I'm not clear what the point of asking, "Is PodCastle sexist?" actually is. If the answer turns out to be "yes," then what? We demand quotas? We stage a mass un-subscribe until we get new editors? We petition Steve to start "StudCastle" -- a male-oriented fantasy podcast -- by way of affirmative action? Or what? Like I said, I'm really, really unclear about what you're trying to "settle publically."
Yes. If that's how you want to handle a sexist podcast.
No fair, I asked you first.
More to the point, I'm not the one who wants to "handle" it. It's only fair to ask what
you're proposing, since I can't think of a solution that wouldn't result in either significantly watering-down the podcast, or behavior that's just plain silly. (Those truly are my best guesses at a solution; I freely admit that they sound like bad ideas, even to me. Which is part of the reason I think "handling it" is probably a bad idea, too.)
Let's suppose for a moment that Rachel and Anne have made a conscious decision to favor a stories that take a particular point of view and theme, and that the stories they've chosen reflect that theme. So what? That's just editors doing their jobs.
IMNSHO, the best and most interesting publications on any platform -- print, broadcast, podcast, whatever -- have a strong "flavor" and a recognizable editorial stance. They aren't democracies, and they sure as hell aren't "representative" -- they're the distinct and recognizable voice of a benevolent dictator. Think American Mercury under H. L. Mencken, Astounding Science Fiction under John W. Campbell or more recently, Harper's under Lewis Lapham.
The best publishers give them room to develop their vision and find an audience, or die (financially) trying. <<appreciative nod to Steve>>
Almost by definition, not everybody is going to like what they see or hear. Strong flavors are going to turn some people off. But if you don't like pickled herring, don't try to convince me that there's something morally wrong with the people who made it by calling them "sexist."
Yes. True. I agree.
And if PodCastle is going to have a flavor, I'd like to see it listed on the label.
I've been stung more than once buying something with walnuts only to find out it's full of cashews.
Oh, come now. PodCastle's only claim is that it's a
fantasy podcast. I think we can agree that it lives up to that, despite the occasional "that's not fantasy" comments on some stories. Other than that, it's not promising anything else.
Myself, I think it's way too soon to figure out what Rachel and Anne's "voice" is going to be -- not enough data points. They may not know yet, themselves. But I'll be very happy to be around and watch it develop.
I hear this again and again. Do you mean to say there may or may not be a trend developing, but you don't have enough data yet? Is that saying that I'm wrong and there is no trend, or is that saying you don't have enough information to be decisive?
I admit to being a little sloppy in my construction, there. I'm really saying two things:
- I don't know if there's a trend, and suspect no one can at this point.
and - I don't care if there's a trend.
As Chodon points out, with only 13 data points (or even 20) one or two stories one way or another is going to cause huge swings in the percentages, since each story is 5% (or more) of the total, and the way the count is performed makes it a zero-sum game ("male's" gain is "female's" loss, and vice versa). With each individual story counting for so much, there's too much noise, not enough signal to extract anything meaningful. Not to mention that we can't agree on that to count -- narrator, protagonist, author or "theme." And we can't seem to define the last one. So, yes, I'm definitely skeptical of the idea that a meaningful trend can be measured at this point, and somewhat skeptical of the idea that it can be measured at all.
Fundamentally, discrimination -- in the sense of consistently choosing one thing over another -- is what editors in any publication do. It's their job. I think we will all agree that they should choose "quality stoires." However, there is no universally-accepted definition of what that is, so what we're getting instead is "quality stories, as defined by Rachel and Ann." I don't know how much editorial experience either one of them has, or how strong a vision they brought to the task to begin with, but I imagine that to some extent, it's an ongoing, evolutionary, Darwinian process in which the slush smacks up against Rachel and Ann's sensibilities, and maybe changes them a little bit. Or confirms some parts and challenges others. And maybe interaction with authors changes the contents of the slush a little bit, and other things that happen to Rachel and Ann change their outlook a little bit, and interaction with the new slush helps Rachel and Ann define their standards a little bit more, and somehow one story per week and the occasional flash piece finds its way to audio.
That's why I say, "Maybe not even they know." It's early in this process, too. I don't pretend to know how they are picking and choosing. I think it's safe to say that we'll probably see somewhat less of the "fur jockstrap/chain mail bikini"
Conan-type stories on PodCastle than there are in the genre as a whole. And probably somewhat more stories that depend on mood or language or "trippy" settings to create their effects. Somewhere in there, there may be something about their selection process that results in more female protagonists/narrators/authors than there are in the genre as a whole. If that's the way it works out, I'm OK with that.
If it's not working for you, OK, it's not. I'm not saying you're a bad person if it doesn't -- despite your implication that I'm "sexist" if it does.
Anyway, more podcasts than can possibly be listened to, lots of things to do tonight, and I'm tired.