Perceptions of equity in sff

[Jo Zebedee]

Indeed great shocking stuff, but oh so frustrating. ---- I know a little about this on the age discrimination side. A pastor in my denomination had best be set to stay where he is located when he turns 50 because unless you are a "star" no one is really interested. On the female side even finding one church of any respectable size to look at a female lead pastor is very rare.

And, again, ageism is so easy to hide behind excuses like we don't get many applicants (because the applicants know what their chances are, and don't apply*), not suited to our current demography etc etc. And then, as you say, people get around it by getting established early and stop looking to move on and be promoted by merit (this despite the Christian church's arguably most visible roles almost always being held by people well up in experience - and men of course)

*at a recent meeting I asked if someone had to declare she was ASD on job applications. I was told no, but that she can't be discriminated against, so she should and seek the support needed.

I've been on many interview panels over the years. It's very easy to dock a point here and there and it never be looked into, let alone proven. I don't believe it wouldn't harm her chances - despite her being very, very suited to the careers she is interested in, being very caring and empathetic and patient - and will be advising her not to say anything on applications.)

 

[Parson]

And then, as you say, people get around it by getting established early and stop looking to move on and be promoted by merit (this despite the Christian church's arguably most visible roles almost always being held by people well up in experience - and men of course)

But the "most visible" roles in Protestantism are in the denominational hierarchy and not local church leaders. The denominational hierarchy in my branch and some others I'm aware of actually do a pretty good job of balancing between sexes, races, and ages among those hired in the past 10 years or so. We actually have quotas on denominational task forces and the like. But the local church is a completely different animal. Ordinary Joe and Mary in the pew see the lead pastor as male with a young family, and the bigger and more significant the church the more this is true.

*at a recent meeting I asked if someone had to declare she was ASD on job applications. I was told no, but that she can't be discriminated against, so she should and seek the support needed.

I had to look up what ASD was. (autism spectrum disorder?) I would completely agree with you telling her not to put that on her resume. It might not actually "count" but it will "count." I've heard people say about similar kinds of situations: "But why take a chance?" On the age side: "But he has more of an upside. If you take __________ you know what you're getting, but if you take (younger candidate) there's a chance you might get a real winner."

 

[Brian G Turner]

My own for a start

It's long been a concern of mine that you might lose sales for not trying to hide behind a gender-neutral or even male pseudonym. But I totally respect your choice to do so - women won't be normative in SFF unless more women challenge that tradition and write under their real names.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

It's long been a concern of mine that you might lose sales for not trying to hide behind a gender-neutral or even male pseudonym. But I totally respect your choice to do so - women won't be normative in SFF unless more women challenge that tradition and write under their real names.

I have no doubt it hasn't helped. On the other hand when someone calls you out as their fav female sf author (thank you @Cathbad ) as has happened a couple of times this year, one has to take hope that I'm making a difference. This was never about money - I have a job - but love of the genre. I hope, by openly being a woman in it, I make it richer - and encourage more women to enter it and enrich it further

 

[Dan Jones]

@DG Jones Have you read Francis/Julia Knight? Her Rojan Dizon series is great, and has that sharp witted Urban Fantasy feel to it, though more in a fantasy setting (very original setting, and I loved it) The MC is male though. The next series features a brother and sister duo, and is great too, but a little more 3 musketeers meets steampunk/magic stuff. All great stuff IMO.

The first thing I will have read of Julia Knight's will be whatever is offered in Journeys. I do have grand designs on writing a series of (unrelated) urban fantasy novellas, so I might take a look at this; thanks for the heads up.

 

[ratsy]

@DG Jones it's a great story in Journeys. It grabbed me from the first paragraph, and instantly brought me into the setting.

 

[hopewrites]

Late as usual.
I open my prejudices to you:
On the cover- are there dragon's?
Past the cover:
Does the voice harmonize with the others in my head?

---
Yes I'm aware that social circles as well as social media will say one author is better than another for unrelated reasons.
I refused to read a series written by someone because the only recommendation it got was "well she's Mormon, so you have to read it."

If you can't tell me why the story is worth reading, I'm not listening to your review.

If your reasons for finding the story not worth reading have nothing to do with what's written, I'm not listening to your review.

 

[Danny McG]

I genuinely spotted this thread title and clicked on it thinking it was about the performing arts and entertainment union! Thought maybe published authors were obliged to join... nothing relevant to contribute to your discussion , sorry

 

[RX-79G]

I read the whole thread, then decided to Wikipedia some things. The following are quoted from their respective Wiki pages:

Octavia Butler:
Butler's stories, therefore, are usually written from the perspective of a marginalized black woman whose difference from the dominant agents increases her potential for reconfiguring the future of her society.

Connie Willis:
Willis is known for writing "romantic 'screwball' comedy in the manner of 1940s Hollywood movies. [She] is acclaimed as a science-fiction writer, with much of her writing exploring the social sciences.

Anne McCaffrey:
The Science Fiction Hall of Fame citation of Anne McCaffrey summarises her genre as "science fiction, though tinged with the tone and instruments of fantasy", and her reputation as "a writer of romantic, heightened tales of adventure explicitly designed to appeal—and to make good sense to—a predominantly female adolescent audience."

C.J. Cherryh:
Her protagonists often attempt to uphold existing social institutions and norms in the service of the greater good while the antagonists often attempt to exploit, subvert or radically alter the predominant social order for selfish gain.

Andre Norton:
Norton started out writing juvenile historical fiction and adventure, and then moved into fantasy and finally science fiction. Again and again in her works, alienated outsiders undertake a journey through which they realize their full potential; this emphasis on the rite of passage continued her association in many readers' minds with young adult fiction, although she became a best seller to adults.

Doris Lessing:
"I would so like it if reviewers and readers could see this series, Canopus in Argos: Archive, as a framework that enables me to tell (I hope) a beguiling tale or two; to put questions, both to myself and to others; to explore ideas and sociological possibilities."

Ursala LeGuin:
Le Guin exploits the creative flexibility of the science fiction and fantasy genres to undertake thorough explorations of dimensions of both social and psychological identity and of broader cultural and social structures.


I submit this theory for consideration, without ever having given it much thought before: The biggest female names in sci fi tend to write about sociological and gender issues. What if the general readership of SF aren't particularly interested in the use of SF to explore sociology, and because the big name female SF writers have staked that territory out, the SF readership has made a not unreasonable decision to avoid sociology SF by avoiding female authors?

Full disclosure: I'm male, and prefer a typically a harder brand of sci fi than most of these authors write, but I do very much like Connie Willis and quite liked Cyteen when I was 17. However, my favorite Willis book is Bellweather, which is arguably not quite SF, and features a sociologist. I do not have the breadth of reading experience to make any sort of broad statement about female SF writers in general, so those of you who do could comment on how many other female authors also focus on social issues rather than issues of alien intelligence, multiple universe travel, starship engines, etc.


The other side of this is that many female authors have been billed as having "uniquely feminine viewpoints", as if it is not prejudicial to think that individual authors bring their personal perspective into their work. Novels are not computer chips, to be judged solely on their specification. Novels are purely qualitative, deriving their value from things that are hard to measure. Are female authors generally less interested in the mainline themes of SF, and if so, is it a bad thing that a less popular viewpoint is less popular? In other words, is what we think of as the average SF novel somehow male in viewpoint, regardless of who enjoys reading it? This isn't a statement of value, but more along the lines of "is this shirt feminine or masculine?"

And if there is any validity to that notion, is it unfair that women might have less perspective or interest in creating something that is somewhat masculine? Is it equally unfair that men might have less perspective on creating something like the coming of age story that predominates YA, a genre dominated by women authors?

Again, before anyone's feminism alarm goes off, I'm not making any value judgments. I'm asking whether there is a built in gender perspective to some genres, and if it is understandable that this perspective makes the genres more approachable by authors of those respective genders.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Interesting suggestion, RX. It reminds me a bit of a short clip I saw about black kids being disadvantaged compared to white kids getting into elite universities. The statistics didn't, however, look at deprivation levels or whether schools were predominantly working or middle class. It might be that it's more of a class issue than a race issue, and if you address it from a racial perspective then you might even up the demographics in universities, but also consign white working class kids to the third class and stoke up racial tensions at the same time.

Returning to the subject matter, I remember learning at university [may've mentioned this before, apologies, if so] that boys found it more difficult than girls to put themselves into the other gender's shoes, which is why so many cartoons are (or were, I don't watch many nowadays) male-oriented. That said, quirky results can come up. I believe more women than men watched Top Gear, and Totally Spies (not exactly Masculine Central) was very popular with boys.

 

[ErikB]

I read stories based on what I like. And I hate to say it, but ever since I was young, my choice of books was often governed by the cover art.

I don't care about the gender, age, religion, sexual proclivity, race, ethnicity, or whether the author likes to dance naked in the woods wearing feathers and a rubber duck mask.

I have often bought new books after skimming the jacket to see what the book is about because I liked the cover artwork.

I discovered Barbra Hambly because I liked the cover to "The Walls of Air" (I was oblivious to the fact that it was book 2 of the Darwath Trilogy). I did later get book 1 & 3.

I discovered Jennifer Roberson because I liked the Boris Vallejo cover art on the book Shape Shifters (again a book in a series which I later bought all of, Chronicles of the Cheysuli).

I have made bad choices as well as good. I don't recommend selecting new authors by the book cover art, but I have found some good reading and skilled authors doing this.

Michael Moorcock, Anne McCaffrey, etc.

Illustrations by Michael Whelan, Boris Vallejo, Frank Frazetta, and other artists are sometimes my big drive to try out a book.

This is not to say that I do not seek out books by subject or author, because I do. But honestly I could give two rats butts less what or whom wrote it as long as I like it.

I like what I like. The source of what I like (as in who it is or what they look like or believe in etc) is simply not relevant to whether I buy a book or enjoy it. I don't usually seek out authors. I seek out entertainment.

And if an author has good artwork on the cover (I know many will raise an eyebrow at this) I am far more likely to browse your book than if you have a crappy cover.

In fact there are books that I enjoy but am not inclined to own because the cover art sucks. And if I own books with bad cover art you can be sure of two things, its either a darn good read/classic, or someone I hold dear gave me the book as a gift and I cannot throw it out because I value the person who gave it to me.

And I will throw in that while there is an old adage (very true by the way) that you should never judge a book by it's cover, it is equally true that readers are drawn to good cover art, and while I don't believe a lot of people would openly admit it, I know that there are plenty of folks that do select books on that very criteria.

Crazy but true...

So here's to equity. Good authors are good authors regardless. I don't know what public bias is anyway. In my country Donald Trump made it as a President. So I cannot predict the minds of humans any more. The world is quite nuts. And people are strange. Go figure...

 

[Brian G Turner]

Well, I'm not sure if I'm being offensive or arrogant, but I've just Tweeted to JK Rowling asking her if she'd consider putting her real name on her covers, to help tackle perceptions on gender inequality: Brian G Turner on Twitter

I'll not hold my breath in expectation of a reply, though.

 

[RX-79G]

Well, I'm not sure if I'm being offensive or arrogant, but I've just Tweeted to JK Rowling asking her if she'd consider putting her real name on her covers, to help tackle perceptions on gender inequality: Brian G Turner on Twitter

I'll not hold my breath in expectation of a reply, though.

Are you talking about JK Rowling titled work, like Harry Potter? Because the gender inequality for YA speculative fiction is already 68% female.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Are you talking about JK Rowling titled work, like Harry Potter? Because the gender inequality for YA speculative fiction is already 68% female.

Does that figure come from the number of authors, number of book sales, revenue, etc, or what? Come on, don't talk science in one thread and quote junk statistics at me.

Also, Harry Potter was originally sold as a Middle Grade series, not a YA one - I'm not sure publishers even used the latter term regularly until then anyway.

And the point is that JK Rowling reportedly used a gender neutral pronoun because it was believed that boys would not read books written by a woman. That's exactly the point I've raised - that she no longer needs to do this, and in using her own name, will help other women authors.

 

[RX-79G]

Does that figure come from the number of authors, number of book sales, revenue, etc, or what? Come on, don't talk science in one thread and quote junk statistics at me. Also, Harry Potter was originally sold as a Middle Grade series, not a YA one - I'm not sure publishers even used the latter term regularly until then anyway.

And the point is that JK Rowling reportedly used a gender neutral pronoun because it was believed that boys would not read books written by a woman. That's exactly the point I've raised - that she no longer needs to do this, and in using her own name, will help other women authors.

The number came from this TOR article, and I will leave it to your assessment of how "junky" it is:
SEXISM IN GENRE PUBLISHING: A PUBLISHER'S PERSPECTIVE

However, Rowling's decision to hide her first name may have been based on her own "junk science" perspective, and not on any sort of factual basis.


The other side of this is that a gender neutral name also hides male authors from potential female readers, which can sometimes be advantageous as well. But the cows are already out of the barn with Rowling's identity - I'll bet a lot of people now think that "JK" sounds like a women's name due to her fame.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Apologies, I meant to add a smiley face after the junk science bit, but I was in a rush to get in the bath and you replied before I could edit it.

The bottom line is that JK Rowling is the most widely read writer in the English language, but a lot of her male readers would not ordinarily read a book written by a woman.

 

[RX-79G]

The bottom line is that JK Rowling is the most widely read writer in the English language, but a lot of her male readers would not ordinarily read a book written by a woman.

That might be true, but it may also be a reasonable assumption that many women readers might also choose to not read a fantasy book written by a woman as well. I don't think anyone truly understands what's going on between writing styles, publishing and readership to say definitively that a net inequity is due to unfair bias or not.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Apologies, I meant to add a grinning smiley face after the junk science bit, and a couple more smileys, but I was in a rush to get in the bath.

The bottom line is that JK Rowling is the most widely read writer in the English language, but a lot of her male readers would not ordinarily read a book written by a woman.

Actually the most interesting question is one you posed in your tweets (do let us know if you hear back!) - under Rowling she did what a lot of female genre writers do and used initials. With Galbraith she actively took a male's penname. Now, we know she hoped to see if she could succeed with them without her renown (and she should have done - they are fabulous books and much, much superior to HP, imho: some of my fav reads of last year). Did taking a male name enhance their chances?

 

[RX-79G]

Did taking a male name enhance their chances?

I can't find the numbers, but it would only help if there is a gender bias against female authors writing crime novels. It appears that female readership of crime novels is high, and maybe authorship as well. If that's true, using a male name to sell crime novels didn't enhance her chances (or could have even hurt them).


Which is all academic anyway - it isn't like she had to start at the bottom and find an agent and all that. The industry at least knew who they were publishing and would have given it a full effort.

 

[ErikB]

Apologies, I meant to add a grinning smiley face after the junk science bit, and a couple more smileys, but I was in a rush to get in the bath.

The bottom line is that JK Rowling is the most widely read writer in the English language, but a lot of her male readers would not ordinarily read a book written by a woman.

Not to be contradictory, but...
the most widely read author in the English language is William Shakespeare followed by JRR Tolkien. Just a generalism of course. If you meant modern author I would defer to your knowledge.

The three most widely translated and read books (coincidentally) are 1. The Bible. 2. The collective works of William Shakespeare. 3. Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien.

Having read all three I prefer Tolkien over the others, but Shakespeare does spin some excellent tales!

Oh and Rowling is very adept as well. Kudos to her.

I don't know her motives in the gender split, but I will be curious to see if she replies to you and to hear what she has to say. That was an excellent query Brian!