SciFi and Fantasy eBook Club discussion
General Topics
>
A personal attempt to correct gender bias in my reading
Trouble is, I read a lot of specialist history and there is little written by women in the fields I'm interested in. As it is, I'm gender blind in these fields anyway, I'm interested in the book not the author.With SF and Fantasy, frankly I follow authors anyway, some may well be female.
If you're looking for a female SF writer, one I follow is MT McGuire, http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/...
I would say you are not biased if you are trying to correct it. I personally look for a book where the story grabs me.
If I like it....I get more by that author male or female.
Now....my bias might be, that the book should be fantasy or science fiction.
That is the aisle you will find me in at the book store.
:)
Anyone who avoids books by women SF authors miss some great work from James Tiptree, Jr. (Alice Sheldon), Anne McCaffrey, Andre Norton, Connie Willis, Sheri Tepper, etc. etc. etc.I'm with Brenda...if the story grabs me, I don't care who it's by.
Jim wrote: "Trouble is, I read a lot of specialist history and there is little written by women in the fields I'm interested in. As it is, I'm gender blind in these fields anyway, I'm interested in the book no..."Many people believe that they are "gender blind", "ethnicity blind" etc but this excludes subconscious and implicit biases which we all have. If you walk into a bar and speak to people they are most likely to be from people in your own cultural group etc. I am not saying that you are definitely wrong Jim, just highlighting that just because you are not aware of a bias it does not mean it doesnt exist. In fact the more you are aware of your biases the less likely they will impact on your choices.
In selecting books by authors I don't yet know, especially newly published authors, I give priority to (1) books written by women, (2) books written by authors who aren't white Americans, Canadians or Brits, and (3) books that seem to offer a diverse cast regarding of who they are written by (based on reviews).This by no means guarantees that I will like the books or read more from these authors, and in fact I can certainly think of a number of women authors, for example, whose work I did not enjoy. But it provides me with exposure to more diverse authors, thereby increasing the chance that I will find some I like.
It's especially helpful because publishers market books by men and women differently, so they reach readers in different proportions and different styles, not to mention under different labels. I'm fine with the idea of being colour- and gender-blind, etc. once we start reading, but if we simply do not get diversity on our reading lists, shelves, and shopping bags in the first place, how are we going to be able to find good authors of any excluded group?
World Without Ends has a fairly nice list of women authors in their database. It's not complete, but it's useful.
Sophie - I didnt even think about how books are marketed (other than some female authors being under marketed) but that too probably plays a subconscious part in our selections and that is a good point.
Well...as to how we get diversity in the first place...I suppose if the author is good enough to get good reviews (from readers), I may see what they write about and give it a try.
I'm certainly not turning an author down because they are or are not American, English...etc...
For one thing ...I don't have time.
Hopefully I joined Goodreads to find some different authors.
I can't read everything, and I am reading for myself, not the author or anyone else.
So little time.....soOo many books!
;)
I personally do not care whether the author is male of female - a brilliant storyteller is a brilliant storyteller, a story worth telling is a story worth telling - as simple as that.
Ben wrote: "Many people believe that they are "gender blind", "ethnicity blind" etc but this excludes subconscious and implicit biases which we all have. If you walk into a bar and speak to people they are most likely to be from people in your own cultural group etc. I am not saying that you are definitely wrong Jim, just highlighting that just because you are not aware of a bias it does not mean it doesnt exist. In fact the more you are aware of your biases the less likely they will impact on your choices. ..."Actually there are so few decent scholarly books written in the field of history (which tends to be pre-Medieval military history) I'm interested in (at an affordable price, remember that £20 is considered reasonable by academic publishers) that the gender or even the name of the author is an irrelevance compared to the topics covered.
I don't go out of my way to read authors of a certain gender. For me, a story is a story and I don't particularly care who wrote it. I will find that if I have read multiple books by an author I liked, then I will start actively seeking out the rest of their bibliography. I don't actively try to correct any bias I may have for genre, length, or fiction/non. I just read the stories that interest me. Many of them are SF/F, many are classics or myth, and some are nonfiction philosophy, politics. I won't rule out anything - except romance novels. I don't think that distinction predetermines that I have any anti-female bias - just that I dislike that kind of story.
The thing with believing ourselves "blind" to gender, race, orientation, etc. is that it inherently suffers from confirmation bias at the selection level. We don't see that we're missing entire groups if we decide not to examine the the issue, and we never get to notice whether they are under-represented among our choices. Even reviewers are affected. I'm far from convinced that good books get good reviews just on merit, because even reviewers have limited time to spend on evaluating new releases. Which is going to make an editor happier, a glowing review of a book from a best-selling author (recognition value), or a glowing review of a newcomer's obscure debut novel? Which books get more free review copies pushed around by their publishers? Which book is the reviewer likely to start reading first, a sure value from a known author, or a newbie?
This is why I'm happy to have a positive bias at the selection stage, knowing that in any case I can only read a very small portion of what gets published; and equally happy to evaluate on merit alone (or at least on personal enjoyment of a book) after that.
Kenneth wrote: "I won't rule out anything - except romance novels. I don't think that distinction predetermines that I have any anti-female bias - just that I dislike that kind of story. "See, that's precisely an illustration of the marketing problem: women's books, including in the SF/F/horror genres, are typically marketed as romances, steamy or not. Check out Lois McMaster Bujold talking about her woes with the covers her publishers have slapped on books over the years, for example.
I too dislike romances and avoid anything that looks like one -- sometimes only to find out years later that a book I thought was froofy is in fact crunchy SF. I always feel mortified that I was fooled by the cover and jacket blurb.
I am one of those who don't believe they have a gender bias, at least when it comes to books. Since I joined Goodreads I get my recommendations exclusively from other people. If they add a book that has an interesting title I read the teaser and if that is interesting as well I add it to my stack. The name of the author or the gender is no factor in that process. As such I am also immune to marketing, I never get to see any of it. That also has to do with the fact that I read English books without living in an English-speaking country.I am not afraid that I am missing too much, as I don't believe authors from groups that might be underrepresented write inherently better or even different books. I can only read so much and that already means I am missing many good books. Actively applying some arbitrary filter is a futile exercise in my opinion.
Ken wrote: "I am one of those who don't believe they have a gender bias, at least when it comes to books. Since I joined Goodreads I get my recommendations exclusively from other people. If they add a book tha..."And thus you assume that on the whole, those people also bias-free?
So let's ask ourselves, who exactly would be biased and say, "Yeah, I'm biased and I'm going to stay biased"? Very few people, and we would probably discount those as assholes. Is it not remotely possible that with the best of intentions, our default choices are not as blind as we'd like to think?
Why is there so much opposition to the very idea of making a little effort -- not having hard and fast rules, not having quotas, not refusing henceforth to publish books by white guys, just making a little effort -- to bring diversity into our initial book selection, then letting the quality of writing be the sole assessment factor?
Is it too daunting to make any effort at all? Is it too threatening to admit that it's possible that our default choices are not that blind, if only because publishers have already done some screening for us? Is it just too damn comfortable to think "I'm blind to gender/race/ethnicity/whatever" while continuing to feed on stories of white guys for white guys by white guys, with the occasional white gal thrown in every hundredth book for good measure?
My corporate environment might have ruined me, but the main question I'd ask is: where's the benefit?If you are missing anything in your reading I can see that you'd potentially gain something from this little effort. I personally am not seeing a reason to do so.
Ken wrote: "My corporate environment might have ruined me, but the main question I'd ask is: where's the benefit?If you are missing anything in your reading I can see that you'd potentially gain something fr..."
As for where the benefit is it is 3 fold:-
a) you are doing a small part to counteract the barriers women face in getting books published and read
b) Reading from a broader and more diverse range of perspectives is likely to provide you with greater variety and a more satisfying reading experience. Spending time with people (ie reading) from different views from your own can broaden your own perspectives
c) I took a quick check of the books you have added as read to goodreads Ken and about 85% were written by men.
@Ben: Your point a) is the only reason I can understand. Although I would emphasize "small".Re b): We are talking about gender, so your "different perspectives" would be limited to gender differences, at best. In my experience men and women don't write vastly different books. And I must admit that if a book is a (thinly veiled) treatise on gender issues I don't want to read it, no matter who wrote it. On top of that the background of an author does not necessarily manifest in their work. Just look at Orson Scott Card, who apparently is a rather intolerant fellow. At the same time people still like his books, because his hate doesn't manifest in them. Although if it did, it would certainly qualify as reading about different perspectives.
Re c): I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
Sophie wrote: "I too dislike romances and avoid anything that looks like one -- sometimes only to find out years later that a book I thought was froofy is in fact crunchy SF. I always feel mortified that I was fooled by the cover and jacket blurb."I guess this is where peer recommendation saves the day. But yes - not always.
I'm not willing to apply affirmative action to my reading selection for the same reasons as Ken. Other than furthering the cause of women writers, which is admirable, I don't see the benefit over my current system. Of course I'm not against women authors. Some of my favorite books are by women. I suppose I feel it a disservice to artificially pad my reading repertoire with women writers. A disservice because I value the best (in my subjective perspective) writing as the only writing I can take the time to read - too many books and so little time - and I'd not want to discourage women or men from trying harder - writing better. It's not a sexist view, so far as I intend it. I hold male authors to the same criteria.
At least, in less than 20 posts we've received a pretty simple overview of why there isn't more diversity in SF/F when everybody is so wonderfully unbiased and egalitarian.It's not a bias against diversity, it's a bias against effort and change.
Let's all read Piers Anthony and George R. R. Martin while we wait for the power of book reviews and word of mouth to tell us which "diverse" authors might be worth our time. I'm sure our pals and critics, equally unbiased, will be a great source. Let's also shake our heads and comment that Group X doesn't "get" scifi.
@Sophie: Well, that's an old complaint. Different strokes for different folks. If what many people want is GRRM, that's what they're gonna get. Complaining about that is like complaining that rain is wet.I'm certainly not discouraging anyone from reading whatever the hell they want. But that works both ways. If people disagree with your personal preferences, getting all passive aggressive on them won't solve anything.
I've nothing against GRRM but I'm aware that there are other authors out there. Many many more, and better writers too. Anyone who writes an original novel (original here being a strongly emphasized term) will catch my attention. Often rave reviews are enough to steer me away from a work - universal appeal doesn't make a piece as interesting to me as mixed reviews do. Many of my favorites are strongly divided in reviews: readers loved it or loathed it. Those books draw my interest. I think there's nothing wrong with reading what you enjoy. I think there's a natural tendency to branch out when one particular avenue is exhausted, and that artificially forcing the issue may not be the best course of action for the enjoyment of the reader or the benefit of the genre.
Well......those are certainly two well known authors, at different ends of the fantasy spectrum.Even they were unknown at one time.
Funny enough........ I had not heard of GRRM until a couple years ago. Just to see what the hubbub was, I read his first three of SoIaF. He is not for me, at this time.
Yes....I like Piers Anthony, and have read his books since I was a teen.
He is also very supportive of new authors.
Ben wrote: "I appreciate diversity in my reading and I have found that my reading has been less varied than I would have liked. At times I have found myself reading no non-fiction other than the odd book rele..."Hi Ben,
Thanks for initiating the interesting topic.
I have special interest in what you had to say about the Harvard Implicit Bias tests. I haven't looked them up yet but I intend to do so.
I can remember learning about a social psychology experiment. I wish I could remember a reference; I can't, but I certainly remember the results.
The experimenters gave students of both genders essays to read and evaluate. They assigned male or female author names to the same essays evaluated by the different groups of students. The identical essays were rated more highly when they were credited to a male author than when they were credited to a female author. By both the male and female students.
I was wondering if this study were repeated now (several decades later) if the results would be the same.
Sheila
That's an interesting concept Sheila, please link the reference if you do find it.
Lost in the fog of undergraduate studies, I'm afraid.
http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Gende...???this maybe???
In one study, first done in 1968 and then replicated in 1983, college students were asked to rate identical articles according to specific criteria. The authors' names attached to the articles were clearly male or female, but were reversed for each group of raters: what one group thought had been written by a male, the second group thought had been written by a female, and vice versa. Articles supposedly written by women were consistently ranked lower than when the very same articles were thought to have been written by a male [Goldberg 1968,Paludi et al 1985,Paludi et al 1983]. In a similar study, department chairs were asked to make hypothetical hiring decisions and to assign faculty rank on the basis of vita. For vitae with male names, chairs recommended the rank of associate professor; however, the identical vita with a female name merited only the rank of assistant professor [Fidell 1975].
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainme...This topic was in the BBC news feature this morning, with British author JK Rowling being uncovered as writing under a male pseudonym.
Brenda ╰☆╮ wrote: "http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Gende...???this maybe???
In one study, first done in 1968 and then replicated in 1983, college students were asked to rate identical articles accord..."
Brenda,
That sounds about right. Thanks so much for the follow-up.
Sheila
Sophie wrote: "At least, in less than 20 posts we've received a pretty simple overview of why there isn't more diversity in SF/F when everybody is so wonderfully unbiased and egalitarian.It's not a bias against..."
I agree with you Sophie, it's good to push out, to challenge yourself. Indeed I think that writers should from time to time challenge their readers, but how it's done will depend on the writer. Some will do it subtly, some powerfully to shock.
However one thing we must never forget. For some people reading is a refuge. They return to a book or an author as a place of safety, a refuge, a safe place. I know one hard pressed lady who would regularly read Village Schooland the other books by 'Miss Read'. Not because they are great literature but because they helped her cope with the stress of her own hectic life in which she achieved a great deal.
@Ben, great post. I too have been following some of the wider internet debates about this topic. It's made me think about whether I could be more varied in my reading, not just from a gender basis, but from others such as supporting new authors, indie authors, different genres etc - Jim describes it well as 'pushing out.'But I think your point about support is also valid. @Ken and others, I get what you are saying about choice and quality, and to a large extent I agree, but a lot of the recent discussions have highlighted for me the unfairness that seems to be inherent in the writing world for female writers (and I'm sure for many other groups). Once that is solved (and world peace, unlimited free energy and apple make a phone I can actually afford) then personal choice on quality will really be the only barrier. From a personal perspective, finding ways to stand shoulder to shoulder with people who face barriers is something I'd like to strive to do more of. Many people have done it for me in the past.
A simple place to start seems to be proactively varying my reading selections. There are some great names on these posts that I'm going to check out and add to my lists.
Great and interesting debate.
Jim wrote: "Sophie wrote: "At least, in less than 20 posts we've received a pretty simple overview of why there isn't more diversity in SF/F when everybody is so wonderfully unbiased and egalitarian.It's not...".
Jim wrote: " For some people reading is a refuge."
Yes!
:)
I'd like to summarize my views on this topic.While actively trying to discover new books is great, I disagree that selecting authors by gender is a good way of doing that. The only valid reason I can see for this is to send a message to publishers that women who publish under female names can get an audience. Although this is a double-edged sword, because if you keep on buying crap just because the author is a woman that is not sending a very good message.
The premise of discovering different viewpoints by choosing female authors is flawed in my opinion, because I don't think that male and female writers differ very much in their writing. And even if an author, male or female, has an interesting perspective to share, it doesn't mean they will do so in their work. Again, I point to Orson Scott Card who appears to be a somewhat intolerant fellow, something that is not apparent from his books. I think the main reason for this is that most authors write for an audience and try to appeal to as many people as possible. That leads to mainstreamed books, which is another issue altogether and has nothing to do with gender.
Another thing is that in my experience the vast majority of SF and F books out there is crap. Finding the few good books is hard enough already, without applying any artificial filters. I think that's what keeping many people from trying unknown authors (whatever their gender).
I would stress that I am not trying to tell people what to read but inviting people to look objectively at the books they have read over the last year or two and on their "to read" shelves and see whether they can spot any trends or biases and whether they wish to take any steps to broaden their reading.I highlighted to Ken that in the books he read on good reads (240 or so) 85% were written by men. Whilst the sample size is pretty small to derive too much statistical significance from this number it is strongly indicative of a preference on his part, a subconscious bias or less direct barriers that female writers face to getting being considered by him.
Ken is not alone, I am sure that if the same test was done on 100 men there would be many with similar percentages indeed in my own "to read" list there was a very similar percentage (although my actual "read" list is much less skewed). If Ken or other people like Ken want to maintain their own status quo then they are obviously free to do so but they cannot deny that the percentage is skewed against women authors.
I have seen arguments of gender and race blindness of the kind "I dont care the gender of the author in choosing books to read" and as Ken articulated "I don't think that male and female writers differ very much in their writing". These arguments are usually made by the group with the most power but do not necessarily hold up to scrutiny. e.g. if you are "gender blind when choosing books why the skewed percentages" or look at a supposed classic The Midwich Cuckoos and tell me that this was not clearly written by a white, privileged English man in the 50s - if you take a book out of its cultural context and act like this is irrelevant you are only reading part of the book or are deluding yourself.
The idea as well that by say looking at a list of great works be female writers to see if you want to add any to your "to read" shelves is going to dilute the quality of the books you read seems pretty doubtful to me, it presupposes that female writers would be worse than the male writers you would otherwise read. This is bias in my view - in actual fact given the extra barriers that female writers face to get published and promoted there is an argument that could suggest you are more likely to be reading a great book if you chose the female author. If you look at a list of books or read a few reviews and none take your fancy, no harm done, if you like the sound of some and read a sample or two or take a punt on one you might find a new favorite author that you never would have done otherwise.
Gender is obviously only one area of diversity but it is one of the simplest to explore. I do feel that the SF genre and to a lesser extent the fantasy genre is very dominated by Anglo American White Male voices and whilst this includes many great works of entertainment and art there are many great voices that are not getting the same exposure and are worthy of us seeking out and shouting out about.
@Ben: The problem I have with your 85/15 argument is the assumption that in SF, F (and every other genre?) the ration of authors is always split 50:50 between men and women. I don't think that is true. Now, I don't know if the ratio is 85:15, but based on the (unscientific) sample from my own life it's pretty obvious to me that more men are attracted to SF than women. Is that ratio based on genetics or a social one? Again, I don't know. But it would be silly to deny that it exists today, for one reason or another.Also, I never made the argument that looking for female authors will necessarily dilute the quality of my reading. I merely said that if you promote authors solely based on their gender and not their abilities you will get more crap than if you just look for good books. Of course it is possible to look for good books from female authors and promote them. But that's a good idea because they are good books, not because of the author.
And handpicking one book to support your argument that men and women have different writing styles comes off as pretty desperate. Of course your social background, your upbringing have an effect on who you are. But the difference in the upbringing between the two sexes in the Western world is a lot less than it used to be. Much more important are social factors like class, with the associated factors wealth and education. And, as I stated multiple times, not every author is showing their beliefs and history in their writing.
I'm glad this thread has cropped up a list of great female authors to peruse for those to add to my 'to read' list. I won't be gender biased in selecting them however - quality is my only yardstick and if I judge/guess that a book will interest me, I'll pick it up. I, like Ken, don't think there's a huge difference in the way that female and male authors write. That's not to say you couldn't find examples of differences. I think as a whole there is an equilibrium in style, though not carbon copy exact.I like the idea of promoting female authors that I've read as a way to send a message to publishers and readers that they should pay more attention to them. However, I'd recommend only the ones I read and liked - same as with male authors. The percentage is the same.
At the risk of a possibly erroneous analogy: It's like the Jazz fan who says that 90% of Rock music is crap, and that Rock is tragically more popular, so people should give Jazz more of a chance. Another listener may be keen to point out that 90% of Jazz is also crap, and so is 90% of Rap, Classical, Dance, and Metal. What is desirable is to find that 10% in every category that is worth experiencing and promoting it. While gender is not the same as genre, our personal perspectives inevitably cloud our subjective opinions on this and many other topics.
I think the point is, that within the writing industry it is harder for a female author to be recognised and harder for them to have their work represented by its quality rather than prejudged ideas about what women write. From the evidence I've seen it is harder for a woman to be published or marketed in the right way without giving in to gender stereo types.Its hard to decide what the ratio of female to male writers within sci if is because the "entry rules" are currently unfair. By positively discriminating (but still looking for quality - which I accept is subjective) you can send a message that says you want to read quality. That the market and the industry should be designed to allow quality through, full stop. Drawing conclusions from a biased set of statistics (for both arguments to a large extent) is dangerous. Comes down to evidence - for me, and the conclusions I've drawn from the evidence out there (and to be completely honest, some opinions as well) is that the SF and F industry is biased towards men. As a reader I can try and make it more fair.
Whenever I read about female authors being harder to be recognized, I always think of J.K. Rowling who happened to be female and one of the most successful writers of our time. I also agree with Ken that being a male or female writer do not make a book better or worse; having a talent for writing does make it better.
@Evgeny, don't you find it interesting that Its J K Rowling, not Joan Rowling..?
Colin Mobey Mobey wrote: "@Evgeny, don't you find it interesting that Its J K Rowling, not Joan Rowling..?"
I can also mention Stephenie Meyer and Suzanne Collins as a recent example of successful female authors who used their full names in their books.
I can also mention Stephenie Meyer and Suzanne Collins as a recent example of successful female authors who used their full names in their books.
See Kenneth's posting 29.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainme...
This topic was in the BBC news feature this morning, with British author JK Rowling being uncovered as writing under a male pseudonym.
@evgeny, well played :-) although Meyer doesn't help the quality argument... ;-)Still doesn't change my position though. I accept its a complex topic and one thats easy to over analyse. But It is harder for women to "make it" based on quality alone in today's market. If I can help balance things out by proactively looking for quality books by female authors, then maybe, over time, publishers will realise quality should stand on its own merits and we can all be unbiased in our search for a good story. Will take much more than just a few people thinking about it like this, but it's a start.
I think it is not too hard for really talented women to get published: see my examples above (and I admit that Stephenie Meyer is open to discussion on this), but it might be true that for average-level writers it is harder to get published if you are a woman.
Meyer is talented in garnering a large audience, but for literary merit - much is left desired. At least in my opinion.
Slightly off topic, but I'm new to the group and for some reason decided to start with comments on an obviously contentious topic. But I have to say, the arguments have been put across well, and with very little contention - and when there has been its been its been accepted in a mature way. It's an emotive topic, but the way the discussion has been held (especially with respect to how I've seen the subject dealt with in other places) makes me think I'm in thoughtful, reflective company. Plus you don't like Twilight. Result.
I found some numbers on this issue, published by TOR UK. A small table is available here.This shows that there is, at least for TOR, hardly a gender bias at work when it comes to publishing stuff from female authors. The submissions are already imbalanced. In short, trying to read more SF books from female authors isn't going to solve anything.
TOR wrote in the blog post that showed this table that we need to fix this imbalance. I would ask: why? Why does everything has to be perfectly balanced between men and women? Everybody should have the same opportunities, that I can absolutely agree with. But enforcing a 50:50 ratio in every aspect of life? That doesn't sound right.
Ken wrote: "I found some numbers on this issue, published by TOR UK. A small table is available here.This shows that there is, at least for TOR, hardly a gender bias at work when it comes to publishing stuf..."
Interesting table. Thanks for including it.
I don't think anyone is suggesting enforcing a 50:50 ratio in every aspect of life, especially in writing/publishing/reading. I think most of us still believe that quality and merit are paramount in making choices.
If you have read some of the earlier posts, however, you will notice that there seems to be some evidence of a bias that confounds evaluation of merit. Unconscious or otherwise. Some writers/publishers/readers seem to be trying to be aware of that bias, so that they can compensate for it by keeping it in mind when they make their choices.
No one is suggesting enforcing anything, as far as I can tell.
Ken wrote: "I found some numbers on this issue, published by TOR UK. A small table is available here..."Unfortunately, the table is submissions only and is missing 'numbers published'. If the latter is in the same ratio as submissions, there's no issue.
This article from the Guardian, although on books as a whole rather than just science-fiction / fantasy, illustrates the wider problem.
I spent much of my life working around equality issues, particularly in connection with employment. Within employment there is quite a bit of research that shows that men are much more likely to apply for a job than a woman without meeting 100% of the requirements - in short men are overall more optimistic of both their own abilities and their chances than women. This is obviously a generalisation and does not hold true in individual cases.Neil Clarke from Clarkesworld provides this data http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/clark... in which 70% of submissions for his magazine come from men but it is about 50/50 in terms of publishing. In his word "In the end quantity loses to quality". I suspect that like with the employment research men are more likely to submit stories that are either not good enough or at too early a stage of their development to be meaningful. Within the short story fields only a small percentage of submitted stories are published (it is often less than 1%) so making any conclusions from submission data on its own can be misleading.
Thanks for sharing the article link Steph, I had read other Guardian articles covering just London Review of Books but it is interesting to see more broader research.
In many ways my point is simple - there are many superb books out there that are written by women, books that for various reasons will not get read by me in the volumes that they deserve and that I will benefit from if i do not take proactive steps. I encourage other people to consider doing the same.
SciFi and Fantasy eBook Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Midwich Cuckoos (other topics)Village School (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Stephenie Meyer (other topics)Suzanne Collins (other topics)
J.K. Rowling (other topics)
There has been recent discussion around women writing in SF and there do seem to be some clear barriers out there for women:-
a) some people will deliberately avoid women writers based on prejudices
b) everyone has subconscious biases that they might not be aware of - If you doubt this then I challenge anyone to take the harvard implicit bias tests and google the evidence backing them up if under any doubt
c) There is decent evidence that even if readers had no biases that writers certainly encounter biases whether it is from family that make it different for them to get the time to write, publishers who are reluctant to publish women writers etc, also many women have been pressured not to study sciences which can limit the number of women interested in grappling with science in fiction.
This was in the context of what was being discussed on this forum (and also across the internet at the moment) and also reading a really bad short story by a male writing about a women giving birth to 30 or more children at one time (sf/ humor/ terrible story) replete with jokes such as "she would never be able to wear a bikini again" etc.
Anyway I looked at my "to read list" which contained about 120 books, enough to potentially draw some statistically meaningful conclusions. I found that only 25 books on that list were by female writers. I would have been happy with about 40% +or- 10% or so. I appreciate that 25 is barely statistically significant but it was significant enough that I went online and looked up various lists of female writers and added a few books to my to read shelf (it is still a work in progress).
I know many people dislike the idea of "positive discrimination" but when there are barriers and biases out there I felt it was worth taking personal steps to correct them, at least within my own reading in part to take a tiny step to counteract the biases female writers face but largely just to get the personal benefit of reading a more diverse range of books.
Anyway perhaps some other people will read this and look at their own to read lists and add some excellent books written by female authors as a result too.