Genderfail and you

[Larry.]

Not at all. I have considered before factors such as personal experiences having a causal role in shaping opinions and reactions, but there still hasn't been any way to dismiss selection bias from things. It's not as though that's an entirely bad (or good) thing; it's a factor in shaping our reactions to things. Take for example your latest response: Could it be that based on previous encounters with others, you have formed reactions to certain things and thus are less likely to process or consider alternative viewpoints? It happens all the time to all of us. It's not a simplistic argument, but rather an admission that even when a whole host of other factors are considered, there is going to be something going on outside our conscious awareness that influences our choices.

Now how does one combat this tendency toward selection bias? That's the $64,000 question and one that quite a few psychologists have debated for years. All I know is that I distrust patterns of contentment; others feel otherwise. To state that "people choose to read books that they like" is rather surface-level argument - how are these likes/dislikes instilled in people? Is it via acculturation? Cultural diffusion? Reaction to specific instances filtered through the lens of societal approbation? Why are children of parents who tend to hold "traditional" Western attitudes toward gender relations more likely to perpetuate those attitudes to some extent, even when modified by the level of contact with peers who have different opinions? Those are the things that have to be addressed before any thing like "people choose to read books that they like" can be accepted as being anything more than the very beginning of an explorative process that might change those preconceptions.

[Lord of Rhinos]

One of the things you'll see most often in interviews is authors saying something along the lines of "I write the type of book I would like to read". As groups, males and females like different things (of course they also like a lot of the same things) and therefore male authors are more likely to include things that appeal to males and females are more likely to include things that appeal to females. Therefore, I'm not at all surprised when someone says "I don't pay attention to gender but when thinking about the books I've read only about 10% of them were by females", because I expect male authors' books to be more appealing to males. I've got no problem with people reading what they like.

[dalThor]

Firstly, how many authors are male versus female and how does this break down when one does a genre by genre comparison? While I don't know for sure I'm guessing that there are more female authors writing romance novels and more males writing things like fantasy or sci-fi. These are but two things that one might want to consider when contemplating this 'issue'.

I think what you are trying to prove has way too many variables for your sweeping conclusions to bear fruit. There's no way I can take this seriously.

[TheEvilKing]

One of the things you'll see most often in interviews is authors saying something along the lines of "I write the type of book I would like to read". As groups, males and females like different things (of course they also like a lot of the same things) and therefore male authors are more likely to include things that appeal to males and females are more likely to include things that appeal to females. Therefore, I'm not at all surprised when someone says "I don't pay attention to gender but when thinking about the books I've read only about 10% of them were by females", because I expect male authors' books to be more appealing to males. I've got no problem with people reading what they like.

I think this sums everything up pretty accurately.

[Trinuviel]

Nope, sorry, can't be true. You either get breasts or the ability to write good books. Can't have both. (Note: Does not apply to man-boobs)

That's a pretty daft thing to say.

[Derfel Cadarn]

That's a pretty daft thing to say.

There are no telling smileys, but I'm pretty certain he's not being serious.

What's interesting is that, in the fantasy field at least, it's not always clear if the author is male or female. If you see JV Jones on a cover, it's not clear what the gender is, albeit the bit about the author makes the gender clear. Robin Hobb's publisher took it even further. First of all Robin Hobb is a pen-name, she has also written books under the name of Megan something-or-other. Robin is a name that can be either male or female and the author's bit of the Assassin's trilogy tellingly doesn't reveal the gender at all. Instead of sayign 'he' or 'she', it just refers to the author as Robin. The gender isn't revealed in the books until the Liveship Traders by which time the first trilogy had sold well and the name was established.

It's not just a male/female thing though. Mr Rigney planned on writing books about his Vietnam experiences so he wrote the Wheel of Time as Robert Jordan.

[kungtotte]

I don't think I'm guilty of any gender bias when choosing books and authors, mostly because I can't ever recall reading the author's name before reading the title and blurb about the book (which is what sells me). I'm pretty sure I would've chosen the books I've chosen to read even if the author's names had been completely androgynous.

[ljkeane]

Not at all. I have considered before factors such as personal experiences having a causal role in shaping opinions and reactions, but there still hasn't been any way to dismiss selection bias from things. It's not as though that's an entirely bad (or good) thing; it's a factor in shaping our reactions to things. Take for example your latest response: Could it be that based on previous encounters with others, you have formed reactions to certain things and thus are less likely to process or consider alternative viewpoints? It happens all the time to all of us. It's not a simplistic argument, but rather an admission that even when a whole host of other factors are considered, there is going to be something going on outside our conscious awareness that influences our choices.

What's your basis for assuming that the subconcious factors that influence people's decisions on buying books are due to gender bias?.

My latest response is due to you making sweeping generalizations about the motivations of readers even going as far to assume that those who say they don't consider gender in their reading selections must not read female authors with very little evidence to support your opinion so far as I can tell. You then tell us that 'even' you are subject to these biases which is big of you and imply that people really should intentionally read a quota of female authors like you or they will continue to be at best subconciously biased.

I don't think there is anything wrong about choosing to read female authors but suggesting it gives you any sort of moral superiority is irritating and seems to have little basis in fact .

[Ormond]

What's interesting is that, in the fantasy field at least, it's not always clear if the author is male or female. If you see JV Jones on a cover, it's not clear what the gender is, albeit the bit about the author makes the gender clear. Robin Hobb's publisher took it even further. First of all Robin Hobb is a pen-name, she has also written books under the name of Megan something-or-other. Robin is a name that can be either male or female and the author's bit of the Assassin's trilogy tellingly doesn't reveal the gender at all. Instead of sayign 'he' or 'she', it just refers to the author as Robin. The gender isn't revealed in the books until the Liveship Traders by which time the first trilogy had sold well and the name was established.

I know Hobb's publisher may have been trying to fool some prospective readers, but in the USA, Robin is a decidedly female name. In 1952, when "Megan Lindholm"/"Robin Hobb" was born, there were over three times as many girls given the name Robin as boys in the USA, so, in spite of Robin Williams, I think most Americans would have guessed a "Robin Hobb" writing fantasy novels was probably a woman. Readers who were really fooled by the genderless blurbs _wanted_ to be fooled. :)

[Humble Asskicker]

Trinuviel,

George Eliot was a woman!

I'm talking about the guy who penned Middlemarch, contemporary of Ellis Bell (another author who had ten times the writing chops of the Bronte sisters combined), not whatever pop culture favorite has you gushing your girlish love at.

Take a lit class, 'kbye.

Tears,

One has to wonder whether you've actually READ anything by them. Villette by Charlotte Bronte is a psychological character study that would make Bakker uncomfortable.

Even the most strenuous exegesis of any of the Bronte sisters' books will not find any gratuitously dangling phalli, or any phallic representation, so I'm sorry, but it hardly qualifies. The Brontes treat penetrating psychological studies of their characters, and depict bleak drama with the same finesse of a Virginia Wolfe poem - that is, with sound and fury that means little.

And no, to answer your derogatory implication, I haven't read any Bronte books. Why bother, when I know what to expect of female authors back then?

It was only until females strove to be like their male counterparts (and ironically called it a feminist movement) and developed a more masculine attitude that they became worthy of consideration.

Trinuviel,

That's a pretty daft thing to say.

The man's avatar is a Bonsai Kitten. He's very definitely not being serious, and I find that just as offensive as you do. Even though we have different views on literature, at least we can share in this unique - and dare I say comforting - bond.

Shryke

Nope, sorry, can't be true. You either get breasts or the ability to write good books. Can't have both. (Note: Does not apply to man-boobs)

Everyone else in this thread is treating the topic with the appropriate gravitas, sirrah, so it would be appreciated if you did the same. What I say might be distasteful, but at least I'm earnest.

[ljkeane]

I'm talking about the guy who penned Middlemarch, contemporary of Ellis Bell (another author who had ten times the writing chops of the Bronte sisters combined), not whatever pop culture favorite has you gushing your girlish love at.

Take a lit class, 'kbye.

I don't know if you're joking but the George Eliot who wrote Middlemarch really was a woman, her actual name was Mary Ann Evans.

Edit: Ah it appears you were joking, you learn something new everyday. Sorry about that.

[Zoë Sumra]

People keep talking here about reading books that they "like". What is "like"? Does it include, in part, "reinforcing certain philosophical views in which I already subconsciously believe and therefore not making me uncomfortable by challenging my worldview on certain topics"?

I know it's sometimes hard consistently to read books that rely on concepts in which one profoundly disagrees. For instance, I find it very difficult reading books that take racism as gospel (from the meta point of view rather than just from that of the characters); I keep being thrown out of rhythm mid-sentence. Taking the assumption that women authors are less likely to present patriarchy as the natural and correct way the world works, or less likely to present female activities and characters in a boring or restricted light - which is not necessarily the case; I'd love some stats, but have none - a male reader even reading about a gender-neutral world as opposed to a matriarchal one might possibly have a negative reaction to those ideas underpinning the book, and interpret this as dislike.

Or maybe all these people who don't "like" female-authored books have particular standards in particular areas of writing in which they don't feel women authors "measure up". What are those areas? What would women have to do in order to win your custom?

[Red Sun]

Trinuviel,

I'm talking about the guy who penned Middlemarch, contemporary of Ellis Bell (another author who had ten times the writing chops of the Bronte sisters combined), not whatever pop culture favorite has you gushing your girlish love at.

Take a lit class, 'kbye.

Is this a trick reply? To incite us to google Ellis Bell and George Eliot and let us find out that both of them are pseudonyms of female writers, with Ellis Bell being one of the Bronte sisters.

So I guess and I hope you tried to be sarcastic.

[ljkeane]

Or maybe all these people who don't "like" female-authored books have particular standards in particular areas of writing in which they don't feel women authors "measure up". What are those areas? What would women have to do in order to win your custom?

I don't think that most people are saying that they don't like books written by female authors, I certainly have no problem buying books written by female authors. What I object to is the implication that unless you intentionally set out to buy books written by female authors you are somehow biased against female authors.

I also think it's fairly condescending to assume that a reader might not like a book by a female author because it might possibly depict a gender neutral world and possibly the reader is subconciously opposed to these ideas. Is it conceivable that this is the case, yes but there are also numerous other possible explanations as to why a reader might like or dislike a certain book so why make sweeping generalizations about their reasons.

If you like a book by a female author do you like it because it's a good book or because it contains ideas that reinforce your views on how the world should be?. I have no idea why you choose to like the books you like and with no further information than the percentage of the books you read that have female authors I wouldn't like to make any assumptions.

[Trinuviel]

I'm talking about the guy who penned Middlemarch, contemporary of Ellis Bell (another author who had ten times the writing chops of the Bronte sisters combined), not whatever pop culture favorite has you gushing your girlish love at.

Take a lit class, 'kbye.

Listen, I'm quite new here and might be unfamiliar with the tone but please do no presume to make any assumtions about my "girlish" love for anything - you do not know or my reading habits. Sarcasm translates very badly into print and you condescending tone is not appreciated and frankly quite unwelcoming for a newcomer. Are you always such an ass?

By the way, Vilette is a frigging masterpiece - and telling a female writer or a female painter that she writes/paints in a masculine manner is perhaps one of the most back-handed compliments that I've ever heard, not to mentioned a piece of antiquated art criticism. But then again, you might be ironic. The problem is that it doesn't come through - might want to reconsider the question of communication here!

Good day!

[Larry.]

I don't think that most people are saying that they don't like books written by female authors, I certainly have no problem buying books written by female authors. What I object to is the implication that unless you intentionally set out to buy books written buy female authors you are somehow biased against female authors.

I also think it's fairly condescending to assume that a reader might not like a book by a female author because it might possibly depict a gender neutral world and possibly the reader is subconciously opposed to these ideas. Is it conceivable that this is the case, yes but there are also numerous other possible explanations as to why a reader might like or dislike a certain book so why make sweeping generalizations about their reasons.

If you like a book by a female author do you like it because it's a good book or because it contains ideas that reinforce your views on how the world should be?. I have no idea why you choose to like the books you like and with no further information than the percentage of the books you read that have female authors I wouldn't like to make any assumptions.

First off, read this old thread. Secondly, keep in mind that I like to puzzle things out, not to claim certainties. I postulated possible reasons for some having certain reactions; but selection bias is something we engage in in a whole host of activities; it is neither "good" nor "bad," as I've said before. How the selection bias occurs is going to vary from individual to individual but it does exist, or otherwise there would be no statistical deviation between groups. Some of the ways in which we favor one set of data (or one group) over another are rooted in so many possible causes that I do agree that it's very difficult to puzzle them all out; others are more easily discernable (parental influence on a child's beliefs).

Now what one does after realizing that selection bias has taken place is up to them. Some might, as in that link above, make conscious statements on why they have chosen not to read particular types of books. Others may challenge their own held preconceptions. Others may shrug and do nothing. But sometimes, when one bothers to do a self-analysis, things are learned about one's self. That was the entire point of my original post, not to cast charges against others.

[Humble Asskicker]

Listen, I'm quite new here and might be unfamiliar with the tone but please do no presume to make any assumtions about my "girlish" love for anything - you do not know or my reading habits. Sarcasm translates very badly into print and you condescending tone is not appreciated and frankly quite unwelcoming for a newcomer. Are you always such an ass?

I don't think you appreciate the art that goes into being a troll here, without being called a troll outright. Short of declaring oneself a Republican, this is pretty much what you have to do.

The first response I ever had on this board (well, it's previous incarnation), was "don't feed the troll." Do you know how much that hurt me? It was my very first adventure on an online forum, and I was like a gleeful child ready to kick down everyone's sand castle, and I was simply dismissed, like I was Ralph Nader or something.

But I kept trying, and eventually I managed to annoy people. While I avoided turning into this cult favorite curmudgeon like Mean Mr. Mustard (which isn't proper trolling because he has something of substance to say), I don't have a hope of touching the painful brilliance of skepticallyvegan, who was an awesome force in the field. But we can't all be JFK. Sometimes we're given the role of Ted Kennedy. But that doesn't stop us from trying, and persevering, and maybe doing some small damage in our career.

So I would appreciate if you started looking at things from my point of view.

[Sheep the Evicted]

Put me in the camp who don't care for gender and will read anything if it gets enough good reviews on this board.

Anyhow i have a friend who says women can't do badass very well. As in mindless non-emotional violence that also manages not to cross the line into cheesy. Anyone got any ideas of a book that disproves this rule ?

[dalThor]

Secondly, keep in mind that I like to puzzle things out, not to claim certainties.

OK, so puzzle this: In this house female authors of science fiction are vastly unrepresented. Also, when it comes to a series regarding vampires there is only one male author. Is that sexism? Which way? Would that be my wife? Or me?

I still say this is total horseshit.

[kungtotte]

Put me in the camp who don't care for gender and will read anything if it gets enough good reviews on this board.

Anyhow i have a friend who says women can't do badass very well. As in mindless non-emotional violence that also manages not to cross the line into cheesy. Anyone got any ideas of a book that disproves this rule ?

Off the top of my head I would nominate the Deeds of Paksenarrion trilogy by Elizabeth Moon. I guess it also gets bonus points for having much of the violence carried out by a female character. The fight sequences in isolation qualify as mindless bad-ass violence, in my opinion, but I guess if you look at the books as a whole the characters as such aren't as bad-ass as say Logen Ninefingers or Karsa Orlong.

Other than that the female authors I've read haven't really done the mindless violence thing, which isn't to say that they can't, obviously, just that they haven't.