Niall (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
coalescent) wrote2007-08-29 10:18 am
coalescent) wrote2007-08-29 10:18 am
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
what Jason did is be *gender-blind* and do the best thing for the antho
Be less blind. Blindness is a disability, not a point of pride.
It's 2007; Joanna Russ wrote "How to Suppress Women's Writing" over thirty years ago, and we're still having this argument?
Be less blind. Blindness is a disability, not a point of pride.
It's 2007; Joanna Russ wrote "How to Suppress Women's Writing" over thirty years ago, and we're still having this argument?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Though I do know quite a few people who would be bothered by that.
But regardless of whether or not you are bothered by a lack of inclusion of your particular minority group, apparently there are quite a lot of people out there who ARE bothered by this particular exclusion. And we can argue all day about whether or not they should be upset about it--the point is, they ARE upset. And I can pretty much guarantee that they will continue to be upset about it the future, and that they will actually in increase in their representative fraction.
The job of the publisher selling a book is not to say: you female SF readers shouldn't be upset! The job of a publisher is to decide whether or not the existence of a large number of angry female SF readers actually impacts their sales.
But regardless of whether or not you are bothered by a lack of inclusion of your particular minority group, apparently there are quite a lot of people out there who ARE bothered by this particular exclusion. And we can argue all day about whether or not they should be upset about it--the point is, they ARE upset. And I can pretty much guarantee that they will continue to be upset about it the future, and that they will actually in increase in their representative fraction.
The job of the publisher selling a book is not to say: you female SF readers shouldn't be upset! The job of a publisher is to decide whether or not the existence of a large number of angry female SF readers actually impacts their sales.
OTOH, thinking about it, I wonder if it's in the long run a poor strategy.
If I'm someone who geeks out over the presence of Sterling and Shepherd and Ford on the cover (and the cover art), and buys the collection--and then I read it, and I find Wilce and Gunn and McHugh and Lanagan not to my taste--do I buy the next one? Or do I piss off, disgruntled?
If I'm someone who geeks out over the presence of Sterling and Shepherd and Ford on the cover (and the cover art), and buys the collection--and then I read it, and I find Wilce and Gunn and McHugh and Lanagan not to my taste--do I buy the next one? Or do I piss off, disgruntled?
Well, I thought you might. ;)
I'm forgetting who it was who said it would take six generations to fix the cultural and societal institutions oppressing women as a group... but we're only on generations three and four right now. So.
Virginia Woolf, 1915? According to that, we should almost be there... tsk. Maybe we've been spacing our generations too far apart.
S'okay. There's enough flak for two here, anyway.
And while there probably are better (and ultimately more-productive) ways to explain to publishers/editors how "gender blindness" inevitably leads to "gender inequality," other people are doing that work down-thread. Your point still stands: it makes you angry. It makes me angry, too. And that is a marketing consideration--which Mr. Williams has said he will ignore. Which doesn't precisely do anything to assuage my annoyance.
So here we are, back at the beginning.
And while there probably are better (and ultimately more-productive) ways to explain to publishers/editors how "gender blindness" inevitably leads to "gender inequality," other people are doing that work down-thread. Your point still stands: it makes you angry. It makes me angry, too. And that is a marketing consideration--which Mr. Williams has said he will ignore. Which doesn't precisely do anything to assuage my annoyance.
So here we are, back at the beginning.
Oh so YOU'RE not bothered by it, then? PHEW! I was about to be kind of annoyed. but now that this man has come along to tell me what doesn't bother him, I can go back to caring about shoes and hair.
*giggles* he's so cute when he gets hysterical and stamps his tiny foot.
Okay, I swear that is the last snarky and not useful comment I will make on this post.
Okay, I swear that is the last snarky and not useful comment I will make on this post.
I very much enjoy Klages work. With new stories from her and Ford, I had planned on buying this puppy.
Dearest Jason whom I adore,
Let us put aside talk about 'agendas' and 'sexism' and other such dirtiness. It doesn't suit. I sense that you've entered knee-jerk-defense mode, which does no one any good, including yourself. And because I do adore you, I shall ignore your knee-jerk-defensiveness.
Most folks realize that publishing is a business and that putting the name of big-selling authors on the front of the book will increase sales of said book. We also understand that the sales of individual authors are not dictated by you, thus you're not responsible for that. So if, of all the authors included, the top five biggest-selling ones are all male, that's not your fault. It's publishing at large, or society, or voodoo, or whatever. But not you.
And it's horrible (I'll reiterate: HORRIBLE) for people to try and foist an agenda on you. Nightshade is a small, independent press and you can't bother yourself with the ills of society (sexism, bias, oppression, etc.) because you've got to sell books in order to stay afloat. If men are the ones who will sell this book, it's not because YOU yourself hate women. And really, it's a small minority of people who even care about this sort of thing. Most people take the exclusion of women in such situations in stride because they're not worried about feminism! They just want to read a book, right?
Plus, this is just one book. The cover of one book doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, just for this one book. It should be considered in a vacuum.
Now here's the problem with all of that.
The exclusion/silencing of women, perceived or real, is not an agenda. It's not some PC thought experiment and something for wily feminists to get upset about just because they need to feel upset about something today. You act as if the (very deserved) annoyance with YET ANOTHER anthology with only male names on the front is stupid. Yet you say you're concerned with sales of the book. You don't feel that the number of people who might (1) notice that none of the female authors are listed on the front and (2) be pissed about that and not buy the book are a significant number? perhaps you feel that though many people may notice they will choose to pick up the book anyway because they love the authors inside or look on the back, see that there are females, and decide to go ahead and purchase. or perhaps, and this is what I think may be true (and only you can say) you didn't think about the issue AT ALL and only after noticing this conversation even realized what you did.
It's one thing to unconsciously engage in biased behavior. We all do it. I won't blame you for not giving the exclusion of female authors on the front one iota of thought at first because, well, you're a man, and it's wrong to blame someone for their God-given deficiencies. However, once the exclusion was pointed out, you cannot escape thinking deeply about it just because you want to sell some books. After some *actual* thought you may still decide that you made the right decision. But when you make comments like the one above, you don't sound like someone engaging in actual thought, you sound like someone who knows he hasn't been particularly clueful being defensive about his own drawbacks.
I can't blame you for that, either, since it's a natural reaction.
Let us put aside talk about 'agendas' and 'sexism' and other such dirtiness. It doesn't suit. I sense that you've entered knee-jerk-defense mode, which does no one any good, including yourself. And because I do adore you, I shall ignore your knee-jerk-defensiveness.
Most folks realize that publishing is a business and that putting the name of big-selling authors on the front of the book will increase sales of said book. We also understand that the sales of individual authors are not dictated by you, thus you're not responsible for that. So if, of all the authors included, the top five biggest-selling ones are all male, that's not your fault. It's publishing at large, or society, or voodoo, or whatever. But not you.
And it's horrible (I'll reiterate: HORRIBLE) for people to try and foist an agenda on you. Nightshade is a small, independent press and you can't bother yourself with the ills of society (sexism, bias, oppression, etc.) because you've got to sell books in order to stay afloat. If men are the ones who will sell this book, it's not because YOU yourself hate women. And really, it's a small minority of people who even care about this sort of thing. Most people take the exclusion of women in such situations in stride because they're not worried about feminism! They just want to read a book, right?
Plus, this is just one book. The cover of one book doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, just for this one book. It should be considered in a vacuum.
Now here's the problem with all of that.
The exclusion/silencing of women, perceived or real, is not an agenda. It's not some PC thought experiment and something for wily feminists to get upset about just because they need to feel upset about something today. You act as if the (very deserved) annoyance with YET ANOTHER anthology with only male names on the front is stupid. Yet you say you're concerned with sales of the book. You don't feel that the number of people who might (1) notice that none of the female authors are listed on the front and (2) be pissed about that and not buy the book are a significant number? perhaps you feel that though many people may notice they will choose to pick up the book anyway because they love the authors inside or look on the back, see that there are females, and decide to go ahead and purchase. or perhaps, and this is what I think may be true (and only you can say) you didn't think about the issue AT ALL and only after noticing this conversation even realized what you did.
It's one thing to unconsciously engage in biased behavior. We all do it. I won't blame you for not giving the exclusion of female authors on the front one iota of thought at first because, well, you're a man, and it's wrong to blame someone for their God-given deficiencies. However, once the exclusion was pointed out, you cannot escape thinking deeply about it just because you want to sell some books. After some *actual* thought you may still decide that you made the right decision. But when you make comments like the one above, you don't sound like someone engaging in actual thought, you sound like someone who knows he hasn't been particularly clueful being defensive about his own drawbacks.
I can't blame you for that, either, since it's a natural reaction.
(con't)
So here's my thoughts, for what they are worth. First, step away from the crazy pills for a bit. These first two comments show that you're not exactly seeing this conversation objectively. (Then again, much may have changed since last night.) Second, I really think you need to consider the larger issues of gender, power, silencing, etc. that have been brought up here. As I said, you may still feel that those five names were the best to put on the cover and that's fine. But you and Nightshade cannot continue to just claim capitalism as a reason for being ignorant of these issues. I don't know for sure that you were/are ignorant of them, but your comment leads me to believe you are. Actively thinking on these issues will open up a whole new layer of awesomeness for you. What that leads to, I cannot say. It'll probably lead to less knee-jerk-defensiveness. It may lead you to not make this kind of mistake again and type such sentences as "I don't have enough money in the bank to worry about agendas." thus dismissing the very real and very negative effects that gender bias has on women as just another thing to complain about.
So here's my thoughts, for what they are worth. First, step away from the crazy pills for a bit. These first two comments show that you're not exactly seeing this conversation objectively. (Then again, much may have changed since last night.) Second, I really think you need to consider the larger issues of gender, power, silencing, etc. that have been brought up here. As I said, you may still feel that those five names were the best to put on the cover and that's fine. But you and Nightshade cannot continue to just claim capitalism as a reason for being ignorant of these issues. I don't know for sure that you were/are ignorant of them, but your comment leads me to believe you are. Actively thinking on these issues will open up a whole new layer of awesomeness for you. What that leads to, I cannot say. It'll probably lead to less knee-jerk-defensiveness. It may lead you to not make this kind of mistake again and type such sentences as "I don't have enough money in the bank to worry about agendas." thus dismissing the very real and very negative effects that gender bias has on women as just another thing to complain about.
and to suck! You're special :)
Aww, thanks. It's nice to be admired.
Frankly, I think the anger such "blindness" engenders is de-emphasized too often. Particularly in a case like this, because my mood and my feelings about the publisher do influence my book-buying, and these are legitimate factors in said book-buying. We're not talking textbooks, we're talking leisure reading. How I feel about it is kind of the point.
Thank you for saying this -- it's very well articulated the frequent frustrations and disappointments many of us feel upon entering a bookstore. It's not even this particular book, it's the cumulative effect.
Yeh, get back in the kitchen in front of the word processor and fix me a sammich write me a story.
[/snark] tags should be taken as rote.
So. Have you ever examined how you stack up with regards to parity on people reviewed and people doing the reviewing?
I'd love to know.
I'd love to know.
You mean what I personally review or what gets reviewed at SH? (I have tracked both ...)
At SH. (I assume the authorship of reviews by you is 100% male, but if there is something you'd like to tell us ...)
Page 6 of 7