Ursula K. LeGuin, Logic, Gender

[J-Sun]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

See if this helps:

 

[thaddeus6th]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.
.

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

 

[farntfar]

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.