# Ursula K. LeGuin, Logic, Gender



## J-Sun (Apr 8, 2016)

Exhibit A:

Asked to provide a blurb for a book[1], she replied:

Dear Mr Radziewicz,

I can imagine myself blurbing a book in which Brian Aldiss, predictably, sneers at my work, because then I could preen myself on my magnanimity. But I cannot imagine myself blurbing a book, the first of a new series and hence presumably exemplary of the series, which not only contains no writing by women, but the tone of which is so self-contentedly, exclusively male, like a club, or a locker room. That would not be magnanimity, but foolishness. Gentlemen, I just don’t belong here.

Yours truly,

Ursula K. Le Guin​
(Supercilious and sesquipedalian, much?)

Exhibit B:

_Millennial Women_, edited by Virginia Kidd

Contents:

Prayer for My Daughter * poem by Marilyn Hacker
Introduction (Millennial Women) * essay by Virginia Kidd
No One Said Forever * shortstory by Cynthia Felice
The Song of N'Sardi-el * shortstory by Diana L. Paxson
Jubilee's Story * shortstory by Elizabeth A. Lynn
Mab Gallen Recalled * shortstory by Cherry Wilder
Phoenix in the Ashes * novelette by Joan D. Vinge
The Eye of the Heron * novel by Ursula K. Le Guin​So I guess what is not good for the gander is still good for the goose. But I presume I do not need to read that anthology, right? I won't belong there, so it will have nothing to say to me - no alternate perspectives of value? No literary merit? No science fictional quality? Or conversely, am I to assume it isn't somehow self-contentedly, exclusively female, like a sewing circle, or a kitchen? (Apparently Ms. LeGuin doesn't realize girls can have locker rooms, too.)

I don't know. We have theme anthologies on everything, so why not explicitly all-female anthologies or incidentally all-male anthologies? And why not have some that skew heavily one way or the other? And why not have an accidental few that are exactly 51%/49%? But the arrogance and intolerance and the "two wrongs make a right" and the self-satisfied repetition of these things years later in the current web-o-sphere just ignite my own intolerance. Discrimination and quotas are bad no matter who's being discriminated against or abstractly advantaged or disadvantaged. Quit keeping score and just evaluate the SF as SF[2].
_____
[1] The article for some reason says it's a 1971 book when it is 1987. Unrepentant, the editor published only one essay and two stories by women (one by "James Tiptree, Jr." but her identity was long-known by then) in the entire four-volume series.

[2] This is scorekeeping in its own way but, not having read the anthology in question, all I can say is that four of the seven pieces have been reprinted elsewhere which is a positive sign, though three of the four and possibly all four were reprinted by male editors so presumably don't count. Dozois (another male) deigned to notice it and said, "This shows every sign of being a promising series, and it will be interesting to see it develop. The first volume, however, contains good work... but does not have any really exceptional material." So perhaps one could be kind and blurb it as promising or unkind and refuse to blurb it on the grounds of its being unexceptional? (He reviewed subsequent volumes mildly favorably but decried the ridiculous pricing of its trade paper publication method - my hero!)


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 9, 2016)

This is silly.
We should be gender, tribe* and colour blind. Only merit should count. No-one should be counting.


[* Race? Daft idea]


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 9, 2016)

J-Sun said:


> Discrimination and quotas are bad no matter who's being discriminated against



Last time I looked, men neither had a history of being discriminated against throughout recorded history, nor do men apparently suffer from routine discrimination in modern society.

Nor have men had to fight to gain any degree of recognition that they are in fact equal to women and therefore should share the same rights of women.

Nor am I aware of any current struggle for men to be recognised as having equal artistic merit and value to women due to otherwise being dismissed.

Nor do I think that men are routinely - as the norm - fed misandrist narratives that represent men primarily as love interests (cf, to provide sexual reward) to support far more intelligent, varied, and interesting female characters.

If you disagree, then simply check the anthologies on your book shelf and tell me if you find that men are routinely under-represented in them, and that you struggle to find a male voice by a male author in said anthologies. If you do, you might agree that it would be reasonable to specifically try and raise the profile of male writers against the accepted routine of gender imbalance, not least through anthologies that specifically try and draw attention to their work.


----------



## LittleStar (Apr 9, 2016)

@Brian Turner i have to disagree i think (I dont have many anthologies to check, so I'll do it on a wider scale). And. Don't mean to derail the thread too much.

If not discrimination, then what is her flat refusal to participate in this project for no other reason than it doesn't involve women?
Is it not discrimination that I can't run for Race for Life because of my genitalia? Despite the fact that I have personally been as affected as anyone by breast cancer (who hasn't had cancer themselves) as my mother had it when I was young, or despite the fact that as a man I still have breast tissue which can be affected in exactly the same way as a woman's. But my fundraising isn't good enough... I understand why they have done it, and it works, according to them their success is due to it being all about 'sisterhood' and to allow men to participate would have detrimental effects... I understand it, but I disagree with it and find it frankly discriminatory, elitist. Voluntary segregation is not equality... Unless the male gender have the right to do the same without being frowned upon, or called on for discrimination. (which I disagree with as well, but you see my point)

I was going to make a point about rape cases, guilty before innocent, and then still guilty afterwards regardless of verdict, but I haven't looked into it, and could be unfounded.

Just because there haven't been any (many?) large scale historical struggles for gender equality on the male side doesn't mean that it doesn't exist... Or maybe it does exist but doesn't get the same rise out of the media/world. I'm reminded of a man I know of, who was in the media for being in a lawsuit with  his ex girlfriend, she assaulted him in front of witnesses, scratched his face, hit him, kicked him etc the article was an interview with him about how he felt female domestic violence was underpotrayed, under told, and ridiculed essentially. I don't remember the outcome, but that's not my point, the point im making is that the first Facebook comment, and from a woman, when it was shared was (my own words, and much cleaner) "Boo hoo! Have a tissue and man the hell up!'


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 9, 2016)

See if this helps:


----------



## thaddeus6th (Apr 9, 2016)

Brian, there's still discrimination against both genders (better to be a man when collecting a pay cheque, better to be a woman in court). The funding for male victims of domestic violence (estimates vary, but 35-45% is common) is orders of magnitude lower than for female victims [the Disrespect Nobody adverts, ironically, portray all victims as female and all perpetrators as male].

On writing: the vast majority of romantic fiction writers appear to be female. Not my genre, so I may stand corrected, but it seems to be the case, and also the case that nobody especially cares. Equality of opportunity is what matters, not equality of outcome. People should be judged by the content of their character, not the contents of their trousers.

I'm not saying it's worse for men than for women, just that the idea sexism is something purely done by men to women is wrong. In the serious example above (domestic violence) it's dangerously wrong, because it discourages men from coming forward (and an unwillingness to talk to others may also be why male suicide rates are so vastly higher than female suicide rates).


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 9, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> If you do, you might agree that it would be reasonable to specifically try and raise the profile of male writers against the accepted routine of gender imbalance, not least through anthologies that specifically try and draw attention to their work.


Did you mean female writers?

Yes there is discrimination. In gender, skin tint, ableness, age, ethnic background, accent, hair colour etc.  "Fighting" it by creating discriminatory structures is just wrong, that doesn't change attitudes but entrench them.

There may be good reasons to have an all female anthology (or an all male, or all Nigerian or all New Yorker), but as an answer to discrimination it's wrong and as immoral has having an all male one deliberately to exclude women.

Two wrongs never makes right.


----------



## Mirannan (Apr 9, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> Last time I looked, men neither had a history of being discriminated against throughout recorded history, nor do men apparently suffer from routine discrimination in modern society.
> 
> Nor have men had to fight to gain any degree of recognition that they are in fact equal to women and therefore should share the same rights of women.
> 
> ...



Oh please!  Just two counter-examples are the huge disparity in numbers between male and female teachers in the UK, and the treatment meted out to both parties in rape and sexual assault cases. (Man is named immediately, woman is almost never named even when it is shown that the accusation was both untrue and malicious.)

Or how about the gross unfairness involved in divorce and child custody cases?


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 9, 2016)

Mirannan said:


> numbers between male and female teachers in the UK


Here in Ireland the vast majority of Primary School teachers are women, yet the vast majority of principals are men. That's two problems. But "quotas" or reverse discrimination (as in N.I. Police and Civil service etc*) is evil. You need to change attitudes.

[* You MUST give your primary school when applying for many N.I. Jobs as that suggests which "community" you belong to. It's evil as not everyone is "Catholic" or "Protestant", Unionist, Nationalist or Republican. Society is MORE divided and less integrated in N.I. since Good Friday agreement. There is more to the issue than stopping assassinations and indiscriminate violence. A job should be based on Merit, not Gender, "Community", skin tint, ethnic background etc.]

Gender issues are perpetuated, not solved by segregation and quotas.


----------



## The Judge (Apr 9, 2016)

The first anthology in the opening post was, presumably, one open to both sexes and* there was not one female author in it*.  There was not a single woman writing SF that was good enough to be included?  Really? And the content of the stories was -- apparently -- exclusively male-oriented.  So not one male writer had a story which involved a female protagonist?  Not one had a story which dealt in any way sympathetically to female issues?  You really think that happened by chance? I don't know if the editor specifically went out to exclude women, but two stories and one essay in four volumes is suggestive -- and you honestly think that it's some kind of moral courage which led him to do that rather than misogyny?

The title of the second anthology suggests it's one *specifically looking at women's work*.  It isn't an open anthology in which men are told they can submit, but where -- oh, how strange -- not one man's writing is seen as competent or relevant.  It's saying that women's writing in this sphere is often under-rated and under-valued, so let's get a collection together and see how good it is, and if you're a SF reader, try these and see if you've been wrong in reading stories which are mostly by men and/or editors are wrong in choosing only such stories for their anthologies.

Two wrongs do not make a right.  And if the second anthology was one that purported to be open to all and men were in fact wholly excluded, I would be as vociferous as any in condemning it. But it wasn't.  It was deliberately seeking to advertise female writers, worried that they weren't being given a fair crack of the whip in other anthologies.

Yes, there could well have been literary merit in the first anthology and for all I know there is none whatsoever in the second.  Yes, one can read works by people who don't have the same genitalia (or skin colour or sexual orientation or whatever) as oneself and find something that is relevant to the human condition, that gives a fresh perspective on one's own issues.  But doesn't it worry you that the traffic is all one way -- it's women gaining a fresh perspective reading about men, rarely men finding that relevance to the human condition reading about women?  Do you really think it's been enjoyable in the past to read story after story in which the only women present are sex objects or stupid, and often both?  Do you have any idea at all how that discrimination affects how you think of yourself in the world?  

The situation is changing, and we're not still stuck in an an age when women's voices were absent as SF writers and in the fiction, which is good news, but do you honestly think we've achieved full equality yet?  I hate tokenism, I hate positive discrimination, but most of all I hate the blindness that refuses to accept women have faced centuries of being treated as inferior, as incapable, as little better than children, that refuses to see cultural attitudes still create problems, and refuses to accept that positive role models are not only helpful but vital.  


And the response of "Yes, you might have a few problems there, but we've got lots of problems here" may be meant well, but to be frank it comes over as "You don't have a problem".  

To repeat what I said in another thread: _For the first time in weeks you've left the house and you're taking a slow careful walk down your street. An acquaintance bustles up and begins to harangue you on your failure to attend an important event two months ago. "I intended to go," you say, "but that morning I had chest pain and --" "Don't talk to me about chest pain," he says, "I know all about that. I was in torment that day, and I still went." And he proceeds to talk at length about the excruciating agony he suffered and you can't get a word in edgewise before he rushes off to tell everyone how unrepentant you are. He had indigestion. You suffered a massive heart attack, died three times on the operating table, caught MRSA while in hospital, and you're now permanently disabled._

Whenever someone says "We have problems, too" what he is frequently doing is complaining of indigestion when the others -- women, people of colour, whoever -- are saying they've had a massive heart attack.  Even if perchance he has had the equivalent of the same heart attack (and there is indeed work that needs to be done about men as the victims of domestic abuse) you don't parade your illness when someone else is saying how poorly she is.  It's boorish in one person; it's indefensible when it's groupthink.  

If you don't believe she suffered a heart attack, get your evidence together.  

If you're worried about men being discriminated against in a specific area, start a thread and talk about it there and suggest what action can be taken to end that discrimination.  Do not use it as an excuse to avoid talking about the problems of others and to belittle their attempts to try and overcome the subtle but pervasive discrimination which continues to face them in other spheres.


When there is true equality -- when every editor and every reader is wholly unbiased, when there are female protagonists as a matter of course, when stories deal with issues which perhaps affect women rather than men and no one thinks it strange or mutters about feminazis taking over SF -- there will be no need for specific anthologies exhibiting women's work.  In the meantime, rather than criticise such anthologies, ask why we're not at that stage of equality yet, and help bring it about.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Apr 9, 2016)

TJ, on statistics, in psychology a test was considered sound if it had a p value of 0.95 (ie one in every 20 tests threw up a rogue result). If all male anthology lists are/were (not sure of the stats) commonplace, then that would suggest an underlying problem. If this is the only all male list out of the last (for argument's sake) 50 anthologies, it might just be a statistical anomaly. 

More data would be useful for determining which is the likelier.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 9, 2016)

The Judge said:


> and you honestly think that it's some kind of moral courage which led him to do that rather than misogyny?


I think it was stupid, but I can't know his motives.


The Judge said:


> It was deliberately seeking to advertise female writers, worried that they weren't being given a fair crack of the whip in other anthologies.


That at least is honest. If an anthology is to be "male only" there has to be reasonable explanation in advance. I can't believe a truly "open" Anthology can end up with no female writers. There plenty of excellent ones.



thaddeus6th said:


> If this is the only all male list out of the last (for argument's sake) 50 anthologies, it might just be a statistical anomaly.


With the number of titles in it, it seems very unlikely and one is suspicious that women were excluded. But we can't really "know."

People need to change their attitudes.  Rants about inequality doesn't seem to have much effect?


----------



## Nick B (Apr 9, 2016)

There is plenty of sexism against men. It may not be flavour of the day for the media to report it, but it is there. Try being a man when battling for custody of children. Even equal custody is hard if the woman fights it. And that is pretty much regardless of how good either parent is.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Apr 9, 2016)

Quellist said:


> There is plenty of sexism against men. It may not be flavour of the day for the media to report it, but it is there. Try being a man when battling for custody of children. Even equal custody is hard if the woman fights it. And that is pretty much regardless of how good either parent is.



And yet through most of history children were considered the property of the father and the wife had no rights where they were concerned at all.  The current idea that women should get custody is rooted in the idea that taking care of children is still their primary function while men are going to have other, better things to do.

If most teachers are women, is that because men are discriminated against when applying for positions, or that most men consider the work beneath them -- especially at the primary level?  How many female dominated jobs are that way because few men want them -- being more interested in jobs that pay more and carry more prestige?  If male victims of domestic violence are afraid to speak up, is it because they are ashamed for women to know they are battered husbands, or ashamed that other men will know and think the less of them?  I don't think any of this is a female conspiracy or female prejudice, but about the way men view other men and want to be viewed in turn.

I was watching "The People Against O. J. Simpson" and was again struck by how much sexism and disrespect Marcia Clark had to fight while trying the case.  A lot of it was coming from women, too, but men were also making fun of her hair and her clothes in order to ridicule her, although usually men would consider such matters beneath their notice.  And when one of her ex-husbands sold a naked picture of her to the tabloids most people thought it was funny rather than an outrage.  Why?  Because she was perceived as an arrogant strident bitch, simply because in the courtroom she behaved as any prosecutor would, and so (the reasoning went) she deserved any mean thing that was said of her or done to her.  A man would never have been criticized for being so aggressive.  And that was in the 1990s!

The problem with systematic sexism is that so many people are used to it and take it for granted that they don't even see it, and so think there isn't a problem.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 9, 2016)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> The problem with systematic sexism is that so many people are used to it


It's the problem with prejudice generally. People only see OTHER prejudices in other people never their own. It's a slow battle with no easy answers. Children are easier to educate than adults.


----------



## Nick B (Apr 10, 2016)

So, Theresa, you are implying that sexim against men, is in fact their own fault?
Isn't that what sexist men say about women?

Either all sexism is wrong, or none of it is. Equality must be for everyone.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Apr 10, 2016)

Quellist said:


> So, Theresa, you are implying that sexim against men, is in fact their own fault?
> Isn't that what sexist men say about women?



After carefully reading Teresa's post, I can't see the implication you're driving at all. At the point I think you are referring too, she's suggesting reasons why male victims of domestic abuse don't come forward as readily as females to report it. She's not saying or implying that such reticent behaviour is the man's fault that their dominant partners abuse them.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 10, 2016)

Quellist said:


> So, Theresa, you are implying that sexim against men, is in fact their own fault?


I don't think she's suggesting that at all.


----------



## Nick B (Apr 10, 2016)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> And yet through most of history children were considered the property of the father and the wife had no rights where they were concerned at all.  The current idea that women should get custody is rooted in the idea that taking care of children is still their primary function while men are going to have other, better things to do.
> 
> If most teachers are women, is that because men are discriminated against when applying for positions, or that most men consider the work beneath them -- especially at the primary level?  How many female dominated jobs are that way because few men want them -- being more interested in jobs that pay more and carry more prestige?
> 
> ...



Perhaps you missed these parts. I wasnt refering just to the abuse part.


----------



## farntfar (Apr 10, 2016)

Coming back to the original post it certainly seems reasonable to me that Ms. Le Guin decided not to write a blurb for it.

Consider a similar scenario where a famous chef, noted primarily for his or her vegetarian dishes were asked to write a blurb for a restaurant  guide, and looking through the index he or she found that all the restaurants (??) included were the likes of MacDonalds, Angus Steak house, Buffalo Grill etc. It would seem perfectly reasonable for them to say "Gentlemen, I just don’t belong here." on a very similar basis.

Further, the OP suggests that this was done to make a public statement, but the article does not state that Ms. Leguin published this letter to the world, but rather that *Shaun Usher *reproduced it in his collection *MORE LETTERS OF NOTE*.
I personally don't know Shaun Usher from Adam, but assume that he published the letter for it's wit and writing style, not for it's supposed misandry.


----------



## Nick B (Apr 10, 2016)

I am not implying that Theresa is sexist. I don't believe she is. But if the same statements were made against women, the roar would be 'that's sexist because...!'

For instance, if you stated that being a car mechanic was male dominated because women thought the job was beneath them and had better things to do, it would be called sexist, and that it was the society stopping women wanting to bemechanics.

The same logic MUST be applied, or it isnt equality.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 10, 2016)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> The problem with systematic sexism is that so many people are used to it and take it for granted that they don't even see it, and so think there isn't a problem.



Indeed, I've often been surprised when my wife has pointed out her daily experiences of this. I don't mean outright aggression or hatred - simply ordinary ways in which she is talked down to because she is not a man.



Quellist said:


> The same logic MUST be applied, or it isnt equality.



That's missing the point - I doubt anyone here would argue that Martin Luther King was racist because he marched for Black Rights, and not for White Rights. Positive discrimination attempts to balance our ideals of equality in the face of negative discrimination.


----------



## Mirannan (Apr 10, 2016)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> And yet through most of history children were considered the property of the father and the wife had no rights where they were concerned at all.  The current idea that women should get custody is rooted in the idea that taking care of children is still their primary function while men are going to have other, better things to do.
> 
> If most teachers are women, is that because men are discriminated against when applying for positions, or that most men consider the work beneath them -- especially at the primary level?  How many female dominated jobs are that way because few men want them -- being more interested in jobs that pay more and carry more prestige?  If male victims of domestic violence are afraid to speak up, is it because they are ashamed for women to know they are battered husbands, or ashamed that other men will know and think the less of them?  I don't think any of this is a female conspiracy or female prejudice, but about the way men view other men and want to be viewed in turn.
> 
> ...



One reason why men don't become teachers is that it's quite possible (particularly in secondary school) for a vicious little ***** to destroy a man's career by simply making an accusation of improper conduct. And even if the accusation is proved untrue - well, mud sticks.


----------



## Nick B (Apr 10, 2016)

I don't think thats the same thing at al Ursa. And isnt positive discrimination an oxymoron? How can any discrimination be positive?
Some jobs require a certain gender. That isnt positive or negative discrimination, it is simply necesary. 
We either grow up and stamp out all discrimination, or we just continue having these battles over it where no one wins.


----------



## Nick B (Apr 10, 2016)

Mirannan said:


> One reason why men don't become teachers is that it's quite possible (particularly in secondary school) for a vicious little ***** to destroy a man's career by simply making an accusation of improper conduct. And even if the accusation is proved untrue - well, mud sticks.



That can be just as true for women though.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 10, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> Positive discrimination attempts to balance our ideals of equality in the face of negative discrimination.


No, it automatically gives a quota based on characteristics that are nothing to do with the placement. It adds to inequality. It's a sop.

Positive discrimination creates resentment, doesn't change attitudes and "punishes" people in the wrong "category" that may be perfectly balanced people that deserve the what ever it is. Positive discrimination is injustice and evil. It's a lazy kind of legislation. What is needed is the harder work of changing attitudes.
I'm in sympathy with socialism and liberalism, but you don't fix oppression of one group by oppressing other groups or fix poverty by making it illegal to be wealthy or fix disability by giving everyone bad eyesight.

Positive discrimination is as bonkers as collective farms.

Positive discrimination entrenches wrong attitudes.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 10, 2016)

Quellist said:


> How can any discrimination be positive?



It's simply recognising a gap - usually caused by negative discrimination - and trying to address it. In the original post this can describe Ursula Le Guin's decision to support women writers she felt may be under-represented in SF, rather than patronise an anthology by male writers who may not have given much consideration to female characters.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 10, 2016)

By the way, has any one else noticed how it's Le Guin being criticised for not supporting an all-male short story anthology - rather than Radziewicz for excluding women writers?

And that Le Guin is not allowed, as a woman, to make a decision where it is in conflict with a man's?


----------



## galanx (Apr 10, 2016)

So we both run a relay race, except the first three runners on my team are in leg irons; but I can take the baton and run the last leg without leg irons- what could be fairer than that?

Or up until now we have refused to hire your particular race/sex/religion/caste/ whatever for this particular job. Now however, we can start hiring equally- except all the people already in place (the people in my group) will decide who gets hired. Or even if the hiring is completely blind from now on, and your kind has to wait thirty years for natural replacement to achieve a balance- perfectly fair.

Reminds me of a Saturday Night Live satire depicting an announcement from MTV, back before the color bar was broken: "Of course when black performers start to contribute to popular music MTV will show them- but we don't want to have quotas,  you don't want to see bands on the network just because they're Eskimos..."


----------



## J-Sun (Apr 10, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> By the way, has any one else noticed how it's Le Guin being criticised for not supporting an all-male short story anthology - rather than Radziewicz for excluding women writers?
> 
> And that Le Guin is not allowed, as a woman, to make a decision where it is in conflict with a man's?



LeGuin is not being criticized for not supporting an all-male anthology. She is being criticized for condemning an all-male anthology (and for being unable to see any merit in such a book by that fact alone) while contributing to an all-female one.

This has less to do with gender, as such, and more to do with her logic and with people promoting it as something admirable. And my point was not that all-female or all-male or mixed this or mixed that anthologies were intrinsically wrong but that seeing one as wrong and one as right is rather selective.

Further, it's not Radziewicz who excluded women writers but Zebrowski who simply didn't choose any women writers for that particular anthology. He is obviously not constitutionally unable to publish stories by women, as that series, as stated, did eventually publish a couple.

Perhaps he didn't even receive any submissions from women. This is ordinarily an impermissible line of argument because, if no women are represented, it is, of course, because they are being suppressed, but - as others have noted - Teresa regards this as legitimate argument when it comes to men: "If most teachers are women, is that because men are discriminated against when applying for positions, or that most men consider the work beneath them -- especially at the primary level? How many female dominated jobs are that way because few men want them..." Yes, and obviously if few women are represented in a science fiction anthology it's because they don't statistically have as much interest in SF and don't contribute to hard SF as often and so naturally aren't going to be represented in proportion to their demographic numbers but to their "level of interest" numbers. At least, that's Teresa's argument if it applies, um, equally, to women as to men.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 10, 2016)

J-Sun said:


> they don't statistically have as much interest in SF


The future may be different as supposedly in USA most teen readers of SF & F are girls. In 1950s and 1960s supposedly overwhelmingly boys. But I don't know how these claims are arrived at.


----------



## J-Sun (Apr 10, 2016)

Yeah, while I think that's likely been true and may not stay true - hopefully not (I'll take all the hard SF I can get) - I wouldn't seriously argue the truth or falsity of it - I have anecdotal/experiential reasonableness but no concrete numbers. I was just saying, whether true or not, such an argument - just in form - is usually not even permitted in a discussion of genre gender imbalance because it's considered ipso facto sexist. But if it can be used as an argument to excuse male under-representation, then it's presumably okay for female under-representation, too. Again, a case of unidirectional sexism: all-male anthologies are inherently sexist; all-female are not, or are a "good" sexism. To say women are under-represented in something due to their lack of interest is inherently sexist; to say men are under-represented in something due to their lack interest in something is not. I don't buy this logic.

Incidentally, I think you've made an excellent point that some folks seem not to hear: that reverse-discrimination is still discrimination and reinforces the thing it's meant to be dissipating and, beyond that, produces resentment and possible counter-movements. I actually tend to support gender equality in most everything[1] but find my support strained when people basically don't want justice but their own turn at injustice and, while I don't give in, I certainly understand all those would-be-moderate people who become antagonistic. This is all going a bit further along the road than my modest note, but it's kind of what impels it in the first place.

[1] When I say "most everything" I mean in the sense that, if a woman completes Ranger training just like her male counterparts (as some recently have), she should be a Ranger (assuming no degradation in unit cohesion and so on and, even then, perhaps all-female squads could be created while all-male units persist or some other workaround). But the idea that women are unequal until they make up 50% of Rangers is wrong. And, if some women are going to have the opportunity to be Rangers on a volunteer basis like the men, then all women must register for the draft like the men. That sort of equality.


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 10, 2016)

J-Sun said:


> (and for being unable to see any merit in such a book *by that fact alone*)



(My bolding)

Can you highlight the bit which shows that she claims the anthology in question can have no merit purely by virtue of being all-male, rather than because of its content? Do we know what the stories were actually about? If they were all stories about interplanetary big-game fishing or which only showed women as sex-slaves, would her refusal seem anything other than merely sensible?

I think @farntfar's vegetarian/carnivore cook-book analogy is just about right.


----------



## J-Sun (Apr 10, 2016)

farntfar said:


> Further, the OP suggests that this was done to make a public statement,



Sorry, I meant to reply to this earlier, but forgot. I didn't suggest that.



J-Sun said:


> the self-satisfied repetition of these things years later in the current web-o-sphere



I was speaking of LeGuin's logic/behavior (whether public or not) and the webfolks' publicizing it as an admirable thing when it isn't. Usher made it public and vox.com promoted it as a good and proper thing. I take issue with each thing and their cumulative effect, but don't conflate them and didn't mean to encourage others to. Sorry if I was unclear. Le Guin and others make very public statements of this nature so, even if this particular letter was not meant to be broadcast, it's not out of keeping with things that have been, but this particular statement's initial semi-private status wasn't part of my point.



HareBrain said:


> Can you highlight the bit which shows that she claims the anthology in question can have no merit purely by virtue of being all-male, rather than because of its content?



No, because it's implicit. Her sole expressed judgment of the work is completely lacking in any aesthetic, qualitative ground beyond her emotive distaste for clubs and locker rooms. I can highlight that she says it "contains no writing by women, but the tone of which is so self-contentedly, exclusively male, like a club, or a locker room" and concludes that "I just don’t belong here." Since that's the only fact she states, I say "by that fact alone." And, as I said, I surely don't belong in a book called "Millennial Women," either, but I would trust that something in it is likely to have aesthetic merit and that I could learn from an alternate perspective even if I naturally - by virtue of its being alternate - didn't "belong" to it. If it somehow didn't, I would surely state that as the reason for my unwillingness to provide a blurb. So either her sole criterion was its all-maleness or she's a poor writer and failed to express herself and her true complaints. I think most people would agree with me that the latter is less likely.


----------



## HareBrain (Apr 10, 2016)

J-Sun said:


> Since that's the only fact she states, I say "by that fact alone."



Sorry, that doesn't logically follow. "By that fact alone" means "of the set of facts", not "of the set of facts available to us in this source material" (which wouldn't be correct even if it did mean that, because the line about the tone extends her argument beyond the simple fact of the anthology being all-male). Other facts exist which she hasn't given (possibly because she didn't think she was providing material for a public debate), and we're not in a position to infer what they are. Both she and Radziewicz know exactly what's in the anthology -- why would she list her detailed reasons for the judgement she makes, given that he would almost certainly be able to infer them from the contents?

I'm not saying her stance isn't open to any criticism whatsoever, but her letter does not even say that she wouldn't blurb any all-male anthology, let alone that she would be against them on principle. I disagree that such a stance is implicit in the words of that letter alone.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 10, 2016)

HareBrain said:


> I'm not saying her stance isn't open to any criticism whatsoever, but her letter does not even say that she wouldn't blurb any all-male anthology, let alone that she would be against them on principle.


There is too much we don't know to make any judgement about the "logic" of her letter.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Apr 10, 2016)

Mirannan said:


> One reason why men don't become teachers is that it's quite possible (particularly in secondary school) for a vicious little ***** to destroy a man's career by simply making an accusation of improper conduct.



I don't buy that.  Most men who are teachers teach at the secondary level. (I'm guessing it's because it pays more and holds more prestige, but I really don't know.)  If that was a position of such great peril why would they prefer it to teaching younger children?





Mirannan said:


> And even if the accusation is proved untrue - well, mud sticks.



I find your phrasing here particularly interesting, with the innocence (or guilt) of the accused coming as an afterthought, and your vicious characterization of the possible victim right up front.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 10, 2016)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> Most men who are teachers teach at the secondary level. (I'm guessing it's because it pays more and holds more prestige, but I really don't know.)


Both my parents were teachers, my wife was a teacher, all Secondary. In N.I. and Ireland the majority of primary teachers are women and majority of secondary teachers are men. I don't know why. Secondary does pay more than primary I think, but that can't be the explanation?


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 10, 2016)

I wish Le Guin hadn't been quite so polemical in what she wrote there.

But given the imbalance in how the world treats women as opposed to how they treat men, I don't see an issue in Le Guin trying to address it in this fashion.


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Apr 10, 2016)

I think, too, she is referring to a genre where women are underrepresented. If that wasn't the case, things might feel different. But go and look at the sf charts on kindle, or on the shelves of your local bookstore. It is a male-dominated genre despite a good balance of readership. It is an improving picture with the likes of Kameron Hurley, Jennifer Foehner-Wells, and others coming through but there is still a massive imbalance (as there also is in romance, which is sad, too - men have love stories, too with one of my favourite books containing a beautiful one, written by a man). 

So, yes, clumsily done, perhaps. But I can understand her sentiments, and her frustrations.


----------



## Mirannan (Apr 11, 2016)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> I don't buy that.  Most men who are teachers teach at the secondary level. (I'm guessing it's because it pays more and holds more prestige, but I really don't know.)  If that was a position of such great peril why would they prefer it to teaching younger children?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would it have been different if I'd written "false accusation" instead of "accusation"?

This is, at least to some extent, an example of another problem. If a man is accused by a woman of sexual assault or rape, his name is made public immediately no matter how far-fetched the accusation is. However, it is very rare for the accuser to be named even in the most obvious cases of malicious false accusation.


----------



## galanx (Apr 11, 2016)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Both my parents were teachers, my wife was a teacher, all Secondary. In N.I. and Ireland the majority of primary teachers are women and majority of secondary teachers are men. I don't know why. Secondary does pay more than primary I think, but that can't be the explanation?



I wonder why one kind of people who dominate one type of job are paid more than the  different knd of people in the lower type of job when the people making the decision as to who gets paid what are in the first category?

 I mean, I wonder why black people got paid less money than white people in the American South; I wonder why Catholics in Ulster got paid less, if hired at all than Protestants? Couldn't be that Protestants were doing the hiring assigning the jobs and pay levels, could it?


----------



## galanx (Apr 11, 2016)

To: Tupac Shakur, August 1993
Dear Mr.Shakur:
Hi, we're putting out an new anthology of great heavy metal rock acts  of the late 80s/early1990s: Metallica, Alice in Chains, Megadeth, Slayer, and we're calling it "New Directions in Music" and we know you're a popular artist whose name would help us sell copes to the wider rock music audience, so we'd like your endorsement. Why, no, there won't be any of that crazy "rap" stuff- can you even call it music?- on it , and no black artists have been invited to participate. Why do you ask?


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Apr 11, 2016)

Mirannan said:


> Would it have been different if I'd written "false accusation" instead of "accusation"?
> 
> This is, at least to some extent, an example of another problem. If a man is accused by a woman of sexual assault or rape, his name is made public immediately no matter how far-fetched the accusation is. However, it is very rare for the accuser to be named even in the most obvious cases of malicious false accusation.



I think that has changed somewhat recently with women being tried for that. Once again, however, it is the same if a woman faces a false accusation - for instance, in your teacher example. But I do agree that there is an imbalance.


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Apr 11, 2016)

galanx said:


> I wonder why Catholics in Ulster got paid less, if hired at all than Protestants? Couldn't be that Protestants were doing the hiring assigning the jobs and pay levels, could it?



I can't comment on the other areas, I'm afraid. But in NI it was often to do with the type of industry each religion dominated with, yes, if you go back some years Protestants more likely to be in the higher-paid industries. (It is no longer so much the case, just to add - for instance, the civil service here (which pays well in comparision to NI-average which has one of the lowest wage rates in the UK) is now predominantly RC - and there is full parity across job roles/rates etc, although there are still areas - and towns - predominantly one religion or another.) So it wasn't anything to do with who was hiring and assigning the jobs per se so much that one religion simply didn't work in certain fields of work (and nor did the other religion in other fields.)

Quite what that's got to do with Ursula le Guin and innate sexism - or not - in sf, I'm not sure.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 11, 2016)

galanx said:


> I wonder why Catholics in Ulster got paid less, if hired at all than Protestants?


I think that one is mostly or entirely myth. There were a few companies that mostly hired from one community. Sometimes it was discrimination, sometimes because people known to people working were first choice and sometimes location. In industrial areas: West of the Bann, the "protestants" concentrated in Waterside of Derry and East of the Bann, Catholics mostly in West Belfast.
In a particular company doing same job, the "Catholics" and "Protestants" (detestable way to categorise N.I. People) got same pay, except very rare situations.
The border was artificially drawn to ensure a Unionist Majority, leaving out 3 counties of Ulster. Let's not however go backwards but forwards, that only benefits extremist bigots such as DUP and SF.


galanx said:


> I wonder why black people got paid less money than white people in the American South


I wonder why despite all the claims of exporting Democracy, large parts of USA didn't have it till 1960s?

It's easy to make simplistic judgements.



Jo Zebedee said:


> assigning the jobs per se so much that one religion simply didn't work in certain fields of work


Absolutely. Also mobility (to move house) and travel distances very low. Actually physically communities are mostly MORE segregated now than before 1969. I think the big secondary school (where my "Catholic" friends went*) is closed due to increased segregation. What I said above about locations of communities and companies.
So called "Protestants" that go to UNI now tend to go to mainland UK and many don't return.
At primary school age, the so called  "Catholics" may be in majority now, though that shift has slowed down.

[* Unusually I grew up with about equal numbers of friends in both so called "Communities"]


----------



## J-Sun (Apr 11, 2016)

HareBrain said:


> Sorry, that doesn't logically follow. "By that fact alone" means "of the set of facts", not "of the set of facts available to us in this source material" (which wouldn't be correct even if it did mean that, because the line about the tone extends her argument beyond the simple fact of the anthology being all-male). Other facts exist which she hasn't given (possibly because she didn't think she was providing material for a public debate), and we're not in a position to infer what they are. Both she and Radziewicz know exactly what's in the anthology -- why would she list her detailed reasons for the judgement she makes, given that he would almost certainly be able to infer them from the contents?



You're not following my meaning. Once again, when I say "by that fact alone," I'm saying "by that [given] fact alone." She is writing her reasons. I am not psychic and can not know any other reasons. I'm saying her sole given fact was that it was an all-male anthology. In other words, by failing to provide any other argument, she regards the single item she advances as sufficient. The line about the "tone" could uncharitably be seen as her characterization of any all-male anthology but I will grant that the "not only...but" does indeed "extend" her argument but doesn't introduce a separate fact. She said, "not only...but" rather than "perhaps due to" which she might have said had that been the real crux. Obviously, her letter makes it clear that the gender makeup of the ToC is sufficient. (Further, I find it hard to believe that a general anthology of hard SF that, e.g., Dozois, didn't notice as being "like a locker room" would in fact have such a tone, but that's wandering off the trail.) Your next bit frankly makes no sense to me. If both she and Radziewicz know "exactly what's in the anthology" then why would she communicate any reason at all, least of all the most obvious gender makeup of the ToC rather than a non-obvious critique of the literary quality of the material? If he could "certainly infer" her reasons for refusal, why would he have even requested a blurb from her in the first place, knowing she'd refuse? (These are all rhetorical questions.)



galanx said:


> To: Tupac Shakur, August 1993
> Dear Mr.Shakur:
> Hi, we're putting out an new anthology of great heavy metal rock acts  of the late 80s/early1990s: Metallica, Alice in Chains, Megadeth, Slayer, and we're calling it "New Directions in Music" and we know you're a popular artist whose name would help us sell copes to the wider rock music audience, so we'd like your endorsement. Why, no, there won't be any of that crazy "rap" stuff- can you even call it music?- on it , and no black artists have been invited to participate. Why do you ask?



Interesting metaphor, given that Mr. Shakur was not asked to endorse a metal album but a rap album and refused on the grounds that there were no male rappers and it was instead performed by a bunch of hos.

Ms. Le Guin, the science fiction author, was asked to endorse a science fiction anthology.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 11, 2016)

J-Sun said:


> Ms. Le Guin, the science fiction author, was asked to endorse a science fiction anthology.



Is this the same Ms Le Guin who has spent at least 50 years championing representations of women and gender issues in SF?


----------



## J-Sun (Apr 11, 2016)

Brian Turner said:


> Is this the same Ms Le Guin who has spent at least 50 years championing representations of women and gender issues in SF?



Obviously so.

I am going to guess your point is that the publisher should have known that presenting Ms. Le Guin with a single book whose contents were all-male was, in itself, an attack on feminism? Or that he should have known she would subordinate aesthetic concerns to her gender issues and reject the book out of hand?

Seems to me, such a request to such a person is a pretty good indicator of good faith on the part of the publisher that he did not see this book as a locker room attack on women.


----------



## maeda (Apr 11, 2016)

So we discovered that Miss Le Guin is human after all? ..not a robot, and can actually over-react on topic of gender, what of it?

It's understandable given the history, i think you are giving this more significance than it deserves really


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 11, 2016)

maeda said:


> and can actually over-react


She has a history of "reacting", usually with some mitigation, it WAS terrible what they did to her Characters in the Earthsea production.

Probably that's why I like all her books. They are written with conviction and energy and strong feelings, emotion. I wish I could write a quarter as well.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 11, 2016)

J-Sun said:


> such a request to such a person is a pretty good indicator of good faith on the part of the publisher


Or that the publisher had forgotten who she is.


----------



## The Big Peat (Apr 12, 2016)

It seems likelier to me that that the publisher did not see an issue than he forgot who Le Guin is, but just because there is not a deliberate exclusion of women, does not mean there is not an issue. Plenty of people make mistakes in good faith.


----------



## dask (Apr 12, 2016)

I've become leery of Ms. Leguin every since I read about Thomas M. Disch's  experience with her in his *The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of*.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 12, 2016)

dask said:


> I've become leery of Ms. Leguin


I'll keep buying her books, but I'd worry about inviting her to my blog. Not that she'd likely accept. I really like her books.


----------



## galanx (Apr 13, 2016)

J-Sun said:


> Obviously so.
> 
> I am going to guess your point is that the publisher should have known that presenting Ms. Le Guin with a single book whose contents were all-male was, in itself, an attack on feminism? Or that he should have known she would subordinate aesthetic concerns to her gender issues and reject the book out of hand?
> 
> Seems to me, such a request to such a person is a pretty good indicator of good faith on the part of the publisher that he did not see this book as a locker room attack on women.



Or that he saw her as simply a big name to get a blurb from and had not paid any attention to the arguments Le Guin had been presenting for the preview 20 years. "Hey, I'm not sexist- ask me and I'll tell you. What your perceptions as a woman are don't count."


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Apr 13, 2016)

galanx said:


> arguments Le Guin had been presenting for the preview 20 years


I think only 3 years short of FIFTY years. At least.


----------



## zlogdan (Apr 13, 2016)

There is not even a single word on LeGuin's answer that implies, sexism or even mild misandry, her refusal was legitimate.
And regardless of genre:

How is it possible to conceive a science fiction anthology without any of her works ( even having in mind this is just the first volume )?


----------

