it certainly had to be reiterated more than once that just because a discussion is about sexism does not mean that every man within arm's reach is automatically a sexist unless, you know, they say something that really justifies such a label)
Female writers, unless they happen to have major pro fiction sales, might easily come off as being bitter, having sour grapes, or attempting to improve their chances of getting trunk stories published at high rates without anyone bothering to read them. Generally, women writers who do get published, are anxious not to have said publications invalidated by any suggestion of positive discrimination. Female editors have to be really careful not to have accusations of anti-male bias (oddly often louder than the anti-female) thrown at them. So yeah, women have their own problems of perception in gender discussions such as this. No one gets off scot free, unless they can participate without revealing their gender.
In this particular wave, I found that the reader perspectives were the most interesting, and I really enjoyed looking at the questions of - why men like to/don't like to read female stories or female authors, why women are more socialised to enjoy/understand/get male stories than vice versa, why some people don't think of gender in their fiction at all, why some people can't help but think about it all the time. These are awesome questions, and I'd love to see more discussion on them. Particularly positive discussion about authors and protagonists people really love, who provide them with a different gender perspective than their own.
The trouble with a question like 'why do female-authored stories only make up about 25% of the professional spec fic short story scene' is that there is no easy answer. In fact, the lack of an easy answer has been used to silence this discussion over and over, for years. [some men have an annoying tendency to demand that women provide an answer immediately, and to dismiss the issue as a problem if one is not immediately forthcoming] "Not enough women write and submit stories to those magazines" is the failsafe answer, the one raised most often, and the one which tends to squash the original argument except when extended by the far more awesome question of "Why not, and what can we do to change that?"
But there are other answers, too. The idea of a "quota" tends to enrage some, and intrigue others. Fantasy, for instance, has a much higher percentage of female authored stories accepted than male, from those submitted, which means it has a roughly half and half (I think) mix, running up to about 60% female authored content. Coincidentally (perhaps) it's one of the pro publications that I personally enjoy most - and one which tends to read 'gender neutral' to me, as in I am less likely to be thinking gendery thoughts when reading it, simply because the gender balance is so comfortably female-friendly that I don't notice it.
In the case of Fantasy, you can see why they have made that editorial choice - to appeal to female readers. Not to make female authors happy. It works in my case. I also supported Strange Horizons for many years, financially and as a reader, because the female-friendliness of it made the magazine feel welcoming to me, and I enjoyed the content (sadly I think the quality has dropped off in recent years, I only find a few stories per year now that I truly love).
I don't think a quota is necessarily an answer, but I don't think it is all that bad an option, if a magazine is seeking to attract the female purchasing audience. Women writers do tend to write and submit less (at a statistical level, obviously there are many quite prominent and successful exceptions) and I would assume from my own past experience that many of them would assume a magazine with such a policy would be a good place to send their best stories first, rather than one that only publishes 25% female names and almost no stories with substantial female thematic content. A quota could potentially be a good way to poach the cream of female authored stories from other markets, though of course if everyone did it, then the editors would have to come up with some other tactics.
Now, not all pro or semi pro magazines need to be quite that female friendly. As GJ has said elsewhere, more than 25% would be nice. If they want me as a reader to be interested. But the reason why statistics are sometimes really useful (apart from being an emotion-free source of information, vital in a discussion of gender politics) is it allows us to see the scene as a whole. Not just the occasional female-friendly pocket. Which is why I really look forward to seeing her results, and taking part in some of the discussions that will inevitably follow. Throwing stones is not a priority. Discussing the issue and seeing what solutions we can come up with really is. For me as a reader and a critic, it's a really, really important thing. It would be lovely to see a spec fic scene that has a greater balance of gender contribution and content, not necessarily every market doing so, but so that it evens out across the board. I honestly believe there is a female readership to support that, and that it could be a healthy thing for a more vibrant short story scene.
But then there's the other problem. The one that comes up from time to time - and to be frank is an annoying distraction in the middle of the 'why are female stories still so underrepresented' discussion, but it won't go away. People have asked about the content - are the stories there to be published, is there a huge backlog of brilliant, underrated female-authored fiction out there?
The trouble with this question, valid though it is, is that it assumes that people taking part in this discussion want more fiction published. And um. I don't. Sure, as a writer I think we need to have LOTS published. But as a reader and a critic... there's so much fiction published that is just ordinary. Banal. Boring. Forgettable. And we're not just talking about the oceans of unpaid webzines out there with ironic titles, bizarrely specific themes and grabby graphics. We're talking about serious, well respected, professionally edited magazines. BORING. And yes, the majority of said boring stories are written by men but don't get excited, it's just cos the majority of the fiction published in those magazines are written by men.
Part of me wants to start a campaign for the publishing of less fiction. Less time wasting. Fewer stories with nothing to say. But that doesn't work either, because when those numbers shrink, sadly so does the diversity. We need oceans of crap published in order to make room for those stories that are a bit odd, or unusual, or say something new/special/cool from an unfamiliar perspective. And so that women have a fighting chance of being catered to at all.
*cough* apparently I still had some juice left in me. I leave you with no easy answers. But lots of crunchy questions. Make of them what you will.