The very real sexism women writers face

[Paul Whybrow]

In support of my own Homme de Plume thread and the Litopian's Gender Discrimination in Publishing, this brief article from The Pool's daily newsletter is worth a look:

https://www.the-pool.com/news-views...-61069717&mc_cid=0bac9651ab&mc_eid=1273b667cd

Interested to learn more about the writer of this article, Louise O'Neill, I found her blog:

http://www.louiseoneillauthor.com/

She has many pertinent things to say, even if it is in a rather combative way. I noticed a couple of things though (tongue-in-cheek when I say this) - Louise O'Neill refers to 'silly lady-novelists' being 'ghettoised into a blindingly pink corner of the store' in her article, only for her blog to feature vivid pink headings - or is this meant to be ironic?

Also, I was surprised, or perhaps not, in how politically correct gender-wise her list of Favourite Books is in the Biography Section. After commenting on the VIDA data about male and female representation in literary publications, her 26 favourite books are split evenly - 13 by women, 13 by men. Hard to believe that she didn't put some work into getting that balance right.

 

[Marc Joan]

26 favourite books are split evenly - 13 by women, 13 by men. Hard to believe that she didn't put some work into getting that balance right.

Very suspicious. On a more general note, I always get a bit depressed by shrill PC voices espousing the virtues of work purely because of its provenance. I once shared a house with a bunch of thespian types who happened to be lesbians. They kept going on about gay art, gay literature, gay films, etc. etc. As though the sexuality of the writer / artist is in some way critical to the impact of a piece of work. I think a story / other creative piece should stand on its own merits, nothing more, and I am massively uninterested in what the writer does with other consenting adults, ditto their gender, species, or planetary origin. Just the story, please.

 

[David Steele]

You wait all day for a sexism thread. and then Two turn up at once.

I'm going to try to avoid upsetting anyone with this, but I have "some issues" with the whole debate. Yeah, I know. This is like a well fed-westerner taking about starvation. It's easy for me to be sceptical because this isn't my problem. Except I think it is.

If what I've learned about the publishing industry is accurate, margins are currently tight, and nobody is likely to take a punt at publishing / agenting a book unless it really looks like it could be a commercially viable product. That means that the only real concern of an agent / publisher should be the commercial / literary value of the product. Otherwise they are going to go bust.

But:

• 80% of people buying books are women (according to the Department of Made-up Statistics).
• In my database of Potentially Interested Agents, the ration is four women for ever one man. This doesn't mean that there are four times as many women working in publishing, but it looks like it from my database.
• The majority of commercial agents specify that they are looking for "Womens' literature" or something very similar. To my knowledge I've seen only one agent asking for "Men's literature", which she referred to as "Lager Sagas" (Imagine the reaction if a male agent had asked for Facepack Fiction)

When I started looking for ways to get my (next) book out there, I looked for literary prizes on Google. I was surprised / disappointed to see that so many of these headline prize funds were open to female writers only. So I tried two searches on Google:

Search string "literary prize competition for male writers"
Search string "literary prize competition for female writers"​

Would anybody like to take a guess which search turned up the most results?

Finally, if (my own experience of) social media is anything to go by, it seems that wanting to be a writer is very much not a guy thing.

Nothing wrong with any of this. Nothing wrong with it at all. But the part I don't understand is this - How are women failing to break through In an industry where:

Those writing the books are mostly women
Literary agents are mostly women
Women's fiction is overwhelmingly required
Industry prizes encourage female authors
Book buyers are mostly women
Strong female MCs are the hottest currency in town
​

 

[Nicole Wilson]

You wait all day for a sexism thread. and then Two turn up at once.

I'm going to try to avoid upsetting anyone with this, but I have "some issues" with the whole debate. Yeah, I know. This is like a well fed-westerner taking about starvation. It's easy for me to be sceptical because this isn't my problem. Except I think it is.

If what I've learned about the publishing industry is accurate, margins are currently tight, and nobody is likely to take a punt at publishing / agenting a book unless it really looks like it could be a commercially viable product. That means that the only real concern of an agent / publisher should be the commercial / literary value of the product. Otherwise they are going to go bust.

But:

• 80% of people buying books are women (according to the Department of Made-up Statistics).
• In my database of Potentially Interested Agents, the ration is four women for ever one man. This doesn't mean that there are four times as many women working in publishing, but it looks like it from my database.
• The majority of commercial agents specify that they are looking for "Womens' literature" or something very similar. To my knowledge I've seen only one agent asking for "Men's literature", which she referred to as "Lager Sagas" (Imagine the reaction if a male agent had asked for Facepack Fiction)

When I started looking for ways to get my (next) book out there, I looked for literary prizes on Google. I was surprised / disappointed to see that so many of these headline prize funds were open to female writers only. So I tried two searches on Google:

Search string "literary prize competition for male writers"
Search string "literary prize competition for female writers"​

Would anybody like to take a guess which search turned up the most results?

Finally, if (my own experience of) social media is anything to go by, it seems that wanting to be a writer is very much not a guy thing.

Nothing wrong with any of this. Nothing wrong with it at all. But the part I don't understand is this - How are women failing to break through In an industry where:

Those writing the books are mostly women
Literary agents are mostly women
Women's fiction is overwhelmingly required
Industry prizes encourage female authors
Book buyers are mostly women
Strong female MCs are the hottest currency in town
​

*whispers* I was thinking the same thing.

Thanks for putting words to my suspicion.

 

[David Steele]

Thanks. I'm always reluctant to argue against a progressive consensus. I believe in positive discrimination because it's the only way to redress great social wrongs. I'd rather put up with too much progressive thinking than live in a world that didn't tolerate it.

 

[Katie-Ellen]

Tyrannies, both.

 

[Jennifer Stone]

@David Steele I agree. There is a definite voice to be heard whenever race or gender comes into any topic. It's the Political Correctness voice, and I hate how uni-lateral it can be. Agents and publishers have every right to specialise in a certain genre, that's their prerogative. But to segregate authors by age, sex or ethnicity seems counter-productive to me. There's already so much competition between authors, why divide us further? It's all well and good to establish companies to cater to specific groups, but if I set up one for straight, white able-bodied men, it'd be called a 'discriminatory' company and I'd get sued by someone.

 

[David Steele]

Tyrannies, both.

Yes I agree with that. You can go too far the other way if you don't handle it with intelligence, but I honestly believe that positive action is important. I appreciate that this is political, but I think it's important enough to get on the soap box for. (naturally I think my opinion is important - that's what being a man is all about).

In any field, it's important to ask whether there are barriers in place that could hold somebody back regardless of their ability to compete in that market. If women are being held back by the publishing industry because they are women, then we have a problem that can only be tackled by positive action until that mind-set is corrected.

For example, I work in construction, which is traditionally under-represented by women and people of colour.
Therefore, we spend money on initiatives such as "Women in Construction" and "Unity in the Community" which aim to demonstrate to people in under-represented demographics that there is a valid pathway that they can choose for a career. Our company sets targets (such as to employ equal numbers of men and women), and on occasion, this may mean that a candidate who fits the demographic may be employed in preference to one who doesn't.

Why? Because we aspire to an inclusive workplace. We'd rather take somebody in if they are from an under-represented ethnic mix because sometimes, those individuals bring with them new ways of thinking, a different approach and a wider view than our own. (Sometimes, like anyone else, they are utterly useless individuals, but that's people for you)
For example, how many companies out there would deliberately choose not to employ a perfectly well qualified candidate using a wheelchair, just because they think that candidate might make able-bodied workers feel uncomfortable? The answer is none at all. None would ever admit it (even though it happens all the time).
So let's try this - How many companies out there would feel unable to employ somebody who used a wheelchair, because they have access issues with the Victorian stairs in the building, the canteen facilities are badly designed and the fire escapes are useless? That's an excuse that most companies are happy to trot out all week, as long as you let them. It's not tyranny to force them to remove these obstacles to employment. Not when they hide behind them so easily.

We can only say "political correctness gone mad", if we are certain that, if left to its own devices, "the market" would be happy to open its doors to the most competent candidate in every case. That nobody would ever experience obstacles to employment based on their gender / etc, because all the market was interested in was what every individual had to offer.

Until that fairy-tale happens, "the market" will have to put up with people like me, imposing our tyrannical will on their profit margins

 

[Katie-Ellen]

I have my own tyrannical moments. I wouldn't like to put a small employer out of business, though, demanding they install a lift because I use a wheelchair. I know a small vet, a local single vet's practice who almost folded because her young nurse did a bungee jump on holiday and went blind because of it. Tragedy. Then she sued her vet employer for not being able to employ her in exactly the same way as before. And left with huge damages. This was not just. How does a blind vet nurse tranquillize an animal or insert a rectal thermometer not to mention all the rest of it?
I've encountered sexism, sure, in applying for a job (Sales, Legal & General.) 'What do you want this job for? I understand you''re a new mum, shouldn't you be getting on with that.' I was robust in reply, was offered the job and turned it down because I didn't want to work with those people.
I've had to use a wheelchair the past two years. I may with luck get out of it again; work in progress, wreckage reclamation Meantime, and in the years before it, using a stick, I've faced daily challenges to freedom and choice even within my own home. I have over the years fought a few fights, on a strictly situation by situation basis, mostly for dignity and decency within the NHS.
If there are women who want to enter the construction industry who are qualified and cannot or cannot enter training even, for no obvious reason, clearly, that is a serious problem. If they do not because they do not want to, that may be indicative of a problem or may not, just as if men don't become primary teachers. I think we need far more men in Primary Ed and not just for the sake of all the little boys, but the girls, too and the the general climate and culture of Primary Ed. So I'm not disagreeing there, David. If women enter construction employment because they are a match for the opportunity, but so were 6 other male candidates, that may or may not amount to positive discrimination but it's OK, because life isn't fair. To choose something or someone is always, always, not to choose something or someone else.

 

[David Steele]

First of all - Woah, spooky. I just thought "Not heard from Litoipia today" about a tenth of a second before your email notification came through.
Secondly - Seriously? That Nurse story is horrible. You're dead right it's not just; it's shameful.
And that question? In an interview? (sigh)
Men and primary teachers - Nail on the head issue right there. As is trying to get dignified and equal service levels within the NHS.
And yes - you're also right about the choice issues.
One day we'll have a really good argument on Litopia. Too many of us are right.