Is science fiction still a male-dominated genre?

[J-WO]

Here's Radio 4's Woman's Hour talking SF with Karen Traviss, Gwyneth Jones and Farah Mehndleson. The whole shows split into chapters with the SF chat in chapter four-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011c220#-

Fascinating stuff.

 

[Vertigo]

You'll find that link in the first post, JWO. that broadcast is what inspired the thread. I just didn't figure out the poll very well and should have kept it to just SF I think. Oh well...

 

[J-WO]

You'll find that link in the first post, JWO. that broadcast is what inspired the thread.

That'll be my Goldfish ancestry, then. And to be frank, we Goldfish are completely unrepresented in both Science Fiction and ... er... um...

Has anyone heard that Radio 4 Woman's Hour about SF being male dominated?

 

[Vertigo]

Hehe

 

[Lucky_Lola]

Very interesting discussion (although a little hot under the collar!).

I believe the gender gap in speculative fiction is, like any stereotypical disparity, a multi-faceted issue. JRiff (I think! Forgive me if I'm attributing this erroneously) had a good point about age - it would be interesting to know the average age of contracted and published spec fiction writers. The Judge made a very valid point that fantasy is "in" at the moment. The success of Harry Potter, Twilight, the LOTR movies and a dozen other examples has raised the mainstream profile of fantasy and vampire 'horror', and sadly SF seems to be suffering. Put these two things together and it is my belief that you come to the heart of the problem. To most readers within the genre's loyal fanbases the gender of the author matters diddly-squat. But cross over into mainstream culture and the genres we love become victims of their own set of stereotypical interpretations. All young scientists somehow resemble the cast of The Big Bang Theory. All gamers are men (and women gamers only ever play Farmville and Second Life). Only (young) men read comics... et cetera, et cetera.

Yes, spec fic is slowly becoming more "cool" and more accessible to the average person, but frequently in my own life I have encountered people who cling to negative stereotypes in order to define themselves and their identity. Just last weekend a friend of mine asked my advice on convincing her artist boyfriend to take a SFX makeup course. Apparently he wouldn't sign up because his mates would give him grief for being a 'girlie' makeup artist - zombies and fake blood notwithstanding!

What I'm getting at with all this is that we can - and absolutely should - do our utmost to support good writing regardless of the gender and genre of the author, but any disparity in authorship or readership has its roots in society as a whole. Perhaps, rather than making a conscious effort to read outside our own comfort zones, we should be encouraging others to read outside theirs. Surely more fans equals more contracts (I hope!)

 

[GOLLUM]

I selected Fantasy and male....which possibly qualifies me as one of the Chippendales....

 

[Parson]

I selected Fantasy and male....which possibly qualifies me as one of the Chippendales....

I think you'll need to provide a photo for anyone to believe this.

 

[Ian Whates]

There's an article and some interesting debate on this subject here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2011/may/31/women-science-fiction-writers

 

[terryweide]

I've been to a few sci-fi conventions in recent years, and there does seem to be more female authors of both sci-fi and fantasy than might have been the case in the 1960s or '70s. There are certainly more female participants on almost every panel discussion than there may have been a generation ago. I think that demographic is changing, then.

However, in regards to hard or technical sci-fi, it will always be easier for both men and women to write fantasy until we get more writers who are trained in chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, etc., and who can incorporate these sciences in their stories or write about them in an engaging manner. People like Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov, probably grew up with a slide rule in their back pocket. To use myself as an example, I'm pretty good at writing fantasy, but to write technical sci-fi, I'd have to know a lot more about math and science than I do.

 

[iansales]

However, in regards to hard or technical sci-fi, it will always be easier for both men and women to write fantasy until we get more writers who are trained in chemistry, physics, biology, engineering, etc., and who can incorporate these sciences in their stories or write about them in an engaging manner. People like Heinlein, Clarke, and Asimov, probably grew up with a slide rule in their back pocket. To use myself as an example, I'm pretty good at writing fantasy, but to write technical sci-fi, I'd have to know a lot more about math and science than I do.

Er, that's what research is for. I have no science qualifications and I've written hard sf. I'm even editing a hard sf anthology, Rocket Science.

I don't believe Heinlein had any science qualifications either, though I might be wrong.

 

[terryweide]

Heinlein was a graduate of Annapolis and served as a radio communications officer in the 1930s. After his discharge he took a few graduate level courses in math and physics at the University of California, Los Angeles. During WWII, he did aeronautical engineering for the U.S. Navy. So I would call Heinlein an engineer by training. I'm assuming he gaduated from Annapolis with a bachelor's degree in engineering. I'd have to check on that.

In regards to myself, I agree that there's no subsitute for research in making stories authentic. For some of it, though, I'd actually have to sit in classrooms and do formal studies instead of trying to pick it all up through books, the Internet, or interviews with experts. There's only so much I can learn from other sources. Some things I would have to learn or experience first hand in order to write about them convincingly.

 

[Connavar]

Heinlein was a graduate of Annapolis and served as a radio communications officer in the 1930s. After his discharge he took a few graduate level courses in math and physics at the University of California, Los Angeles. During WWII, he did aeronautical engineering for the U.S. Navy. So I would call Heinlein an engineer by training. I'm assuming he gaduated from Annapolis with a bachelor's degree in engineering. I'd have to check on that.

In regards to myself, I agree that there's no subsitute for research in making stories authentic. For some of it, though, I'd actually have to sit in classrooms and do formal studies instead of trying to pick it all up through books, the Internet, or interviews with experts. There's only so much I can learn from other sources. Some things I would have to learn or experience first hand in order to write about them convincingly.

Still Science degree means nothing in how well you write, SF is still fiction. RAH wrote fiction with science that had nothing to do with his training. He did research and he said he did his own work on science he used maybe in a page or two.

In modern SF its almost a minus to be scientist who turned into a SF writer. Those guys prose you can see they didnt start out writing fiction. Its like reading school text books sometimes. Terrible prose writers in SF that are scientist i wonder why.....

 

[soulsinging]

Heinlein was a graduate of Annapolis and served as a radio communications officer in the 1930s. After his discharge he took a few graduate level courses in math and physics at the University of California, Los Angeles. During WWII, he did aeronautical engineering for the U.S. Navy. So I would call Heinlein an engineer by training. I'm assuming he gaduated from Annapolis with a bachelor's degree in engineering. I'd have to check on that.

In regards to myself, I agree that there's no subsitute for research in making stories authentic. For some of it, though, I'd actually have to sit in classrooms and do formal studies instead of trying to pick it all up through books, the Internet, or interviews with experts. There's only so much I can learn from other sources. Some things I would have to learn or experience first hand in order to write about them convincingly.

I also think there's only so much one can learn by self-teaching. The downside of the internet is acquiring information without necessarily understanding it. I think a huge part of learning is not just soaking up information like a sponge, but bouncing it back and forth with other people to see it from all sides. I would think this would be particularly helpful for creative endeavors... be it writing or research. It helps to brainstorm and speculate on where the field might go or what is possible.

Not to say you need a physics degree to write sci-fi (there's no reason you need a degree at all to have these kinds of interactions), but I think a tech background would be very helpful in writing a convincing and supportable sci-fi universe.

I also think I'm getting pretty far off topic.

 

[Montero]

Only skipped through this thread so not sure this hasn't been said already.

However here goes - the poll results could be taken to show that:

1. There are more males than females on sff (which would be a stretch of the data)

2. There are more males than females reading this thread (which would be a small stretch of the data)

3. More males than females answered the poll.

 

[Vertigo]

Yeah my fault I'm afraid, as I mentioned somewhere back there I should have thought more carfully before setting it up. Never mind

 

[Dave]

Only skipped through this thread so not sure this hasn't been said already.

However here goes - the poll results could be taken to show that:

1. There are more males than females on sff (which would be a stretch of the data)

2. There are more males than females reading this thread (which would be a small stretch of the data)

3. More males than females answered the poll.

1. Not sure that is true at all. Might even be the reverse is true.
2. Not sure on that. Females just find this discussion passé.
3. Certainly. For the reason given in 2.

 

[mosaix]

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.

Ahem, TJ. Are you asking us to choose reading material based on the gender of the author rather than the quality of the writing?

 

[Simon tall]

I think the answer is yes.

 

[Montero]

1. Not sure that is true at all. Might even be the reverse is true.
2. Not sure on that. Females just find this discussion passé.
3. Certainly. For the reason given in 2.

Ah, not saying I believe that myself, just commenting on poll results. Data analysis, polls, interpretation and correlation of supposedly related information is part of what I've done professionally.
Just found it impossible to resist commenting on what other conclusions one could draw from the data in the poll, other than what it was intended to show.

 

[digs]

I would venture to guess that in the Romance genre that it would be considerably disadvantageous to be a male author.

Only if you use your real name! I've read articles about male romance authors who are quite popular, but they all use female pseudonyms. They seem pretty rare, though.

I voted for 'male fantasy', not being much of a sci-fi reader, but the impression that I get (from working in a bookstore and just general browsing) is that the majority of both authors and readership of sci-fi is male. Having said that, the one sci-fi book by a female author that I've read (out of, say, the five sci-fi books that I've read in total) was excellent - The Left Hand of Darkness by Le Guin.

Oh yeah, just remembered I've also read some CJ Cherryh, but that didn't count because I was studying it at school and so naturally resented it at the time.


EDIT: Woops, I keep somehow getting confused between the first and last page of threads and resurrecting quotes from yonks ago, e.g. the above one from Parson.