My Hugo Ambiguity

(Wow, I finally get to use this icon. Thank you, internet drama!)

It seems that Dave Truesdale has resurfaced as a fearless defender of all those men in science fiction who are being oppressed*, and taken some issue with a Bookslut column that decries the lack of women on this year's Hugo ballot. Apparently "blatantly feminist" is now up there with "blatantly pro-cannibalism", but that is another entry for another day and buymeaclue has that ground covered.

What I'd like to talk about is why...well, neither one of these arguments seems to me to be complete.

Adrienne Martini's assertion -- which has been echoed around the blogosphere to a degree -- is that one woman on this year's ballot is a sign of...well, I'm not quite sure upon rereading. I believe the argument is that white maleness, in the author, the prose, or the content, is what gets you award nominations in this industry? That white maleness is still science fiction's normative state on paper, even if it isn't how the field looks anymore? She reviews Eifelheim briefly, which is unfortunately the one book on the ballot which I haven't read. The comment on the gender of the ballot seems to me more a lead-in to the review than anything else.

So Dave Truesdale picks that up, in his own inimitable fashion, and...okay, it's titled Feminists with PHS (PHS being Pre-Hugo Syndrome. Ha ha ha, Dave. Oh, such jokes). He pretty much has trouble with that metaphor thing we've been using around here lately, and warns the vulnerable populace that those feminist wimmins are left-wing, indecent, oh noes oh noes! and the girls have a "hegemony" over at the PKD awards.**

But he does make one interesting point. Martini hasn't read more than one of the books.

Having read four of the five (and Eifelheim to follow, once my semester's wrapped up), I noticed an interesting thing about their content. We may have a lot of male authors here, but minority issues are a major thread in at least three of the five Hugo-nominated books this year.

Take Vinge's Rainbows End. The alpha-plot -- aside from that awesome bit about the advertising bombs -- involves a heavy dose of thought on ageism, personal obsolescence of one's social attitudes, and spousal/child abuse. Robert Gu? Is an asshole. He played mind games with his wife and son as well as his coworkers, and the book is explicit about how he is wrong. Pretty much every female character in the book is a decent example of a strong woman. None of them are treated as accessories. They all contribute.

Watts's Blindsight does the same. Gender isn't quite bent, but poked at with the Gang of Four's multiple personalities being both male and female. Every woman on Theseus has indispensable skills and is part of the team. The ambivalence with which Siri and Chelsea's relationship is painted, again, does not excuse in the slightest how Siri behaves in the end, does not call it normal or acceptable. The narrative calls him on it rather violently in the last third. It is not forgiven.

Stross's Glasshouse I would actively call a feminist book, even though I can't say that's the author's intention in setting things up the way he did. Robin's embodiment in the Glasshouse as a woman, specifically as a woman in an experimental society that combines the worst of the 1950s makes some pretty strong statements about women being full human beings in society. I'm not sure if my position as an early-twenties woman reader comes into play here, but Robin's socially-enforced confinement in her house, into a pointless routine of gossip and, specifically, the expectation that she have sex and produce babies with a man she barely knows is...chilling. It's mean to be chilling. It's dystopia. And it was the world not too long ago.

I cannot for the life of me see how that is not strongly feminist.

Leaving aside Eifelheim again, Novik's book -- the one with the female author -- is perhaps the one that gives women the shortest shrift in content. Not because she's a bad woman! oh no! but mostly due to the period piece/military nature of the beast. Yes, there is some discussion of how women should be able to pilot dragons too, and how they can sleep with whoever they want, thanks, but it's not accepted by the wider society and smells a bit of tokenism.


So yes: these are male authors. However, the manner in which they're writing female characters, and -- especially with Stross -- the incorporation of what could be called feminist ideas in each novel makes me think this isn't simply a "penis-heavy" ballot. The Hugo nominating body isn't putting up for consideration books where Men were Real Men! and Women Gave You Real Pot Pie! this year. They're asking to honour books that weave in an assumption that women are people capable of math and science and all that hard stuff, and not in a one-dimensional way. That hitting your local woman is bad. That the whole way our society has been until recently set up in terms of gendered roles is bad bad bad.

So the thrust of my own argument?

I think the whole thing's more complicated than it's being made out to be.

---

*'elp! 'elp! I'm being oppressed!
**Frankly if I have any hegemony here, I want a martini and cabana boy at my door stat. It's not hegemony until I get the membership privileges.