(via Blue Milk)

So, this one gets me where I live. The overly gendered toy market and the advertising that goes along with it is a constant frustration for me, as a mother of two girls. We’re not just talking about pink or blue packaging here. There is a huge divide between the products created for girls and those for boys, and this vid shows something about how confronting that can be for parents who actively think about this stuff.

Boys, in Toydepartmentworld, get to be warriors or builders. Even the building toys that are mostly directed at them are often quite violent in the story that goes along with them, or the advertising associated with them. Girls, meanwhile, get to be sparkly princesses or shopping queens.

The ads targeted at children are gross parodies of the gendered advertising aimed at men and women. The whole thing seems designed to create the four wheel drive and fashion magazine purchases of the future. Which, of course, it is.

The vid quite rightly points out that pushing these kind of tight, limited gender boxes on children at such an early age can have quite awful and far-reaching consequences. At a time when they are learning how to be human and how to find their place in society, a time when everything they learn gets soaked into their consciousness like a sponge, two of the biggest messages they are internalising is that boys must be strong, violent and controlling, and that girls must be pretty, glamorous and domestic.

It’s not just advertising. Of course it’s not just advertising. Our children are absolutely complicit in this rigid stereotyping of genders. I feel at times like de-brainwashing Raeli from the ideas about gender she and her friends come up with in the playground is a full time job. It’s like they spend their entire lunch break sitting around and wilfully constructing the most limited and small minded social constructs for themselves.

(more…)

Farah Mendelsohn linked to a post announcing a new book of important reprints in our field:

“Long before they were household names, all of the superstar science fiction and fantasy authors in this anthology were just fans with stories and dreams. Now, for the first time ever, fifteen of the genre’s most important authors have come together to show off their first published SF stories, many of them rare and never before collected… An invaluable look at the origins of speculative fiction’s greatest minds, and bursting with insightful advice for beginning writers, this book is a must for any science fiction or fantasy fan, aspiring author, or teacher.”

Sounds good, doesn’t it? But then take a look at oh hell yes here we are talking about tables of contents again and what do we find?

Fourteen men, one woman.

While Nicola Griffith is a very important writer in our field, it’s hard not to start pouring forth with all the obvious female names that are not included. And sure, there are many reasons why an author might not be included in a book like this, rights management being a big one, and sure, there are plenty of male authors who are not included, but…

One woman. Fourteen men.

This is a book that holds itself up as a document, as a teaching aid, as a resource to teach us something about the genre of science fiction. So far what it’s taught me is that women continue to be unvalued.

As Farah says, it’s shameful. It’s also disappointing. Is it really that hard to remember that if you are telling the story of science fiction, you are going to be held accountable for the story you choose to tell?

I had heard vaguely of the SFX horror screw-up, but only today (via this great summary post from  nwhyte) found my way to the blog of Maura McHugh, aka Splinister to read about her correspondence with the editor of that magazine, about the lack of representation of female authors in the SFX Horror special. Maura objected to a general lack of women in the entire issue, but was particularly upset by a special feature in which 34 horror “experts” were invited to recommend “hidden treasures of horror”. They were all men – and all but one of them (Doctor Who & Being Human’s Toby Whithouse!) only recommended work by men.

Maura’s long post showing her correspondence with the SFX editor is worth a read, because it shows in paragraph after paragraph, the (by now) familiar sight of a privileged person who has been called on his (undoubtedly unconscious) sexism and that by extension of his publication and the industry he belongs to, and yet is not willing to accept or acknowledge that he has done anything wrong.

You could create a bingo card from his responses: they meant to include women, they thought about it, they intended to, but one article and two email correspondences went astray, and besides, there aren’t that many women in horror anyway, and if there are any, they don’t send their books to SFX, and they don’t make enough films, and when women do make horror it’s not really horror, and look, he has two anonymous female friends who confirm it’s not his fault, he meant well…

Besides, don’t you know there aren’t any women producing or consuming horror fiction and films?

Well, there aren’t if your only source of information is SFX magazine.

I’m not a big horror reader, but I see the same arguments being used that are regularly trotted out about women in SF. I have nothing but respect for editors and other people in positions of power who, when called on the inappropriate lack of representation of women, take that accusation seriously, and make an honest effort to do something about it in the future. Falling victim to unconscious bias does not make you a bad person. There’s no need to be defensive about it. But once it’s been pointed out to you… trying to pretend that it doesn’t exist is just silly.

As Maura says here, there is no excuse now. Not just with horror. In science fiction. In literature. In film. In awards lists. It’s been pointed out too many times. If you’re still contributing to the invisibling of women (awesome verb by the way) then ignorance is not an excuse. Unless, you know, you’re also not listening to what women say…

Hmm. That would make a lot of sense, actually.

February was Women in Horror Recognition Month (ironic, no?). I recommend you celebrate by reading a Kaaron Warren novel. Or two. Or recommend your own favourite hidden treasure of horror in the comments.

Some links on feminist issues, sexism & gender awareness.

Sarah Rees Brennan is writing awesomeness about women in fiction again, debunking all the dumb excuses people give for being more critical of female characters than male (features the big spoiler for The Demon’s Lexicon):

There are also issues with writing people with disabilities, people of colour, people who are gay. There are even issues with writing straight white guys, because they too live in a world where inequality exists, and this affects them too! All these issues! That’s why it is impossible to ever write any characters at all. And so all my writing goes like this ‘the void… BLANK PAGES … the void… BLANK PAGES.’ It’s very deep.

Cheryl Morgan talks about how to get women nominating for and appearing on the Hugo shortlists, and looks a bit at the psychology that means women usually don’t get fairly represented. In particular she suggests that women are more likely to disqualify themselves from being well-read enough to venture an opinion.

 coffeeandink on male privilege & perception of merit in comics – a beautiful illustration of the ways in which some men can unconsciously discount the work of women, particularly in geek-friendly arenas. This might be one to bookmark and point people to as a great example of invisible sexism at work.

A round-table discussion on how to define and redefine ‘strong’ when it comes to YA heroines.

Moving away from speculative fiction and geekery circles, here’s an interview with Natasha Walter about the return of sexism and the pressure on young girls who don’t feel they have a choice to opt out of porn culture.

One of my projects for this year was to educate myself about Joanna Russ, a major figure in the history of feminist SF. I have read quite a lot about her, but very little of her actual work.

I started with On Joanna Russ, edited by Farah Mendlesohn, and only a few essays in, I’m thoroughly mesmerised. At the same time, I ordered a pile of paperbacks, including The Adventures of Alyx and How to Suppress Women’s Writing.

I read the first story of the Alyx collection, “Bluestocking,” immediately upon reading the first essay of the Mendlesohn book, “Alyx among the genres” by Gary K Wolfe. All very meta, but I enjoyed the experience very much. I was surprised to discover that Alyx is not, as I thought, another of those Jirel of Joiry types (glamorous swordswomen on horseback) but is instead more of a trickster character – small, unassuming, with more in common with the Grey Mouser or the noir private detectives than with the pulp fiction glamazons.

Even more interesting, according to Wolfe, the stories get more meta the deeper in you get to them, and move from heroic adventure through to planetary romance: in other words, from fantasy to science fiction. Also, Alyx’s stories often revolve around other women: the first one has her playing bodyguard/mentor to a fluffy redhead, and having quite an effect on her. The ending bemused me, and entertained me, and I’m still thinking about the story days later. Considering how many stories I read a year for LSS, that’s quite an achievement.

(more…)

This one didn’t turn into a proper internet flamewar, which is absolutely a good thing. I’ve been interested in a lot of the discussion surrounding the RoF special women’s issue (there’s quite a lot of buzz at Jim Hines’ journal though a lot of it saddens me, particularly the “reverse sexism” brigade), and it’s particularly worth noting that very few people have a single reaction to this discussion – many are torn between different reactions. It’s been thought provoking, at least!

Updated responses both from Doug Cohen and from the art columnist who first suggested the showcase of women in fantasy art (a very different theme to ‘fantasy art by women,’ both of which are quite interesting) suggest that everyone involved in this issue had completely genuine intentions, and I have to say the special issue sounds a lot more awesome post-clarification.

But.

There is a reason why words matter, and why tone matters. There is a reason why the initial response was as mixed as it was. A large part of that comes down to bad PR, and dodgy wording in the submission guidelines. It comes down to the person who is the public face of the magazine (on the internet, anyway) presenting the issue in such a hamfisted way that they wasted the opportunity to promote something which might actually be kind of cool.

It’s about not understanding that making a big deal of having an all-female TOC could invite cynicism or scrutiny. It’s about presenting the guidelines in a jokey way, with the implication that in order for this magazine to promote women, something has to be taken away from men (The first thing interested writers should know is that for this issue the sign on the proverbial door says “girl writers only.” Sorry gents.). It’s about how the use of patronising language (ladies, of course) can only hurt your cause, and challenge your credibility as an editor apparently interested in publishing female stories.

It’s about that male gaze again.

A showcase of the history women in fantasy art, paired with NF looking at women in folklore, and female-authored stories thrown in for good measure? That’s something I can get behind. Phrased like that, it might actually (almost) be enough to make me reconsider Realms of Fantasy as a publication of interest, after years of being disappointed by much of its content. If only they’d led with that! An announcement of submission guidelines should not require a flurry of clarifications and re-clarifications and justifications and apologies for causing offence. If other publishers/editors can take a lesson from this incident, let it not be that women writers are ungrateful when bones are thrown in their general direction.

Let the lesson be this: jokey attitude in submission guidelines? Rarely a good idea. Like it or not, big budget or operating out of your garage, when you set submission guidelines, you are in a position of power & privilege over the people who might be thinking of submitting to you, and taking that lightly is a fast way to offend people, especially when you are attempting to pre-select your work from a limited group of people whether your discrimination is based on age, gender, cultural background, etc. There will always be those offended by being excluded and those offended by being included, not to mention those who choose to be offended even though it doesn’t affect them one way or another. None of these things are the end of the world as long as you stay respectful to all parties. It’s not a good time to be trying to wit it up.

Sometimes it’s not about your intent, or even about what you say, but the way that you say it.

There’s been some reaction to Realms of Fantasy’s recent announcement of a women’s special issue in 2011. Celebrating women in fantasy, it will contain fiction and art entirely produced by women, and preference will be given to stories that engage with gender, sexism and um “other areas important to feminine speculative literature.” Across the internet, some women are welcoming the issue, while others are decrying it as an anachronistic way of dealing with a real problem (or indeed arguing that there is no need for it at all).

Sarah Monette posts on the issue here, with some very valid points. The comments are worth reading, too. Likewise, the comments on the Rof blog, which include Douglas Cohen explaining a bit more about how the issue came about – in a way far more sympathetic to me than the initial call for submission, which frankly rubbed me the wrong way with its patronising tone. Meanwhile, Cat Valente has an awesome post up that pretty much sums up the way I feel – that is, torn between responses.

Here’s the thing: I believe in affirmative action in the spec fic short fiction scene. I’ve gone back and forth on this one, but I do. I think the only way we’re going to get a better and more diverse mix of quality, interesting short fiction in the scene is by a) having and supporting the editors whose tastes automatically skew towards a diverse mix of authors and fictional themes, and b) challenging the best and most respected editors in the field to look beyond their automatic taste response to see the value in some stories other than those written by straight white men, or those which largely feature the problems, concerns and imaginary futures of straight white men.

Publishing is a meritocracy. But merit is subjective, and it is fluid. Editors who read “without considering matters or gender, race or author background” and yet consistently publish work which is about the default white male gaze do need to be challenged by their audience, if that audience has an interest in diversity in fiction. Sometimes affirmative action, of whatever kind, is necessary to help editors (not necessarily male editors) find value in stories that they might have missed out on otherwise – not because they are deliberately creating a culture of sexism (or racism, etc, let’s stick to sexism for now) but because their actions and to some extent their personal taste are unconsciously supporting said culture.

Which, you know, if you’re only interested in an (aging) readership of a certain kind of bloke, is just fine. Slap a label on the magazine which says ‘SF/Fantasy for Men’ and be done with it. (or just put a cover on it where a madeuppy woman has her boobs falling out of chain mail, this has a similar effect) Sure, you might lose some audience – both male and female readers – but at least you’re being honest about where your priorities are.

(more…)

One of the cool things I will remember about the blogosphere in 2009 was the amazing response to the TripleJ Hottest 100 of all time, as people across Australia responded to the gaping (and for many of us, quite shocking) lack of female representation in that list by celebrating women’s music. The conversation that spanned across so many blogs and Twitter accounts was layered and fascinating, and went a long way to making up for some of the more jawdropping kneejerk reactions/excuses for so many people not voting in female artists (women’s voices are higher… men are more likely to write/perform those epic songs…)

An uncomfortable theme that was raised in various circles was that women’s art is still seen as less, and that when forced to think about it, people can come up with a long list of justifications why this is so, because ‘actually I’ve been socialised to think that male=better/stronger/wiser’ is often a hard thing to admit, let alone come to terms with. One list that did have a substantial proportion of women was the “songs I am embarrassed to admit I like.”

Which brings me to Amanda Palmer, singing a song about Lady Gaga and herself and Madonna, apparently the final act of an ongoing debate with Neil Gaiman. It seems to belong to that conversation from several months ago – or maybe it’s the beginning of a new conversation. In any case, it’s a very cool song, not least because of the circumstances under which it was created. If you’re not already following Amanda’s blog (her posts are, this one notwithstanding, loooong and hard to navigate at times), she is definitely an artist to watch for the ways in which she experiments with form, social media and the changing face of technology and the internet. She’s basically the rock chick version of Cory Doctorow (ha, okay, someone has to get those two on a stage together if it hasn’t already happened), and its her willingness to throw herself, unrehearsed, into her art; her willingness to get messy, screw up & show her knickers (both metaphorically and literally) in various public forums that make her such a compelling figure.

I love the fact that Neil and Amanda have basically become the Posh and Becks of the lit/rock music world.

Melander sent me a link to this story about a Canadian academic criticising Thomas the Tank Engine for being too conservative and under-representing women. (heh I don’t know why people send me this stuff either, let’s move on, shall we?)

The article is divided between the opinions of Professor Shauna Wilson, who has an interesting take on some of the more problematic elements of the tv show and some of the messages it presents to children, including a lack of female characters (and a tendency for those few examples to be bossy or know-it alls), an an overall conservative ideology. She also mentions some of the positive messages that the show carries.

The part of the story I think is most important is that she was inspired to carry out this study after watching Thomas with her child. One of the side-effects of being an educated person (ie someone trained to examine texts with a critical eye) raising a child is that you notice this stuff. You find yourself looking in horror as some of the shows or books that your children love, and quietly pushing those dvds behind others that you feel more comfortable about.

Rather than find someone actually associated with the show to respond to the themes Professor Wilson raises, the article quotes a (female) co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness in the UK, disregarding Wilson’s findings as “nonsense.”

Here’s the thing, though: the Thomas the Tank Engine books were originally written in the 1940′s, by a vicar. Of course they represent a conservative mindset! It’s also hardly surprising that their representation of women ranges from meagre to borderline offensive. But there’s a big difference between reading books to your children which you know are from another time, and having them adapted for the TV in shiny colourful ways.

From my point of view, Thomas is an irrelevance – Raeli hardly ever watches it, and it’s one of those shows that makes her want to turn off the tv. She recognises I think that it’s not made with her in mind. But just because it’s a ‘boys show’ doesn’t let the makers off the hook. Because the thing about boys shows is that boys watch them. Which gives them a great opportunity to show by example that the line between boys and girls is not so clear cut as they might assume, rather than reinforcing tired and unnecessary assumptions about gender.

It’s scary how much of the product put out for kids these days is starkly gendered. It’s getting worse, and it gets everywhere.

(more…)

This article from Politics Daily caught my eye (tweeted by @robinwasserman) yesterday.  Lizzie Skurnick discusses the consistent way that literary awards lists are dominated by male authors.  As some of you know, this one’s a pet topic of mine.  Skurnick’s article particularly interests me because she cuts right past the idea that this is a deliberate exclusion of women by the patriarchy (the straw argument that most people argue against when this topic comes up – “I’m not sexist, we didn’t consider gender at ALL, so there,” etc.) and deals instead with the rather more troubling idea that our culture is so geared towards calling “books by women small and books by men large, by no quantifiable metric,” that we don’t even realise we are doing it.  And that the ‘we’ in question can as easily encompass women readers/jurists/reviewers as men.

I’ve been arguing this for a while.  We’re past the point where anyone can actively stand up and say “well women’s work is inferior” without looking like a complete arse, so instead we get “it’s all a matter of taste and I just happen to like these books that just happen to be written by men.”

“But that’s the problem with sexism. It doesn’t happen because people — male or female — think women suck. It happens for the same reason a sommelier always pours a little more in a man’s wine glass (check it!), or that that big, hearty man in the suit seems like he’d be a better manager. It’s not that women shouldn’t be up for the big awards. It’s just that when it comes down to the wire, we just kinda feel like men . . . I don’t know . . . deserve them.”

Skurnick is against affirmative action as a solution.  I go back and forth about the idea.  I understand the arguments against it.  Whether we’re talking about editors selecting stories to publish, or jurors deciding which books are best, the idea of giving someone “an unfair advantage” doesn’t seem right.  Many people are understandably offended by the idea of being asked to reassess what they think of as “good” or “the best” or even “stuff I like.”  Demanding some kind of quota system (as was proposed and promptly squashed) for the Hugo’s this year) is threatening because it asks people to reassess their notions of quality.  But it is also an important question to consider, because it asks people to reassess their notions of quality.

Until it is universally recognised that having one gender consistently recognised as “better” than the other is an actual problem, we need to keep returning to this conversation.

I thought this article was particularly interesting in the description of language used to assess male v. female authored works.  The use of the word ‘ambitious’ is particularly telling – where men are being consistently honoured for books that try and fail to achieve something great, and women are being penalised for writing books that are, you know, good.  But ‘unambitious’.  She may be talking about the literary world, but there are parallels in spec fic – in the dismissal of urban fantasy as some stupid vampire-shagging genre that only women like, in the way that women can never write SF “hard” enough to count as the real thing, in tables of contents that just happen to contain all male authors (not because of sexism, cos the editor is so non-sexist that they don’t even think about gender when they choose stories, isn’t that awesome?) and in a reviewing culture that prioritises books (ambitious or otherwise) which are written by men.

I also see parallels to recent discussions by  sarahreesbrennan, Justine Larbalestier and others on how even male characters can get away with so much more than female characters, who are judged more harshly for their flaws and for being too perfect.  Hell, I see parallels in the way it’s so hard to find coverage of women’s sport because “people aren’t interested” (how can we be interested if there’s no coverage?”) and as touched on in the previous post, how “girls don’t game” so it’s fine to ignore/not ask what they want from games.

The problem is not, for the most part, the sexism that people know they are perpetuating.  It’s all the other kinds.  And this is why the internet reacts by piling on when, for instance, a new anthology appears which presents the totally-gender-neutral-concept that mindblowing SF can only be written by men.  Once your eyes are opened to the hidden, unintentional inequalities, it’s hard not to see them everywhere.  Because they really are everywhere.  Still.

PS: other people have commented on Twitter etc. about the headdesky nature of the comments to that article. I was pleased I had not risked sanity points by looking at them.  This time around, I accidentally read some and omfg. The 78 yr old man who proclaims that women can’t write as well as men because they only write books of interest to other women – thus they sell more despite being not as good.  And not having as many words in their sentences.   Also he’s not a chauvenist (sic) cos he has three successful daughters.  WITHOUT IRONY, PEOPLE.  HE SAYS THIS WITHOUT IRONY.

PPS: Must – stop – reading – comments – before – stupid – rubs off on me – gah.