bookgazing: (feministponies)
[personal profile] bookgazing
All


“You hate everything I am,” Nyx said softly. “But you’re still out here with me. Is that it?” … “Is it that you have to take care of her out there? But out here–” she carefully moved her hands to his neck, lightly, as if by accident. It was freeing, really. She figured they’d all be dead by morning. “Out here I take care of you.”


It’s putting it mildly to say that I have strong opinions about Nyxnissa so Dasheem, the protagonist of Kameron Hurley’s Bel Dame Apocraphya trilogy. In an interview with Liz Bourke Hurley said that ‘at some level, Nyx acknowledges that she’s monstrous. And so do the people around her.’ I have a hard time leaving monstrous ladies alone. Without fail, I want more time with these characters than their stories want to provide. Finding a trilogy where I could spend hours basking in the SFF story of a tough, tired, morally compromised woman was a great literary gift.

There be monsters (and spoilers for the whole trilogy) here. )

Supplemental Materials

SFF in Conversation: Kameron Hurley on A Complexity of Desires: Expectation of Sex & Sexuality in Science Fiction
The first three chapters of "God’s War", "Infidel" and "Rapture"
Free Short Fiction from the "God’s War" Universe
Sleeps with Monsters: Kameron Hurley Answers Six Questions
Lady Business+ - Episode #1: God’s War
bookgazing: (Default)
[personal profile] bookgazing
Having established that I have some strong things to say about the way people talk about boys and reading, let me turn to one suggestion that seems to be coming up more and more as people continue to talk about how to get boys interested in YA.

The solution that seems to be coming from many commentators is that publishers should get rid of gendered, girl-centric covers and replace them with ‘boy friendly’ graphics. Every time I see this solution appear I find myself so frustrated. I’m dying to see the back of gendered marketing and the idea that girls all respond positively to books with pink covers, but the campaign for ‘boy friendly' covers rubs me wrong.

Renay wrote a really great post about why calling for more male book representation isn’t a particularly helpful solution to the get boys to read more, if we consider the discussion of boys not reading in the context of a continual, world wide fight for gender equality. My ideas on the issue of creating have formed are absolutely indebted to that post and I don’t intend to restate Renay’s points because her writing can speak for itself, so I encourage you to bob over there now so that you’ll understand the rhetorical standpoint I’m using to deconstruct arguments about creating more covers that will appeal to boys.

The creation of more ‘boy friendly’ covers is a solution that several kick-ass feminist commentators have embraced, so it is in no way an easy, lazy piece of sexist skulduggery. While tweets like this one, which appeared during last week’s Twitter chat about ‘Why Men Write YA’ show a clearly sexist slant, creating ‘boy friendly’ or non-gendered covers appears to be an attractive, practical, non-problematic solution to the problem of boy’s lack of interest in young adult fiction. However, it is a solution that places boy’s practical needs above a fight for genuine, all encompassing equality.

Twitter quote reading: can hardly blame boys for taking one look at the jackets on the YA shelves & heading for the hills.
As Renay said when we discussed this tweet 'Of course they do, they're sexist and our culture is making them that way! The solution isn't to remove the feminine, that's just erasing girls.' No one is jabbing the pointy finger of blame at these boys, who are 'heading for the hills'. Feminist commentators are declaring their issues with a culture that tells boys they should be fleeing from these kind of jackets, that in fact it's ok to drop these books and leg it because normal boys should be against anything that looks vaguely traditionally girl-centric. When they march feminists carry signs declaring themselves against the social system of sexism, not against boys.

Let me suggest a comparison argument to illuminate why I think the dicussion about 'boy friendly' covers has strayed from the task of promoting genuine equality. Last year there was some talk over at Book Snob about the repercussions of allowing female soldiers to fight on the front line. One line of rhetoric that was discussed, suggested that male soldiers would be unable to perform their front line duties effectively if women were on the front line, because they would find it distressing to see their female colleagues injured. In this argument supposed male practical needs (to be protected from seeing something so distressing that their professional effectiveness would be compromised1) are placed ahead their female colleagues right to equality (to be given an equal chance to work in any kind of job a man works in)2.

The idea of putting ‘boy friendly’ covers on books is far removed from the subject of women on the front line and the scale of practical importance is hugely different, but the structure of the rhetorical arguments used about the importance of ‘boy friendly’ or ‘gender neutral’ covers is much the same. In the discussion about the army, some of the links cited are leery about using ‘natural arguments’, which rely on establishing a biological difference between men and women in order to show that women are unsuited for a task. These arguments seem less than reasonable to some involved in the discussion. I can remember seeing posts for ‘boy friendly’, or gender neutral book covers where the author makes it clear that boys don’t need these kind of covers because of a natural antipathy to pink, or a natural inclination for blue.

In the discussion at Book Snob, cultural arguments against women serving on the front line that are mentioned by commenter’s and in a linked article, are given much more credence. Men’s instinct to protect women is mentioned, and linked to the mental destruction of soldiers who see female colleagues injured. It appears that this may be used as a reason for keeping women from serving on the front line. Implicit in this line of thinking is the idea that culture has shaped men into protectors and Rachel explicitly mentions that men’s idea of themselves as protectors of women is a problematic internal image created by societal pressures. Cultural conditioning is a well established, respected idea among liberal commentators who reject biological determinism. The discussion at Book Snob includes people who recognise that culture shapes our perceptions of the opposite gender in problematic, undesirable ways which limit our society’s struggle for equality. Participants in discussions about putting ‘boy friendly’ or ‘gender neutral’ covers on books also frequently acknowledge that boys culturally created unwillingness/inability to read books with traditionally girly covers is created by societal sexism and is very much a problem.

Although the people involved in the Book Snob discussion and the people discussing boys reading recognise that cultural conditioning exists, after this realisation they focus on how near impossible it would be to change male attitudes. It seems that over at Book Snob everyone is just stymied by how huge a task this seems and I don't blame them. It is a huge, scary task. Some of the people involved in thinking up ways to get boys to read are very aware of the need for practical solutions right now, so that the boys that exist now don’t end up alienated from reading. Undoing centuries of gendered conditioning doesn’t look like the strategy to take when there appears to be a more practical solution, fast track that they can campaign for. People involved in these discussions believe cultural conditioning can be undone, even though it would be incredibly difficult (although I do think that the comments on Renay’s show there are plenty of other people who are hostile to the idea that working against gendered social conditioning is the way to get boys reading). People, at least in the discussions about book covers boys will like, are just focused on creating strategies that could immediately fix the highly visible problems affecting men and boys. And while they’re focusing on those strategies, the less visible problems of equality facing women and girls go into second position.

I get why, really I do. The idea that any boy might leave school illiterate scares the hell out of me. The idea that boys might not enjoy reading makes me a little sad for complicated reasons. And focusing on getting boys book covers that appeal to them doesn’t immediately seem to equate with keeping girls from achieving deserved equality. The problem is that if people keep telling boys that they don’t have to be interested in anything that looks traditionally female then it’s just another perpetuation of the idea that something which is linked (traditionally, or really) with the female can never be as good, or as interesting as something linked with the male. Pink can never be as good as blue, forever and ever and ever.

I know that might not seem important in the face of potentially illiterate boys. It sounds like the ramblings of a theorist with no eye for the practicalities of the world and I can imagine people saying that girls read a lot, women have a lot of literary representation, okay, the picture’s not perfect but women are at least in it. What does it matter if creating covers that are friendlier towards boys makes unfortunate suggestions? Let’s get those boys reading! I just have to maintain that idealistic theory is important, otherwise what are we aiming for? What’s the point if we don’t want to achieve everything? Ideas about intersectionality (specifically how not to hurt one group while empowering the other) need to be applied in these discussions on reading and boys, or we're all just going to end up with the same gendered mess we've always had.

1Personally I find the practical need I’ve identified at odds with the idea of what the army does. Everyone on the frontline sees a range of horrifying things that can affect their professional effectiveness and it seems that since the army is sometimes rather powerless to protect soldiers from these sights, they concentrate on ways to help them after the event.

2Disclaimer to say that I’m not accusing anyone who took part in that discussion of being deliberately anti-feminist and trying to keep the ladies down – sexist analysis can get in anyone’s brain, including mine and it is hard to combat. Nor am I saying you have to agree with my analysis of that exchange. I was very pleased to be able to have such a respectful conversation.
bookgazing: (Default)
[personal profile] bookgazing

Last year I asked Simon at Savidge Reads to see if his readers could come up with a list of books that included single women, who stayed single until the end of the book and didn’t die of despair because of their lonely hearts. The Savidge Reads commenter’s made a pretty strong effort and furnished me with a list of contented, fictional single women to check out.

But, see, I am never satisfied. Even as I added these books so full of promise to my list, I was thinking one step on, identifying and grousing over other gaps in fictional female representation.

Although I think addressing the lack of fictional female representation in certain subject areas is important, I don’t intend to get shouty and moan (again) that books about female pirates, or warlords, or scientists are never going to trend as their own separate sub genre. Sure, I’d like more books about female pirates,** but in this post I want to go beyond asserting (again) that female protagonists don’t make it into novels about certain, very cool subjects, as often as male protagonists. However, I think that at least people recognise that this problem exists and these people are committed to pushing for a more equal representation. At least we can see that problem.

My query to Simon was about a much less visible lack of female representation. The low numbers of single, happy women in fiction is clear from many of the comments made on that post, but what’s also clear is that for some commenter’s it was the first time they’d realised there was a gap in the representation. A couple of months before I sent to Simon asking for recommendations I hadn’t really noticed just how absent single, happy women were from fiction. I am a very single woman who reads all the time. If anyone should have noticed and been annoyed that in a modern society, which would likes us to believe that it validates a single woman’s choice to be single, it should have been me.

When I eventually saw the lack of single female happiness made me think about what other kinds of general female experience are underrepresented and struggle to get that under representation noticed. As soon as I started looking I realised that it had been a loooong time since I’d read a book where a female character was described as plain, unattractive, or ugly where that character ended up some kind of happy by the final chapter.

‘The Woman in White’ and ‘Jane Eyre’ are both good examples of books where female characters don’t have to be attractive to get their happy ending. In the nineteenth century, when looks (in tandem with money) played a large part in defining how marriageable you were and marriage was seen as the gate to prosperous female fulfilment. Despite these societal truths neither the ‘ugly’ Marianne, or the ‘plain’ Jane found in these nineteenth century novels, die out of despair that their looks have doomed them to solitude. Jane actually gets to marry a man she loves. Wilkie Collins doesn’t lead Marianne to traditional, validating romantic happiness, but she doesn’t die, go mad, get assaulted, or end up in the poorhouse. In fact, she is shown as an intellectually sharp, happy, healthy character at the end of the book. I always find Collins treatment of Marianne vs. his treatment of Laura annoying, but since I wouldn’t have wanted her to marry Walter anyway (whatever Walter you are not that cool) I’m generally content to call Collins depiction of an ‘ugly’*** female character progressive.

I guarantee you if this problem was set up as an opinion piece on a big newspaper’s site these are the two books everyone would pull out to knock down the idea that plain girls don’t get a place in fiction. Yes, there are two whole books! Ok, they were written in the nineteenth century, but they’re both classics right? That means female characters described as unattractive are like, taking over the world!

Yes (Mr Straw Man), fine, blah, blah, classics, blah, blah, higly visible – theimportant thing, the thing to focus on is that there are just TWO books. Apart from those two books I find it hard to name any other books where a main female character is described as plain, unattractive, or ugly and offered some kind of happy ending.

Few authors describe female characters as unattractive and write them happy endings. I could make a couple of educated guesses about why that is:

Judging by programs that push make overs as therapeutic, fresh starts that will bring all the wonders of the rainbow, the way society perceive a woman's happiness is still tied up with how society thinks she looks

Not much has really changed and society still thinks happiness comes from romantic fulfilment, which it assumes is denied to women it deems unattractive. Fiction doesn’t reflect happiness for female characters which writers describe as unattractive, because society is narrow in its happiness recognition and assumes female characters described as unattractive could never find traditional happy endings

Some vestige of Victorian scientific analysis still remains in society and it’s still believed that character, personality and fulfilment are reflected by outward appearance. Unfulfilled characters are automatically written as unattractive, because people feel that unfulfilled lives are reflected in people’s dress, or features (or more generously writing descriptions is still seen as a reasonable short cut route to characterisation)

Wish fulfilment

And I’m sure the publishing industry has practical, writing as a business reasons as well (meh).

Now that I actually see this trend to reward only the fictional and beautiful with happiness****, I’m already bored of it. If you can recommend any books with happy endings for female characters who are clearly supposed to sound unattractive to the reader, please leave recommendations in the comments, I will love you. I’m not accepting books where a first person female character describes herself as unattractive, yet everyone around her falls at her feet, which makes it a bit trickier. I don’t expecting we’d get a lot of suggestions wherever we took this topic, but being proved wrong can only make me happy!



* Btw the late, great Diana Norman’s book ‘The Pirate Queen’ is perfect for anyone who wants a starting place

** Can we totally have female pirate week sometime this year?

*** There are tons of complicated cultural ideas past and present that go into that word and into Marianne’s presentation as an ‘ugly’ woman, but let’s push on and I’ll recommend that you hit up an aware fashion commentator like threadbared for analysis of these issues

**** Not every character described as unattractive has to be left happy. I’m not arguing for blanket positive messages that obscure complexity. I just want a little variation from the current standard of ‘beautiful/not considered totally unattractive and happy’ and ‘unattractive, so dying inside’
bookgazing: (charmed)
[personal profile] bookgazing
At least once a year, probably more, a conversation starts about how boys aren’t reading, because there aren’t enough books which represent boys' interests. Let me put the complications of what kind of books represent boys interests phrasing away for a moment, as I think I’ve spent enough time deconstructing the idea of ‘boys books’ in earlier posts. The issue I want to focus on in this post is that participants in these conversations often neglect to consider the overall context of gender representation in which their conversations must take place. Their ignorance of this context, can resulting in an exclusionist focus that ignores the true shape of reality.

What is, ha, I want to say shocking, but that would be ridiculous, instead I’ll say what is troubling, is that male commentators on this issue (and let me make this absolutely clear, even though I’ve tried to qualify any reference of men in this post: I’m not talking about all men here, just men who engage in specific behaviour, this post will not apply to some men, but it will apply to others) often appear totally uninterested that there are many, many areas (large and small) where the female gender is not overwhelmingly represented. Every year the English male rugby team competes in the six nations tournament. Their matches are shown by the BBC, who control some of the main television channels in my country. The English women’s team took the Grand Slam this year as they did in 2010. They also won the Grand Slam three years running from 2006 - 2008. The Grand Slam has famously eluded the men's team since 2003. And the women’s six nation tournament is shown...where, exactly? Are male commentators so concerned about the exclusion of men from areas of literary representation rocking up to engage in conversations about the lack of representation for women? Are they fuck!

We know that when women see themselves represented in media sources, these representations are not championed by much of male society. In fact, when women are represented that representation is actively scorned, usually by men (discussions on The Orange Prize, or the encroaching feminising of sci-fi are good examples of this kind of disparagement). When women aren’t represented in media sources that lack of representation is ignored, or explained away by these same men. These men’s sole focus is on the small areas where women have made a space for their own gender and how this may exclude men, or boys. Men who engage in these conversations rarely consider that society has and continues to create vast plains of spaces for maleness, which it is even now desperately trying to keep free from female involvement.

When people start passionately proclaiming that there is a ‘boy problem’, or that boys may be underrepresented in a few areas, it is hard for many ladies to keep from rolling their eyes. It is hard for some of us to keep from questioning why men, and society in general, talk so little about the many, many, many areas where women are underrepresented, or poorly represented, or just fucking pushed to the side.

Men who engage in conversations about boys and reading will often conveniently ignore the widespread lack of representation for girls and women, then refocus the conversation on one of the few areas where boys may, may, lack representation. Add that tunnel vision approach to the way these conversation quickly spin off into women blaming and you reach a situation where some ladies need to open their mouths, because if they don’t their heads will explode. I imagine that is why Maureen Johnson felt she needed to tweet, wondering why we don’t ever talk about the WMBA, even though it caused some people to question the relevance of her contribution to the conversation. The calls come that ‘It’s not time for talking about women’s issues now, it’s time to talk about the men.’ and it feels like, well, when isn’t it time to talk about the men? Men control the dialogue on representational inequality. They decide what we’re talking about and not talking about, but unfortunately the direction of their focus is not determined by looking at what real inequalities of representation exist, but by deciding what they want to talk about. These are not conversations about gender inequality, they are conversations about men. Again.

When women want to talk about the sexual and gender inequalities perpetuated in so many areas, or take a look at how many areas of power are dominated by men, it is typical to find lots of men in the comments sections mansplaining. “What is happening is not sexist, dude, it’s just not!” Alternatively these men remain silent on these subjects, instead of offering support. It is not like we can expect these men to step outside their gender box and stand as allies when there are dudeboys to be talked about at length, forever. They simply do not have the time and it is implied that women must be ‘strong’ enough to continually create their own spaces of representation. They must continually counter slander again and again if they want to prove the worth of these spaces.

Dudes I get it, I think all the feminist and female positive women got it long ago. Ladies have to make it on their own, carve their own space for these arguments. We cannot and should not rely on the opposite gender to do so for us. If a guy asked ‘Why is there no Orange Prize for the mens?’ (y’know after cursing and rehashing years of literary inequality under my breath) I’d refer him to the official Orange position. If men want something gender specific, then they need to make it their own damn selves, and the same applies to women. I’m not asking these men to do the job for us, I’m just asking that they not make the same repetitive points over and over until I feel so damn tired that I sequester myself away from the world with books and booze, vaguely hoping that a giant tidal wave is on its way. And maybe, if it’s not too much trouble, they could listen to what women are saying instead of imposing their own agenda in our spaces.

If I put these thoughts to the kind of men who fill blog posts with derailing comments men and maybe they’d start thinking "Damn, this isn’t equality*. You’re saying it’s not acceptable for men to talk about the way the world fucks guys over in spaces given over to feminism. But then you say it’s fine to talk about how society fucks women over in spaces where the original conversation is about male equality. How the fuck does that work?” Let me explain: ours is not an equal society. Although women really are equal to men and strive for recognition of this equality, they often experience dramatically unequal treatment. Anyone throwing round ‘reverse sexism’ arguments should take a minute to ask the women around them about women’s representation. Can these women watch a sports team representing their gender without having to buy a special tv package? Can they watch a female team play their favourite sport at all? How many consecutive years have women won their favourite non-gender specific awards? How many female politicians are there in the party they support? When did they last see an Oscar nominated film that was all about the ladies**? How many all female indie bands have they heard about in the last twelve months? To sum up: Areas where women are represented more than men are rare.

In an ideal reality, we would see spaces created for discussion about a few very real inequalities that may exist for men and we would happily note the worth of these spaces, these discussions. However, because we live in less than ideal circumstances where similar discussions about the many very real inequalities that face women are systematically derailed and shut down in a mess of anti-productivity, it is hard for many women not to laugh in the face of these discussions. Women are being asked to care deeply about issues of inequality that affect men (and let us acknowledge that often we do not even agree that the issue at hand is correct) when many men could give a short, unsatisfactory fuck about issues of inequality relating to women, many of which have existed for decades.

That, thank goodness, is the end of me pounding out a series of posts about the rhetorical inequality at the heart of arguments on boys and young adult fiction. Gendered argument inequality extends past the specific points I’ve deconstructed, and responses to arguments are often based on sexist simplification, or gendered rhetorical inequality as well. For resources about that aspect of rhetorical arguments you can visit our Education Manifesto.

As much as I’ve tried to keep it tamped down this series is built on anger and I could write a lot more posts built on angry foundations. I’m not sure what use these posts are, but they do make me feel at least a little better – tired, but calmer, like all the words mobbing my brain are out of my head. Next Wednesday no angry shouting I promise. Next Wednesday, lady spies and happiness.

Let me Catch You Up: Ladies, Gentlemen, Somebody Ring the Alarm, Girls Omni-Reading,Girls, Like They're Boys, The Pointy Finger of Blame: Girls, Needs and Boys Not Reading

*Link courtesy of Ana
** Link courtesy of Renay
bookgazing: (charmed)
[personal profile] bookgazing


This is the fourth installment in my series of posts on the way society talks about boys reading young adult fiction. The purpose of this series of posts is to critique the rhetorical arguments used when people talk about girls and boys reading, looking specifically at whether the structure of these arguments is logical and whether they include sexist rhetoric. This week I’ll be looking at a doozy of a mind twister, the idea that more books that ‘suit’, or ‘are friendlier towards’ girls are being published, than books that suit, or ‘are friendlier towards’ boys.

If we look at the real life situation (the number of boys reading young adult fiction is falling, boys are said to be struggling to find young adult fiction they want to read) it’s easy to focus solely on the genuine concern that boys not reading young adult fiction raises in the minds of readers, educators, parents and people in general. While it is important to focus on why boys aren’t reading young adult fiction, it seems like this topic has been and continues to be focused on plenty. What is rarely discussed is the construction of the argument that rises along the way in many of these conversations: it is presumed that girls have more books around them that suit their needs (the covers being used are traditionally feminine, the books are female orientated, or contain traditional areas of female interest, or the female sex is represented positively), or that more books are being produced ‘for’ girls.

I think it’s important for us to discuss the construction of a phrase like ‘more books are being produced that suit girls' needs’ (which is admittedly paraphrased from blog posts and comments I’ve seen over the last couple of years) because the content of such a simple snippet reveals much about common, negative arguments put forward for why boys aren’t reading. This kind of phrase contains a logically flawed argument, as do the rest of the arguments I’ve talked about so far. It treats girls as a homogeneous cultural group, and I outlined in my first post why it is incorrect to do so. And it poly-fills its logical hole with many pointing fingers, keen to indicate that women and girls are conspiring against boys' enjoyment of young adult fiction. By examining this statement, we can learn a lot about the construction of unhelpful, distracting arguments that pretend to explain why boys don’t read young adult fiction and work our way towards really understanding the real situation.

Unsound logic

My biggest issue with this kind of phrase is that it is based on unsound logic. ‘More books are being produced that suit girls' needs’, but as I said in my second post, girls seem to be recognised as omni-readers. Being omni-readers, girls will, in general, read a bit of everything. They don’t need to find anything especially gender related in their reading to be encouraged to read. It’s tough to maintain that girls are recognised as omni-readers by society AND that they read because they are receiving a wealth of books that ‘are friendlier’ to their gender.

It can be done. Of course it can be done, rhetorical arguments that look logical to many people can be constructed to justify anything, but that doesn’t mean that they’re based on factually correct information. A lot of educated people thought witches existed because rhetorical arguments that seemed to make contextually logical sense justified their way of thinking. A lot of women died. The arguments continued to make contextual sense to many. There still weren’t any witches.*

Imprecise language

But for the minute I’ll keep exploring this argument as if there isn’t a gigantic logical hole in the middle of it. I will avert my eyes from the hole, while being careful not to fall into it. Now I need to address the idea that phrases similar to ‘more books are being produced that suit girls’ needs’ can be described as examples of good points being made with imprecise language. What someone using this phrase actually means, some would claim, is something along the lines of ‘more books are being produced that are designed to appeal to girls’, ‘marketers seem to think that using X, which is culturally difficult for boys to embrace, will attract girls to books’, or ‘more books are being produced that focus on traditional feminine subject matters’.

If that is what these people mean, WHY DON’T THEY BLOODY SAY IT THEN?

Saying that ‘more books are being produced that suit girls' needs than books that suit boys' needs’ makes girls sound complicit in the destruction of boys' reading enjoyment. Here’s the chain of thought I hear laboriously clicking into place every time I hear a similar phrase used: first, girls (all girls, as no distinction has been made about a particular group of girls) have these needs, which they apparently can’t control and telegraph to book marketers through their buying habits. The market reacts to these needs by creating more books to suit the girls’ needs. Such a large amount of resources are being dedicated to satisfying girls’ needs that boys’ needs are being ignored. If only the girls could stop having these stupid, exclusionary needs and validating how important those needs are to their reading experience, then the market would stop producing so many books that respond to these exclusionary needs! OMG girls needs are the reason why boys don’t read.

In case I haven’t said it enough in this series of posts. Um…no.

This phrase and its like implicitly connect girls and their stupid needs to boys losing out when young adult fiction is created. It makes girls an active part of disenfranchising boys in their reading experiences. It points the finger of shame at girls and says, ‘your reading is costing boys their reading enjoyment’. It contradicts all the work people who genuinely think deeply about boys not getting something positive from young adult fiction put into saying that they well understand that girls reading more does not harm boys' reading experience.

Let me be clear, the girls who are reading and shaping ideas about what sells are not in any way enemies of boys reading. Using imprecise language that implies that girls who read take part in destroying boys' reading enjoyment is harmful and it distracts the focus away from a proper search into why boys really aren’t reading young adult fiction. Sometimes people who use this kind of phrase have good intentions and sometimes they don’t. I’m finding it harder and harder to automatically give people the benefit of the doubt when I have to decide whether someone is being a dick, or whether they have just picked their words badly. People with good intentions might like to choose the words they use with care.

Womanly Needs (I just threw up in my mouth a little)

My final problem with this kind of phrase is the way it alludes to girls’ ‘needs’. ‘Needs’ (and other words such as ‘tastes’, ‘interests’ and phrases like ‘books that are friendly to girls’) are such vague terms that they can encompass a wide variety of things. No clarification is provided as to what these ‘needs’ might be. The vagueness of these terms makes it harder for anyone to engage with the arguers points and they allow the arguer plausible deniability. Again here is a hypothetical, hyperbolic version of the way this vague terminology seeks to hide the lack of knowledge and precision this argument is built on:

'Oh no, Ms Opponent, we did not mean to imply that girls have those kind of needs, that would be a sexist claim. No, we meant some other needs that we will again fail to clarify. These needs are still girl specific, but they’re not sexist. Even if you can get us to tell you what we think those needs are and then explain why thinking girls have those needs is sexist, we can still use the vagueness of the term to say ‘Ahha, you have proved us wrong on that count, but there are other nebulous needs we do not have time/all the information to identify right now, but they totally exist. You can’t prove they don’t exist, which means we can prove they do!'

Circular, bad logic at its best there.

Since the nature of girls' ‘needs’ (and every time I write that it feels a little creepier) are often left unspecified, I thought I might present my best guess at some of the things people are really talking about when they say ‘lots of books are being produced that suit girls' needs’. It would take me a long time to debate all these points and this is a long ass post already. So instead of reiterating all these points from scratch, I’ll use links where necessary to explain what I think the points people are referring to when they mentions girls’ reading ‘needs’. I'll also show off some of the good work others have done illuminating the sexist rhetoric of similar arguments:

1.) There sure is a helluva lot of young adult romance out there…

'Over the next several years, the Sci-Fi channel became increasingly feminized, losing many of its traditional male viewers in an attempt to go after female viewers...Scripts were rewritten to have “more relationships” (more drama) and fewer “space battles.” ' - 'The Spearhead'

I’ve seen (and other people like Candy at Smart Bitches have also seen) a few posts from sci-fi fans saying that romance is killing their genre by feminising it.

'But somehow, everyone has a very firm idea of what the average romance reader is like. We bet you already know her. She's rather dim and kind of tubby — undereducated and undersexed — and she displays a distressing affinity for mom jeans and sweaters covered in puffy paint and appliquéd kittens. So even though repeated surveys conducted by independent research reveal that an astonishingly diverse and often affluent population reads romance novels, in popular depictions, we're all the same.' - 'Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches Guide to Romance Novels'

Readers of adult romance often ask questions about why a genre/subject that has a mostly female readership is
so often derided, despite it being extremely commercially successful and despite rallying cries from many genre fans in defence of other, male dominated genres.

I think it bears considering that when people link young adult romance and female needs with the fact that boys don’t enjoy reading young adult fiction, there may be an element of sexism in this argument.


2.) …and there are tons of books that look like they suit the traditionally feminine girls needs too.

This comes back to what I was saying in my first post: girls are not all part of a homogeneous cultural group just because they are all female. While many books may look like they’re designed to project traditional ideas about femininity to attract female readers, these tactics often do not work, because not every girl responds positively to traditional ideas about femininity. Saying that this kind of book suits girls’ needs is to make assumptions based on false premises (that all girls are the same and that because something looks traditionally feminine it suits a girl's needs). In doing so, the arguer makes an incorrect link between marketing and real women.


3.) There are an awful lot of books with heroines as well.

'We've stripped boys of substance and we did it to empower girls. Somehow, the message "girls can do it too" became "only a girl can do it," and men became the weaker sex in YA.' - 'Invincible Summer'.

I don’t mind the general argument here (that maybe there should be more and varied young adult novels with male leads because boys need representation - although I still want to see some numbers on this). On the other hand, I reject the idea that novels featuring heroines are expanding outside their segment of the pie, and in doing so are knocking out available resources for books featuring male leads. That argument seems to claim that because there are novels about girls flying on dragons fighting with swords, no one is going to publish any more books about boys flying on dragons with swords, so boys miss out on seeing themselves represented. I really don’t see that – if books about fighting on dragons with swords are popular, surely publishers will rush to publish all books about fighting on dragons with swords, right? And again, the idea that books with heroines are eating the slice of the pie allotted to books with heroes seems to link boys not enjoying young adult fiction with girls expanding their areas of representation and reading interests.

'Backlash is when a movement toward equality for a marginalized group gains momentum and the privileged group(s) freak out. This usually takes the form of denying that there's a problem or firmly announcing that the problem has been taken care of, all while doing a little dance in the opposite corner of the room to refocus the attention on who's really suffering.' - 'Manifesta'

I say hell yes to this post and the way it corrects the mistaken idea that as girls grow more empowered and see more diverse representation of themselves in young adult fiction boys automatically see less representation and find less to enjoy in YA. It turns reminds us that when someone points a blaming finger at the ladies in error three fingers point back at them.


4.) It’s time to make vague gendered assumptions about what girls' want and need. Again. Hurray, I never get tired of this carousel ride.

Girls like pink covers, or reading about romance. They are actively involved in the pink cover/romance domination of the young adult market. Blah, blah, blah, these arguments progress in a predictable way, probably with assumptions about natural behaviour thrown in. Need I repeat myself? Assumptions of homogeneous culture…. link to girls actively encouraging market to alienate boys…total fucking crap.


5.) Girls reading actively keeps boys from reading.

'Let’s face it guy readers, we are pwn3d by female book bloggers, let alone female readers. And considering the fact that we are tremendously outnumbered by them, we will continuously be pwn3d over the next millenia.' - 'Guy Gone Geek'

Please see the rest of this post and hear me shout NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. To borrow some words from Renay:

'the WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?!?!?! meme is a staple of being a lady in the world who sees arrows in her entertainment.' - subverting the text

These are the kinds of implicit sexist rhetoric I hear behind every bit of vague talk about how the majority of young adult novels being published are 'friendlier' towards girls because they fit with girls 'needs'. Prove me wrong - clarify your ideas opponents.

With this post (and with this series in general), I hope to affirm that there is a sexist slant to arguments about why boys don’t read young adult fiction. In doing so I want to demonstrate that a false barrier has been identified between boys and how little young adult fiction they may read (girls and their needs). Focusing on this incorrect barrier distracts people from defining and combating the real barriers that keep boys from enjoying young adult fiction. Focusing on this barrier also reinforces sexist culture. Neither of these things get me any closer to the cultural society I want to live in.

* Yes, ok, my dissertation topic was rhetorical arguments for witchcraft – it is still a good example.

Next Wednesday: The final installment (or thankfully I can stop talking about this after one last, angry post)

Previously: 'Ladies, Gentlemen, Somebody Ring the Alarm', Girls Omni-reading, Girls Like They're Boys
bookgazing: (charmed)
[personal profile] bookgazing
I think it's pretty clear from last week’s post that I think that a rhetorical double standard is employed when discussions begin about the difference between boys and girls reading. Boys are said to naturally only enjoy reading that promotes one type of traditional gender culture. Girls are said to naturally enjoy aspects of fiction that can be associated with both traditional gender cultures. Biologically guided rules are used to explain both boys and girls reading habits, as they’ve been used to explain male and female actions throughout history. But this time girls are the ones said to be benefiting from their biological leanings, while boys are the ones losing out. The fact that the arguments about what is natural for boys and girl when it comes to reading young adult fiction do not use biology, or ideas about natural behaviour to exclude girls from enjoying anything allows the ‘it’s natural’ argument to pose as an argument adapted for time of equality.

The trouble is that even though these kinds of arguments no longer denigrate the female sex, they still suggest a link between the male sex’s ‘natural’ capability to read certain things for enjoyment and the disparity of how few boys read for pleasure compared to girls. The ‘it’s natural’ argument appears to have adapted itself for times of equality, but really it’s just switched it’s focusing and is now intent on belittling men instead. It's not so long ago that society thought women's interests and abilities were entirely guided by their biology. Now, when I hear arguments about what boys 'can' and ‘can’t’ be interested in I feel like I'm watching the same reasoning unfold, but few people seem bothered.

In the spirit of real equality let me take you on a quick tour of why I find some of the arguments about boys and reading unpalatable, by examining the way I and general society would feel if these arguments were used to explain how girls might be expected to read:

1.) In the last post I talked about arguments that claim boys naturally need exclusively traditional male culture in their reading, if they’re going to enjoy young adult fiction. Like I said, to my ear these arguments sounded remarkably similar to nineteenth century thoughts about the ‘natural’ limitations being female placed upon a woman. If anyone now said that girls could only be interested in X traditionally feminine thing people would immediately, loudly explain why this is wrong thinking. When applied to girls this argument about natural interests look outdated, sexist and limiting. Don’t they look the same when they’re applied to boys?

2.) It is sometimes argued that by saying boys can be interested in the same kind of books that girls are interested in people (read women) are trying to feminise the whole male sex. Again think about how people might react if someone said girls being encouraged to read about male culture might make them overly masculine. I’m imagining a chair flying across a crowded room.

3.) Then there’s the cover debate about how pink, or traditionally feminine covers put boys off reading many books. Most of these discussions now range around the sensible idea that boys are culturally conditioned to avoid traditionally female covers, or covers that suggest a story is less active. However, mixed in among this valid point are ideas that there’s an element of biologically coded naturalness to the way that boys avoid these kinds of covers. And inevitably ideas arise about how we have to play within the culturally created confines of boys cover likes and dislikes because boys can’t wait until we’ve changed an entire sexist culture, they’re growing up and they need to be reading now.

This conversation, ideas on how society impacts boy’s reaction to traditionally feminine covers and my feelings on this whole cover discussion are way too complicated to sum up in a paragraph. Perhaps I’ll have time to come back to that issue later in the years, or perhaps I will decide I’d like to spend my time doing something more productive. What I can do here is pose a couple of simple ideas for you to think around. Suppose that someone suggested girls naturally could not be expected to pick up certain books because of their covers. How might that go for them? Think about the unhappy noises that many women use when it is suggested that traditionally feminine pink covers featuring handbags are specifically designed to attract women to books. Finally, imagine that someone said we needed to get culturally conditioned girls reading by playing within a sexist system and handing them exclusively very traditionally female material. Just think about what the response to that would be. Now, are you wondering why society is so committed to validating arguments that boys ‘can’t’ read books with traditionally feminine covers, ‘would’ be excited by traditionally masculine covers and ‘must’ have their cultural conditioned impulses catered to?

By changing the focus of certain arguments and asking how society would feel if they were re-applied to girls reading, I hope to highlight that the majority of modern society would rightly never stand for girls to be talked about in such a way. It is insulting to suggest that a person’s sexual organs and biology place a set of barriers on their ability to enjoy, or benefit from something. It is weird to assume that because cultural suggestion operates in a dysfunctional, stereotypical way, it is to the benefit of a particular group to go along with cultural stereotypes. Like I said last week society should be appalled that men are being corralled into such a small space of reading territory, as arguments are made about what their sex can and cannot handle in young adult literature.

I get annoyed hearing boys spoken about in this way, because it’s insulting to boys and saying that traditionally feminine elements in young adult literary culture are inhibiting boys reading throws all kinds of varied insinuations at girls and female culture. Clearly other people are annoyed as well, but I feel like we’re not seeing the same kind of foot stamping, flag waving indignation that would be present if we were talking about girls in this way.

Why when society says limiting things about boys reading capabilities do we find people nodding their heads as if, of course it’s just natural that boys need these traditionally masculine things in order to be interested in reading? Well the theory I've come up with is simple, not exactly unexpected, but never the less still kind of depressing.

We encourage girls to be omni-readers for lots of reasons, but one of them is that if a girl is an omni-reader she's more likely to break out of the gender constraints the world imposes on her. Reading and enjoying books about pirates, spies, or rebel fighters will, we hope, keep her from conforming to society’s restrictive gendered expectations about what a girl ‘can' and ‘should’ like. We hope that being encouraged to break out of gendered stereotypes in her reading will lead her to understand that a girl can be anything she wants to be. And we're invested in young girls seeing beyond what gender stereotypes encourage them to like, because being unaware of gender stereotypes has huge, harmful potential consequences for a girls future feelings of self-worth, her career aspirations and her ability to make a really happy life for herself.

When it comes to boys it's not the same story. Society is not as invested in getting boys to break out of gender stereotypes. Oh it would be great if they could, but it’s also possible to see them (if we take the erroneous assumption that all men are internally happy living the default traditionally masculine life) having happy lives without breaking from gender stereotypes. In fact, they might actually live happier lives if they do conform, as society will be less likely to hassle them than men that do present themselves as different from the traditional masculine image. Mainstream society doesn't really see the danger in men pursuing traditional gender roles, but it does now understand the real troubles that can spring from women doing the same. So, when it comes to boys and reading is it any wonder that society doesn't quibble with the idea that boys need boyish subjects and covers to be interested in books, in a way that it would never let pass if someone said girls needed girlish subjects and covers to be interested in books. Is it doing boys any harm to read only these kinds of books? Might it not be doing them some active good to read traditionally masculine books to the exclusion of all else?

Well, this is where we need to turn to arguments about why diversity in reading is important. When we talk about what cultural groups need from books we generally talk about them needing books that are windows and books that are mirrors (sometimes these are the same books). Just like any other cultural group boys need to be encouraged to read both types of fiction and they need other things as well. They need books that present men in traditionally masculine situations and books that present situations totally outside traditional male experience. They also need something in between. They need books that present men in less traditional versions of masculinity and books that present girls in less traditional versions of femininity. I don’t think boys need these things because they are boys and I believe boys need correcting with educational young adult fiction strategies. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I think they need these things because they are a cultural group of human beings with the same need for both representation and information on people and situations outside their experience that all human beings need to develop and grow.

I don’t have a magic way to get boys interested in reading. I also haven’t a clue how to quickly whisk away the cultural barriers that society puts in the way of boys as they try to gain an enjoyment of reading widely. I know that makes people feel uncomfortable, because there are boys not reading right now and it seems like it would be worth the cost of play exclusively inside the system as long as it gets those boys engaged with books. I don’t have answers and I really wish I did, but I do know that arguments which deal in inequality need to be thrown out. Boys are equal to girls, girls are equal to boys and any arguments that disagree aren’t worthwhile.

Next Wednesday: What kind of book suits a girl's needs?

Previously: 'Ladies, Gentlemen, Somebody Ring the Alarm', 'Girls, Omni-reading'
bookgazing: (charmed)
[personal profile] bookgazing
Screencap of tweet by Maureen Johnson saying: I've seen that sentiment a million times. I always come back to the same thing: everyone comments on how girls are OMNIREADERS...

Screencap of tweet by Maureen Johnson saying: As a girl, I read almost ENTIRELY male-authored (and centered!) books. Girls have no problems with that. Maybe ask WHY we became this way.

‘Omni-reader’ is a term Maureen Johnson used on her Twitter feed two week ago. She used this word as a way of describing beliefs that girls are readers who will read about anything regardless of whether the subject matter looks traditionally masculine, or traditionally feminine. Articles like this one by Sarah Pekkanen of The Washington Post agree that girls 'tend to accept a broad range of books' and will 'read a book featuring a boy on the cover' (and since non-fiction is not specifically mentioned in this article I'm going to assume that when commentators generally talk about boys and girls reading they’re talking about boys and girls reading fiction). My personal experience of seeing girls and women reading fiction is that they'll read a lot of stuff, because they're interested in a lot of stuff. They (and I am a woman who sees her own behaviour in this statement) don't shy away from books that are written by male authors, star male protagonists, or are focused on traditionally male subject matter.

Society cheers girls for being omni-readers and at the same time questions the hell out of why boys aren't omni-readers. What mainstream society and its cultural commentators like Pekkanen rarely question, is why girls have become omni-readers and whether we're cheering these girls' diverse reading habits for the right reasons. I’m not questioning whether girls being omni-readers is a good thing. What I'm interested in is how society's gendered perspectives might affect the way that people shape their arguments about girls as omni-readers, boys as non-readers (of fiction) and what these people think needs to be done to encourage boys to read more.

Many of the answers arrived at for why boys aren't reading are often along the lines of 'It's natural for boys to be interested in boys stuff and male ways of storytelling’ (there are areas I would more wordily call traditional male culture and male focused stories). Boys, as a consequence of their biology, can only gain enjoyment from entertainment if traditionally masculine culture is present. Asking a boy to be interested in anything that does not exhibit signs of traditionally masculine culture is asking them to deny their maleness and become girls.

People talk a lot about this made up thing called reverse sexism that feminists apparently use to justify hypocritical stances, but few people seem to recognise genuinely negative gendered arguments, like the one above, when they're being aimed at boys. To my feminist ear the argument that boys, can't possibly be expected to enjoy or take interest in areas that aren't traditionally masculine, because they’ve been born male, sounds like a neat reversal of the average Victorian man’s arguments on women. Having escorted her to a divan, lest she faint, he would have patted his lady love's hand, murmuring 'There there, you can't be expected to be interested in science/literature/serious thought/maths/politics -- these are men's areas and naturally your female brain cannot handle stepping outside its gendered comfort zone.' Imagine if we were to say something similar about girls and how their sex defines their reading interests…oh wait, some people do that, but we don't like those people so THAT'S OK. Anyway, the relevant point thrown up by this comparison is that boys should be outraged at being told that they are limited creatures, men should be outraged as well. I will talk about my theories on why the outrage seems to be lacking in a later post.

Now that the majority of society would disapprove of talking about girls interests as exclusively, traditionally feminine and pre-determined in this way by a girl’s sex, people must find new ways to describe girl’s reading habits. Let us assume that the general description of girls as omni-readers is agreed on by the majority of society and that it is correct. Let us also assume that the majority of society agree that boys are naturally influenced by their sex in what they enjoy reading. For complex reasons which would need someone much cleverer than me to explain, society needs to reconcile these two ideas. Now, how does society go about reconciling the idea that girls are omni-readers, whose reading interests aren't dictated by their sex, while boys are infrequent readers whose interests are dictated by their sex?

The easiest and in my opinion the worst way is to go the well travelled route of reminding everyone that boys and girls are different. I mean cisgendered girls have vaginas, cisgendered boys have penises and the differences don't stop there, they extend into the biological brain makeup of the different sexes. Someone wrote a book about it remember? ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.' It must be true. Men and women are almost separate species. It's not a stretch, using this really stupid argument, to say that boys are naturally inclined to prefer traditionally male culture, while girls are naturally inclined to enjoy bits of traditionally male and traditionally female culture. We don't need to take note of the fact that until the late twentieth century society was determined to underline the fact that girls only naturally enjoyed and understood girls stuff, in the same way that boys are now thought to only naturally enjoy and understand boys stuff. Instead, what we can do is just say historical people wrongly identified quite how sex naturally influences the areas that girls enjoy, but continue to maintain that they were right, that sex does naturally influence girls bookish enjoyment in a different way. Yes, this is a smart argument.

From my sarcasm you'll guess that I'm against arguments that human cultural enjoyment is influenced by sexual biology. Sorry, but I think many ideas that see a natural relation between a person’s sex and behaviour are super creepy and pretty uninclusive of people with non-traditional sexual and gender presentations. I'm suspicious of ideas that human beings are naturally inclined towards any kind of culture because of their sex, because historically ideas like this have been proven wrong. Many girls do show an enjoyment of subjects like science or politics, when in decades past the thought of women being capable of understanding, let alone enjoying, these subjects would have been thought absurd by large numbers of people, because women were, well...women. Shifting the goal posts to ostensibly provide a more inclusive view of what women are naturally interested in doesn't seem like a positive shift to me. It seems like people are desperate that old ideas not collapse, so they rearrange their logic without changing their essential, previously damaging central position. Basically I have no faith in these kind of rhetorical constructs.

My own ideas about why girls are omni-readers and boys aren’t lie along cultural lines. Girls are not naturally inclined to be comfortable reading about masculine culture. They're also not naturally inclined to be interested in reading solely female centred stories. Girls (and boys) are not naturally inclined to align themselves with one particular gendered culture, they are taught which cultures to align themselves with by society. Typically boys are taught to align themselves solely with traditional male culture. Girls are generally taught something slightly more complex; they should align themselves with traditional feminine culture in certain areas (for example appearance) but align themselves with male culture in other areas (for example intellectual pursuits, such as literature). If we're very lucky (and it seems that with each generation of girls we're becoming luckier, if the widely accepted status of girl as omni-reader is anything to go by) they'll grow up aligning themselves with traditionally masculine literary culture, traditionally feminine literary culture and everything else that exists besides that binary set of poles.

So, as a general rule I believe the trend of girls being omni-readers is a socialised trend, not a natural one. That's not to say that all of girls' reading interests as individuals, aren't genuinely their interests just because there is the potentially for them to be socially constructed interests. Many girls like books about fashion (traditionally female interest), or about fighter jets (traditionally male interest) and I would never seek to rob any girls of agency by saying 'the only reason you like these things is because the gender culture in our world impacts on you', that would be as creepy as saying their sex naturally predisposes them to enjoy certain things. I'm just saying that gender culture has an impact on girls becoming omni-readers. At the same time it's not the only thing that has an impact, but the sex someone is born as is not, in my opinion, one of these other impacting factors.

If I apply the same rules to boys as I have done to girls hopefully you'll be able to see that I don't agree with the idea that boys are naturally unable to enjoy certain kinds of books. What puts them off these books? Again a combination of the gendered culture we live in (that reinforces the idea that boys shouldn't like certain traditionally feminine things, or even masculine culture that incorporates traditionally feminine elements and should only like traditionally masculine culture) and other factors, none of which are a natural link between a boys sex and book enjoyment. So, in my theory boys could become fictional omni-readers, the potential is there, but there are cultural roadblocks in the way – roadblocks that can, unlike perceived natural roadblocks of sex, be removed to the benefit of both boys and girls.

Please understand, I'm not saying that girls and boys aren't inclined to seek out representations of themselves in things like literature. I think everyone wants to see themselves reflected somehow in the entertainment they consume. Typically when we talk about racial diversity in young adult fiction we're encouraged to think that we need more racial diversity in the main characters who appear because people need books which mirror their experiences, as well as books that open up other experiences to them. I do think teenagers seek out representations of their own sex and gender presentation, whether they be cisgendered boys and girls or transgendered boys and girls. So once again I'm not saying boys need to just deal and start reading books about girls and traditionally feminine situations all the time, exclusively, any more than I'd be cheering if girls were told to read books about boys and traditionally masculine situations all the time exclusively. Boys need to see themselves represented in fiction, just as girls do. We need books featuring cisgendered male characters doing all kinds of traditionally masculine things, for the cisgendered, traditionally masculine boys out there just as we need representations of every other cultural group.

I'm just asking if we can knock off this idea that boys 'can't' enjoy books that are in some ways less traditionally male. Might we be able to stop pushing the absolute idea that boys can only enjoy reading if they're given a wide range of traditionally masculine boys engaged in traditionally masculine situations, or written in what might be seen as a traditionally masculine way (lots of plot, fast pace, romance not a central feature). I'd like to see people address the blocking culture in which boys live, in the same way that society has spent several decades recognising and trying correct the gendered, blocking culture that girls exist in. Maybe if society took a double pronged approach where it agitated for more traditionally masculine young adult books, but also encouraged boys to see the value in other kinds of novels boys might become omni-readers too.

The reason why society should be invested in helping boys to become omni-readers, like girls, is simple. All the cheering society does about girls being omni-readers must mean that omni-readers are viewed as having a positive approach to reading. Girls interest in reading about everything is often implicitly linked to their interest in being able to read and their large reading consumption, so if society is really invested in getting boys reading they might want to take the hint that encouraging boys to be omni-readers might have appositive impact on concrete things like boys literacy and boys views on reading for pleasure.

Book lovers have more personal reasons reasons for wishing boys were also omni-readers. Omni-readers get to read about everything and that just sounds so cool to us as booklovers. We want boys to be having the same experience and that's why so many of us become frustrated when boys seem to be culturally anchored to rejecting a lot of literature, because they are missing out on a whole heap of interesting things. I do not intend to make boys 'be girls' (although if society could stop using that phrase as if it should horrify men everywhere that would be cool) or say 'be interested in 'Twilight' because I think that to prove they're not sexist boys should fully embrace all culture traditionally perceived as female unreservedly. I just want boys to stop knee jerk rejecting anything that sounds bit like something a girl might like. I just want boys to really understand something, to really see something and make a fair assessment about whether something is 'not for them' rather than making a gender biased assessment.

Before I close out this post on the problematic culture that produces the positive effect of encouraging girls to be omni-readers I have to mention one final thing. I am fully behind the idea that if the majority of girls are omni-readers they'll be having a fantastic and diverse reading experience. However, I'm willing to be a grown up and admit that while girls being omni-readers is awesome for them, awesome for booksellers and fills the world with more pleasant shiny feelings for us booklovers, there is a certain amount of implicit gender bias swirling in all this cheering. Is society (including me) cheering so loudly because being omni-readers means girls will experience all sections of literature, or are we cheering because being omni-readers means girls won't mistakenly miss out on all the coolness we assume books that intersect with traditionally male culture have to offer them? Are we as excited when girls read books about horses AND fashion AND vampire boyfriends AND all kinds of different girls, as we are when girls show an interest in reading about all these things and battles on space ships? If your answer is closer to the former than the latter then you are a fabulous omni-reader supporter, when I really examine my mind I find my own answer is less fabulous.

It's an issue. I will work to correct it and I’ll have more on this in my next post.

You can go away now and think 'well she's a woman (and so naturally prone to thinking girl stuff is interesting, haha, oh, please refer to Maureen Johnson’s tweet again) and as a woman she's also an omni-reader, so naturally interested in everything, so of course she thinks girls stuff is interesting, but boys naturally wouldn't think that.’. I cannot control your thoughts and I cannot make you agree with me on any point. I can just show you my hand as openly and honestly as possible and we can discuss things in the comments.

Next Wednesday: How we would react if we talked about boys girls reading the same way we talk about boys reading

Previously in this much too long series: Ladies, Gentlemen, Somebody Ring the Alarm
bookgazing: (charmed)
[personal profile] bookgazing



So have you heard? There’s a crisis happening. Boys aren’t reading young adult fiction (a genuine concern), but the real centre of the crisis is that it’s women who are keeping them from finding novels that interest them. According to some people, the fact (does anyone have supporting data I can see) that women occupy many positions of power in the young adult book industry means that their unconscious biases are prejudicing them to produce a disproportionate amount of books that serve the needs of young women, rather than young men. Women are creating this reading crisis.

Uhuh. Full disclosure: I’d be more inclined to be patient with this argument if I hadn’t heard quite so many discussions about how women are bringing literature to its knees. It seems there are a lot of things that women do, from reading romance to writing in such a domestic way which lead to an impoverished literary market. Now that women have taken powerful positions in the young adult book industry they’re being accused of destroying boys reading enjoyment by privileging girls reading enjoyment. It’s hard to listen to such an argument with an open heart when you’ve seen men stand against women in so many other areas of literature.

Let me be clear, I do wish that boys were reading more fiction, because I’m a reader and in my ideal world everyone would enjoy novels. Of course I think boys being able to read is so important. I’m also not denying that boys need to see themselves represented in current fiction, just like any other cultural group. What I’m objecting to is the way in which arguments about boys not reading and about the way girls read, in contrast to the way boys read, are framed in sexist ways that often make use of double standards, or seek to draw a direct comparison between how women in power might be prejudiced and why men in power are often biased.

Today I begin a series of connected posts that should help us dig into the logic arguments used to describe the fact that boys are not reading young adult fiction. I'll be looking at:

1.) How women gaining positions of power within the YA industry is being interrogated by commentators
2.) Girls as omni-readers
3.) How we would react to the way we describe boys reading if we were talking about girls reading
4.) What kind of book suits a girls needs
5.) Why many women do not feel receptive to arguments about the problem of boys reading 

Juicy ideas begin below: 

Describing women in positions of power within the YA industry

This first post is in direct response to a post from YA author Brendan Halpin over at 'Girl in a Cage'. One of the big arguments I’m seeing around the discussion of boys not reading, an argument that Halpin agrees with, is that because women are in positions of power in the YA publishing industry they are now producing many more books that suit girl’s needs# than books that suit boys needs (Halpin describes the books being produced as 'friendlier towards that group than to other groups').

When Halpin talks about women in positions of power in YA publishing producing more books that are ‘friendly’ to female culture he makes the assumption that these women’s gender groups them in a very particular way. It is implicit in his argument that women in positions of power in YA publishing all operate as a monolithic cultural group * and that everyone in that group is either feminist, or pro-girl by virtue of being a woman.

Let’s get this out of the way, not all women are feminist and (as I recognise that just because you don’t identify as a feminist, that doesn’t mean that you’re not pro-women) not all women are pro-female. There are women who aren’t pro-women, they exist. Being a feminist, or pro-women does not guarantee you a top job in young adult publishing, it is not a question they put on the application form. There is always the possibility that women in the top jobs in young adult publishing are not feminist women, or even women who like other women very much.

Halpin also tosses out the idea that women, by virtue of being women, see the world through their female lens, which leads them to be unconsciously biased towards producing books that suit girl’s needs. Here he uses arguments about the way privileged majority groups' unconscious prejudices affect what they think the whole world is, or should be interested in. The problem is he is using these arguments to describe a less privileged group who have recently gained power in one small section of culture, not a group that has always held/holds power and privilege in the majority of culture. The argument that majority power leads to inherent bias does not necessarily work in the same way for women working YA as it does for men working in other areas because

a.) women gaining power in YA are coming from within a male dominated culture which constantly reinforces its view of what should be privileged (the male) and women have absorbed these feelings

b.) these women continue to exist in this culture that reinforces how superior male dominated culture is, even as they work in powerful positions in YA publishing

c.) as a result of this many women’s unconscious biases tend to be towards male culture and conscious efforts have to be made by many women to combat these biases and embrace female literary culture(I base this statement on my own lived experience and on anecdotal evidence I’ve heard from other female readers)

Imagine for a minute that Halpin were using the argument of privilege, against any other typically under represented group whose members had recently gained majority power in one area. Would there be a great deal of support for this position then?

Please note, I am not saying that specific women in young adult publishing are anti-women. I’m also not saying that all women in publishing are unconsciously privileging male culture either in their working life, or in their personal life. I am not proposing a reality where anti-women female publishers sit down with their coffee and think about how great men’s things are. And I’m more than happy to say that there could in the realms of possibility be a coalition of all feminist female publishers who have developed conscious biases (not unconscious biases) towards young adult fiction that will be 'friendlier' to girls needs as a reaction to their previous unconscious biases towards such an overwhelmingly male centred cultural society. I find this rather unlikely, but it is a possible permutation.

What I am pointing out about arguments, like 'because there are women in power in young adult publishing, girls are more likely to get books that are friendly towards girls' or 'women are unconsciously biased towards female culture' is that these rhetorical arguments are sloppy and for convenience sake, ignore the reality of the culture that women exist within. Halpin is taking the framework of an argument from a group that is generally less privileged (women), removing that framework from the context in which it operates (a very deep knowledge and much proof throughout the ages that the majority of men will unconsciously or consciously privilege traditional masculine culture over traditional female culture). He then uses this hollow framework to create an alarmist link between women in power and boys who don’t read young adult fiction.

What especially bothers me about this argument is the immediate bad faith it demonstrates towards women in YA publishing. Women, being a group who have only been able to gain positions of power in the workplace relatively recently, do not have a vast cultural history of discriminating against men when they gain a majority share of power. In contrast to this there are vast amounts of historical proof that having taken positions so that they control the majority of power in one area men will unconsciously and consciously discriminate against women. What does Halpin decide seeing both women in power in YA and boys who don’t enjoy reading YA fiction? He goes straight to the idea that women must be (unconsciously) biased towards girls and are creating a culture that devalues boys reading experience, without exploring other options. Women and other groups that have historically been oppressed have these huge amounts of data that suggest links between dominant cultural groups (white, straight, male, cisgendered) taking power and their groups culture not being catered for. That’s part of what makes the arguments of privilege work, the fact that these groups can look back and note a sustained correlation. Just because two things appear in the one, small, same environment, doesn't necessarily mean there’s a correlation – you need more data and context to determine the link.

I'm aware that Halpin has posted apologising for making his post, saying that the way he put his point across was 'dickish'. To be honest, while I find that post moving it doesn't specifically address any of the sex, or gender issues that his first post set banging around in my head, issues that seem to come up over and over on the internet and in offline media sources. Ladybusiness was created so that we could all mouth off about culture together so on I go.

# Let me set aside the examination of what this statement means until later, but right now I’ll tell you I think it’s pretty empty.

* And I’d just like to acknowledge that although a lot of these posts will focus on traditional femininity in opposition to traditional masculinity that within the gender group of women there are many other groups with totally different experiences from the white, straight, cisgendered one – I am making plans for posts that involve these cultures later

Next Wednesday: Girls as omni-readers

Welcome!

Lady Business welcome badge


Profile
About
Review Policy
Comment Policy
Writers We Like!
Contact Us
Archive

tumblr icon twitter icon syndication icon

image asking viewer to support Lady Business on Patreon

Who We Are


Queer lady geek Clare was raised by French wolves in the American South. more? » twitter icon webpage icon

Ira is an illustrator and gamer who decided that disagreeing with everyone would be a good way to spend their time on the internet. more? » twitter icon tumblr icon AO3 icon

By day Jodie is currently living the dream as a bookseller for a major British chain of book shops. She has no desire to go back to working in the real world. more? » tumblr icon last.fm icon

KJ KJ is an underemployed librarian, lifelong reader, and more recently an avid gamer. more? » twitter icon tumblr icon AO3 icon

Renay writes for Lady Business and B&N. She's the co-host of Fangirl Happy Hour, a pop culture media show that includes a lot yelling about the love lives of fictional characters. Enjoys puns. more? » twitter icon pinboard icon tumblr icon

Susan is a library assistant who uses her insider access to keep her shelves and to-read list permanently over-flowing. more? » twitter icon pinboard icon AO3 icon

Content


Book Review Index
Film Review Index
Television Review Index
Game Review Index
Non-Review Index
Sidetracks
We Want It!
Fanwork Recs
all content by tags

Our Projects




hugo award recs




Criticism & Debate


Indeed, we do have a comment policy.

Hugo Recs


worldcon 76 logo


What's with your subtitle?


It's a riff off an extremely obscure meme only Tom Hardy and Myspace fans will appreciate.

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios