November 30th, 2009 / 4:53 pm
Snippets
Snippets
Blake Butler—
Amelia Gray makes sense out of the Publishers Weekly and WILLA kerfuffle at the Huffington Post: “To vastly extrapolate, assuming that the number of top-quality male and female writers is equally distributed, most journals would publish more men than women, without even considering bias.”
“Perhaps the troubles of gender preference in these top lists are only reinforced by WILLA’s growing wiki list of Great Books By Women That Publishers Weekly Missed in 2009. If the point of the argument is that great writing transcends gender, why create an entire gendered list?”
This is a good point.
“Perhaps the troubles of gender preference in these top lists are only reinforced by WILLA’s growing wiki list of Great Books By Women That Publishers Weekly Missed in 2009. If the point of the argument is that great writing transcends gender, why create an entire gendered list?”
This is a good point.
This was an interesting article, and made a lot of sense. Contrary to popular belief, I don’t get too riled up about gender issues. But. I really think it is problematic to dismiss (generally speaking) concerns about gender discrepancies in publishing.
There’s no doubt that more men submit work than women and as such, statistically, it makes sense that there will always be an imbalance in terms of how many men and women are published by a given publisher/magazine/etc. I also don’t think that everything has to be 50/50. Most people, myself included, are more interested in seeing great writing than paying attention to the gender of the creators of that writing. That being said, nothing will change the fact that it’s weird that not one book by a woman made it onto the Top 10 list.
In the two forthcoming issues of PANK online, there are 6 or 7 women out of 30-35 total writers who will be published across those two issues. Almost every day I see a plea from an editor asking for more women to submit to their magazine or press. These things concern me but I have no idea how to address the issue nor do I have the time. Still. There are just as many women writers out there as men writers. I believe that. The question becomes, why do men submit their writing so much more than women? Is this a matter of free time? Is it a matter of genre? To my mind, this issue is far more complex than many of the current conversations acknowledge. I also think it is impossible for us to intellectually create a world where we don’t see difference or where difference doesn’t matter.
This was an interesting article, and made a lot of sense. Contrary to popular belief, I don’t get too riled up about gender issues. But. I really think it is problematic to dismiss (generally speaking) concerns about gender discrepancies in publishing.
There’s no doubt that more men submit work than women and as such, statistically, it makes sense that there will always be an imbalance in terms of how many men and women are published by a given publisher/magazine/etc. I also don’t think that everything has to be 50/50. Most people, myself included, are more interested in seeing great writing than paying attention to the gender of the creators of that writing. That being said, nothing will change the fact that it’s weird that not one book by a woman made it onto the Top 10 list.
In the two forthcoming issues of PANK online, there are 6 or 7 women out of 30-35 total writers who will be published across those two issues. Almost every day I see a plea from an editor asking for more women to submit to their magazine or press. These things concern me but I have no idea how to address the issue nor do I have the time. Still. There are just as many women writers out there as men writers. I believe that. The question becomes, why do men submit their writing so much more than women? Is this a matter of free time? Is it a matter of genre? To my mind, this issue is far more complex than many of the current conversations acknowledge. I also think it is impossible for us to intellectually create a world where we don’t see difference or where difference doesn’t matter.
‘Publishers Weekly’s gender-neutral stance may be appealing, but it’s not entirely accurate. Once the editors noticed that their list was all male, they decided to run with it. It would have been easy to bump up a woman from the Top 100–Jayne Anne Phillips, for example, whose novel Lark and Termite was a National Book Award finalist.’
i kind of disagree with that. You can’t knock them for staying true to their original list. You’re saying it would have been better to change the list just to avoid controversy?
‘Publishers Weekly’s gender-neutral stance may be appealing, but it’s not entirely accurate. Once the editors noticed that their list was all male, they decided to run with it. It would have been easy to bump up a woman from the Top 100–Jayne Anne Phillips, for example, whose novel Lark and Termite was a National Book Award finalist.’
i kind of disagree with that. You can’t knock them for staying true to their original list. You’re saying it would have been better to change the list just to avoid controversy?
last year i organized a “tutorial” on american metafiction (at my school a tutorial is basically an intimate, student-organized class), and toward the end of the semester, after we read kathy acker, people began demanding that we read more female authors. it was a “feminist” move, but it seemed distinctly anti-feminist to me. the idea that there is feminine writing and there is masculine writing is no less a binarism than “male writers are better than female writers,” i think.
last year i organized a “tutorial” on american metafiction (at my school a tutorial is basically an intimate, student-organized class), and toward the end of the semester, after we read kathy acker, people began demanding that we read more female authors. it was a “feminist” move, but it seemed distinctly anti-feminist to me. the idea that there is feminine writing and there is masculine writing is no less a binarism than “male writers are better than female writers,” i think.
I’d agree with darby on a purely neutral level. Presumably, PW had some method to determine their top 10 (likely a series of voters and some weighted system to see which get in from the votes). To change the list after the fact would be to change the whole system they had set up.
That isn’t to say they shouldn’t’ have changed it… but their original method may have been gender-neutral in so much as it could be.
I’d agree with darby on a purely neutral level. Presumably, PW had some method to determine their top 10 (likely a series of voters and some weighted system to see which get in from the votes). To change the list after the fact would be to change the whole system they had set up.
That isn’t to say they shouldn’t’ have changed it… but their original method may have been gender-neutral in so much as it could be.
Could it have just been a case of ‘we really liked acker and want more stuff like it’ but it came out as ‘more women!’ because it was the first, easy characteristic to grab hold of? And also, what did she provide that the other stuff hadn’t?
Could it have just been a case of ‘we really liked acker and want more stuff like it’ but it came out as ‘more women!’ because it was the first, easy characteristic to grab hold of? And also, what did she provide that the other stuff hadn’t?
i think she’s saying the exact opposite, that they shouldn’t have had to do that… like, it would have been easy for them to do that, but then they stuck to their guns….
context
i think she’s saying the exact opposite, that they shouldn’t have had to do that… like, it would have been easy for them to do that, but then they stuck to their guns….
context
i think it was more of the former, yes. acker was more sensitive, playful, and thematically significant than the other works we had been reading (i believe before her we had read barth and coover). the part that really bothered me was i suggested we read a few “metafictional” works that were similar in theme, style, and velocity to the acker, but because the authors were not straight-up metafictionists, they weren’t applicable to the class. take from that what you will. but we later read ava by carole maso, which i don’t think at all can be categorized as metafiction. so.
i think it was more of the former, yes. acker was more sensitive, playful, and thematically significant than the other works we had been reading (i believe before her we had read barth and coover). the part that really bothered me was i suggested we read a few “metafictional” works that were similar in theme, style, and velocity to the acker, but because the authors were not straight-up metafictionists, they weren’t applicable to the class. take from that what you will. but we later read ava by carole maso, which i don’t think at all can be categorized as metafiction. so.
Hey Darby & Lincoln, I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest PW kept the list the way it was solely to adhere to some idea of gender neutrality. I think they saw the coincidence of the all-male list, and they decided to run with it partly for the sake of controversy. I wasn’t saying it would be better with a woman on the list–I think it’s clear that I like the controversy–and I’m not knocking PW for staying true, but I am questioning the reasons why they did.
Thanks for posting this here, Blake.
Hey Darby & Lincoln, I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest PW kept the list the way it was solely to adhere to some idea of gender neutrality. I think they saw the coincidence of the all-male list, and they decided to run with it partly for the sake of controversy. I wasn’t saying it would be better with a woman on the list–I think it’s clear that I like the controversy–and I’m not knocking PW for staying true, but I am questioning the reasons why they did.
Thanks for posting this here, Blake.
We publish a lot of women authors at Gigantic and I think we take a lot of pride in that. Still, it is obviously a complex issue. It would be interesting to really know what the ratio of male to female writers is amongst literary fiction and poetry. Say, a survey of MFA programs? And then to see how that changes to the submission process. I read a really interesting article about this around the 08 election or later, where a (female) newspaper editor was talking about Caroline Kennedy and Hillary Clinton and basically arguing that women politicians and comparing politics to journalism, basically arguing that women seem not to “want it” as much. They are less willing to put themselves on the line, or to risk their values to get ahead. Specifically she talked about how her paper made a very conscious effort to ask women instead of men to do pieces. They constantly asked them. However, the women were far far more likely to turn the assignments down, often saying they couldn’t do them in time. Combined with the fact far more men sent in pitches, the paper ended up with more men.
Obviously the reasons women seem to be less willing to submit or at least to submit as often is pretty complex and I won’t pretend to know the answer. Certainly a sexist society likely contributes. I’ll see if I can find the article.
“That being said, nothing will change the fact that it’s weird that not one book by a woman made it onto the Top 10 list.”
This might be true, but I think one mitigating factor is that the list was cross genre and included comics and certain strains of non-fiction that I would imagine are heavily male dominated. I think the list only had 5 works of fiction. Assuming the gender lines in publishing break down similar to submissions, you’d expect 3-2 or 4-1 gender split, so one year with 5-0 doesn’t seem totally crazy, if looked at that way.
We publish a lot of women authors at Gigantic and I think we take a lot of pride in that. Still, it is obviously a complex issue. It would be interesting to really know what the ratio of male to female writers is amongst literary fiction and poetry. Say, a survey of MFA programs? And then to see how that changes to the submission process. I read a really interesting article about this around the 08 election or later, where a (female) newspaper editor was talking about Caroline Kennedy and Hillary Clinton and basically arguing that women politicians and comparing politics to journalism, basically arguing that women seem not to “want it” as much. They are less willing to put themselves on the line, or to risk their values to get ahead. Specifically she talked about how her paper made a very conscious effort to ask women instead of men to do pieces. They constantly asked them. However, the women were far far more likely to turn the assignments down, often saying they couldn’t do them in time. Combined with the fact far more men sent in pitches, the paper ended up with more men.
Obviously the reasons women seem to be less willing to submit or at least to submit as often is pretty complex and I won’t pretend to know the answer. Certainly a sexist society likely contributes. I’ll see if I can find the article.
“That being said, nothing will change the fact that it’s weird that not one book by a woman made it onto the Top 10 list.”
This might be true, but I think one mitigating factor is that the list was cross genre and included comics and certain strains of non-fiction that I would imagine are heavily male dominated. I think the list only had 5 works of fiction. Assuming the gender lines in publishing break down similar to submissions, you’d expect 3-2 or 4-1 gender split, so one year with 5-0 doesn’t seem totally crazy, if looked at that way.
I would totally agree that the most important point to address is why women submit less. The same thing, incidentally, is true in politics. Men and women are both just as likely to vote for a woman as a man–but far, far fewer women run for public office. Are we still dealing with public sphere/private sphere bullshit? Are women more insecure? Is it family/kids/worklife balance?
I would totally agree that the most important point to address is why women submit less. The same thing, incidentally, is true in politics. Men and women are both just as likely to vote for a woman as a man–but far, far fewer women run for public office. Are we still dealing with public sphere/private sphere bullshit? Are women more insecure? Is it family/kids/worklife balance?
Hey Amelia,
I guess what I am saying is that when PW says “we ignored gender and genre and who had the buzz” I take that to mean that they are claiming their judges did not think about gender in their voting process and thus the selection was made without gender in mind. Hard to know if that is true, but I don’t think there is any evidence that this comment isn’t accurate.
I agree with basically everything else you wrote though….and I agree they probably ran it in part for the controversy. Good article.
Hey Amelia,
I guess what I am saying is that when PW says “we ignored gender and genre and who had the buzz” I take that to mean that they are claiming their judges did not think about gender in their voting process and thus the selection was made without gender in mind. Hard to know if that is true, but I don’t think there is any evidence that this comment isn’t accurate.
I agree with basically everything else you wrote though….and I agree they probably ran it in part for the controversy. Good article.
i guess i don’t question why someone would prefer to be honest, regardless of controversy. there doesn’t need to be a reason to remain honest.
i guess i don’t question why someone would prefer to be honest, regardless of controversy. there doesn’t need to be a reason to remain honest.
this kind of mathematicization of gender is weird and confusing to me.
why do you take pride in publishing female writers? that seems like an objectification of the work, like a taking up of the author as an object of pride, an acquisition to be toted and “used” as an instrument of defense. i’m not accusing at all, just wondering aloud.
everybody knows gordon lish has “had” plenty of women. that doesn’t make him any less of a masculinist in attitude.
this kind of mathematicization of gender is weird and confusing to me.
why do you take pride in publishing female writers? that seems like an objectification of the work, like a taking up of the author as an object of pride, an acquisition to be toted and “used” as an instrument of defense. i’m not accusing at all, just wondering aloud.
everybody knows gordon lish has “had” plenty of women. that doesn’t make him any less of a masculinist in attitude.
No, it’s not. It’s an intentional misdirection on Amelia Gray’s part. WILLA isn’t arguing for a post- or trans-gender anything. They’re saying that PW’s list unfairly neglected the work of women, and so they have collected it–perhaps as a corrective, perhaps simply so it’s located somewhere and accessible, perhaps both. In any case, Gray’s sentence hinges on the “if” at the beginning– but the real answer is, “no, Amelia, that’s not the argument at all. That is what is called a fact–great writing does transcend gender, unequivocally, and also DUH.” The argument has to do with the perception of greatness and the way in which we speak about such greatness as we encounter. Specifically, there exists a cultural bias in the way that we assess Literary Greatness, which causes both men and women alike, to be more likely to bestow the title of ‘great’ on a man’s work than on a woman’s. I think that’s a pretty straightforward and reasonable thing to claim, and I think it goes a good way towards explaining why even a female-dominated selection committee produced an all-male list.
What’s perhaps more interesting is that Marvin and Belieu, who are both women but who are also both POETS, didn’t call out PW for what seems to me an equally obvious, and perhaps more egregious flaw– not one of those books in the overall top 10 list is a book of verse.
But interestingly enough, the WILLA list has been released in the form of a Wikia page, to which anyone can add a name- the archive and not the canon, as it were.
http://willalist.wikia.com/wiki/The_WILLA_List_Wiki
I don’t know that this does much for the purpose of making a best of list (assuming you’re one for whom a best-of list itself holds any value or import) but it did teach me about some books that came out this year that I apparently missed- the new Lisa Olstein collection (Lost Alphabets), a New & Uncollected Mavis Gallant, and a book (AM/PM) by Amelia Gray herself. Wild.
No, it’s not. It’s an intentional misdirection on Amelia Gray’s part. WILLA isn’t arguing for a post- or trans-gender anything. They’re saying that PW’s list unfairly neglected the work of women, and so they have collected it–perhaps as a corrective, perhaps simply so it’s located somewhere and accessible, perhaps both. In any case, Gray’s sentence hinges on the “if” at the beginning– but the real answer is, “no, Amelia, that’s not the argument at all. That is what is called a fact–great writing does transcend gender, unequivocally, and also DUH.” The argument has to do with the perception of greatness and the way in which we speak about such greatness as we encounter. Specifically, there exists a cultural bias in the way that we assess Literary Greatness, which causes both men and women alike, to be more likely to bestow the title of ‘great’ on a man’s work than on a woman’s. I think that’s a pretty straightforward and reasonable thing to claim, and I think it goes a good way towards explaining why even a female-dominated selection committee produced an all-male list.
What’s perhaps more interesting is that Marvin and Belieu, who are both women but who are also both POETS, didn’t call out PW for what seems to me an equally obvious, and perhaps more egregious flaw– not one of those books in the overall top 10 list is a book of verse.
But interestingly enough, the WILLA list has been released in the form of a Wikia page, to which anyone can add a name- the archive and not the canon, as it were.
http://willalist.wikia.com/wiki/The_WILLA_List_Wiki
I don’t know that this does much for the purpose of making a best of list (assuming you’re one for whom a best-of list itself holds any value or import) but it did teach me about some books that came out this year that I apparently missed- the new Lisa Olstein collection (Lost Alphabets), a New & Uncollected Mavis Gallant, and a book (AM/PM) by Amelia Gray herself. Wild.
PS- you all know that I’m not much of a Lydia Davis fan, but given that everybody else and their mother thinks she’s the queen mother of the avant whatever, isn’t the simple fact of her Collected Stories being excluded from this list enough to indict its values, if not precisely its execution. My own taste notwithstanding, it’s inarguable that Davis has been massively influential, and that the emergence of a complete (to date) edition of her work by a major house signifies an important moment in the culture. Possibly even more significant than “Shop Class as Soulcraft.”
PS- you all know that I’m not much of a Lydia Davis fan, but given that everybody else and their mother thinks she’s the queen mother of the avant whatever, isn’t the simple fact of her Collected Stories being excluded from this list enough to indict its values, if not precisely its execution. My own taste notwithstanding, it’s inarguable that Davis has been massively influential, and that the emergence of a complete (to date) edition of her work by a major house signifies an important moment in the culture. Possibly even more significant than “Shop Class as Soulcraft.”
Incidentally, I don’t think it’s categorically “better” to have women’s or men’s writing in a publication or list, or to even differentiate between the two. Good writing is good writing no matter who it comes from; I’m only concerned about it because of what Amelia mentions in her piece–the unevenness of the submission pool and the artificial imbalance that causes.
Incidentally, I don’t think it’s categorically “better” to have women’s or men’s writing in a publication or list, or to even differentiate between the two. Good writing is good writing no matter who it comes from; I’m only concerned about it because of what Amelia mentions in her piece–the unevenness of the submission pool and the artificial imbalance that causes.
“They’re saying that PW’s list unfairly neglected the work of women, and so they have collected it–perhaps as a corrective, perhaps simply so it’s located somewhere and accessible, perhaps both.”
Yes, but WILLA’s list was created as a direct result of PW’s list. It’s about intention. I realize it’s stupid to hope that someday we will all learn to appreciate writing beyond gender, I realize that’s pandering, and that by definition WILLA were fulfilling the purpose of their organization by compiling such a list (or at least creating the platform for it), but it just strikes me as counterproductive to the argument. I mean, why not make a list of “all books” ignored by PW’s top list? Why are we so obsessed with defending gender? I’m not asking this to be snide, I think it’s a larger issue that needs to be addressed.
“They’re saying that PW’s list unfairly neglected the work of women, and so they have collected it–perhaps as a corrective, perhaps simply so it’s located somewhere and accessible, perhaps both.”
Yes, but WILLA’s list was created as a direct result of PW’s list. It’s about intention. I realize it’s stupid to hope that someday we will all learn to appreciate writing beyond gender, I realize that’s pandering, and that by definition WILLA were fulfilling the purpose of their organization by compiling such a list (or at least creating the platform for it), but it just strikes me as counterproductive to the argument. I mean, why not make a list of “all books” ignored by PW’s top list? Why are we so obsessed with defending gender? I’m not asking this to be snide, I think it’s a larger issue that needs to be addressed.
“Specifically, there exists a cultural bias in the way that we assess Literary Greatness, which causes both men and women alike, to be more likely to bestow the title of ‘great’ on a man’s work than on a woman’s.”
This is true, although one thing I find interesting is that when this comes up there tends to be an assumption that what is happening is that society is favoring “male values” or “male styles” over “female values” or “female styles.” This is probably true, but the opposite might be in play as well: That certain works may have some sort of “universal” values or style, but society only encourages men to write those things and pressures women to write other things.
“Specifically, there exists a cultural bias in the way that we assess Literary Greatness, which causes both men and women alike, to be more likely to bestow the title of ‘great’ on a man’s work than on a woman’s.”
This is true, although one thing I find interesting is that when this comes up there tends to be an assumption that what is happening is that society is favoring “male values” or “male styles” over “female values” or “female styles.” This is probably true, but the opposite might be in play as well: That certain works may have some sort of “universal” values or style, but society only encourages men to write those things and pressures women to write other things.
For me, one problem here is the truncated notion of sexism and the way its made into a straw (wo)man. WILLA did not argue that the PW editors were engaging in a kind of activist sexist agenda. Amelia says she doesn’t think that WILLA saw the list as an attack on the ladies and then proceeds to say they must think it’s a conspiracy of males – or, in other words, an attack on the ladies. But the key word in the quote from Cate Marvin in Amelia’s article is “comfortable”, not “bias”. The idea that a top 10 should find itself absent of women altogether implies a massive constitutional problem at the level of the compilation of the list itself. That PW is entirely okay with that is what smacks of sexism. Not only should PW have amended the top 10 to include women writers, they should have amended the entire list to correct the problematic standards of literary and aesthetic judgement that led them to arrive at such an outcome. The sexism is structurated into the supposedly trans-referential standards, not because women weren’t present on the list (they were) or because women weren’t part of the editorial board (they were) but because all of that inclusion made not one bit of a difference in placing a woman writer amongst the top 10. This is exactly why I find calls for going ‘beyond’ gender so fundamentally blind because it just entirely decontextualises the way books come to us, what books come to us, and how. And, incidentally, even if you do accept that PW did nothing amiss, notice that what makes the list “ok” in that case is that women were on the list and women were on the editorial board, which is a pretty cynical and tokenistic argument when you think about it, that tries to vindicate the selection by saying gender is represented to say that gender doesn’t matter. Anyhow, does all this mean that a book deserves a handicap or something because it happens to be written by a woman? No, but the pursuit of women writers generally deserve a special consideration, an activism on the reader’s part, given that the centre of gravity just constantly and inevitably draws the weight of male writers toward us as readers. In the end, I can’t grasp why this mindfulness of gender is such an apparent ‘threat’ to artistic or readerly freedom. Why is it that gender is seen as this delimiting thing that apparently stops the imagination dead rather than opening it up to all kinds of bizarro complexity? How come gender is always seen as obstacle to discourse rather than opportunity? Who knows enough about what gender even is that they don’t ever need to think about it again in any readerly way at all? Beyond gender is beyond my comprehension.
For me, one problem here is the truncated notion of sexism and the way its made into a straw (wo)man. WILLA did not argue that the PW editors were engaging in a kind of activist sexist agenda. Amelia says she doesn’t think that WILLA saw the list as an attack on the ladies and then proceeds to say they must think it’s a conspiracy of males – or, in other words, an attack on the ladies. But the key word in the quote from Cate Marvin in Amelia’s article is “comfortable”, not “bias”. The idea that a top 10 should find itself absent of women altogether implies a massive constitutional problem at the level of the compilation of the list itself. That PW is entirely okay with that is what smacks of sexism. Not only should PW have amended the top 10 to include women writers, they should have amended the entire list to correct the problematic standards of literary and aesthetic judgement that led them to arrive at such an outcome. The sexism is structurated into the supposedly trans-referential standards, not because women weren’t present on the list (they were) or because women weren’t part of the editorial board (they were) but because all of that inclusion made not one bit of a difference in placing a woman writer amongst the top 10. This is exactly why I find calls for going ‘beyond’ gender so fundamentally blind because it just entirely decontextualises the way books come to us, what books come to us, and how. And, incidentally, even if you do accept that PW did nothing amiss, notice that what makes the list “ok” in that case is that women were on the list and women were on the editorial board, which is a pretty cynical and tokenistic argument when you think about it, that tries to vindicate the selection by saying gender is represented to say that gender doesn’t matter. Anyhow, does all this mean that a book deserves a handicap or something because it happens to be written by a woman? No, but the pursuit of women writers generally deserve a special consideration, an activism on the reader’s part, given that the centre of gravity just constantly and inevitably draws the weight of male writers toward us as readers. In the end, I can’t grasp why this mindfulness of gender is such an apparent ‘threat’ to artistic or readerly freedom. Why is it that gender is seen as this delimiting thing that apparently stops the imagination dead rather than opening it up to all kinds of bizarro complexity? How come gender is always seen as obstacle to discourse rather than opportunity? Who knows enough about what gender even is that they don’t ever need to think about it again in any readerly way at all? Beyond gender is beyond my comprehension.
I find it singularly hilarious that editors plead for women writers to submit more. So the idea is, if women submit more, editors can still say they only publish the best, regardless of gender, but also save face by publishing women and men in roughly equal numbers. Whatever the problem may be, this is not the solution.
I find it singularly hilarious that editors plead for women writers to submit more. So the idea is, if women submit more, editors can still say they only publish the best, regardless of gender, but also save face by publishing women and men in roughly equal numbers. Whatever the problem may be, this is not the solution.
Did you feel the similarly when the national book award nominated five women in 2004?
Did you feel the similarly when the national book award nominated five women in 2004?
I didn’t feel anything about it at the time because I wasn’t paying attention. But like, right now, do I think that nominating five women was ok? Sure. Was there a worthy book by a male that year? Sure again. For starters, Dennis Cooper’s The Sluts. But the precise point is that this isn’t about brokering an equality between sexes but taking account of the deficit that systemically informs the literary production of female writers in respect to male writers. A year without women resounds louder than a year without men because, culturally speaking, men are never absent. Like, for instance, that ‘year’ could be offset against the fact that men won the National Book Award five out of nine times since 2000. Obviously, I’m not saying the men that won the award didn’t deserve to win it. But to take the one year of an all-female candidature as being a sign of legitimacy for PW’s practice, as being the ‘same thing’ exactly as their list except reversed, is a kind of specious moral algebra that pays no attention to context, coordinates or history.
I didn’t feel anything about it at the time because I wasn’t paying attention. But like, right now, do I think that nominating five women was ok? Sure. Was there a worthy book by a male that year? Sure again. For starters, Dennis Cooper’s The Sluts. But the precise point is that this isn’t about brokering an equality between sexes but taking account of the deficit that systemically informs the literary production of female writers in respect to male writers. A year without women resounds louder than a year without men because, culturally speaking, men are never absent. Like, for instance, that ‘year’ could be offset against the fact that men won the National Book Award five out of nine times since 2000. Obviously, I’m not saying the men that won the award didn’t deserve to win it. But to take the one year of an all-female candidature as being a sign of legitimacy for PW’s practice, as being the ‘same thing’ exactly as their list except reversed, is a kind of specious moral algebra that pays no attention to context, coordinates or history.
correction: i meant, six out of nine, sorry.
correction: i meant, six out of nine, sorry.
agreeded
agreeded
which writers want more women? only out of curiosity.
editors, i mean
which writers want more women? only out of curiosity.
editors, i mean
Did you read Amelia’s post?
Did you read Amelia’s post?
David– yes yes yes, a thousand times yes.
?- an interesting and very telling example. That was a banner year for the Nat’l Book Awards; one of the strongest short-lists and some of the most adventurous choices in recent memory. That was *also* the year that there was a massive to-do in the mainstream literary press (NYT, etc) faulting the committee for having chosen books that hadn’t sold enough copies to merit the attention. The committee was accused, basically, of being active collaborators in the marginalization of literature by picking books that nobody cared about. You should read “Prize Fight,” the Deborah Solomon interview with Christine Schutt from that year- by the time Solomon interviewed her, no less than Thomas McGuane had publicly declared that the Awards underwent a “meltdown” and claimed that Schutt’s book had sold less than 100 copies–as if that had anything to do with anything. That’s just from the lede. Read the whole piece (it’s short)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/magazine/31QUESTIONS.html?ex=1256965200&en=ae1525b4dc6b84bb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
David– yes yes yes, a thousand times yes.
?- an interesting and very telling example. That was a banner year for the Nat’l Book Awards; one of the strongest short-lists and some of the most adventurous choices in recent memory. That was *also* the year that there was a massive to-do in the mainstream literary press (NYT, etc) faulting the committee for having chosen books that hadn’t sold enough copies to merit the attention. The committee was accused, basically, of being active collaborators in the marginalization of literature by picking books that nobody cared about. You should read “Prize Fight,” the Deborah Solomon interview with Christine Schutt from that year- by the time Solomon interviewed her, no less than Thomas McGuane had publicly declared that the Awards underwent a “meltdown” and claimed that Schutt’s book had sold less than 100 copies–as if that had anything to do with anything. That’s just from the lede. Read the whole piece (it’s short)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/31/magazine/31QUESTIONS.html?ex=1256965200&en=ae1525b4dc6b84bb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland
This so well articulates what I think. Thanks for this comment.
This so well articulates what I think. Thanks for this comment.
Wanting to see more work from women does not mean we’re looking to publish an equal balance or trying to “save face”. It means we want more options from women. Wanting to see more work is not a guarantee of publication.
Wanting to see more work from women does not mean we’re looking to publish an equal balance or trying to “save face”. It means we want more options from women. Wanting to see more work is not a guarantee of publication.
I believe that coming from you, at least based on your other comments on the thread, and I’m interested in many of the questions you’ve raised. But why the “we?” Are you so sure other editors aren’t interested in saving face, and that that’s not behind some of these near-daily pleas you mention above? Also, why do you want to see more work by women-in-general? Not saying there aren’t good reasons, but I’d be interested in hearing them.
I believe that coming from you, at least based on your other comments on the thread, and I’m interested in many of the questions you’ve raised. But why the “we?” Are you so sure other editors aren’t interested in saving face, and that that’s not behind some of these near-daily pleas you mention above? Also, why do you want to see more work by women-in-general? Not saying there aren’t good reasons, but I’d be interested in hearing them.
Maybe men submit too much, not women too little. OK, that’s intentionally a bit glib. But, at the risk of getting as academe-syllabic as David, is there conceivably something a little masculinist about the submit-more-publish-more-places mentality? I’m thinking of Elizabeth Bishop. Is urging women to submit more akin to a kind of 80s-era feminism where woman had to wear horrid suits to be taken seriously? Please think of this as a thought experiment, not a considered opinion.
Maybe men submit too much, not women too little. OK, that’s intentionally a bit glib. But, at the risk of getting as academe-syllabic as David, is there conceivably something a little masculinist about the submit-more-publish-more-places mentality? I’m thinking of Elizabeth Bishop. Is urging women to submit more akin to a kind of 80s-era feminism where woman had to wear horrid suits to be taken seriously? Please think of this as a thought experiment, not a considered opinion.
not knocking you, David! i agree with lots of what you’re saying, especially the last part
not knocking you, David! i agree with lots of what you’re saying, especially the last part
Thinking of the other editors who have recently asked to see more writing from women, I don’t think they are trying to save face.
You ask a good question, Amy. One thing I can say is that a lot of the work I see from men has the same aesthetic. This is not a bad thing but after reading 30 stories that are well-written but not very distinguishable from one another I get frustrated because it seems like there’s a group of guys out there trying a little too hard to create this one kind of writing (and it’s hard to explain how I would characterize it). Often with women writers, I’m surprised. Sometimes, its a bad surprise but oftentimes, I am very pleasantly surprised. I’m thinking, for example, of a story forthcoming from Ani Smith. It’s different and fresh and when I read it I thought, holy christ, that’s amazing. Another great writer who recently came on my radar is Janey Smith. Her writing is weird and crisp and unlike anything I’ve ever read and I was surprised. At the end of the day, is this about gender? Maybe not. Maybe it’s just about amazing writers. But women writers seem to surprise me more than men writers do.
Thinking of the other editors who have recently asked to see more writing from women, I don’t think they are trying to save face.
You ask a good question, Amy. One thing I can say is that a lot of the work I see from men has the same aesthetic. This is not a bad thing but after reading 30 stories that are well-written but not very distinguishable from one another I get frustrated because it seems like there’s a group of guys out there trying a little too hard to create this one kind of writing (and it’s hard to explain how I would characterize it). Often with women writers, I’m surprised. Sometimes, its a bad surprise but oftentimes, I am very pleasantly surprised. I’m thinking, for example, of a story forthcoming from Ani Smith. It’s different and fresh and when I read it I thought, holy christ, that’s amazing. Another great writer who recently came on my radar is Janey Smith. Her writing is weird and crisp and unlike anything I’ve ever read and I was surprised. At the end of the day, is this about gender? Maybe not. Maybe it’s just about amazing writers. But women writers seem to surprise me more than men writers do.
most of my favorite writers are either female, gay, or both
most of my favorite writers are either female, gay, or both
I see what you’re getting at, but I’d have to say no, because the idea that women don’t need to publish as much as men or go at a slower pace or are more private about their work sort of conjures up a creepy Victorian picture of quiet, meek women writers selflessly enjoying their own work without the need to be read by others or receive credit or compensation. If women behave differently than men in regards to self-promotion, I think it’s only because years of societal conditioning–unlike power suits, I wouldn’t say increased submissions are “masculine” in nature. I don’t think women should submit just to even the playing field, but if there are more women out there holding back because of lack of self-confidence (and I’ve met a bunch of them) I’d like to see them submit more, for sure.
I see what you’re getting at, but I’d have to say no, because the idea that women don’t need to publish as much as men or go at a slower pace or are more private about their work sort of conjures up a creepy Victorian picture of quiet, meek women writers selflessly enjoying their own work without the need to be read by others or receive credit or compensation. If women behave differently than men in regards to self-promotion, I think it’s only because years of societal conditioning–unlike power suits, I wouldn’t say increased submissions are “masculine” in nature. I don’t think women should submit just to even the playing field, but if there are more women out there holding back because of lack of self-confidence (and I’ve met a bunch of them) I’d like to see them submit more, for sure.
i have no idea why you’d want writing, or any other pursuit, artistic or otherwise, as genderless. i mean, a genderless novel could be interesting in the same way a Bauhaus building is interesting, but i don’t want all buildings that way.
i have no idea why you’d want writing, or any other pursuit, artistic or otherwise, as genderless. i mean, a genderless novel could be interesting in the same way a Bauhaus building is interesting, but i don’t want all buildings that way.
Obviously nobody should hold back for lack of self-confidence. But neither should someone feel pressure to submit more frequently just because, right now, in the indie publishing world, the dominant mode is to submit a lot. There are all kinds of ways to be a good, confident writer. Being in a rush to publish in as many journals as possible is just one way. Another way is being extremely selective about what to submit and where. Cf earlier example, Elizabeth Bishop–hardly meek, hardly lacking in confidence. Maybe the trend toward quantity over quality of submissions is not a gender thing, but really–of what gender are most of the people who plague editors with constant submissions that don’t make any sense for the publication?
Obviously nobody should hold back for lack of self-confidence. But neither should someone feel pressure to submit more frequently just because, right now, in the indie publishing world, the dominant mode is to submit a lot. There are all kinds of ways to be a good, confident writer. Being in a rush to publish in as many journals as possible is just one way. Another way is being extremely selective about what to submit and where. Cf earlier example, Elizabeth Bishop–hardly meek, hardly lacking in confidence. Maybe the trend toward quantity over quality of submissions is not a gender thing, but really–of what gender are most of the people who plague editors with constant submissions that don’t make any sense for the publication?
agreeded with both of you.
does it make me less of a feminist to think women (that do anything) are better at everything?
agreeded with both of you.
does it make me less of a feminist to think women (that do anything) are better at everything?
my program has an annual poetry and fiction contest that’s only open to the members of the program and….
ONLY MEN WON
the fiction
and
ONLY WOMEN WON
the poetry.
I don’t know. It seemed odd to me. Are women published more in poetry than men?
my program has an annual poetry and fiction contest that’s only open to the members of the program and….
ONLY MEN WON
the fiction
and
ONLY WOMEN WON
the poetry.
I don’t know. It seemed odd to me. Are women published more in poetry than men?
no offence taken, amy! academic-syllabic is like my crips sign, i flash it with pride, lol. actually, you bring up an interesting point, about the possible gendered elements of saturation and “notice”. have to mull that over for a bit. quite interesting…
no offence taken, amy! academic-syllabic is like my crips sign, i flash it with pride, lol. actually, you bring up an interesting point, about the possible gendered elements of saturation and “notice”. have to mull that over for a bit. quite interesting…
Thanks Justin, Roxane. Oh and Justin, that connection between the women writers and the lack of “sales” in that all-female year is really intriguing, thanks for digging that up!
Thanks Justin, Roxane. Oh and Justin, that connection between the women writers and the lack of “sales” in that all-female year is really intriguing, thanks for digging that up!
the reason why women, in my personal observation, do not submit as much as men is due mostly to insecurity.
women are frail things. rejection is not taken well.
i can make a dissatisfied facial expression at a super model or a stripper or etc. and say “tsk tsk” and point at her hips and the girl will think there is something wrong with her hips. forever.
no shit.
men on the other hand are blunt objects. we move forward. sure rejection hurts but we tend to turn it into a competition. us against the world sort of thing.
this thing is changing in the new world as more boys are raised by all female households and taught the ways of passive-aggression and co-dependence.
so really this is a good thing for women.
in my above example re:insecure women the examples are all wrong though for what we are talking about.
if a woman wants to seriously coexist in the arena with a man, she must compete like a man.
and she must surpass all.
it’s that simple.
the reason why women, in my personal observation, do not submit as much as men is due mostly to insecurity.
women are frail things. rejection is not taken well.
i can make a dissatisfied facial expression at a super model or a stripper or etc. and say “tsk tsk” and point at her hips and the girl will think there is something wrong with her hips. forever.
no shit.
men on the other hand are blunt objects. we move forward. sure rejection hurts but we tend to turn it into a competition. us against the world sort of thing.
this thing is changing in the new world as more boys are raised by all female households and taught the ways of passive-aggression and co-dependence.
so really this is a good thing for women.
in my above example re:insecure women the examples are all wrong though for what we are talking about.
if a woman wants to seriously coexist in the arena with a man, she must compete like a man.
and she must surpass all.
it’s that simple.
damn this vagina o’ mine
damn this vagina o’ mine
yes, you are fucked.
yes, you are fucked.
i have to say, lincoln, i had the EXACT same question alec answered. in fact, i stopped reading your post the second you said you took a lot of pride…and scrolled down to see the reactions.
i have to say, lincoln, i had the EXACT same question alec answered. in fact, i stopped reading your post the second you said you took a lot of pride…and scrolled down to see the reactions.
ha ha, i meant that alec asked.
can htmlgiant offer a course for posters like me who hit send before editing their posts?
ha ha, i meant that alec asked.
can htmlgiant offer a course for posters like me who hit send before editing their posts?
i’ll throw a beer at your beard, boyo!
i’ll throw a beer at your beard, boyo!
something belgian would be nice!
something belgian would be nice!
Agreed that submitting for submitting’s sake=idiocy. So here’s a question for all you editors out there: in the pile of submissions you toss aside as “clearly submitting to each and every journal out there with no understanding of the publication’s aesthetic or frankly, anything else,” do you see a lot more men, women, or about even? Just curious about who the most frequent submission abusers are.
Agreed that submitting for submitting’s sake=idiocy. So here’s a question for all you editors out there: in the pile of submissions you toss aside as “clearly submitting to each and every journal out there with no understanding of the publication’s aesthetic or frankly, anything else,” do you see a lot more men, women, or about even? Just curious about who the most frequent submission abusers are.
hey Amber, if they dont answer this question here, theres another thread on htmlgiant with an email address you can email this question and Roxane Gay will get some other editors to answer this….
hey Amber, if they dont answer this question here, theres another thread on htmlgiant with an email address you can email this question and Roxane Gay will get some other editors to answer this….
I think that diversity of voices is, in general, a good thing. Gender is hardly the only factor there and math doesn’t have anything to do with it. Frankly, this wasn’t really the point of my post there and I think David and others have handled this kind of question elsewhere.
I think that diversity of voices is, in general, a good thing. Gender is hardly the only factor there and math doesn’t have anything to do with it. Frankly, this wasn’t really the point of my post there and I think David and others have handled this kind of question elsewhere.
Amber- the answer is MEN. I don’t have a reason for why this is, but having worked as a reader on several journals, now editing one, and having many friends who do or have done the same, I can say that the “over-eager, maybe borderline-psychotic person who submits relentlessly, even to the point of replying to your unambiguous rejection email with a fresh submission within a half hour of having received said email,” is an exclusively (as in, based on my research: one hundred percent) male phenomenon.
Amber- the answer is MEN. I don’t have a reason for why this is, but having worked as a reader on several journals, now editing one, and having many friends who do or have done the same, I can say that the “over-eager, maybe borderline-psychotic person who submits relentlessly, even to the point of replying to your unambiguous rejection email with a fresh submission within a half hour of having received said email,” is an exclusively (as in, based on my research: one hundred percent) male phenomenon.
Yeah but, to Amy’s point, maybe the problem is with how men compete. Or the fact that this is perceived as a competition at all. We’re talking about art here–at least, ostensibly we are–and the idea is supposed to be that you admire and respect a publication, and also believe you have something to offer it (and you something to gain by being in it) and it is on this understanding of mutual benefit and pleasure that you pursue the relationship. If your approach to writing and publication is the equivalent of two frat boys having a virgin-collecting contest, then there’s something seriously wrong here–and the thing that is wrong seems like roughly the same thing that is wrong with those two frat boys.
People that send unsolicited submissions to the Ag Reader, accompanied with a bio that lists 140 “pub credits” all from places I’ve never heard of just seem promiscuous to me. It makes it seems like they don’t really respect the art they practice, or themselves, and once these things have been established, it only stands to reason that they probably don’t respect me or my magazine either. It puts me on notice, is what I’m saying. And sometimes I am surprised, but not nearly often enough.
So, speaking as an editor, if your reason for submitting is the weird equivalent of getting another notch on the bed post, do us both a favor and stay the fuck away from my magazine, because it doesn’t want your scenester herpes.
Yeah but, to Amy’s point, maybe the problem is with how men compete. Or the fact that this is perceived as a competition at all. We’re talking about art here–at least, ostensibly we are–and the idea is supposed to be that you admire and respect a publication, and also believe you have something to offer it (and you something to gain by being in it) and it is on this understanding of mutual benefit and pleasure that you pursue the relationship. If your approach to writing and publication is the equivalent of two frat boys having a virgin-collecting contest, then there’s something seriously wrong here–and the thing that is wrong seems like roughly the same thing that is wrong with those two frat boys.
People that send unsolicited submissions to the Ag Reader, accompanied with a bio that lists 140 “pub credits” all from places I’ve never heard of just seem promiscuous to me. It makes it seems like they don’t really respect the art they practice, or themselves, and once these things have been established, it only stands to reason that they probably don’t respect me or my magazine either. It puts me on notice, is what I’m saying. And sometimes I am surprised, but not nearly often enough.
So, speaking as an editor, if your reason for submitting is the weird equivalent of getting another notch on the bed post, do us both a favor and stay the fuck away from my magazine, because it doesn’t want your scenester herpes.
I think I’d have to disagree with Justin here. Men are probably the more frequent abusers of the submission system, but women are by no means immune to this. When I thought about submissions abuse the first thing that came to mind are a few women who, at different magazines I’ve worked for, would send in GIGANTIC submissions, often multiple times a year. I mean like they’d send 30 poems in one envelope even though the guidelines said 3-5. There is one poet who I think fairly famous for this and I’m positive she was carpet bombing those giant submissions too.
I think I’d have to disagree with Justin here. Men are probably the more frequent abusers of the submission system, but women are by no means immune to this. When I thought about submissions abuse the first thing that came to mind are a few women who, at different magazines I’ve worked for, would send in GIGANTIC submissions, often multiple times a year. I mean like they’d send 30 poems in one envelope even though the guidelines said 3-5. There is one poet who I think fairly famous for this and I’m positive she was carpet bombing those giant submissions too.
[…] HTMLGiant for the heads […]
Hey Justin, I do indeed believe that WILLA published their list “perhaps as a corrective” and that’s my problem with it. I take issue with the condemnation of bias, not the bias itself, and when condemnation of bias happens I find myself pretty interested in where the condemner is showing their own bias. I’d hate to think that I wouldn’t be allowed to make this argument if I was on the PW list, or if I was a man and on the PW top 10, or on WILLA’s wiki list.
When I say “Publishers Weekly’s attempt to turn a loud blind eye and WILLA’s counter-attempt to start a discussion benefiting women writers are each well-meaning and similar in purpose and good intentions” I’m making a point that I hope Marvin and Belieu don’t ignore while they’re reading this article. Both lists are fine for what they claim to be–ways to show people the work they’ve missed in 2009–but it’s part of the intent that makes me look sidelong in both cases.
Thanks for your considered posts. I didn’t consider the poet angle at all, that is a true DUH on my part.
Hey Justin, I do indeed believe that WILLA published their list “perhaps as a corrective” and that’s my problem with it. I take issue with the condemnation of bias, not the bias itself, and when condemnation of bias happens I find myself pretty interested in where the condemner is showing their own bias. I’d hate to think that I wouldn’t be allowed to make this argument if I was on the PW list, or if I was a man and on the PW top 10, or on WILLA’s wiki list.
When I say “Publishers Weekly’s attempt to turn a loud blind eye and WILLA’s counter-attempt to start a discussion benefiting women writers are each well-meaning and similar in purpose and good intentions” I’m making a point that I hope Marvin and Belieu don’t ignore while they’re reading this article. Both lists are fine for what they claim to be–ways to show people the work they’ve missed in 2009–but it’s part of the intent that makes me look sidelong in both cases.
Thanks for your considered posts. I didn’t consider the poet angle at all, that is a true DUH on my part.
You’re right, I agree about the selection process, but it’s in the editorial process when Ermelino says “it disturbed us when we were done that our list was all male” and that’s when they could have edited the list, but they didn’t. Overall I think it’s a good thing they didn’t but I do perhaps have a more cynical idea about why that was. I think we’re agreeing on all counts, in this corner anyway. High fives.
You’re right, I agree about the selection process, but it’s in the editorial process when Ermelino says “it disturbed us when we were done that our list was all male” and that’s when they could have edited the list, but they didn’t. Overall I think it’s a good thing they didn’t but I do perhaps have a more cynical idea about why that was. I think we’re agreeing on all counts, in this corner anyway. High fives.
That’s fair. It’s a cynical idea to question their honesty. Partly why I do is so WILLA doesn’t get thrown under the bus, despite the fact that they sort of stood directly in front of the bus and started waving their arms. I think it’s good to have a sidelong glance at everyone’s intent.
That’s fair. It’s a cynical idea to question their honesty. Partly why I do is so WILLA doesn’t get thrown under the bus, despite the fact that they sort of stood directly in front of the bus and started waving their arms. I think it’s good to have a sidelong glance at everyone’s intent.
Amelia- I didn’t mean to suggest that if you had been listed you wouldn’t be “allowed” to make this or any other argument. I was just trying to sort of offer a sense of the use-value of the WILLA wikilist, as contrasted with the PW list. And I am hearing everything you’re saying– I like the idea of looking at the angles everyone is coming from. It’s PW’s own angle that seems the most objectionable to me- I like this notion of the “loud blind eye,” it’s a delightful turn of phrase and it hits the nail of what their position on the head, but ultimately, I think, PW’s position doesn’t interest me as much as WILLA’s does, because PW is a big irrelevant dinosaur that produced a pointless list, and then congratulated themselves on noticing–but not fixing–their own largest problem.
A decent discussion was triggered, but not on their site and not about their list, which, I think at this point, we can all admit we don’t give a damn about because none of us have read those books and we probably aren’t going to. What we’re ultimately concerned about are the issues related to gender and publishing, especially as they concern the indie, small-press, and online literary communities. That’s the discussion worth having, and it’s the one that Cate Marvin and Erin Belieu–and yourself–have helped inaugurate.
Amelia- I didn’t mean to suggest that if you had been listed you wouldn’t be “allowed” to make this or any other argument. I was just trying to sort of offer a sense of the use-value of the WILLA wikilist, as contrasted with the PW list. And I am hearing everything you’re saying– I like the idea of looking at the angles everyone is coming from. It’s PW’s own angle that seems the most objectionable to me- I like this notion of the “loud blind eye,” it’s a delightful turn of phrase and it hits the nail of what their position on the head, but ultimately, I think, PW’s position doesn’t interest me as much as WILLA’s does, because PW is a big irrelevant dinosaur that produced a pointless list, and then congratulated themselves on noticing–but not fixing–their own largest problem.
A decent discussion was triggered, but not on their site and not about their list, which, I think at this point, we can all admit we don’t give a damn about because none of us have read those books and we probably aren’t going to. What we’re ultimately concerned about are the issues related to gender and publishing, especially as they concern the indie, small-press, and online literary communities. That’s the discussion worth having, and it’s the one that Cate Marvin and Erin Belieu–and yourself–have helped inaugurate.
[…] of mud luscious/mlp, Adam Robinson of Publishing Genius, and Roxane Gay of PANK. Good talks at the GIANT, where some measured opinions are being laid down on the topic of women, publishing, and bias. […]
Well said, Justin, as always. Thanks.
Well said, Justin, as always. Thanks.
Six out of nine times is an entirely reasonable number. Flip a coin ten times — you expect it to be 50/50 in the first ten flips?
Which is not to deny your broader point, but that’s really weak sauce as evidence goes.
Six out of nine times is an entirely reasonable number. Flip a coin ten times — you expect it to be 50/50 in the first ten flips?
Which is not to deny your broader point, but that’s really weak sauce as evidence goes.
Also worth noting there: Fiction judge was female. Poetry judge was male.
Also worth noting there: Fiction judge was female. Poetry judge was male.
“Scenester herpes.” That’s awesomeness. And I love it.
“Scenester herpes.” That’s awesomeness. And I love it.
Mike, I didn’t say that it wasn’t unreasonable number. My point was that the problem is precisely that it is a ‘reasonable’ number. Reasonableness itself is the issue. A majority situation of women – six out of nine – almost never arises, let alone a margin substantially larger. My point was not that the six of nine shows an overwhelming distortion in representation, an active “agenda” of sexism, but rather the stubborn structural limit of representation, the stone wall of ‘equality’, that the equity of a year like the one all female year has to be understood against. Six of ten is not the chance outcome of the ‘first ten flips’ but a constitutive product of the distorted social gradient. Also too, the six out of ten male winners is also not really like ten coin flips, because the nomination pool is wider than one male against one female each year. It’s a selection from five contenders. There may even have been more women to men nominated overall to the finalist round during the last decade – I can’t really be arsed to check at the moment, sorry, lol – but if so, it only proves the point that, even with the pool of ‘odds’ against male winners, the standards of appreciation and judgment mean that male writers will still command the majority win and that this will indeed seem nothing other than ‘reasonable’. I think this faux-neutrality will change – or one would hope so – but not by ‘beyond gender’ thinking. Beyond gender thinking is the reason why it’s stalled in neutral in the way that it currently is.
Mike, I didn’t say that it wasn’t unreasonable number. My point was that the problem is precisely that it is a ‘reasonable’ number. Reasonableness itself is the issue. A majority situation of women – six out of nine – almost never arises, let alone a margin substantially larger. My point was not that the six of nine shows an overwhelming distortion in representation, an active “agenda” of sexism, but rather the stubborn structural limit of representation, the stone wall of ‘equality’, that the equity of a year like the one all female year has to be understood against. Six of ten is not the chance outcome of the ‘first ten flips’ but a constitutive product of the distorted social gradient. Also too, the six out of ten male winners is also not really like ten coin flips, because the nomination pool is wider than one male against one female each year. It’s a selection from five contenders. There may even have been more women to men nominated overall to the finalist round during the last decade – I can’t really be arsed to check at the moment, sorry, lol – but if so, it only proves the point that, even with the pool of ‘odds’ against male winners, the standards of appreciation and judgment mean that male writers will still command the majority win and that this will indeed seem nothing other than ‘reasonable’. I think this faux-neutrality will change – or one would hope so – but not by ‘beyond gender’ thinking. Beyond gender thinking is the reason why it’s stalled in neutral in the way that it currently is.
you know justin often times we share the same viewpoint.
i do not understand this assumption that my awareness of something equates to my approval of the something.
i am not the oppressive system.
nor do i approve of it.
and regardless of like/dislike, men are competitive, pure and simply.
the mere fact the girls are in here clucking about the subject illustrates my point.
you fail. start acting like a man and shed your insecurities and compete.
this grit in your teeth and pain in your heart is supposed to motivate you silly. stop being fucking insecure, man up and win.
win at all cost.
because we both know, regardless of gender, the whiners whine and the winners win.
so go win and stop whining.
you know justin often times we share the same viewpoint.
i do not understand this assumption that my awareness of something equates to my approval of the something.
i am not the oppressive system.
nor do i approve of it.
and regardless of like/dislike, men are competitive, pure and simply.
the mere fact the girls are in here clucking about the subject illustrates my point.
you fail. start acting like a man and shed your insecurities and compete.
this grit in your teeth and pain in your heart is supposed to motivate you silly. stop being fucking insecure, man up and win.
win at all cost.
because we both know, regardless of gender, the whiners whine and the winners win.
so go win and stop whining.
You can’t make selections “without gender in mind” when you know the gender of the authors. Most bias is unconscious. Symphonies use to slant heavily male until they made the audition process blind, then they started slanting female. (Maybe because they were used to trying harder.) I’m sure the people who chose the “best” books already knew who wrote them.
Also, can you really call the all-male top 10 a “coincidence”? If it’s all just chance and happenstance, how come such lists are _never_ all women, _unless_ they’re compiled by feminists and designated as such (in which case people complain they are “ghettoizing” women)? If the PW list “happened” to be 10 women, or “by chance” the top 100 was 80% women, you can bet people would be like, “What the huh?”
That said, I’m with Justin on the “PW is an irrelevant dinosaur” front. I’m just using them as an example.
You can’t make selections “without gender in mind” when you know the gender of the authors. Most bias is unconscious. Symphonies use to slant heavily male until they made the audition process blind, then they started slanting female. (Maybe because they were used to trying harder.) I’m sure the people who chose the “best” books already knew who wrote them.
Also, can you really call the all-male top 10 a “coincidence”? If it’s all just chance and happenstance, how come such lists are _never_ all women, _unless_ they’re compiled by feminists and designated as such (in which case people complain they are “ghettoizing” women)? If the PW list “happened” to be 10 women, or “by chance” the top 100 was 80% women, you can bet people would be like, “What the huh?”
That said, I’m with Justin on the “PW is an irrelevant dinosaur” front. I’m just using them as an example.
Jereme, were you joking when you wrote: “the reason why women, in my personal observation, do not submit as much as men is due mostly to insecurity…women are frail things. rejection is not taken well.”
Jereme, were you joking when you wrote: “the reason why women, in my personal observation, do not submit as much as men is due mostly to insecurity…women are frail things. rejection is not taken well.”
re: jereme’s 6:18am post
i dont think anything is ‘that simple’
re: jereme’s 6:18am post
i dont think anything is ‘that simple’
The best point here is that Publisher’s Weekly is “a big irrelevant dinosaur that produced a pointless list, and then congratulated themselves on noticing–but not fixing–their own largest problem.” All this other stuff– “it’s because women don’t submit enough!” (blame the victim much?) is a distraction from their fuckedupitude. If you’re an editor concerned about appropriately representing the sexes in your publication, check to see if you’re Publisher’s Weekly. If you’re not, chances are you’re good.
The best point here is that Publisher’s Weekly is “a big irrelevant dinosaur that produced a pointless list, and then congratulated themselves on noticing–but not fixing–their own largest problem.” All this other stuff– “it’s because women don’t submit enough!” (blame the victim much?) is a distraction from their fuckedupitude. If you’re an editor concerned about appropriately representing the sexes in your publication, check to see if you’re Publisher’s Weekly. If you’re not, chances are you’re good.
i don’t submit very often because of my insecurity. i am afraid of rejection and often think my work isn’t anything special in comparison to other writers’ work. i have only submitted to a handful of places, all of which i had already spoken to the editors about submitting things. actually, there’s one exception to that, and i was nervous to submit. i still haven’t gotten a response after a month, and that makes me feel like i made a mistake by submitting.
but maybe the insecure feelings differ from person to person regardless of gender. all i am saying is that i fall into the category mentioned above.
i don’t submit very often because of my insecurity. i am afraid of rejection and often think my work isn’t anything special in comparison to other writers’ work. i have only submitted to a handful of places, all of which i had already spoken to the editors about submitting things. actually, there’s one exception to that, and i was nervous to submit. i still haven’t gotten a response after a month, and that makes me feel like i made a mistake by submitting.
but maybe the insecure feelings differ from person to person regardless of gender. all i am saying is that i fall into the category mentioned above.
i think this whole issue is over-analyzed. just keep writing. don’t be affected by “sexism” or any bullshit people do or say to try to make you feel like shit for being what you are.
you’re only affected by these types of things if you let yourself be affected by them.
i think this whole issue is over-analyzed. just keep writing. don’t be affected by “sexism” or any bullshit people do or say to try to make you feel like shit for being what you are.
you’re only affected by these types of things if you let yourself be affected by them.
big surprise…
laura, don’t worry about him, he’s just a bigass caterpillar or something – trust me, it’s not worth it – some day he will fly away (or get stuck in the grill of a car) with his gf, the girl who commented above me, maybe, i dunno, who cares, life is short, why do i care, i dunno, seems worth it, why, no idea, give up, okay, later dude, whatever, that’s enough.
big surprise…
laura, don’t worry about him, he’s just a bigass caterpillar or something – trust me, it’s not worth it – some day he will fly away (or get stuck in the grill of a car) with his gf, the girl who commented above me, maybe, i dunno, who cares, life is short, why do i care, i dunno, seems worth it, why, no idea, give up, okay, later dude, whatever, that’s enough.
You know what? You’ve convinced me. Let’s play to win.
http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Here-Best-Thing-Ever/dp/0061881813/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259765443&sr=1-12
Okay, I win. So what should we play next? I’ve always enjoyed card games…
You know what? You’ve convinced me. Let’s play to win.
http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Here-Best-Thing-Ever/dp/0061881813/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259765443&sr=1-12
Okay, I win. So what should we play next? I’ve always enjoyed card games…
hahaha you are so competitive justin.
yes, yes you win.
i give up.
hahaha you are so competitive justin.
yes, yes you win.
i give up.
no of course not. let’s not be silly.
but you need to understand the underlying framework before you can be fully aware of the variables.
i am talking about the framework. it seems to elude some.
no?
no of course not. let’s not be silly.
but you need to understand the underlying framework before you can be fully aware of the variables.
i am talking about the framework. it seems to elude some.
no?
hi laura, i feel like you are being sot of silly here.
did it seem like i was joking? i mean your question is a yes or no answer yet i feel like i am being manipulated into a longer drawn out answer so we can “fight”.
i don’t want to fight. i am not the enemy.
i was not joking. i talk to a lot of women of various ages which is where i base my personal observation as stated in my post. it is my observation.
and then i followed that up with my personal opinion, women are frail. they are. i like that about them. i like a lot of things about women.
so i am curious, if you don’t mind me asking, what did you get offended at? the observation or the opinion?
it was the opinion wasn’t it?
i’m sorry. women aren’t frail.
better?
hi laura, i feel like you are being sot of silly here.
did it seem like i was joking? i mean your question is a yes or no answer yet i feel like i am being manipulated into a longer drawn out answer so we can “fight”.
i don’t want to fight. i am not the enemy.
i was not joking. i talk to a lot of women of various ages which is where i base my personal observation as stated in my post. it is my observation.
and then i followed that up with my personal opinion, women are frail. they are. i like that about them. i like a lot of things about women.
so i am curious, if you don’t mind me asking, what did you get offended at? the observation or the opinion?
it was the opinion wasn’t it?
i’m sorry. women aren’t frail.
better?
big surprise?
you know reynard. you shouldn’t attack young girls. it really looks bad.
:)
big surprise?
you know reynard. you shouldn’t attack young girls. it really looks bad.
:)
no no, i agree no silliness. i admit to poking at you here for sillies.
i realize it is your personal observation on which you are basing this underlying framework.
in my observation it is different, it is not simple, is what i should have said. in my observation and experience, i have hard time reduceing menand weomen to frailty/bluntness. maybe reducing is wrong wrod.
no no, i agree no silliness. i admit to poking at you here for sillies.
i realize it is your personal observation on which you are basing this underlying framework.
in my observation it is different, it is not simple, is what i should have said. in my observation and experience, i have hard time reduceing menand weomen to frailty/bluntness. maybe reducing is wrong wrod.
Why is everyone afraid of Jereme?
Why is everyone afraid of Jereme?
i am a beast among flowers i guess mather.
i am a beast among flowers i guess mather.
You are a rose among orchids, jereme…
yes yes and i sort of alluded to it not being that simple.
surely you do not deny that men have certain traits and women have certain traits?
these traits have been muddled but it isn’t balanced.
too many women raising males.
i am not saying this is good or bad..
but it does detract from the traits of a male.
now let’s all go read lorrie moore and fret over our soy milk kombucha organic vegan delight drink/smoothie/meal replacement bar.
shall we?
You are a rose among orchids, jereme…
yes yes and i sort of alluded to it not being that simple.
surely you do not deny that men have certain traits and women have certain traits?
these traits have been muddled but it isn’t balanced.
too many women raising males.
i am not saying this is good or bad..
but it does detract from the traits of a male.
now let’s all go read lorrie moore and fret over our soy milk kombucha organic vegan delight drink/smoothie/meal replacement bar.
shall we?
Well you seem to be able to run your mouth at light speed without any thought at all and it is fine and dandy, but I make a comment in the wrong tone and it is deleted…
Well you seem to be able to run your mouth at light speed without any thought at all and it is fine and dandy, but I make a comment in the wrong tone and it is deleted…
okay but i want big fucking thorns, like superfreak thorns bio-engineered in a swiss lab kind of fucking horns, so i can stab the orchids.
well it sounds like they are afraid of you not me.
duh stupid.
okay but i want big fucking thorns, like superfreak thorns bio-engineered in a swiss lab kind of fucking horns, so i can stab the orchids.
well it sounds like they are afraid of you not me.
duh stupid.
Yes think about that…
i am sorry you do not feel valuable mather.
but really why the need to detract from my value?
you know in certain circles that would get you killed.
something to ponder.
your bitchness i mean.
ponder your bitchness.
i havent deleted a word.
i mark you spam when you are spam.
Yes think about that…
i am sorry you do not feel valuable mather.
but really why the need to detract from my value?
you know in certain circles that would get you killed.
something to ponder.
your bitchness i mean.
ponder your bitchness.
i havent deleted a word.
i mark you spam when you are spam.
you got the floor now mather.
say something profound.
won’t you?
you got the floor now mather.
say something profound.
won’t you?
okay now that shit is funny.
okay now that shit is funny.
it’s just boring, dude. just boring. tired of threading through baby foofoo’s poopoos. spam.
it’s just boring, dude. just boring. tired of threading through baby foofoo’s poopoos. spam.
i forever heart you.
i forever heart you.
back atcha. i have a poker itch now, hard. let’s really play soon.
back atcha. i have a poker itch now, hard. let’s really play soon.
i missed the allusion, i admit.
i like the muddling you describe. wallowing. i dont think there is balance either. i think it is shifting a lot.
a stubborn answer, i just realized, is to say sure, there are traits, physical ones i mean.
but i admit i am scared of that question. can i say i deny and also dont deny? can i qualify somehow? i feel like the question traps me.
i missed the allusion, i admit.
i like the muddling you describe. wallowing. i dont think there is balance either. i think it is shifting a lot.
a stubborn answer, i just realized, is to say sure, there are traits, physical ones i mean.
but i admit i am scared of that question. can i say i deny and also dont deny? can i qualify somehow? i feel like the question traps me.
next paycheck. we will do it.
1.5 weeks.
i am excited.
next paycheck. we will do it.
1.5 weeks.
i am excited.
the question is indeed a trap.
the question is indeed a trap.
reynard,
lolololololololololol
reynard,
lolololololololololol
“reynard,
lolololololololololol”
that was me, i didn’t realize jereme was logged in on my computer.
“reynard,
lolololololololololol”
that was me, i didn’t realize jereme was logged in on my computer.