MIND MELD: What’s The Importance of ‘The Russ Pledge’ For Science Fiction Today?
[Do you have an idea for a future Mind Meld? Let us know!]
Recently, a poll in The Guardian created to the readers nominate their favorite SF writers revealed an appalling result: 500 men in the list – but only 18 women made it. This result sparked a chain of reactions in the blogosphere, from Nicola Griffith to Cheryl Morgan to Ian Sales and many other critics and writers, including this Mind Meld moderator. However, one of the most interesting results of this discussion was a proposition made by Nicola Griffith of what she called The Russ Pledge. Please read the links above before reading below.
We asked this week’s panelists…
Here’s what they said…
I am more interested in hearing why male writers think the Russ Pledge is important for science fiction, and then watching them act it out, than I am in writing yet one more exhausted rant stating the obvious.
I think discussing women writers in SF is always valuable, though it seems to me at least some of this discussion focuses on the false dichotomy between fantasy and science fiction. If we take a recent genre masterpiece – Mary Gentle’s incredible Ash: A Secret History – it’s the sort of novel that can be easily both – is it SF? Is it fantasy? Does it matter?
And obviously in genre some of our most successful writers are women. Charlaine Harris’s Sookie Stackhouse books, for instance, are everywhere – and are simply addictive!
I seem to have less of an interest in discussing the classics (that whole SF Mistressworks meme) simply because, to me, the classics are such an ingrained part of my reading of SF I sort of expect everyone else to have already read them! One simply can’t imagine SF/F without C.L. Moore or Alice Sheldon (James Tiptree Jr.), or to discuss fantasy without mentioning Patricia McKillip’s The Riddle Master of Hed trilogy…while I realise a lot of people haven’t read, say, Zenna Henderson (one of the great and only Pastorals of SF) – but at the same time, a lot of old SF gets left behind as new readers get into genre from a different angle – through media SF or newer works.
You know, Tiptree’s “The Women Men Don’t See”? That’s one of the all-time great SF stories – and it was the inspiration for my first professional sale, “Alienation and Love in the Hebrew Alphabet”. Or C.L. Moore’s Jirel of Joiry, she was the direct influence for me to start writing my Gorel of Goliris stories, starting with “Black Gods Kiss”, a reference to Moore’s “Black God’s Kiss”, obviously… (these are published by PS Publishing in the UK, incidentally).
So to me these are very relevant, very living writers, works. I’m not going to make up lists of them, like they belong in some encyclopedia! They’re still shaping fiction and ideas today, they’re still a fabric of my writer identity.
As an editor, particularly as an editor of international SF/F stories (via the World SF Blog and the Apex Book of World SF series of anthologies, of which the second one is coming out soon), I think we’re at a pretty exciting time! It was interesting, in that I saw a Twitter conversation recently, when someone said her impression was that a lot of the young, up-and-coming genre writers were women, and someone else replied that his perception was that this was not the case.
Well, I’m with the former, not the latter. If I look at the writers I’m excited about today, the ones working in short fiction or getting into novels, the ones in my two (to date) Apex Book of World SF anthologies, they’re people like Lauren Beukes, who picked up the Clarke Award recently for her novel Zoo City; it’s Aliette de Bodard, who won the BSFA Award for short story, was up for a Nebula and is still up for a Hugo; it’s Kaaron Warren, who just has this very weird mind… all three happen to be with Angry Robot (also my publishers for the Bookman books), but that just shows we may have similar editorial tastes! AR are also bringing out debut novelist Anne Lyle soon, which is very exciting.
The second Apex Book of World SF volume opens with a writer I’m very excited about (can you tell there’s a recurrent theme here??) – Rochita Loenen-Ruiz, with “Alternate Girl’s Expatriate Life”, from Interzone. I think she’s a wonderful writer and I know she’s working on a novel, and I can’t wait to see it!
And we have, for instance, Joyce Chng from Singapore, who recently released a novel, A Wolf at the Door (as by J. Damask) – werewolves in Singapore! Who could resist that?
And we have Silvia Moreno-Garcia, who is working on a couple of very exciting novels, writes wonderful stuff. Shweta Narayan, who was up for a Nebula recently. Ekaterina Sedia, who is just such a great writer – you have to read A Secret History of Moscow! And I just love her short stories. We were lucky to get a story from Nnedi Okorafor, who is incredible. Or Gail Har’even, a highly regarded Israeli author who does both mainstream and SF (the story we reprint is from the New Yorker). We have original stories from Anabel Enriquez PiƱeiro from Cuba, and Csilla Kleinheincz from Hungary.
So, you know, do we want to talk about women writers? Well, obviously I do! They’re such a vital and vibrant part of the field that I see – and this is just talking international stuff, you know. If you open it up a bit…you have Nina Allan making some waves in the UK with her short stories, you have Catherynne Valente, who hardly needs me to shout about, she’s everywhere, you have Cat Rambo, Amal El-Mohtar, Genevieve Valentine, Kij Johnson, Sarah Monette, Yoon Ha Lee, Rachel Swirsky, N.K. Jemisin, Karen Lord – do you want me to go on? The problem would be getting me to shut up! There’s a new collection Apex have just put out, Let’s Play White by Chesya Burke, that you should really check out. And let’s not forget Ellen Datlow, one of the truly great editors in the field, who I, personally, just owe so much to.
But, is there an issue with the invisibility of women in SF? Of course there is. There are a lot of deep-rooted problems in the world of SF, from a sort of ingrained, unconscious racism that goes all the way back to Campbell, to an unthinking, unblinking sexism and xenophobia and homophobia and, weirdly, a deep-seated conservatism of the WASP variety, a sort of fear of the future that exhibits itself in the stories that win awards, in the way magazines receive (or don’t) submissions, in bizarre rambling editorials from once-great writers in the field…
But I have very little interest in what was, in yesterday’s tomorrows. The future is here, and it can be female, it can be black, it can be transgender, it can be Jewish or Muslim (Campbellian orthodoxy and American xenophobia notwithstanding), it can be queer – it can be _fun_ again, and it can be serious again, and it _is_ glorious, and exciting, and I learn every day from those writers above, the living and the dead, may their smoke rise up forever.
I’d say that the Russ Pledge, and any movement towards bringing attention to women’s writing in SF (& by doing so combating creeping invisibility and suppression), is as important today as it’s ever been. Though the presence of women in the speculative field is undeniable throughout our history, when it comes to critical consideration like reviews, awards, et cetera, all of those talented women tend to disappear. When discussing the pulps/the “golden age,” for example, how many people will talk about the women who were writing? How many people even know there were women writing?
While I’m not going to say it hasn’t gotten better in recent years–it has–that’s because we’ve tried to make it so, by drawing attention to the fact that women writing SF are being erased in the critical arena. Sexism is rarely intentional–it’s cultural, and it’s hard to kick until you see it and acknowledge it. (Once seen, it can’t be unseen, either–Russ’s How to Suppress Women’s Writing is quite the eye-opener in this regard, because it’s so very clear and concise.) Only further effort will continue the steps we’re making as a community toward recognizing as many women as we do men for the brilliant books they’re writing. Books like Helen Merrick’s The Secret Feminist Cabal, while focused specifically on feminist SF, also collect the history of women writing in the genre since its beginnings–damned important work, in my opinion.
On the less positive hand, the recent discussions in places like The Guardian about invisibility of women writers in SF go to show that there are still hurdles to clear when it comes to women writing in the speculative field getting the same kind of recognition that men do. It’s a life’s work, it is, but with things like the Russ Pledge we can all try to work toward a better future for the field.
Personal anecdote time: last December, I reviewed Russ’s How to Suppress Women’s Writing for Tor.com. I’d encountered it in a search for more feminist science-fiction criticism, and it blew me away, so I wrote about it. The response to the review was one of the coolest, weirdest things I’ve experience so far in writing criticism–it spread. For days and weeks after that review went live, people were reposting, retweeting, emailing me, everything you can think of, talking about how they’d found the book through that review, or how it had reminded them of it, or how it put the book on their reading list. It was kind of awesome, seeing how the internet facilitated the spread of discussion about books like Russ’s.
But, the thing about all of that renewed interest and people asking where they could find How to Suppress Women’s Writing is that it ended up just underscoring the problems Joanna herself talked about in the book–guess what: it’s difficult to find in bookstores, because it’s no longer fully in print from the press and is only available as a print-on-demand title. The most important, cogent, incisive work I’ve ever read on the suppression of women’s writing is treading invisibility in its own way, unless we–as readers, as writers, as critics, as fans–keep it alive and remember it and recommend it to our friends. It’s a big responsibility, but one I think we can handle as a community.
(And maybe we could get to work on reprinting some other out-of-print texts, too, as folks like the wonderful Cheryl Morgan have suggested.)
What’s interesting about the Russ Pledge is not that it exists–it’s a tribute to a great luminary in the field who died recently, who would have been pleased with it, I think–but that it’s essentially gone viral. There’s been a rising awareness in recent years that science fiction, the literature of all that’s possible, has been remarkably limited in its human dimension. In short–mostly written by white American males, about issues that concern white American males, and evaluated and awarded and anthologized by still more white American males. This is reflected in lists of “greats” in the field. Women and minorities are seriously underrepresented.
That’s changing, and the Russ Pledge is an important part of it. Writers and readers and listmakers are stopping to think, and making new (and exciting and extensive) lists, and coming to the realization that not only have quite a few women been writing sf over the years, they’ve been writing it pretty damn well.
But inertia is a powerful force, and so is cultural conditioning. As long as we’re trained to minimize the importance of women’s work, we’ll continue to favor men’s work and downplay or disregard that of women.
I see the Russ Pledge not as (s)training myself to find a comparable woman writer for every male writer I list (at the risk of creating false equivalencies or marriages of convenience), but as asking myself, when I consider the landscape of the field, whether I’ve really seen the whole of it. Have even I, with my feminist leanings, committed a case of “The Women Men Don’t See”?
I want to open my eyes and really see. And if I do that, maybe others will, too. Then we’ll find ourselves in a much wider, more diverse, and more truly wonderful field than we already thought we had.
Talking about science fiction by women is important because women are half the world. SF as a genre will be stronger if women’s contribution is spread, talked about, and supported–as opposed to suppressed, ignored, or belittled. Diversity is strength. It’s that simple.
“We should take the pledge to make a considerable and consistent effort to mention women’s work which, consciously or unconsciously, has been suppressed.”
Why should we single out women’s writing? Surely they want to succeed on their own merits, as writers first not as women?
Well… how’s that been working out? Not too good, in fact. Treating women’s sf writing equally hasn’t been a resounding success. Since they were created, the Hugo Award for Best Novel has gone to 15 women out of 55, the BSFA Award to two women out of 42 – and these are the two largest popular-choice sf awards in the US and UK. But, I hear you ask, isn’t treating women sf writers differently, giving them preferential treatment, a form of discrimination? Er, no. It’s not discrimination to give women preferential treatment in your reading habits, but it *is* discrimination to refuse to read books because they were written by women. It’s not a level playing-field, and pretending it is does nothing to change that unfairness.
Most people’s views of sf were formed by the books they read when they entered the genre as young teenagers, the books that gave them their first hit of sense of wonder. They were typically indiscriminate readers then – I know I was – which is probably why Asimov’s blandly-written Foundation appears in so many lists of classic or great science fiction, and why (male) sf fans will happily excuse the appalling sexism in EE ‘Doc’ Smith’s Lensman series. And in the days those books were written, and for many decades following, the genre was indeed dominated by male writers – so women sf writers such as CJ Cherryh, CL Moore, MJ Engh and SN Lewitt chose to disguise their gender by using their initials. There was a perception that sf was for boys, and readers chose not to question that assumption – perhaps because they liked being part of a special club their sister could not, or would not, join. Which is rubbish, as there’s nothing inherently masculine about science fiction, just as there’s nothing inherently masculine about science, engineering or technology.
It’s still happening now, although the situation is worse in the UK than it is in the US – only two women sf writers are currently under contract with major publishers in the UK: Jaine Fenn and Tricia Sullivan. Yet the editorial staff at those publishers are mostly female. Publishers, however, only publish books that sell – the days of the midlist have long since gone – which suggests readers are simply not buying books by women writers. Even now, some, such as MM Bruckner, hide their gender behind their initials. If the playing field truly were level, or had levelled in the decades since a woman first won the Hugo (Ursula K Le Guin in 1970 for The Left Hand of Darkness), this shouldn’t be happening. Even CJ Cherryh, whose books I remember filling the shelves of WH Smith during the 1980s, is no longer published by a UK imprint. Perhaps it’s because books by women writers are not reviewed as often as those by men – Niall Harrison investigated this back in March and published his findings at Strange Horizons. The results indicated there is a problem: in the US 41.7% of books received by Locus were by women; in the UK, it was 37% (for the four months taken as samples). And yet, across all those review venues considered by Niall, only 29.6% of books reviewed were by women. You can see the full results here: http://www.strangehorizons.com/blog/2011/03/the_sf_count.shtml
Perhaps there’s a perception that all sf novels written by women are feminist. Though why this should be seen as a bad thing is beyond me. Is gender equality so frightening a prospect that men don’t even want to read books which discuss or comment on it? Except that can’t be the case, because men can write sf novels which are arguably feminist and no one complains – just look at the works of Robert Heinlein: he’s praised for his strong women characters, though they don’t actually appear all that feminist to me. On a recent Woman’s Hour on BBC Radio 4, Gwyneth Jones admitted she wished she had written her earlier sf novels under a male pseudonym, because “books by a significant male writer expressing feminist views would reach a much, much wider public”. And, “if you’re a feminist, it’s much better to be a man, with the science fiction public”.
Why should this be the case? What is it that’s so scary about a feminist sf novel written by a woman? Is it that it challenges firmly-held beliefs? But isn’t that what science fiction is all about, showing new ways of thinking about the world? It’s not as though implementing the Russ Pledge is a difficult thing to do. That conditioning from your early years reading sf is easy to break. All it takes is a conscious effort to remove the rose-tinted spectacles and take a proper look at the sf books that have been, and are being, published. All it takes is a conscious effort to buy, or borrow from a library, a science fiction novel or collection written by a female sf writer.
But that’s not enough, you need to do more. Review those books by women sf writers on your blog. If you’ve just read a great book by a woman sf writer, then tell everyone about it. Nominate those writers for awards, and vote for them when they’re shortlisted. That’s why I put together the sf mistressworks meme, that’s why I started up the SF Mistressworks blog (at http://sfmistressworks.wordpress.com/). But it’s not something I should be doing on my own, it’s something we should *all* be doing, both men and women. Which is why you should spread the meme, and why the SF Mistressworks blog is open to reviews of relevant books – ie, sf, published before 2000, woman writer (500 words or more, please).
Things need to change, and they won’t change by themselves. It’s time for people to do something. Take the pledge.
When I first saw folks talking about the Guardian 500 list, I started drafting what is now a post I will never put up on my blog. I didn’t agree with what people were saying about the list. This isn’t an issue about invisibility, I wanted to say, so much as a problem of wording/question choice/etc. And in a lot of ways, I think that’s true in a very general sense. When you ask people for their favorite science fiction novel, you’re already working within an extremely limited perspective, one which depends on the responding audience (age, upbringing, first science fiction experiences, etc.). If the majority of your responding audience began reading science fiction with Golden Age texts, it’s very likely that their favorite novel is a Golden Age text, and that their exposure to books will be disproportionately oriented towards male fiction by default. That doesn’t necessarily mean that said audience never reads books by women, just that their favorite book happens to be by a man (likely because their favorite book is also the book that got them into SF in the first place).
But when I started formulating all of that, it dawned on me that I was talking about something I didn’t know anything about. The Guardian 500 list was chosen almost exclusively by British readers, a segment of the world’s population that I cannot profess to know enough about to give anything approaching an informed opinion. And when I started to dig into the reality of the situation, it became clear that some British SF readers have a history of snooty behavior towards anything approaching a “feminist” discussion about gender in SF (plus: very few female writers are published in the U.K.). I don’t know if the list would change drastically if the same question were posed to U.S. readers. I’m leaning towards “probably not,” but I think that will have a little more to do with the question and limits of perspective than a continued history of silence and/or outright anti-woman opinions/behavior. That’s not to say that there isn’t a long history of anti-woman opinions/behavior in the U.S. (reading about Congress for a week will prove this). But when part of your reading community is saying things like, “well, women don’t write as well as men,” you have a huge problem that needs addressing regardless of where you live.
Which brings me to the Russ Pledge. I confess that I have never read Russ’ book on women’s writing, but Nicola Griffith is right on the money when she says we (in the SF community) need to talk about women writers. However, I think we need to be careful not to highlight women writers because they are women writers, which, to me, essentializes their gender and adds fuel for the “they’re not as good as men” camp (I believe Nicola wants to avoid this too, since her post says we should talk about women alongside men). We need to talk about female writers as great authors who just so happen to have inherited the right set of genes to make them women. Because equality has to arise from removing the conditions of exceptionalism and essentialization from *all* genders. The most important aspect of the Russ Pledge is that it aims to change the dynamic, but it can’t do that if it makes people think of women as a special case. And this is a hard thing to do, because there are people who will see the inclusion of a woman on a “best of” list or in a blog post about favorite female authors as being some kind of evil liberal feminist plot to make mediocre writing seem more important (their language, not mine). We might not be able to change their minds, but we can change what gets discussed in the community by, well, discussing works that damn well should be discussed.
And when you change what the community talks about, you change the publishing landscape. SF publishers are businesses. They follow the money. Sadly, the money in SF is more often than not centered on books by people who were “fortunate enough” to be born as men. This is a hangup from an older time when men were “in charge,” and it persists because the readership has always been exposed to writers of the male persuasion, despite a rich history of excellent writers of the female persuasion. And if the SF community isn’t reviewing, tweeting, and blogging about books that happen to be written by women, we’re left with a self-perpetuating cycle of silence about such writers. The Russ Pledge is, at its most basic, a challenge to this structure. It’s up to us to do something about the future of publishing by, well, talking about women authors. And, maybe, looking at what our friends are saying and trying someone new.
But what do I know? I’m just a crazy immoral liberal pinko commie socialist wacko…
Related posts:
- MIND MELD: Today’s SF Authors Define Science Fiction (Part 1)
- MIND MELD: Today’s SF Authors Define Science Fiction (Part 2)
- MIND MELD: How Important is Plausible Science In Science Fiction?
- MIND MELD: Science Fiction Series
- MIND MELD: The Future of Written Science Fiction
Filed under: Mind Meld
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!







@Andrew Wheeler: I’ve been a reader of your reviews and opinion for a long time, and have always considered you to be a very level-headed and concise thinker on matters of minority representation in publishing, genre or otherwise (ot to mention the mechanics and business of publishing in general). I’m disappointed in myself to see that you’ve misunderstood my position as taken above so thoroughly, and I will think more carefully about the way I present my case in future as a result.
That said, I am in some ways thankful for you providing the most canonical example of a straw man argument thus far in this thread. I’m happy to debate the points I’ve made, but not the ones you’ve placed in mine and Ian’s mouths; I’d have thought you’re way too clued up about the industry and its readership demographics to fall back on accusations of us “setting quotas”, especially after others have done so, albeit in a more rhetorically sloppy manner.
I have no interest in telling people exactly what they should read; equally, I see no tyranny in advocating that people read as widely and diversely as possible – yes, this thread is about the sex of authors, but genre and colour and race and all the other factors are equally relevant; wars are won as a series of battles on multiple fronts.
And arguing in favour of one’s point is rather different to threatening one’s ideological opponent with the gulag if they don’t toe the party line, no? (Leaving aside the point that the gulag of obscurity is a power-threat held and used by the status quo we’re arguing against, rather than by those of us opposing it.)
***
@chad:
You’re not, no. But if you can see that it happened then, can you not see it’s still happening? And, seeing that, can you say it’s no longer a problem, or even not a problem to which you’re unconsciously contributing? Is it fixed sufficiently now that we don’t need to worry about it? If 50/50 isn’t a reasonable split to aim for, then what is? 20/50? Less than that? More? If equal isn’t fair or reasonable, where should we be aiming?
You don’t *have* to. That you can admit the injustice exists is a good start. But when an injustice is so easily fixed – reading a few new-to-you authors who just happen to be female, and talking about them with other people – is there any need to be so vehemently opposed to such a suggestion? If you don’t want to help, well, that’s fine – but why obstruct the mission? That’s where the accusations of sexism arise, here – not because you haven’t or don’t read many female authors, but because the idea of promoting the reading of female authors is sufficiently repellant to you that you feel you must protest against it.
Those discriminations also definitely exist, and hopefully we’ll conquer those too, eventually. (Yeah, naive utopianist, I know, heard it all before.) But this one concerns pretty much half of the human race… and if you can concede that people outside the culturally acceptable norms of body weight have a hard time of it when it comes to discrimination, even within the privileged realm of the white Western male, surely you can concede that there might be some sort of lingering yet largely unjustified prejudice against people who just happen to be women? Prejudice that we’re presenting real examples of, and presenting a painless and mutually beneficial way of combating?
I think what’s setting some people off is the numbers that kicked off the discussion. The numbers make people think quotas and it gets crazy from there. If someone had just said, “Hey everybody, let’s recommend our favorite women writers to everyone in the community,” I think it would have gotten a different reception. Of course, I realize that it was the numbers that got people to thinking about it in the first place.
Stirring the nest: I think everyone is a little bit sexist and a little bit racist (as the song says). The only way we couldn’t be is if we couldn’t tell the difference between people of different sexes or races. I don’t think sexism or racism can be stamped out. We would have to become something that isn’t human for that to happen. I’m okay with people believing what they want as long as they can rise above that to make rational judgements. And yes, I know that most people can’t.
I think everyone should be equal under the law (I know this isn’t a discussion about law). I think there aren’t enough women writing the type of stories I like to read, though I admit I’m very fussy. I don’t care much for fantasy, especially the urban kind. The idea of me making pledges, including the pledge of allegiance, feels a bit goofy, though the sentiment behind this particular one is admirable. If other people can turn me on to writers that I’ll dig, I’m all for it.
I’ve just started Kameron Hurley’s God’s War, and I’m thoroughly enjoying it so far. I love the work of Julian May, Pat Cadigan, Octavia Butler, Kate Wilhelm, Abbey Mei Otis, D.C. Fontana, Alice Sola Kim, Kristine Kathryn Rusch, James Tiptree and boatloads of other women whose names aren’t leaping to mind at the moment. If you haven’t tried their stuff, you really should.
Paul: That is really well said. Bravo.
Paul said “I find the argument that people should be reading 50-50 women-men authors or they are sexist to be complete nonsense.”
OK, that’s very interesting, but nothing to do with the issue. Neither Nicola in the post cited, nor Cheryl in the post she in turn cites say such a thing; in fact, Cheryl specifically says she isn’t advocating 50/50. I’m not sure sure where you get the idea that anyone’s insisting that gender parity must be 50/50, simply that the exteme disproportion suggests a problem.
I want to take a step back for a minute from the arguments about 50-50 and quotas and dictating who should read what, to say this (which others have said too, but I want to add to the focus on it):
The core idea of the Russ Pledge is to raise visibility of female authors.
Those of us who are in favor of the Pledge’s goals don’t intend to be saying “you should pretend to like inferior work” or “you should force yourself to read lots of books you hate, just because they’re by women”; I think most of us are essentially saying “there’s lots of writing by women that’s at least as good as writing by men; and there’s a lot of really good work by women that doesn’t get as much attention as it deserves, for a variety of reasons; so let’s try to improve the visibility of that really good work by women.”
I wanted to respond to Paul Sparks in particular: it sounds to me like you agree with the basic point that there’s a lot of good writing by women out there. You said “looking back at the books I’ve read this year I’m about 60-40 men-women with my two favorites being by women.” Cool! And I’m delighted to hear that you tell people about Okorafor and Obreht and Bender and Walton (as well as Chiang). That’s awesome, and I agree that those I’ve read are good writers who are worth recommending. (I haven’t read Obreht yet, but your rec was a good reminder to me that I’ve heard good things about her work.)
So it sounds to me like even though you’re not comfortable with the Pledge per se, your reading and your recommendations are in keeping with the core of what the Pledge is about, and I think that’s great. I would rather that everyone read and recommend books by women than that everyone explicitly Take The Pledge, and although I can’t speak for the other pro-Pledge folks here, I suspect most of them would agree.
(And on a side note, I’m pleased that you went back and counted the books you’ve read recently, because a lot of people assume that they’re reading about 50/50 men/women until they actually look.)
Likewise to Matthew Sanborn Smith’s comment: even if the Pledge idea per se doesn’t feel right for you, that’s a great list of female writers; I like the work of all the women you mentioned, and I’m pleased to see you recommending them.
…I’m worried that my comment here might come across as condescending, or as the traditional wannabe-peacemaker tactic of telling arguing people “Look, you really don’t disagree, you should be friends, so stop arguing!” It seems clear that there are strong disagreements in this thread, and I don’t mean to dismiss or minimize those disagreements. But I do think that in some cases, it may be possible to agree on the value of talking about good work by women while disagreeing about the political underpinnings, or disagreeing about taking the Pledge per se, or disagreeing about specific details like numbers.
If there’s one slot left in a gym, of course the female should get it if she meets some minimum level of quality. If the two are equal, why would the man get it? If the woman is worse than the man, but also one of the best women—and she’d have to be, given the relative size of the pool—why shouldn’t she get it?
Why put mediocre men over excellent women?
And that’s in martial arts, where there are some likely gaps in advantages like upper-body strength and length of training.
Explaining the 101 issues does get tiresome, as others have said further up in the thread. Exhausting and disheartening, honestly. So thank you, Fabio, Ian, Nick, Paul, and all of the other men in this discussion who’ve stood up behind the Pledge. It’s pretty great to see allies arguing so thoughtfully and passionately.
Also, I agree with Christie–acknowledging privelege is painful and difficult, and it’s certainly hard to do, but it’s worth doing.
Now I’m fascinated to see how few women are commenting here. Is it a factor of the venue? What’s the percentage of female members?
I’m also interested by the number of male members who resist the resistance to the Pledge. It’s striking a chord on both sides of the chromosomal aisle. And that is excellent.
Chad and others: I get that you’re angry. Anger is one of the ways we all react to change. You say you feel, in effect, marginalized. Your needs and desires are peripheral, your place and voice are diminished.You’re being made to deal with attitudes and ideas that you not only don’t want to deal with, you feel pressured and stressed about having to deal with them. You feel that people aren’t listening to you or giving weight to your concerns–quite the contrary. You’ve been disregarded, and you’re being told that it’s your fault for something you have no control over–namely, your gender.
Welcome to my world.
Am I angry at you, personally, for being a privileged white male? No. I agree, you can’t help that. I can’t help being female, either. What I can help, and so can you, is the way I perceive both of our positions, and the whole structure of cultural rules and assumptions that surrounds them.
You know what makes me squirmy? Stories of boys who want to dress up like princesses and wear nail polish and play with dolls. Girls dressing up as GI Joe? No problem. So why does it bother me that boys want to gender-bend, too? The best answer I have right now is that that cultural assumption is so deeply ingrained that for all my attempts to be enlightened, I still have a problem with the idea that a girl can “trade up” with fairly small consequences, but for a boy to “trade down” is, well, squicky.
And that’s not any righter or fairer than lists of great books that predominantly or totally ignore women’s works. It comes from the same place. And it’s thanks to the discussions going on here and in many other places that I’ve become aware of it and started to work on examining my feelings about it. It’s not comfortable, no. These things aren’t. They’re not supposed to be.
There are a variety of different statistics that one could look at regarding the Guardian poll results (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/table/2011/may/26/best-science-fiction-books-recommendations): percentage of responses that mention a female author; percentage of unique books listed that are by women; percentage of female respondents; etc.
I got curious about the specific question of percentages of unique authors listed. I copied the poll results into a text file, extracted all the authors, sorted them alphabetically by last name, removed duplicates (including misspelled duplicates), and counted the number of men and the number of women.
There were three or four clear-joke entries (see the authors listed as “Dog” and “Assimove,” for example), and another few entries that were just a fragment of a word or a phrase rather than an actual book or author, and there was one author whose gender I don’t know.
Setting those aside, there were 160 unique authors listed. Of those, 20 are female. That’s 12.5%.
Broad Universe has a page featuring a bunch of statistics about sf publishing: http://www.broaduniverse.org/statistics/statistics (unfortunately hasn’t been updated in a while; if anyone wants to help out, I’m sure the BU people would like to see more recent stats). Any way you look at it, 12.5% is nowhere near representative of the percentages of sf books being written by women. (But I’m being slightly misleading here, because the 12.5% number is unique authors, and the BU stats mostly focus on percentages of books. I didn’t count the percentage of unique books in the Guardian poll.)
In case anyone else wants to check my work (I may well have gotten something wrong), below is the full list of authors, with female authors starred. (If you copy and paste the list into a text editor, you can replace the commas with line breaks to get a one-author-per-line list.)
I want to respond to two specific arguments that I’ve seen suggested to explain the imbalance:
* It’s true that there are a fair number of Classic SF Authors on the list, some of them female. But there are also a fair number of authors whose best-known work has appeared in the last, say, thirty years, during which time there’ve been a bunch of good female writers. So I don’t agree with the idea that these are all authors from the Golden Age Of SF When There Were No Women. (Also, there were in fact female sf authors before the 1960s, though not as many as today, and I’m not seeing them on this list. Andre Norton, Leigh Brackett, C. L. Moore, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Katherine MacLean, Margaret St. Clair, et alia–if the gender imbalance of this list were primarily due to it being focused on pre-1960s authors, I would expect those authors to appear on it.) (See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_speculative_fiction#Writers_and_professionals)
* I think someone argued that the Guardian asked for Science Fiction per se, not fantasy, and that that increased the imbalance. But the Guardian specifically said “We don’t want to limit your interpretation of SF either. If it fits your definition of those enigmatic initials, be it fantasy, horror, speculative, weird or any any flavour of imagnative literature, then we want to know about it.”
Here are the authors:
Edwin Abbott Abbott, Douglas Adams, Brian W. Aldiss, Buzz Aldrin, Poul Anderson, Isaac Asimov, * Margaret Atwood, J. G. Ballard, Iain M. Banks, John Barnes, Stephen Baxter, Greg Bear, Alfred Bester, James Blish, Ray Bradbury, David Brin, John Brunner, Orson Scott Card, * Angela Carter, William H. Cash, * C. J. Cherryh, John Christopher, Arthur C. Clarke, Michael G. Coney, Michael Crichton, John Crowley, Samuel R. Delany, Philip K. Dick, Gordon R. Dickson, Thomas M. Disch, Stephen R. Donaldson, Greg Egan, Warren Ellis, Harlan Ellison, Steven Erikson, Michel Faber, Philip Jose Farmer, Jack Finney, Michael Flynn, R. L. Forward, Alan Dean Foster, Neil Gaiman, D. F. Galouye, David Gemmell, * Mary Gentle, * Stella Gibbons, William Gibson, Simon R. Green, Joe Haldeman, Peter F. Hamilton, Stuart Hammal, Harry Harrison, M. John Harrison, Robert A. Heinlein, Frank Herbert, Russell Hoban, * Robin Hobb, Robert Holdstock, * Cecelia Holland, Fred Hoyle, L. Ron Hubbard, Aldous Huxley, Simon Ings, K. W. Jeter, Robert Jordan, George Karnikis, Daniel Keyes, Dean Koontz, Cyril M. Kornbluth, * Madeleine L’Engle, * Ursula K. Le Guin, Stanislaw Lem, * Doris Lessing, Ira Levin, C. S. Lewis, David Lindsay, H. P. Lovecraft, Cormac MacCarthy, George R. R. Martin, Richard Mattheson, * Julian May, Robert R. McCammon, Herman Melville, China Mieville, Walter M. Miller, Jr., David Mitchell, Michael Moorcock, Richard Morgan, Grant Morrison, James Morrow, Haruki Murakami, Larry Niven, Jeff Noon, ? Robin Oram, George Orwell, Alexei Panshin, Paul Park, Mervyn Peake, * Marge Piercy, Frederik Pohl, Terry Pratchett, Christopher Priest, Thomas Pynchon, Alastair Reynolds, Apollonius Rhodius, Adam Roberts, Keith Roberts, Kim Stanley Robinson, Tony Rothman, * Joanna Russ, * Mary Doria Russell, Eric Frank Russell, R. A. Salvatore, John Scalzi, Vikram Seth, Bob Shaw, Robert Shea, Robert Sheckley, * James Tiptree, Jr. (Alice Sheldon), * Mary Shelley, Robert Silverberg, Dan Simmons, John Sladek, * Joan Slonczewski, E. E. “Doc” Smith, Michael Marshall Smith, Cordwainer Smith, Norman Spinrad, Olaf Stapledon, Neal Stephenson, Bruce Sterling, Charles Stross, Arkady Strugatsky, Boris Strugatsky, Theodore Sturgeon, * Tricia Sullivan, Koushun Takami, * Sheri Tepper, Walter Tevis, E. P. Thompson, Jack Vance, John Varley, Gore Vidal, Vernor Vinge, Kurt Vonnegut, A. C. Weisbecker, H. G. Wells, Robert Westall, James White, * Kate Wilhelm, Tad Williams, Jack Williamson, R. A. Wilson, Colin Wilson, Bernard Wolfe, Gene Wolfe, Jack Womack, John Wyndham, Yevgeny Zamyatin, Roger Zelazny, David Zindell
I participated in the Guardian Study and along with Token Gesture chose Neverness by David Zindell as my favorite SF novel. If I had known that someone who had incomplete information as to the sexes of the responders and a very poor knowledge of basic statistics was going to make unwarranted statements regarding male bias or sexism I never would have responded to the survey. And I wonder how many offended responders in this blog took the opportunity to participate in the Guardian Study. I am not British and saw the study and link in this blog and participted. If those complaining HAD participated they may have obtained results closer to their liking or is that bias.
Eh, if you were really all thet hepped up about “basic statistics” honey, you wouldn’t have participated in a poll with such haphazard sampling, nor would you be suggesting that the results would be more interesting or appropriate if some more people haphazardly jumped in to give their responses.
Wow, these are some powerful reactions to a suggestion. Enlightened minds will take the suggestion for what it is and grow from it. Others, well, you can always do whatever it is you want. No ones stopping you. Geesh…
For those who might be interested, my blog readers and I compiled a list in 2010 of 100 “must-read” science fiction romance books, most of whom are by women:
http://www.thegalaxyexpress.net/2010/05/what-are-must-read-science-fiction.html
I may revisit the list at some point (as there have been some good titles released since I posted it), but it’s a place to start if you like SF-romance blends or are interested in trying them.
It’s amazing how strongly many men on this thread are reacting to a suggestion which reads, in full,
“We should take the pledge to make a considerable and consistent effort to mention women’s work which, consciously or unconsciously, has been suppressed. “
Is this controversial? Really? No mention of caps or quotas, just. . . effort. And this is too much? GMAFB.
There are a lot of very reasonable and well-argued comments here explaining why the Russ Pledge is a Good Thing. But all the reasonableness in the world is not going to change a thing. Doing changes things. So don’t think about perhaps maybe sort of choosing a book by a woman writer the next time you reach for something to read. Make a conscious effort to choose a book by a woman writer. And once you’ve read it, tell people about it. You don’t have to even like the book, you just have to talk about it.
And Jed, saying “I think most of us are essentially saying “there’s lots of writing by women that’s at least as good as writing by men…”" is not helpful. There is lots of writing by women that is as good as writing by men. There’s no “least” in it.
As Ian says, Doing changes things. I’m not really interested in trying to change the minds of those who’ve commented earlier in the thread. Why are there so few women commenting? Because we’re all fucking tired, that’s way. And the moment we try to say something, we’re usually told we’re being “too aggressive” or “getting hysterical” about any issue that fires us up. It’s just all so energy-sapping that all I can do is follow the blogs of those whose opinions I respect, and dump the rest (sorry Andrew; thought you were a decent guy).
So, to that end… I homeschool my children. Today, they got their second lesson in computer programming. Our daughter, Little Dinosaur, loves robots and says she wants to be a robotics engineer. (Actually, she’s a damned fine intuitive engineer already.) We encourage that. Our son, The Wast, likes cooking. Sometimes, I prep and he cooks. The point is, I refuse to buy into this “tales-toys-skills for girls”/”tales-toys-skills for boys” demarcation shit, which is where I think a lot of cultural conditioning began.
Oh, and one other thing. Don’t assume that norms in English-speaking cultures translate to non-English-speaking ones. For those who know me, they know I have a Polish husband and he tells me that the best mathematicians and physicists he had teaching him at university were ALL WOMEN. To me, that says that all this “well, sf doesn’t hold much interest for wimmin” crap is exactly that. Crap cultural conditioning. We’ve got to start rising above it if we are ever to have a future as the human race. (hu-MAN, for fuck’s sake! You can see why I get exhausted, can’t you?)
PS And this is a storm in a bloody teacup compared to what I face in Asia every goddamn day.
Ian said:
And The Picard replied:
Yes, because everyone knows that being accused of sexism is much, much worse than being on the receiving end of it. Won’t somebody think of how the (white) men are suffering in all of this?
To the people who are so offended by this idea on the basis of “ewww, quotas!”: so you’re assuming, sight unseen, that adding a few more books by women to your reading pile for this year will result in you reading inferior stuff? No, that couldn’t be the case, because you certainly aren’t sexist and you certainly wouldn’t make a decision about whether or not to pick up a book based on the gender of its author, it’s all about the quality of the work, etc etc etc. That being so, and given that you can’t know whether a book will be any good until you’ve read it, in what universe could you believe that “I just want good stories” is a counter-argument to the idea of trying a few more books by women?
And why aren’t there more women posting on this thread? Because we’re all so tired of banging our heads against the wall of this ‘debate’. Because we’re tired of the way that simply suggesting that people think about the effects their choices and actions might have on others, regardless of their intent, reduces certain sections of the internet’s menfolk to screaming fits of defensiveness and/or derailing nitpicking. Feminists and our allies are so unjust, don’t you know: how dare we suggest that a popular vote Best SF list is 10% books by women and 90% books by men might be skewed by factors extrinisic to the quality of the works?
As to the original purpose of the thread: I’m currently reading an enjoying God’s War by Kameron Hurley; I also recently finished Maureen McHugh’s excellent China Mountain Zhang.
@Paul Raven
Obviously, I don’t think it is a problem or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
You are asking me almost the exact same question I already asked twice. Did no one, including you, answer it before because there is no answer? No one has the stats to show the m/f split of SF fans, so there is no way to even get a rough idea of where the perfect line is. Not every human endeavor has 50/50 interest.
Made my day that you approve.
No, it doesn’t. Probably not even 5% of the human race reads SF. If it were more than that the authors would make more money. And, again, we have no idea of the split….none.
Yes…yes…yes. The evil white male. No, I don’t feel guilty. Yes, I can acknowledge there could be predudice against women in SF. No, I don’t think there is. I could be wrong. Just like you could, but you haven’t admited the possibility either and neither has anyone else supporting the Russ Pledge.
Yes, the Russ Pledge does only ask for discussion. Does that bother me? No, I probably overreacted with my initial post. However, as I proved with my quotes from others (which everyone ignored because the quotes do call for quotas or forced reading), it didn’t take long for some Russ supporters to tell me I SHOULD read women. Not that I should take a look and see if there is anything I like (which some have suggested), but that I SHOULD read them no matter what.
@Nick
Dude, you know I wasn’t suggesting that. I guess I should have added more so you wouldn’t have put words in my mouth. The deciding factor wouldn’t be their sex. It would be which one showed up first, which one has the cash, which one has experience or not (depending on the gym’s goals/preference), etc. If the man showed up first he should get it. If she showed up first she would get it. If a woman showed up the next day he shouldn’t lose his spot.
@Judith
My reaction is not a reaction to change. It is a reaction to what I view as an overreaction.
Actually, I don’t feel marginalized. I do feel pressure to marginalize myself based on supposed guilt I should feel for stuff I haven’t done or that happened before I was born.
________________
I will ask it again, because, of course, I didn’t get an answer to it the first time:
Another example is college. The split is roughly 40-60 men to women. Should the colleges recruit men harder? Should they interview more men? Should they have more activities men gravitate to like sports (can’t because of Title IX)? My answer to all of those is no. This is not discrimination.
Chad, in the US in four sample months, 41.7% of books mentioned by Locus were written by women. If any list of sf books shows only 4% or 12% written by women, then there is clear under-representation. I call that a problem. And if you can’t see that there is a problem, then you’re clearly part of it. Stop whingeing and moaning because people are questioning your privilege. Try doing something a little bit different and thinking about your choices.
Now I’m fascinated to see how few women are commenting here. Is it a factor of the venue?
No, it’s a factor of boredom. People who go from the simple “make an effort” of the pledge to “OMG YOUS WIMMINS ARE OPPRESHING ME QUOTAS GULAGS MEN REDUCED TO NEKKID CASTRATED SLAVES WOMEN PLAYING FOOTBALL CATS AND DOGS LIVING TOGETHER THE END OF THE WORLD!!!1!” …aren’t worth trying to have a reasoned discussion with. And given that this is repetition 39728 of sexism-in-genre discussions here at SF Signal that have gone pear-shaped due to these kinds of hysterical sexist reactions, they’re not even entertaining anymore. So imma go write some more books.
Thank you, Nora.
The most important SF writer and arguably the first one was a woman: Mary Shelley.
Surely the importance and lasting influence of Frankenstein (she also wrote The Last Man, not as well known today) cannot be understated — when so much else in the field springs directly from it.
Perhaps people forget what a trailblazer Shelley was — she was not expected to write something so different and new as SF, certainly not in that era, and certainly not as a young woman. There wasn’t even a genre yet.
But it seems natural — in hindsight — that the most interesting writers in the genre should be the marginalized ones, who approach the genre from a different perspective and don’t feel too “comfortable” in it.
SF literature as a whole cannot remain vital, or even interesting, without the greatest possible diversity of voices. That means all kinds of people should write SF — men, women, young, old, minorities, anyone who wants to join in the conversation. There should be no membership cards, no clubs, no “Men Only” or “WASPs Only” signs.
SF is an ongoing conversation about ideas. Many of those ideas center around questions like “What does it mean to be human?” or “How will our lives change when the world changes?” or “How will science change humanity?” Women have a lot to say about these issues, and many men and women are prepared to listen.
I don’t read SF to feel comfortable. I want to be challenged, to feel the rug of perceived reality get pulled from under my feet. At her peak, a writer like Alice Sheldon( a.k.a. “James Tiptree Jr.”) did so better than anyone else.
That being said — I think there are different kinds of SF readers: those who want the surprising, the different, the challenging, the downright uncomfortable… and those who fear the unknown and read mostly for a cozy sense of familiarity… expecting the same tired old tropes being rehashed over and over.
Please, do promote talented female SF writers. Loudly. I only have one request in return: that female SF writers reach outside their “comfort zone” while writing. Dare to take risks, even when critics and readers (and fans!) will demand that you stay predictable and unchallenging.
What Nora Jemisin said.
After doing the 101 stuff for literally decades, I realized that I have dwindling time and stamina left to complete my scientific research and my writing. So I won’t waste more of my precious resources explaining why a suggestion to read more books by women is not the same as a forcible penectomy.
I suspect that Russ herself suffered from the same fatigue. Judging from the “sophistication” of the arguments on this thread, distressingly little has changed since she wrote How to Suppress Women’s Writing — including the instant baboonization of many participants the moment such discussions come up.
The Guardian asked us to name favourite SF novels that they’d overlooked. I named Greg Egan’s Quarantine. It’s ALL my fault!
Nwerp. I had no idea so few female SF writers were published in my country. Also it dawns on me that I have been naive in my wonderings about why Connie Willis’s books are so hard to get here.
Male pseudonym here I come.
I suppose it’s pointless at this point to reiterate the following, which I’m going to reiterate anyway:
But I suppose asking people to take a chill pill and get to the original point is, well, pointless. Feathers are fuffled. Hackles are raised. And in the end, the people suffering from all this bickering are the same people the Russ Pledge is supposed to help: female science fiction authors.
*sigh*
I would like to thank Christie Yant and Jed for their insightful and thoughtful responses. I will be picking up Karen Joy Fowler’s “What I Didn’t See”.
I almost feel like I’m arguing something that I already agree with. I read women authors and I talk about their books and I will continue to do so, even if I don’t take the pledge. I overreacted to this quote:
“If you support the status quo, you are sexist. End of story.
Women are under-represented when discussions of science fiction take place. Women contribute equally to the genre, but their contributions are ignored. If you ignore the gender of an author when choosing a book to read, but all your choices turn out be male, then you are not ignoring the gender of the author. Because if you truly were, you’d end up with a 50 – 50 split. So, in order to break that pattern, you have to consciously choose to read books written by women. You have to take the Russ Pledge. It’s not exceptionalism, it’s not positive discrimination, it’s not affirmative action. It’s redressing an imbalance – which might well be unconscious, but takes a conscious effort to redress.”
I will say that this thread got me thinking more about women authors. So here’s a few of my favorites, not all of which are SF.
“White Teeth” by Zadie Smith – a sparkling debut novel
“Pilgrim at Tinker Creek” by Annie Dillard – some of the most beautiful nature writing
“The Sparrow” by Mary Doria Russell – one of my favorite books I’ve ever read
“Spook” by Mary Roach – hilarious
I have some more women on my to read list, but the book I’m most looking forward to reading is “Swamplandia” by Karen Russell.
“No one has the stats to show the m/f split of SF fans, so there is no way to even get a rough idea of where the perfect line is.”
Untrue. In the Radio Four programme that Ian mentions, a researcher indicated that the split in the UK is 45%F 55%M. Deal with it.
I completely agree with Nora. I haven’t bother to respond because there is no point in arguing with people who willingly see others at a disadvantage and still claim to be the victim. It’s unreasonable.
“Artificial advantage?” If something is artificial then it is not natural, right? This implies that the way things are is natural, therefore trying to change things is “unnatural.” Naturally women don’t write SF as well as well as men, so naturally they aren’t read as often.
I can’t expend energy discussing things with people who truly feel this way.
Why the hell would anyone want to read the touchy-feely, mamby-pamby, unicorns-and-rainbows, PC style monkey crap written by a WOMAN?! *vomit* Life is too short.
Commenting only to second what N.K. Jemisin said.
I’m very comfortable taking the Russ Pledge, and I don’t see that it really amounts to much more than tying a string around a finger to remind myself that Maureen McHugh and Jo Walton and — frankly — Nicola Griffith (and on and on etc and on) have done some damn fine work. It isn’t as though I’m being asked to celebrate mediocrity. So sure.
It does leave me wondering about urban fantasy and romance, though. Would an extention of the Russ pledge be a call to celebrate the best work in genres where women writers are the rule rather than the exception and so raising the status of whole genres?
The literal mirror would be to a pledge to mention men who write romance or paranormal romance or urban fantasy, but I have the sense from the discussion here that raising the awareness of men who work in a woman’s genre might not be addressing the larger point?
Chad, if you’re running an elite MMA gym on “first come, first serve” you won’t be running it for long.
The same is so, incidentally, of publishing companies.
Daniel, one thing that’s been noted a few times is that even within a “woman’s genre” the men’s work in that genre tends to be championed and rewarded to a greater extent than the women’s work in it. I suppose the canonical examples are Nicholas Sparks in romance, and Jim Butcher in urban fantasy. The Sparks example is far more clear-cut, since a significant fraction of romance writers never get the hardcover treatment or even the chance to build name or stylistic recognition before basically being assigned a new pen name and a contract for the next fad.
It’s a shame nobody preserved the Tangent Online discussion on ‘What I Didn’t See’ as we could basically copy and paste it in here without any observable discrepancy.
Nick:
That’s a fair point, and it takes me back to wondering if there’s not something to be said for consciously considering the best of genres like romance and UF that are viewed with contempt and in which women writers are in the majority.
I can’t speak to Nicholas Sparks and romance, but for urban fantasy, I don’t see the men besides Butcher — Mike Carey and Simon Green come to mind — being particularly rewarded. It might be there if we looked at print runs or reviews (I wouldn’t be shocked), but I don’t have the data set to judge. My own experience is that writing UF under a gender-neutral ‘nym has gotten me some female readers who dismiss me for being a man and some male readers who think I’m slumming in women’s country to pay the bills. The gender politics of it are pretty multivalent and (I think) really interesting.
But then I also think that masculine defensiveness and sense of being aggrieved and wronged is interesting. Hearing that (and feeling it myself sometimes) has always reminded me of getting editorial notes from someone who can identify that there is a problem, but has the wrong solve for it. My take may be idiosyncratic.
I am not sexist. I am not racist. I know this how? Because I am so acutely self-aware that every action I do is carefully neutral.
Actually, that’s not true. I’m not perfect, and whilst I’m not for example racist in the full=blown KKK sense of the word, that doesn’t mean I don’t sometimes do or say things accidentally, maybe without realising it, that contribute slightly to the pervading historical legacy of white male privilege. And you know something? It hurts when that’s pointed out to me. I get defensive and reject it. But I’m learning, teaching myself and being taught, to pause, to think, wait, is there truth in there?
Which is why I am trying to raise the profiles of some favourite SF authors who happen to be women, because I think they’re bloody good books, because I think they are interesting, because you (any one of you) might like them too, and the way of the world has been that it was almost certainly harder for these books to come to your attention before. If you love SF, as you all seem to, why would you want your choice of great books restricted through some outdated misguided system? You wouldn’t, so taking the Russ Pledge is one way of making sure that in future you have a better choice. That women writers have a better chance. It may not be you that unbalanced the scales, but if you don’t shift slowly towards the middle it will always be unbalanced.
It really is that simple.
Actually, Kev (and others on this thread), we will have achieved parity when the percentage of mediocre books by women is similar to the percentage of similar quality works written by men that are published by large presses/reviewed by highfalutin’ reviewers/given major awards. I could generate endless lists of this, but the last few years of various SF/F awards will do instead.
kev:
I am not sexist. I am not racist. I know this how? Because I am so acutely self-aware that every action I do is carefully neutral.
<troll> But if you really weren’t racist or sexist, wouldn’t you be utterly neutral without having to be self-conscious about it? :} </troll>
There have been some excellent (and balanced) responses here, and I am glad to see that many people are open to taking the Russ Pledge.
Those that are being overly defensive and trying to deflect the issue by shouting about quotas etc. are showing themselves to be not only ignorant of the facts but also resistant to the idea that there IS a clear gender imbalance in SF. Are they so afraid of reading a book by a woman and actually enjoying it? Why the resistance to reading a woman author in the first place? Do they seriously believe the writing is inferior to that of men? But then, how would they know if they never even attempt to read some of the excellent books written by women such as Ursula Le Guin, Sheri S Tepper, Tricia Sullivan, Elizabeth Bear, Jaine Fenn, Karen Fowler, Joan D Vinge, Octavia Butler…?
Personally I don’t understand the reluctance to read a book written by a woman, but then, I am female myself. Were I to realise I never read books written by men, whether a conscious choice or not, I would seriously question why that was. I would also wonder if I was missing out on something good. Why does the reverse not apply? Are men conditioned at birth to consider anything female to be inherently inferior? These days I hope not, but old-fashioned sexist ideas seem to be flourishing, if the responses to this post are anything to go by, and this saddens me.
Oh, and N.K.Jemisin’s comment was spot on! Well said
But but but they just *know*! Like the guy who told me he didn’t need to read Russ’s book because he could tell it was rubbish just from the cover.
Memo to Ian Sales: In failing to mention the anthology The Mammoth e-Book of Mindblowing Mars SF (2009), you have unconsciously suppressed women’s Martian SF&F writing.
Wow. Well.
I just want to say how much I admire this conversation. I am not being ironic. SF is a fighty family, and we’re all here slugging it out, fighting our corner. And, you know what? I see some movement. And that’s the point. We’re not perfect. Not even close
We’re irrational beings. But I’m so glad all us dotty uncles and potty aunts are actually talking. And coming back and talking more, despite the insults, despite some unhinged moments.
That’s the point.
Thank you all. I mean it. This is how change happens.
A quick eyeball of bookscan tells me that Simon Green’s work sells about as well as Carrie Vaughn’s. Does one need more rewards than that?
That anthology looks pretty nifty. I’d never heard of it or seen it linked to before. Which rather proves the importance of the Russ Pledge pretty neatly.
Paul, nice work. Definitely looks like it’s worth a read.
Nick:
Well, I’d be pleased as hell to have Carrie’s sales numbers m’self, but I don’t have the context to tell whether it’s plausible to say Simon Green is benefitting from being a man writing UF. If he’s doing as well as Carrie, that means that they’re getting market success on par with each other. To say that he’s getting preferrential treatment, I’d need some reason to think he didn’t deserve it and she did.
That said, Carrie’s doing pretty damn good work and I think she’s underappreciated.
What Nora said.
I really don’t know enough to add to the debate. So I wrote a story (pretentious I know) It’s prolly not that great, kinda dashed it off in one, but it’s all squishy and heartfelt.
As the poet would say, Peace, love and fun.
http://littleonionz.livejournal.com/friends/
Over on the Tor.com forums, a US community college professor has asked for help choosing what stories to cover in an Introduction to Science Fiction course. Anyone want to pop over to the forum and suggest some suitable items?
Good to see the women speaking up. I know about tired. Believe me.
Yesterday I saw an article that talked about Joanna Russ’ chronic fatigue syndrome in a way that indicated it was probably brought on by her long war against suppression. I boinged off that line so hard I never found my way back to the rest of the article, still less found the strength to comment on it at the site.
I have CFS, too.
Dot dot dot.
I am actually new to SF Signal because when I gafiated, I gafiated like holy whoa. Blew completely out of the genre and went mainstream.
It’s not any better there. And my real heart is in the genre.But when I came back…well, it’s over on my guest blog. The world I found myself writing in narrowed down something fierce at the turn of the millennium. There just weren’t any choices, apart from a specfic few. And I was so disconcerted, and taken aback, and beaten down as it went on, that I got to the point where if I was going to post somewhere, I’d start, then delete it. “Why bother? Nobody cares what I have to say.”
What smacked me out of it was, to a large extent, this latest battle in the old war. I’m still tired, oh hell yes. But I’m also kind of energized. And up for giving it one more go.
So, anyway. New here. By no means new to the Cooties Wars.
I do see good in this latest kerfuffle, in the way people are reacting. Not with the usual trolling and bitching and scripted-fighting, though there’s plenty of that, but with actual impetus to DO something. To read a few books we haven’t read before. To talk about authors we love who have been ignored or forgotten. To add to lists that have left those writers off.
It’s good. It’s more of a concerted effort than I’ve seen before. Maybe it will stick.