WFC: women's and men's fantasy
The Crystal Ceiling: Is there still a distinction between "women’s" and "men’s" fantasy and horror?
I found it interesting, and disappointing, that the panel was all women: Kate Elliott, Charlaine Harris, Nancy Kilpatrick, Jane Kindred, and Malinda Lo.I don’t know how many men volunteered, who picked the panelists, whether it was a man or a woman, but when I walked into that panel and saw all women getting up on the podium, I thought "Here's our conclusion before a word is spoken."
C.H. talked about the organization Sisters In Crime. They count reviews, as they have found that male writers consistently get reviewed far more frequently than female writers, and by a significant ratio. They contact magazines and newspapers to make them aware of this fact.
K.E. spoke of an article she read recently in which a woman in Australia, who was looking at the content of reviews, observed that "Men's work can be flawed but still important. If women's work is considered flawed, that it can't be important."
C.H. mentioned an encounter with somebody at which she was told that she was lucky to have such good sales. She went away from that thinking, "Is it possible that I have good sales because I'm a good writer?"
N.K. said it is far worse for women in the horror field.
Question: is there a difference between men and women's fantasy and horror?
C.H. said yes. It begins with cover choices, marketing, and pay.
At that point, K.E. made what I thought was the most significant contribution to the entire panel. This is something that she has talked about on her LiveJournal from time to time, and that is that the male gaze is still the default cultural point of view. That means, whenever men look at is important, from persons to politics to entertainment. It is important for everybody. Whatever women look at is for women, of lesser significance.
Her daughter went to a quilting show [Correction:] museum. Quilting is largely considered a craft, but not an art, at least by men. Lo and behold, among the many displays by female quilters, there was one by a man. His quilts were labeled as "art" quilts. The rest of them were all crafts.
The rest of the panel was pretty much corroboration of this observation, everybody mentioning incidents or statistics in support.
That male gaze thing certainly holds true in fantasy. Even when women write epic fantasy on a large scale, covering the same sorts of subjects that male writers do, the male writers are interviewed, they are consulted when the subject of fantasy comes up, their works are reviewed everywhere. Very few women get that sort of attention--we can just about name them all.
The conclusion of the panel was not a downer, however. Everybody agreed that one of the ways to change things is to use our voices, and the media available to us. Talking about women's work, its significance, its entertainment value, and who might enjoy it if you like X, Y, or Z, and linking to interesting discussions, is one way of getting the word out about books that are otherwise ignored by the standard media.
I found it interesting, and disappointing, that the panel was all women: Kate Elliott, Charlaine Harris, Nancy Kilpatrick, Jane Kindred, and Malinda Lo.I don’t know how many men volunteered, who picked the panelists, whether it was a man or a woman, but when I walked into that panel and saw all women getting up on the podium, I thought "Here's our conclusion before a word is spoken."
C.H. talked about the organization Sisters In Crime. They count reviews, as they have found that male writers consistently get reviewed far more frequently than female writers, and by a significant ratio. They contact magazines and newspapers to make them aware of this fact.
K.E. spoke of an article she read recently in which a woman in Australia, who was looking at the content of reviews, observed that "Men's work can be flawed but still important. If women's work is considered flawed, that it can't be important."
C.H. mentioned an encounter with somebody at which she was told that she was lucky to have such good sales. She went away from that thinking, "Is it possible that I have good sales because I'm a good writer?"
N.K. said it is far worse for women in the horror field.
Question: is there a difference between men and women's fantasy and horror?
C.H. said yes. It begins with cover choices, marketing, and pay.
At that point, K.E. made what I thought was the most significant contribution to the entire panel. This is something that she has talked about on her LiveJournal from time to time, and that is that the male gaze is still the default cultural point of view. That means, whenever men look at is important, from persons to politics to entertainment. It is important for everybody. Whatever women look at is for women, of lesser significance.
Her daughter went to a quilting show [Correction:] museum. Quilting is largely considered a craft, but not an art, at least by men. Lo and behold, among the many displays by female quilters, there was one by a man. His quilts were labeled as "art" quilts. The rest of them were all crafts.
The rest of the panel was pretty much corroboration of this observation, everybody mentioning incidents or statistics in support.
That male gaze thing certainly holds true in fantasy. Even when women write epic fantasy on a large scale, covering the same sorts of subjects that male writers do, the male writers are interviewed, they are consulted when the subject of fantasy comes up, their works are reviewed everywhere. Very few women get that sort of attention--we can just about name them all.
The conclusion of the panel was not a downer, however. Everybody agreed that one of the ways to change things is to use our voices, and the media available to us. Talking about women's work, its significance, its entertainment value, and who might enjoy it if you like X, Y, or Z, and linking to interesting discussions, is one way of getting the word out about books that are otherwise ignored by the standard media.