Is science fiction still a male-dominated genre?

[Vertigo]

Just a thought but perhaps it's because female SF authors were more concenred with human issues and characters and men are more concerned with technological issues and social backdrops. The former being more timeless concerns, the latter being far more likely to date. A gross over-simplification perhaps but there might be a slivver of truth to it...

I had a similar thought Egg. I figure that generally men are more interested in technology hence a bias towards SF and women are more interested in spiritual stuff giving a bias towards fantasy. Gross generalisation of course, I'm just talking about general trends. The next question though is, is that due to nature or nuture? My tendency has always been that it is largely nurture, society tends to give meccano sets to boys and dolls to girls.

That said there have been some interesting experiments I saw in a documentary on the box a while back. In one they dressed young (around 2 or 3 years old I think) boys as girls and young girls as boys and then had an adult (who didn't know them) try to entertain them (one at a time). Most adults tried to give toy cars and diggers etc to the apparent boys and dolls to the apparent girls. Clearly society's conditioning there. But the interesting thing is that the kids weren't interested; the girls didn't want the cars they wanted the dolls and the boys wanted the cars. Not massively conclusive (maybe society had already conditioned the kids) but interesting.

The more interesting experiment was a with a group of monkeys presented with a collection of kids' toys. The female monkeys (even the very young pre-pubescent ones) all chose dolls and the male monkeys all chose mechanical toys, things that had moving parts and stuff. Again not conclusive but interesting and it really was that absolute the females only took dolls and no male took a single doll. I no longer remember the exact conclusions the scientists came to but I think it was along the lines of male and female brains being wired somewaht differently.

So now I'm not sure

 

[soulsinging]

Complete rubbish. Do you actually bother to look at who's writing sf short fiction, who's winning the sf awards for short fiction? Mostly women. But they find it difficult to get their novels published. There is only one British female sf writer with a contract in the UK: Jaine Fenn. Yet the UK boasts many excellent female sf writers - such as Liz Williams, Karen Traviss, Gwyneth Jones...

There is no innate difference between men and women which dictates what they prefer to read or to write. Trotting out that old canard is just sexism in action: "it's okay that we don't pay them as much as us, it's because they're different, they're put together that way."

Equality does not mean exactly the same. A large chunk of gender differences are surely due to social factors and preconceived notions (eg. nursing is women's work, as you point out), but that does not mean men and women are the same. There have been plenty of studies showing men and reaction have very real and different psychological and physiological responses to different stimuli. Brain scans and the like have demonstrated the increased connections between hemispheres among women as opposed to men. Does it mean women or men should be barred from fields on this basis? Of course not, general trends have nothing to do with individual abilities. Does it mean there is some insidious plot to keep women down? No, it doesn't.

Women writers may be winning awards, but publishers care about sales and sales alone. In fact, you somewhat prove my point... women authors struggle to get signed but are making strides by breaking in despite the skepticism that there is a market for their work and winning tons of awards. They are proving there is a market and publishers will respond.

This isn't white dudes keeping women down. This is music companies clinging to a dying business model because they're too chicken to embrace any change lest it backfire.

 

[iansales]

Women sf writers aren't "breaking in" - they've always been there. There are plenty of female sf writers in the UK with over half a dozen books to their credit who are currently out of contract. The situation is better in the US - so much so that some female UK authors are only published there.

There seems to be a perception that sf novels by women don't appeal to male readers - yet we all know that's untrue. And most of the sf editors in the UK are women... So why is the current situation as it is?

 

[soulsinging]

That's just plain sexism. There's nothing inherently female about those jobs, there's nothing in them that requires something unique to female physiology. Because men do them as well - although often, they're paid better and they have more important-sounding job titles.

Equality means equal opportunity for both genders. It doesn't mean some jobs are better-suited to women and some are better-suited to men. It means every job is suitable for either gender. And things will never change if people keep on trotting out all the old excuses.

I'd love to know where in the world I said that women shouldn't be able to do certain jobs because they're better for men or vice versa. You won't find it, because I've never even implied it. Nor did I imply certain jobs are suited for one gender or another. The only thing I have said is that biological and psychological differences (not just women emote, but men's and women's brains respond very differently in certain similar situations) may be a partial cause of the fact that some jobs are dominated by one gender or another, because they appeal to traits inherent in that gender... physiological responses ingrained in our genetics from thousands of years of evolution.

 

[soulsinging]

I'm bored by rom-coms and my favourite movie is Aliens. Where do I go for my re-wiring?

When did it become outright evil to observe and acknowledge sociological trends? Do you truly believe that as many men seek out romantic-comedy as women? I'm guessing not. Yet when a factual statement like that is made, everyone crawls out of the woodwork in a hurry to point out how different they are. The fact that you don't care for them doesn't mean there's something wrong with you, nor does it mean that the general trend isn't true.

American blacks have higher incidence of lactose intolerance. Am I racist for acknowledging that or thinking maybe that's a community that may benefit from heightened awareness? I mean, there are surely blacks without it and whites that have it... so heaven forbid we spend our money where it can do the most good.

 

[soulsinging]

Women sf writers aren't "breaking in" - they've always been there. There are plenty of female sf writers in the UK with over half a dozen books to their credit who are currently out of contract. The situation is better in the US - so much so that some female UK authors are only published there.

There seems to be a perception that sf novels by women don't appeal to male readers - yet we all know that's untrue. And most of the sf editors in the UK are women... So why is the current situation as it is?

Male sci-fi writers were always there as well, but they didn't get published either until there was a market for the stuff (usually in tabloid type rags... those old serials where adventure, mystery, and sci-fi stuff accumulated). Same for women. Women readers are increasing among the sci-fi readership, and whichever was the cause, it's becoming reflected in readership, awards, and opportunities. And it's because women COULD write great sci-fi and there IS a market for it. Not because they were lucky enough to have white knights giving them contracts.

As to poor contracts, I don't think that's limited to women or sci-fi. The publishing industry is having tough times and I'm quite sure plenty of male sci-fi writers, or male/female writers of gen fic are also losing contracts and not being signed, simply by virtue of the poor market for books right now.

 

[soulsinging]

It's interesting that sf novels and stories by female sf writers of past decades have aged much better than male sf writers of the same period - cf Isaac Asimov and Leigh Brackett. CL Moore. Le Guin's novels from the 1960s and 1970s read less dated than those by of many men from the same period.

That's entirely subjective though. LeGuin bores me to tears, but the Foundation trilogy was excellent.

 

[Chaoticheart]

I'd love to know where in the world I said that women shouldn't be able to do certain jobs because they're better for men or vice versa. You won't find it, because I've never even implied it. Nor did I imply certain jobs are suited for one gender or another. The only thing I have said is that biological and psychological differences (not just women emote, but men's and women's brains respond very differently in certain similar situations) may be a partial cause of the fact that some jobs are dominated by one gender or another, because they appeal to traits inherent in that gender... physiological responses ingrained in our genetics from thousands of years of evolution.

Just a slight triviality here, but you quoted the wrong post. The one you quoted was the one directed at me (which was the result of a misinterpretation and has been resolved).

I believe http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/1500354-post19.html is the one you meant to reply to.

 

[soulsinging]

Just a slight triviality here, but you quoted the wrong post. The one you quoted was the one directed at me (which was the result of a misinterpretation and has been resolved).

I believe http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/1500354-post19.html is the one you meant to reply to.

True, but it addresses basically the same point. It's too simplistic to act like any analysis of differences between men and women is inherently sexist. Differences exist and that's medical fact. Once you start throwing ist/ism (sexist, racist) words out there, you lose any power of persuasion. To most people, that accusation implies intent. I don't think you're sexist if you acknowledge that men and women have differences and that the problem is the way we add value to certain traits and demean others or when you close doors on capable individuals because of that. You are sexist if you actively and intend to keep women or men out of certain areas because of a simplistic/ignorant grasp of just how meaningful (rather, usually meaningless for most jobs) those differences are.

However, when someone points out a valid fact (like increased left-right neural connections in women's brains that tend to make them better multitaskers) and the response is a lynch mob of "sexist!" then you have lost the ability to make your point. Because said person is going to rightly say "I'm not sexist and if this person labels me so without knowing me and only because I'm discussing things demonstrated by science and medicine, then they clearly don't know what they're talking about." It makes people defensive and with good reason because you are basically insulting their intelligence and character without basis. If I said women have no business publishing sci-fi because they're too wussy and sci-fi is about men conquering the galaxy... THAT would be sexist. But to remark that it's quite possible a lot of the imbalance derives from narrow views on which sci-fi is marketable or a lack of interest among women in writing the kind of sci-fi that currently dominates the market... that is not sexist. It's an honest assessment of possible factors in the problem that must be accounted for when crafting a solution.

Clearly, there is an interesting demographic split in the genre that seems to be changing. My issue is that it is impossible to address any problems (like women not getting equal chances to publish) until we have a full grasp of the causes and implications of the problem, which is obviously far more complex than old white guys don't want to publish women because they're sexist.

 

[Chaoticheart]

True, but it addresses basically the same point. It's too simplistic to act like any analysis of differences between men and women is inherently sexist. Differences exist and that's medical fact. Once you start throwing ist/ism (sexist, racist) words out there, you lose any power of persuasion. To most people, that accusation implies intent. I don't think you're sexist if you acknowledge that men and women have differences and that the problem is the way we add value to certain traits and demean others or when you close doors on capable individuals because of that. You are sexist if you actively and intend to keep women or men out of certain areas because of a simplistic/ignorant grasp of just how meaningful (rather, usually meaningless for most jobs) those differences are.

However, when someone points out a valid fact (like increased left-right neural connections in women's brains that tend to make them better multitaskers) and the response is a lynch mob of "sexist!" then you have lost the ability to make your point. Because said person is going to rightly say "I'm not sexist and if this person labels me so without knowing me and only because I'm discussing things demonstrated by science and medicine, then they clearly don't know what they're talking about." It makes people defensive and with good reason because you are basically insulting their intelligence and character without basis. If I said women have no business publishing sci-fi because they're too wussy and sci-fi is about men conquering the galaxy... THAT would be sexist. But to remark that it's quite possible a lot of the imbalance derives from narrow views on which sci-fi is marketable or a lack of interest among women in writing the kind of sci-fi that currently dominates the market... that is not sexist. It's an honest assessment of possible factors in the problem that must be accounted for when crafting a solution.

Clearly, there is an interesting demographic split in the genre that seems to be changing. My issue is that it is impossible to address any problems (like women not getting equal chances to publish) until we have a full grasp of the causes and implications of the problem, which is obviously far more complex than old white guys don't want to publish women because they're sexist.

I agree with you 100% in regards to this post.

edit: I was originally going to add a theory regarding the influence of gender roles upon what people read or not (e.g. women-scifi men-romance), but I'm exhausted right now so maybe tomorrow (If i can remember it).

 

[alchemist]

Did anyone notice that so far 22 men and 3 women have voted in the poll? This must be very out-of-kilter with the general demographic here. I know it's hardly scientific, but does it mean women are put off by the "science fiction" of the thread title?

 

[iansales]

I'd love to know where in the world I said that women shouldn't be able to do certain jobs because they're better for men or vice versa. You won't find it, because I've never even implied it. Nor did I imply certain jobs are suited for one gender or another. The only thing I have said is that biological and psychological differences (not just women emote, but men's and women's brains respond very differently in certain similar situations) may be a partial cause of the fact that some jobs are dominated by one gender or another, because they appeal to traits inherent in that gender... physiological responses ingrained in our genetics from thousands of years of evolution.

Your whole argument is an attempt to use physiological determinism to explain why some jobs are not as open to women. "Their brains are wired differently, that's why they dominate those jobs" is just the same as saying "it's women's work". There are no physiological or psychological barriers to those jobs, and there should be none imposed.

 

[iansales]

Male sci-fi writers were always there as well, but they didn't get published either until there was a market for the stuff (usually in tabloid type rags... those old serials where adventure, mystery, and sci-fi stuff accumulated). Same for women. Women readers are increasing among the sci-fi readership, and whichever was the cause, it's becoming reflected in readership, awards, and opportunities. And it's because women COULD write great sci-fi and there IS a market for it. Not because they were lucky enough to have white knights giving them contracts.

As to poor contracts, I don't think that's limited to women or sci-fi. The publishing industry is having tough times and I'm quite sure plenty of male sci-fi writers, or male/female writers of gen fic are also losing contracts and not being signed, simply by virtue of the poor market for books right now.

None of what you say is true. Science fiction was male-dominated in the 1920s and is male-dominated in the 21st century. There's no good reason why it should be. There are plenty of excellent women sf writers who do not have book contracts. There are many bad male sf writers who do have contracts. There are bad books by male sf writers written 60 years ago which are still in print. There are excellent books by female sf writers written 60 years ago which are not in print.

There have always been women sf readers. But the genre started off as a boys' club and very much still is for many people. CJ Cherryh, for example, chose to use her initials because if her books were known to be written by a woman they would not have sold as well, if at all. The same is true for many other female sf writers. Things like this don't happen by magic or coincidence. Somebody somewhere makes a decision - whether it is the editor, the marketroid, or the reader.

 

[Vertigo]

Did anyone notice that so far 22 men and 3 women have voted in the poll? This must be very out-of-kilter with the general demographic here. I know it's hardly scientific, but does it mean women are put off by the "science fiction" of the thread title?

I was wondering exactly the same!!!!! So what does that say?

 

[The Judge]

That we have better things to do, perhaps?

 

[soulsinging]

Your whole argument is an attempt to use physiological determinism to explain why some jobs are not as open to women. "Their brains are wired differently, that's why they dominate those jobs" is just the same as saying "it's women's work". There are no physiological or psychological barriers to those jobs, and there should be none imposed.

If you can't see the distinction between what I'm actually saying and what you're imagining it to mean, there's nothing I can do for you. Carry on with your ridiculous assertion that I'm sexist. I eagerly await your solution to the problem, since you seem to be the only one capable of diagnosing it.

 

[The Judge]

OK, guys. Let's all cool down.


This is a discussion about SF. Let's keep it to that.

 

[Vertigo]

That we have better things to do, perhaps?

Hehe - my excuse is that I'm doing lots of big system compilations at the moment and am diving on here whilst they're running

OK, guys. Let's all cool down.


This is a discussion about SF. Let's keep it to that.

And thank you TJ! I guess it is my fault for starting a topic liable to get into sexism arguments, although that's absolutely not what I intended

 

[soulsinging]

I agree with you 100% in regards to this post.

edit: I was originally going to add a theory regarding the influence of gender roles upon what people read or not (e.g. women-scifi men-romance), but I'm exhausted right now so maybe tomorrow (If i can remember it).

I think it'd be interesting to read. I've no doubt that plays a big role, as we can already see numerous changes. For instance, women once interested in medicine were pushed into nursing. But now there are as many female med students as males most places. I've seen the same thing firsthand in law, where there are actually more women going into it than men now. All I'm saying is I find it hard to believe that somehow lawyers and doctors were noble enough to open the boys club and engineering deans were not and part of the explanation could be as simple as lack of interest. Why aren't people as outraged about the lack of male teachers, especially given so many problems in the US are a result of a shortage of strong male figures in too many kids' lives? Because teachers make less than engineers. The problem isn't that women are being kept out of the "best" fields, the problem is that we define "best" in a very male-centric fashion. I personally think it's sickening that engineers make more than teachers.

In any event, that's why I think this trend is not nearly as insidious as some people make it out to be. Nobody is talking about some sort of conspiracy to keep men out of the romance genre or questions the fact that almost no men are interested in it. In fact, I suspect many here that are outraged about the paucity of successful female sci-fi writers would unconsciously jump to a few conclusions about a guy they saw reading a harlequin romance, though I doubt anyone here would ever admit to it.

 

[soulsinging]

OK, guys. Let's all cool down.

This is a discussion about SF. Let's keep it to that.

Point taken. I'll bow out now. I think I've said everything I wanted 3-4 times now anyway, hehe.