Publishers, Market Forces, and Feminism

[leahbobet]

(Okay, we're pulling out the Alan Moore icon again. Baby, why you make me do that?)

I have had an interesting shot of perspective this afternoon, brought on by coalescent's straw-poll/count of women's names on the front of the upcoming Night Shade Books anthology Eclipse and the response over at jlassen's. The chain of thought goes thusly:

1) "Huh, that is true, there are all boys on that cover."
2) "Oh, that is a Night Shade book, they are good guys and likely not participating in sexism."
3) "Okay, this is upsetting me because good people are being wailed on, and they are clearly becoming upset, and the methods of argument being used here are no-win ones."
4) GVG says "welcome to the club" and thus we get our perspective.

Now, this may just be a flaw in how I've been conducting things with regards to The Revolution. However, I'm putting it out here because I suspect it's a flaw in the discourse, or if not, it's turning into a flaw in the discourse.

I suspect that there is an element in the LJ feminist discourse where we sit around doing the Man Comes Around thing: we take names, decide who to free and who to blame, etc., and everybody won't be treated all the same. I think a chunk of the discussion around making SFF a more egalitarian place on grounds of gender has taken a turn into labelling people as sexist or not-sexist: on our team or the other team, and then it stops there.

Where do I derive this? My copious internal struggle in this case -- dealing with people I know -- versus my lack of said struggle in the case of the F&SF and sexism discussion -- dealing with people I know less well or don't know. I had people in the Good! box and am asked to move them to the Bad! box, which is harder than moving people from the Neutral! box into Good! or Bad! boxes. I think that's what we do. Move people into and out of boxes.

This is a bad thing. Here's why:

Because it trades on personality, and ultimately stunts any real change.

I'm back to the whole placebo activism idea again. I think yelling at people and then feeling better about yourself because you put them in the right box doesn't really accomplish much. Remember, sexism, racism, classism, etc. are systemic issues. If people keep saying it's the market, sure, that could be an excuse for their inaction. I suspect it's not an excuse because of that systematizing of prejudice that's reflected in other aspects of life (why's it one or two guys here if it's systemic elsewhere?) and the really fucked-up ideas we have in publishing of who has power over the whole apparatus.

We all work in the framework of the market. If the market is sexist, business decisions will carry that flavour, because otherwise those companies will go broke. Systemic prejudice doesn't just punish the people with boobs or that one drop of non-white blood. It punishes everyone who lives under it. Everyone has a role. Nobody gets to step out of line.

---

Here's my question then, because this shot of perspective and a small chain of logic have led me to what might be more effective to change the face of SFF. Yes, it's harder. I'm starting to think if it doesn't require some serious fucking thinking and a truckload of work, it might not actually be activism.

How do we change the market?

Comments

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

Well--I don't see this as being a case of putting people in boxes. I see it as talking about behavior and choices made. Which, sure, to some extent you can't divorce who somebody is from what they do. But you can say, "So and so is a good person, and this thing they did was bone-headed." And you can say, "So and so is basically a good person, but has a blind spot right about here." And so on.

I think we change the market by encouraging what we want to see and discouraging or not encouraging what we don't. Slow process, but in time...

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

But you can say, "So and so is a good person, and this thing they did was bone-headed." And you can say, "So and so is basically a good person, but has a blind spot right about here."

Yes, we can. I think most of the time that's what's done (I hope). I am trying to figure out why I don't feel that's what's being done today. I am very much feeling a witch hunt today. It's...sort of no-way-out language on the part of some speakers? Abuse language. I think that's struck a nerve in me.

(This could be the pigpile thing again.)

I would really rather change the market.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I guess I feel like this particular conversation has mostly been very fair, so I would submit that maybe it is indeed because you know the folks involved? (Or maybe I'm just a callous jerk.)

>I would really rather change the market.

In the long-term, I think that would be better for everyone's nerves. Of course, then we'd have to find a whole new thing to argue about...

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

That's interesting, because my perspective is the opposite: I'm perfectly willing to believe that Jeremy Lassen is a good guy with a commitment to feminism, but his behavior during the debates has shown he doesn't get the concept of male privilege on a really basic level. Or maybe he gets it, but lost in this particular case. In either case, the aggrieved cookie demands just exasperate me more, as does his willingness to listen to a commenter with a male name, but not to listen to the same complaints made more angrily by women. It is pretty much a textbook demonstration of the parody post you put up a few weeks ago.

I understand that it's hard to confront privilege. I have a hard time with it myself. But I am also tired of the demands *from the people in power* that the people being discriminated against have to make all the behavioral concessions, regardless of whether or not this is fair or even commercially sensible (as the notion that a company can tell their customer base how to act is kind of, um, not commercially sensible).

In terms of language: I felt the poll was neutral, some of the commenters were snarky, and the first commenters to get outright abusive were Jeff Vandermeer and nightshadebooks. And that's one of the problems with tone on the Internet: nightshadebooks (who is not jlassen, I think?) and Jeff V. clearly interpreted the tone of commenters differently than I did. But, you know, tone and complaints about tone are a major warning sign: when a man starts complaining about a woman's tone or a white person complains about a POC's tone, they automatically lose credibility with me, because there's a whole history of power relations there they should be aware of, and if they're not even aware of stuff that's *that* basic, the whole conversation is just going to be a ton of work.

[jamiam.livejournal.com]

I do think... we need to had out cookies for good behavior. Even if it's only "marginally improved-upon" behavior, and even though it's frustrating because we feel like we're selling ourselves short on an insufficient compromise...

Like I've gotten the feeling that F&SF has been better about putting women on the cover lately. I want to tell Gordon he's improved my mood by doing that, and encourage him to do better, to do even more to encourage, say, submissions from women... but at the same time, I'm feeling worn out and disappointed and I'm having to fight the urge to yell at him for be so &@W#ing defensive. AGAIN.

Even though I know I'm part of what drove him to the defensive behavior.

But it's hard to treat grown, adult men like young students who need to be constantly encouraged and rewarded as they struggle to catch up their schooling in the areas of privilege and unconscious bias and effect-based -isms; harder still when the power structure we're trying to change goes in exactly the opposite direction.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Yeah -- that is a good thought, I think. It is a learning curve like any other, and needs both positive and negative reaction involved.

I think I understand why guys get so defensive about a lot of this stuff -- back when I was starting my Phil. of Feminism course I had someone in the comments here be like "oh don't do that, it turns you into an evil mean lesbian with a shaved head" etc. Which I laughed at in the privacy of my own soul, but I think it illuminated some of the process: the thing about living with privilege is that your behaviour hasn't changed, but suddenly the people around you have changed their behaviour towards you, so clearly the variable is the problem? And it's not taken into account that the behaviour was always the problem, but the change is that the people around you are educated about it and have changed their opinion of it.

Which sucks. Which means, yes, having to treat grown men like students and I do get tired of that too and want to scream "your deficiencies aren't my problem!" very loud some days. But...yeah, I think that reaction would go down some if there were cookies handed out. Because then the perception would be less that nothing a guy can do is right, therefore the guy should actively do the same thing they always were out of spite, and more that the behaviour is the problem, as the reaction changes when the behaviour does.

Wow, that got rambly. Um. *g* I agree completely?

[chibibluebird.livejournal.com]

How do we change the market?

You mean to say that a significant proportion of SFF consumers refrain from buying books by female authors because they're by female authors?
I find that very hard to believe, but there are probably analyses you could do (using sales figures from both genders, but you'd have to control for things like the books' subgenres, amount of marketing, etc.)

[chibibluebird.livejournal.com]

(In fact, I wouldn't buy an anthology w/ all male authors' names on the cover, but then I'm very sensitive to things like that.)

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

This is where the argument at coalescent's seems to have started, yeah.

[affinity8.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't pick up an anthology with all male authors on it, either.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

You mean to say that a significant proportion of SFF consumers refrain from buying books by female authors because they're by female authors?

That is not at all what I mean to say.

Editors and publishers, when accused of sexism (as in the links at the top), are frequently saying that they are forced to play to what the market is looking for in terms of whose names go on covers, what stories get bought, etc. That they need to go with market forces or go broke.

I'm asking if that's so, how that situation is changed. I'm not making that statement, I'm asking a question.

[chibibluebird.livejournal.com]

Well, market forces = consumers. So if consumers don't prefer male authors, then those editors' arguments are false, and it's the editors who are biased. Or am I missing something?

[catrambo.livejournal.com]

One thing that I strongly suggest people interested in this issue to (and I'm not the first person to suggest this, much smarter people have preceded me) is make award nominations. If there's a story you like that you think might get overlooked and you're a SFWA member, nominate it for a Nebula, for example. I'm not saying only nominate stuff by women -- but if people want to see more stuff by women on ballots or ToCs, they may want to start exercising their own power to influence that.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I did decide not to reup my SFWA membership this summer, but I have been rethinking that lately (mostly because someone did ask me to consider a book for a Norton nom). That made me realie it's a voice in the discourse, however small, and maybe crusty old hidebound persons we shall not name shouldn't push me into giving that up just by their existence in that discourse... *g*

[katallen.livejournal.com]

I've noticed that online, activism seems to be getting confused with a system of yelling in outrage for five minutes that's somewhat closer kin to throwing a tantrum (or trolling).

Actual activism (political/social etc) is harder work -- for every Greenpeace 'stunt' there's the back-up of fundraising, educational outreach, letter campaigns, boycotts... the whole 'raising awareness' thing that's topped off by carefully planned direct action.

The thing that actually changes people's attitudes isn't the stunt -- it's all the gruntwork stuff behind the stunt. The stunt is mostly to draw media attention to the issues, it's the gruntwork stuff changes the world. And the organisations who do too much screaming and finger-pointing... often just find themselves famous for screaming and finger-pointing and nothing else, even if they're right to be outraged.

How to change the market? Gruntwork, education, doing your bit, and all those quite things that aren't as much fun as witch-hunting or burning flags.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

...heh. Okay. I was going to be circumspect about this. *g*

Yeah, that's what I want here, is to set up that damn gruntwork already. To cut down on the screaming and instead start making the change. And doing the gruntwork. I will shovel anyplace I'm needed to shovel if we could all just pick a direction and go.

[veejane.livejournal.com]

My general perception of the matter, not having read all the way through it yet, is that way too many people who get onto the internet have NO NOTION that their internet behavior reflects on them as people no less than their in-person behavior.

Another way too many people, who may or may not overlap, have NO NOTION that their every verbal utterance reflects on them as crafters of language, whether it be in bound volume, flimsy zine, or internet posting.

If I don't have a personal relationship with So-and-so, what they say on the internet may persuade me not to even try.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure they have no notion as much as they don't care. There are people on the internet that I'm assured are lovely in person, caring and good to their friends, but I will never know because I'll cross the street if I ever see them. And I'm sure that doesn't lose those people sleep.

Which frustrates me, y'know? Ignorance can be educated. Indifference...nothing to do with that.

[veejane.livejournal.com]

Indifferent people who clearly don't care that the people they're pissing off are potential customers. Or used to be.

What really burns my buttcheeks about it is the dual subtext of (a) I don't need you there are plenty of others who WILL read my incoherent ranting and (b) having discarded you as a potential customer, I will still whine about the fact that my book didn't sell enough copies for me to found my own religion on it.

It's like all of SFF never heard of Fandom_Wank, I swear. Take heed from your mediafandom sistren! There IS a cure!

More thinky

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

2) "they are good guys and likely not participating in sexism."

The other thing is, and this sort of fits into the "personality" (as opposed to actions) thing, is that my immediate response to that is: "Then presumably they WANT TO KNOW if they appear to be participating in sexism".

I was posting something somewhere else about 'splitting' that I think it sort of relevant to this:

Lynn Truss says something about this in Talk to the Hand that I found sort of lighbulbish.

Roughly (my copy is on loan), she says that apologies require a splitting of self (This part of me did something. This part of me can see that it was a bad/foolish/careless thing to do, and wishes to acknowledge that, and to reconcile myself with the world, and knows how to do so) that used to be entirely normal, and that people are now taught to resist fiercely.

With the result that apologising is regarded as a form of self-immolation.

I apologise quite a lot, and people keep telling me I need to stop it. This is, you understand, people who like me and wish me well. We'd talk about it and they'd say, you know, you don't have to apologise all the time and I'd say yeah I know that, so what?

It puzzled me horribly until I came across this idea of splitting.

I think not getting the notion of splitting is a basic problem on both sides': how do we talk about behaviour w/o talking about personality? And at the same time, how do we call people on MAKING it about personality when their behaviour is called into question?

Because I feel like it's this twitch everyone has, that logic doesn't really touch. I mean, we all know that sexism is a social blight, not a personality flaw, but we all fall for it at least some of the time.

How do we get off that level and stay off?

Re: More thinky

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Because I feel like it's this twitch everyone has, that logic doesn't really touch. I mean, we all know that sexism is a social blight, not a personality flaw, but we all fall for it at least some of the time.

How do we get off that level and stay off?

Hm. I think off the top of my head that this is part of why obsevations on sexist behaviour sometimes need to be delivered in that patient, polite, logical chain-of-events way, with options of how it would be better to act and forgiveness pending. The same way you'd talk to someone if you were concerned about their drinking or the new job they took which might be shady.

And I think this is why we need to publically call out the people who are making it about a personality flaw and a witch hunt and challenge them, so the wide world knows that this isn't acceptable behaviour either, so if the wide world is confronted about sexist behaviour, their immediate assumption isn't that the accusation itself = instant pariahhood and no reparations possible.

I don't know how to stay off, though, because it's something that's so thoroughly influential in our lives and it's much easier to engage that kind of issue with strong emotion than something peripheral. The reaction will have to be dealt with and fought (or accepted) every time...

Re: More thinky

[rosefox]

I think not getting the notion of splitting is a basic problem on both sides': how do we talk about behaviour w/o talking about personality? And at the same time, how do we call people on MAKING it about personality when their behaviour is called into question?

This is an especially interesting question in the context of people who write and publish SF, who deal with rejection notices all the time. In theory, the only way to survive in the business of writing is to understand that having one's words rejected--as not appropriate to a situation, or not skillfully assembled, or even just as formatted incorrectly--is not the same as having one's self rejected. Given that, I'm not surprised that editors seem to be much, much more likely to conflate criticism of words with criticism of self, because they're not used to having their words rejected. On the other hand, they do presumably write and send rejection letters to people of whom they personally think highly, so they're at least familiar with the concept that criticism of words and criticism of self are not necessarily the same.

Perhaps we ought to start phrasing feminist, anti-racist, etc. critiques as manuscript response letters.

Dear Mr. Lassen:

Thank you for resubmitting Eclipse for consideration in my personal library. We initially rejected it on the erroneous grounds that it was heavily weighted towards male BNAs, based on the front cover. As you may know from reading our guidelines, the space allotted for such publications is entirely full and we are not accepting new submissions of that type.

Now that you have brought the back cover and full TOC to our attention, I am pleased to note the inclusion of stories by female authors and less well known authors, and will forward the title on to the buyers so that its placement in the purchase queue may be determined. Please be aware that placement in the queue does not guarantee immediate purchase, but we will do our best to get around to it eventually.

In the future, should you wish to expedite a book's consideration, please be sure to follow our submission guidelines closely.

Sincerely,
Feminist Fan

Re: More thinky

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

This comment is awesome. Although I feel there should be an "alas" in there somewhere (http://news.ansible.co.uk/a242.html).

[ex-fandrogy.livejournal.com]

I'm not familiar with the debate in question, but I wanted to let you know that I've friended you because we're both Toronto-based SF people, and Nickle says we'll probably get along. :)

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

Hee. Well hi. :)

You would be the newest person in his writers' group, I'm guessing?