It seems peculiar to me to say all these things about women writers and then tack that disclaimer on the end, "Unless it's genre fiction." I mean, obviously women writing genre fiction are not any the less women for writing genre fiction? Why would their gender suddenly not count if they're writing about spaceships rather than family picnics?
I suspect that at least some of what you're getting at here is that you dislike the kinds of genres that are typically marketed to female readers. Publishers have a fairly clear idea of what sorts of books they think women want to read, and they not only to cater that idea but continually reinforce it. That doesn't make women uninterested in domestic lit less female, except perhaps for a few annoyed marketing specialists whose statistical models fail.
I think what I kept banging up against in reading your post is an issue of labels. There's some spectacular circular reasoning that publishers and many other folks use to reinforce certain gender stereotypes: these are the books (colors / movies / school subjects) that women like, therefore if women don't like them, they're not really women and don't count.
So, I don't think it's really useful to label anyone as a "male" reader or a "female" reader. The labels are descriptive, not prescriptive; as soon as they are shown to be inadequate, they should be discarded. As far as I'm concerned, if a person is a woman and likes to read, then she is by definition a woman reader, regardless of her tastes.
Also, now that I think about it, I think I'm confused by your definition of "genre." I assume you include mysteries, thrillers, SFF, historical fiction...? But I see chick list and family sagas as just two more genres. And if a person considers literary fiction a genre (I do), it's not obvious what's left after you've removed all the genre fiction.
Well I used to work in libraries, so I think of it as 'all genres' and 'general fiction.' In a categorization sense. Genres are mystery, romance, western, science fiction, fantasy, horror (and I might be forgetting some). Non-genre is anything that doesn't get a little sticker on the spine.
Why would their gender suddenly not count if they're writing about spaceships rather than family picnics?
Oh well, no my issue's not with them being more or less female, and it's not a thing to do with gender at all--it's that when I go looking for books and pick one up, I read what it's about and if it looks boring, back on the shelf it goes. This happens all the time with non-genre fiction by women, but I've read tons of genre fiction by women. I mean that I pick up books and read them if they're interesting, but the only female writers I can think of that I've read and enjoyed lately are genre writers.
Maybe the gender does count though. I don't know. That's part of what I'm wondering. I mean it's no shock to me that I find the average interests of non-genre (i.e. non-geeky non-nerdy non-science fiction or fantasy-reading and writing) female dull. Deadly dull. So I think this goes beyond gender into a gender-culture thing. We're not part of the same culture. I wasn't culturally indoctrinated. I'm still not.
Publishers have a fairly clear idea of what sorts of books they think women want to read, and they not only to cater that idea but continually reinforce it.
I believe this is wholly true. And those interests don't meet my interests, or intersect in any way.
But I do think I look more to male lit and in some ways have more male-type brain, in that I've always been a tomboy and despite being small and, apparently, somewhat fragile, have tended to activities largely dominated by dudes, especially martial arts and being the first and only girl in the saxophone section for a year (after which we had two. For five years.)
I'd like to find some female non-genre lit that interests me. But. Is there any? And if not, why not?
That doesn't make women uninterested in domestic lit less female
But doesn't it? I get your point, I think, that you're looking at it from a categorization issue, but I think I'm looking at it from a functionalist perspective. I mean, functionally, how do I read? How do I pick books? Well, I can't think of women who aren't writing genre fiction doing anything I want to read. So...I must share some interests in common with women who write SF/F. I don't think that makes them (or me) less female necessarily, but I think the bulk of average women writing literature for average women (and the average women who read that literature) are people I have very little in common with. And their interests and my interests don't intersect. At all. (I just lately found out that there is 'eyeshadow foundation'. Dafuq.)
I guess I do think we belong to separate categories. So...is one more feminine than the other? Well, that depends on your definition of feminine, and also it raises the question why does it matter if you're female? The media I consume outside of genre fiction, including music and poetry tends to be mostly created by males as well, so I tend to think I fall well outside the borders of what an average woman is, and how an average woman thinks and what her interests are.
So that's a question about my Self. My brain, I mean. It's not news--I've always been doing non-feminine things. But extending it into one's own psychology is kind of interesting because it raises the issue: is it acceptable to refuse to cleave to a category?
I don't want to belong, actually. Not like that.
I realize female-ness, and rights and very important issues are, well, serious and important. And I totally support that. But. I don't know that I want to be lumped in the same category with a bunch of other people because we happen to share certain physical characteristics. My brain is different from them. It just is. I know it, I've always known it. It comes with being a big geek. So...I think I'm okay with that, at least. I don't mind classifying myself as something external to the idea of female psychology. I'm good with it. It fits me.
I suspect that at least some of what you're getting at here is that you dislike the kinds of genres that are typically marketed to female readers. Publishers have a fairly clear idea of what sorts of books they think women want to read, and they not only to cater that idea but continually reinforce it. That doesn't make women uninterested in domestic lit less female, except perhaps for a few annoyed marketing specialists whose statistical models fail.
I think what I kept banging up against in reading your post is an issue of labels. There's some spectacular circular reasoning that publishers and many other folks use to reinforce certain gender stereotypes: these are the books (colors / movies / school subjects) that women like, therefore if women don't like them, they're not really women and don't count.
So, I don't think it's really useful to label anyone as a "male" reader or a "female" reader. The labels are descriptive, not prescriptive; as soon as they are shown to be inadequate, they should be discarded. As far as I'm concerned, if a person is a woman and likes to read, then she is by definition a woman reader, regardless of her tastes.
It seems I have some opinions about this. :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Oh well, no my issue's not with them being more or less female, and it's not a thing to do with gender at all--it's that when I go looking for books and pick one up, I read what it's about and if it looks boring, back on the shelf it goes. This happens all the time with non-genre fiction by women, but I've read tons of genre fiction by women. I mean that I pick up books and read them if they're interesting, but the only female writers I can think of that I've read and enjoyed lately are genre writers.
Maybe the gender does count though. I don't know. That's part of what I'm wondering. I mean it's no shock to me that I find the average interests of non-genre (i.e. non-geeky non-nerdy non-science fiction or fantasy-reading and writing) female dull. Deadly dull. So I think this goes beyond gender into a gender-culture thing. We're not part of the same culture. I wasn't culturally indoctrinated. I'm still not.
Publishers have a fairly clear idea of what sorts of books they think women want to read, and they not only to cater that idea but continually reinforce it.
I believe this is wholly true. And those interests don't meet my interests, or intersect in any way.
But I do think I look more to male lit and in some ways have more male-type brain, in that I've always been a tomboy and despite being small and, apparently, somewhat fragile, have tended to activities largely dominated by dudes, especially martial arts and being the first and only girl in the saxophone section for a year (after which we had two. For five years.)
I'd like to find some female non-genre lit that interests me. But. Is there any? And if not, why not?
That doesn't make women uninterested in domestic lit less female
But doesn't it? I get your point, I think, that you're looking at it from a categorization issue, but I think I'm looking at it from a functionalist perspective. I mean, functionally, how do I read? How do I pick books? Well, I can't think of women who aren't writing genre fiction doing anything I want to read. So...I must share some interests in common with women who write SF/F. I don't think that makes them (or me) less female necessarily, but I think the bulk of average women writing literature for average women (and the average women who read that literature) are people I have very little in common with. And their interests and my interests don't intersect. At all. (I just lately found out that there is 'eyeshadow foundation'. Dafuq.)
I guess I do think we belong to separate categories. So...is one more feminine than the other? Well, that depends on your definition of feminine, and also it raises the question why does it matter if you're female? The media I consume outside of genre fiction, including music and poetry tends to be mostly created by males as well, so I tend to think I fall well outside the borders of what an average woman is, and how an average woman thinks and what her interests are.
So that's a question about my Self. My brain, I mean. It's not news--I've always been doing non-feminine things. But extending it into one's own psychology is kind of interesting because it raises the issue: is it acceptable to refuse to cleave to a category?
I don't want to belong, actually. Not like that.
I realize female-ness, and rights and very important issues are, well, serious and important. And I totally support that. But. I don't know that I want to be lumped in the same category with a bunch of other people because we happen to share certain physical characteristics. My brain is different from them. It just is. I know it, I've always known it. It comes with being a big geek. So...I think I'm okay with that, at least. I don't mind classifying myself as something external to the idea of female psychology. I'm good with it. It fits me.
Reply
Leave a comment