'But the point still remains, that if females bloggers studied here are also reviewing the female dominated subgenres, then it skews the results.'
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems to me that in reality no one is stopping men from reviewing the subgenres that are full of female authors. They get free choice to pick which subgenres of SF/F they want to review and which age ranges. This project is not making a claim that women review more of a specific type of SF/F written by women, just that out of all the magnificence of the genre that's on display, female bloggers review more work by female authors than the male bloggers do.
No one has made any claims for the concious, or unconcious motivations of the bloggers. There is limited analysis of the why and wherefores these stats may have come out like this, because well, (correct me if I'm off Renay, I totally could be misreading you) it was a concern that type of post would potentially lead to a lot of speculation. I would probably say it was a concern that the purpose of this project (showing the inequality, which is very real no matter why it exists and is the thing that affects female authors very obviously) would be obscured by people guessing about reasons why the stats look as they do, without much proof (which can lead to problematic attempts to find non-sexist justifications for the results, or shift 'blame', not that I'm saying this is what you're doing here).
I totally agree that it's necessary to explore the stats (it would be really great if people would run their own projects and gather their own data, once they've thought of a hypothesis, to avoid guessing). And you find these questions interesting, so of course you're going to pose them (and hopefully look into the realities of the areas you've shown an interest in). However, I wonder if these questions would be best further addressed in a seperate space to avoid dominating the primary conversation here, now that you've stated your questions?
Re: So, I review plenty of Urban Fantasy
'But the point still remains, that if females bloggers studied here are also reviewing the female dominated subgenres, then it skews the results.'
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems to me that in reality no one is stopping men from reviewing the subgenres that are full of female authors. They get free choice to pick which subgenres of SF/F they want to review and which age ranges. This project is not making a claim that women review more of a specific type of SF/F written by women, just that out of all the magnificence of the genre that's on display, female bloggers review more work by female authors than the male bloggers do.
No one has made any claims for the concious, or unconcious motivations of the bloggers. There is limited analysis of the why and wherefores these stats may have come out like this, because well, (correct me if I'm off Renay, I totally could be misreading you) it was a concern that type of post would potentially lead to a lot of speculation. I would probably say it was a concern that the purpose of this project (showing the inequality, which is very real no matter why it exists and is the thing that affects female authors very obviously) would be obscured by people guessing about reasons why the stats look as they do, without much proof (which can lead to problematic attempts to find non-sexist justifications for the results, or shift 'blame', not that I'm saying this is what you're doing here).
I totally agree that it's necessary to explore the stats (it would be really great if people would run their own projects and gather their own data, once they've thought of a hypothesis, to avoid guessing). And you find these questions interesting, so of course you're going to pose them (and hopefully look into the realities of the areas you've shown an interest in). However, I wonder if these questions would be best further addressed in a seperate space to avoid dominating the primary conversation here, now that you've stated your questions?