Do you start with a negative, or with a positive?

[jlassen]

This was a response to someone in the thread of my previous post. But I wanted to pull it up top, because it touches on the core of my frustration with this whole discussion

Comments

[cofax7]

You get more flies with honey rather then vinegar.

You really don't get to dictate the terms of the debate.

Women have every right to be angry about just as many things as men are, and to say things in anger. Now, you may feel it's unfair to be the target of that anger in this instance, but anger? Is a human emotion that apparently women aren't allowed to feel because we're then portrayed as "stamping our feet petulantly". Well, fuck that

[mroctober]

I believe I was the one who mentioend 'foot-stomping and petulance' not Jeremy.

[cofax7]

I do not believe that invalidates my point in any way.

[mroctober]

::shrugs::

I just don't want Jeremy possibly maligned for words that he did not state.

[cofax7]

The point was not that Jeremy himself had used those terms; the point was that women are consistently told we're not allowed to get angry, that we're perceived as hysterical, petulant, irrational, over-emotional, and the like, when men behaving the exact same way are perceived and portrayed as strong, manly, and assertive. And that kind of belittling language was used in this specific debate to invalidate the position of the women who were commenting.

This issue comes up over and over and over again in these sorts of discussions, and my response is always going to be: yes, I get to be angry.

[mroctober]

I frankly would have called anyone petulant, regardless of gender, based on what I read. But obviously this has hit of nerve.

[cofax7]

The use of such belittling language against women in public debate has a long history; using it in this context carries all that history with it, and makes you look like a sexist jerk. Even if you're not.

This is why "genderblindness" doesn't really work. Genderblindness (and colorblindness) only works if there are no differences in power, history, and status of the groups in question. Instead genderblindness, as applied, perpetuates those differences. McHugh and Gunn and Jones don't sell as many books, so they weren't chosen to be on the cover; so fewer people learn their names, so the next time they publish a book they don't sell as many as Nix and Sterling. And round about we go.

::shrugs::

[leahbobet]

Okay.

How's that cycle broken? And what can we do to break it?

[ktempest]

It would require that people start to think deeply, which most will not do.

[leahbobet]

Yeah, that's true. But what I'd really like is...I guess to get some forward motion on this? These things frustrate me very badly. And I'm sort of hoping that if anyone has any ideas on how that's accomplished, regardless of what other people are doing or how they're thinking, those ideas can be brought out and put into motion.

I know you do a lot of talking and thinking and batting stuff around on this issue -- any thoughts? :)

[ktempest]

Other than all the stuff tekanji mentioned, forward motion is achieved by speaking directly to the people involved in making decisions that matter. Like publishers. like... Jeremy. Having these discussions *with* said publishers and making them aware of things they were not currently aware of will, at the very least, be a step forward on our end. What said publishers choose to do afterward is up to them.

[dichroic]

The big problem is an enormously hard one to solve. The littler, specific problem here doesn't seem that difficult. I can see why the publisher wants the biggest names on the cover, to sell more books. But obviously there's a certain part of the market they're losing with that approach, and clearly there's a desire for greater inclusiveness, as not only said here but proven in the TOC. So include the biggest names on the cover (possibly a few less of them, to save space) but include a few others too, perhaps in smaller type. Then those authors benefit not only from increased visibility but also from having that visibility be in proximity to Beagle et al.

As we say (too often) in my field, you can't boil the ocean. But if you start heating that water, gallon by gallon, eventually the whole thing will be a little warmer. (We don't say that second part of it, but maybe we should.)

[tekanji]

How's that cycle broken? And what can we do to break it?

You're asking people to singlehandedly give you the collective knowledge that the anti-oppression groups (feminism, the civil rights movement, etc) have gathered over the past several decades. That, I'm sorry to say, simply isn't possible.

as for doing your own research, a good place to start when dealing with gender is the Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog FAQ Roundup (aside: does anyone else know any good 101 sites for issues such as race, sexuality, ableism, etc?). Other helpful areas include researching "privilege" (I would recommend Conversations with my Man as a starter, and then for a more concrete list of how privilege manifests you can check out my privilege in action category; I would also recommend checking out the "Privilege 101" links on the sidebar of my blog

[leahbobet]

You're asking people to singlehandedly give you the collective knowledge that the anti-oppression groups (feminism, the civil rights movement, etc) have gathered over the past several decades.Sorry if I didn't come across clearly -- I'm not asking this question to dismiss the idea that something should be done, or to set people up to take a fall somehow, nor am I in the slightest averse to doing research. I'm not asking out of laziness or spite. I'm asking as someone who's done academic work on oppression and discrimination, and what I'm asking for is people to sit down together and start hashing out ideas as to how to improve the situation, because god knows I haven't been able to come up with the Magic Bullet, or really any bulletry that I can enact without more people in the community alongside

[tekanji]

I know you aren't asking in bad faith, which is why I responded with links.

what I'm asking for is people to sit down together and start hashing out ideas as to how to improve the situation

My point is that people have been hashing out ideas to improve the situation, and what you're asking is basically the equivalent of asking people to ignore modern tire technology in order to reinvent the wheel. The first thing that needs to happen is to ensure that people are on the same page. Once that happens, then it's much easier to work from the foundation that has already been laid.

If you want links that are specific to SF, here's the ones that I pulled up off the top of my head: Diversity in SF/F Markets, How To Promote Diversity in Fiction Markets, Gender Bias at Fantasy magazine, and Realms of Fantasy slush reader weighs in on gender imbalance in publishingAnyway, I gotta get to school so sorry for ending this abruptly. Please do look over the links, and hopefully others will be along to point out other resources that they know about (

[silk_noir]

*going to links*