And the winner is -- the Y chromosome

[davidlubar]

I recently posted a question on a listserve for librarians, asking whether there is a bias toward males in kidlit awards and promotion. Some interesting and informative responses resulted, as did some interesting replies to those responses in various private message boards. In the interest of generating a more-public discussion, and allowing

Comments

[artistq]

Since the award choosers are mostly women, perhaps there is some need they have to feel 'attracted' to the author/illustrator they choose. Or perhaps that is the issue, they are choosing the author/illustrator and not necessarily the work.

I don't really understand giving the Caldecott to someone more than once when they have not changed the style of art they are creating.
Does that mean that this person's same style over and over is always better than the other new artwork? I find that hard to believe. That is why I think the name is an influence.

I went to a conference once where the key note speaker, who had an hour to talk about himself, went OVER by 45 minutes! and then the women-majority audience gave him a standing ovation.
Really?
I believe if a female illustrator had talked about herself for an additional 45 minutes the women in the audience would have mumbled their disapproval for her ego.
In his talk, which he conducted in his paint covered old clothes, he described showing up at the publishers with an array of art and just enthusiastically laying his work all over to the delight of the editors.
I can't imagine I could show up with great bubbly enthusiasm about my greatness and that I would get the same outcome... I would be taken to Bellview for observation. But somehow this young man was charming in his over-the-top, louder-than-anyone style. There is no way a woman with the same behavior would be taken as charming.

Maybe a pen name is the way to go. Or for an artist it is probably an ink-name.

[davidlubar]

The repeat-winner issue is something I hadn't thought about. Thanks for adding it to the discussion.

[ext_1018631]

I personally have never felt any need to feel "attracted" to the chosen winner at all, and I'd argue that very much on the committees I've been on we choose the work, not the author. It can be tough, even, because one does have fondness for a particular author (for whatever reason) but the work doesn't quite make the cut for whichever award criteria. We really do focus on the work more than the author. I can't speak for any particular committee, but I can say that's been my experience.

Repeat award winners does definitely depend on the award. Speaking only for myself, not for any committees, I know when I AM on a committee I have argued pretty vehemently against giving anyone a repeat award thus far. In the YA world especially, the awards are young enough that it's not really plausible to have repeat winners unless it's a truly outstanding work that knocks everything else out of the running. I have not yet seen a justification for repeating an award winner (although I know it's happened.) Then again, in the end the criteria don't rule it out, so it is possible and obviously does happen. I also would like to think that a worthy book WOULD be considered even if the creator had won once before.

As for the behavior at a conference with the male speaker -- well, I'd also say I've been just as annoyed by male authors that way, and female authors too. There's no gender to thinking you're too awesome for the room. That kind of attitude doesn't always win people over -- you may just not be hearing it as loudly as the standing ovation crowd. I personally have no great enthusiasm for a number of YA "superstars" and get tired of hearing how brilliant they are, but I also don't speak up as much to say that on a listserv -- it's not worth the time the ensuing arguments/attempts to convince me would be. I do (and have) brought up those same feelings when I'm on a committee, though, as that's a circumstance where it is entirely necessary to bring it up.