Is science fiction still a male-dominated genre?

[Vertigo]

Just to re-iterate (again) what I started this poll for. The woman's hour program asserted that the proportion of male to female readers of SF was around 60:40 and I had the impression (just impression mind) that the gap would be larger than that. Not having any other information to hand I thought I would ask the question.

My question turns out to have been badly worded. I should have just asked something like: Do you read SF regularly and if so are you male or female? And left out the fantasy bit altogether. Never mind

 

[nixie]

That we have better things to do, perhaps?

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[HareBrain]

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?

That we have better things to do, perhaps?

Exactly what I was thinking.

But you've both spent longer making those posts than it would have taken to vote!!

Just sayin, is all.

 

[chrispenycate]

When I was being officially educated (as against the real process, which is still going on) I went to a Science and technology university college, and maybe 2% of the student body was female. As far as I can remember, not one member of the teaching staff was.

Now, this was the sixties, so we were out of the "oh, don't worry your pretty little head about education; you'll get married and pregnant and all that time will have been wasted." mentality (just – some is still hanging around to this day) but there was still a "don't get your pretty little hands dirty in all that nasty grease" holdover. Most of the few females were in biological sciences, or mathematics; my university girlfriend was the sole representative of her gender in three years of civil engineers.

And the streaming had started seven or eight years earlier, specialisation from the eleven plus, "Oh, stick to letters, to humanities; they won't be hiring any women for that type of job.“

There's a lot of inertia in a system like that. Not deliberate sexism, but rôle models, ageing teachers who knew that women had taken on a lot of masculine tasks during the war, but now they were no longer needed, surely they could go back to their true destiny of house and children, and perhaps read an occasional book, maybe even write one – and teach primary school if they are incabable of finding an adequate mate to provide.

And I was already reading the colours of space, memoirs of a Spacewoman, the ship who sang…

What is the average age of an author? It's possible that among the younger generation this gentle discrimination is by now wearing out, and it's only the older writers who are biasing the statistics. I know that the incredible gender imbalance in scientific and engineering colleges is much reduced, if not eliminated by now (and it is no longer mandatory to be illiterate to study in one, either).

For Science Fiction requires at least a minor grounding in a science, and in scientific method. And from this our education system, backed by social and parental pressure, was trying to shelter its delicate beauteous flowers.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

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.

I don't think anyone is talking about a "conspiracy" to keep women out of SF either. Publishers and readers who turn away from books by female writers are acting on certain assumptions they hold in common. Nobody thinks they are meeting together in secret conclaves plotting the demise of SF written by women.

That's what makes it all so insidious, because it is subtle and the effect is gradual and cumulative.

Bringing those assumptions out into the light of day and refuting them is the thing that will bring about change. No one here has suggested that women should be given contracts simply to level the playing field. I really don't know why it should be necessary to repeatedly shoot down ideas which no one, in fact, has proposed.

Or ... maybe I do know. Convince oneself that someone is making unreasonable assumptions and unreasonable demands and it's easier to ignore what they are really saying. It's a good way of dodging ideas that make one uncomfortable, while still appearing to address the issues. Perhaps we are seeing some of that here.

As to why the women on this forum seem to be staying away from this thread, I suspect it's because the subject has been discussed so many times before and they are either bored with the arguments or offended and would rather spend their time on the Chrons involved in discussions more likely to entertain them. I would never have looked at this thread if the topic wasn't a potentially explosive one that moderators need to keep an eye on.


And on another note: There is a multi-quote button, and we would much prefer that people use it instead of responding to four or five different posts in four or five separate messages.

 

[iansales]

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.

You are trying to explain that women succeed at some jobs - and conversely that men succeed at others - for physiological or psychological reasons. You've made that quite clear. But, as soon as you start saying that, you start raising barriers. And that, by definition, is sexism. Your motives may be benign, but the studies you've mentioned work against the point. It has nothing to do with success, or its reasons - biological or otherwise - and everything to do with access. But when you start discussing biological reasons for success, then you're implying that biology dictates access, or at the very least influences it. And it shouldn't.

People read sf because they like it. They read a specific sf writer because they like their stories. Those stories are published because they are seen as good and/or commercially successful. But we can all name authors who fit those criteria whose level of success seems lower than our perception of their quality; and vice versa, those whose success seems in excess of our perception of their worth. The question is: how many of the former are female sf writers, and how many of the latter are male sf writers?

 

[The Judge]

But you've both spent longer making those posts than it would have taken to vote!!

Just sayin, is all.

Only if the vote had required no thinking time, no need for an inner debate, no consideration of books one has read and whether one's like/dislike for them was occasioned by their genre or the authors' writing abilities/characterisation/plot/story, and then a further debate as to whether one has read enough of either genre to make a proper decision...

Some of us taking voting seriously, y'know.



And for the record I have deleted a long screed about sexism in society because this is not the place for it. But I feel a bit better for having written it in the first place. Thank you.

 

[iansales]

Everyone here, should, I suggest, do what myself and several others are already doing this year and read one sf novel by a female sf writer per month. And publicise the fact. It will not only be good for you, but also good for the genre.

 

[soulsinging]

You are trying to explain that women succeed at some jobs - and conversely that men succeed at others - for physiological or psychological reasons.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that some women SEEK certain jobs in greater numbers than men, and vice versa, for physiological reasons. I've never talked about anyone's ability to succeed at a given job as being based on their gender.

 

[Connavar]

I voted SF male and its a given SF is dominated by male authors you just need to see the bookshelves. For SF fan like me it doesn't matter the gender of the author but it matters for publishers since there are so few SF female authors in comparison. I dont like the different rules,the fact male pen-name is needed to sell atleast earlier.

I have made to planned book hauls,try outs of female SF authors to balance out for my own sake and still 10% tops of SF books in my shelf is written by female authors. Its too easy to see the bookshelf in the stores and dont think you are not giving every author the same chance when you get old,new SF.

I wonder why there is so many more female fantasy authors that are famous than there is famous SF female authors. Is it publisher thing ? Readers of the genres ?

 

[J Riff]

Back in the day, no girls read SF mags or pulps, they were adventure stories for the guys like cowboy stories.

The 'old boys club' on the other hand..... did and does exist....
and, uh, no women allowed. Or blacks or yknow... foreigners.

That's how it was, and only women who toed the line were let 'in'.
This was across the board - acting, writing, singing, dancing, anything creative or worth any money or carrying any glory.
These guys are still out there, still have money and power, and the same prejudices.

This doesn't mean they won't exploit and beat hell out of white males too, though.
Historically, this is probably a good time to be a woman. It's hard to think of anything more useless than a single male in his fifties, sitting around a city. If it wasn't for you guys, I'd never have a decent conversation

 

[K. Riehl]

For me it has always been about the stories. I believe in Sturgeon's law, "90% of everything is excrement", so when I find the great story it doesn't matter to me in the slightest who the writer is. I just want more quality stories and lately the quality Science Fiction has been coming from strong women writers. Czerneda, Bujold, Huff, Moon, Devenport, Slonczewski, Nagata, Reeve, Sharon Lee, Egan, Lowachee, etc...
When I look at my bookshelves women account for half of my collection, slightly skewed towards fantasy, but certainly equally represented in the "books to reread section". So, in my opinion, in the top 10% that is worth reading women have have equal stature and equal representation.

White male, 40's ;^)

 

[clovis-man]

I just want more quality stories and lately the quality Science Fiction has been coming from strong women writers. Czerneda, Bujold, Huff, Moon, Devenport, Slonczewski, Nagata, Reeve, Sharon Lee, Egan, Lowachee, etc...

There must be many worthwhile female SF authors out there. I have only read one of the ones you listed (Czerneda) and I'm not one of her fans. But I forge on with a lot of Kage Baker, Nancy Kress, Joan Vinge, Ursula LeGuin, Carolyn Janice Cherry, not to mention plenty of stories in the treasure chests of Andre Norton and Leigh Brackett.

So, even allowing for divergent tastes in female authors, there is plenty enough talent to go around. And lots more where that came from, I believe.

 

[Pyan]

Everyone here, should, I suggest, do what myself and several others are already doing this year and read one sf novel by a female sf writer per month. And publicise the fact. It will not only be good for you, but also good for the genre.

What, you mean like have a female-author quota? Surely that's almost as condescending as avoiding female authors in the first place? And how exactly will it be good for me, apart from making me feel smug that I'm not following preconceptions?

 

[iansales]

What, you mean like have a female-author quota? Surely that's almost as condescending as avoiding female authors in the first place? And how exactly will it be good for me, apart from making me feel smug that I'm not following preconceptions?

You could feel equally smug at not having a so-called quota, and not discover any new authors you may not have read normally, and so continue to contribute to the current imbalance. There's nothing condescending in deliberately seeking out female authors to read, no more so than there would be in trying space opera, or cyberpunk, or Eastern-inspired epic fantasies... Thinking it's condescending is part of the problem. Making an effort is part of the solution.

 

[The Judge]

... And how exactly will it be good for me...?

Ahem. I am female. I am writing SF. I am trying to get an agent. Said agent reports that fantasy, not SF, is the big seller at the moment.

So.

Read SF. By women. Now. Because I want a publishing contract. And if I don't get one I will be very, very cranky. With everyone.

That's how it's good for you.

 

[Connavar]

You could feel equally smug at not having a so-called quota, and not discover any new authors you may not have read normally, and so continue to contribute to the current imbalance. There's nothing condescending in deliberately seeking out female authors to read, no more so than there would be in trying space opera, or cyberpunk, or Eastern-inspired epic fantasies... Thinking it's condescending is part of the problem. Making an effort is part of the solution.

I agree with you Ian, i have bought several known female sf authors just like i would stay try certain type subgenres.

Teresa had a point with the fact we make assumptions about female sf authors and read just what we see on the shelves without thinking. There is no qouta deal for me i just want a broader scope.

For example i have been reading Joanna Russ's Female Man and im really glad i did. A true feminist SF story that say important things about important human issue like the gender issue.

I could never read a political, a book charged with that POV of Russ from one of my fav make SF authors. PKD would not write the same novel.

 

[iansales]

I reread The Female Man only last week. I was surprised at how well it has aged. It's still a very angry book, and its anger hasn't dimmed; but neither did it read like some piece of dated polemic from another age. Which is what many of Heinlein's novels now read like.

It's good to read outside your comfort zone. It introduces you to new authors, new types of fiction; and it teaches you a better appreciation of the things you do like.

 

[Connavar]

I reread The Female Man only last week. I was surprised at how well it has aged. It's still a very angry book, and its anger hasn't dimmed; but neither did it read like some piece of dated polemic from another age. Which is what many of Heinlein's novels now read like.

It's good to read outside your comfort zone. It introduces you to new authors, new types of fiction; and it teaches you a better appreciation of the things you do like.

Me i have to read outside my comfort zone even if i dont want to, i have been taking lit classes and you must read lit from anytime of history and different parts of the world. Not snobby classics either but Dracula,Tanith lee books,female POV fiction is also important because literary history can be too one sided otherwise.

Thats why i was fascinated by Female Man when i read it. It was quality sf but it also dealt with reality of our world,its issues really well. It has aged really well i didtn know when it was written, the writing didnt make me go oh its dated to 70s. Funny enough i read a very similar angry feministic novel by a swedish author who is big in sweden in semiautobiographical genre. Both books was written in mid 70s, important times for those issues.

If my teacher was SF reader she would adored Female Man.

 

[Beamer]

First off as some have mentioned the poll is flawed as I love both fantasy and science fiction and tend to go through periods where I will read one more then the other but still read and collect both. Lately I am reading a lot of the urban fantasy books which I find a fun change.

As far as if there are more male then female science fiction authors I have no clue. Its never been a criteria of mine to care what gender the author was who wrote the book, its more the content and writing style that attract me. I can think of a ton of female science fiction authors I have read over the years and the only difference I might be willing to agree with is that of the sub genre sometimes called hard science fiction the males might have a edge. I think this is also why as someone mentioned earlier some female authored books have aged better then stuff written by males in the same era. Because authors like Asimov tended to put a lot of science in his books and then have new discoveries invalidate key parts of the story. Most noted in the Lucky Star juvenile set of stories.