PodCastle Essay: We Have Always Fought

[Ocicat]

PodCastle Essay: We Have Always Fought: Challenging the “Woman, Cattle and Slaves" Narrative

Written and read by Kameron Hurley

Originally published at A Dribble of Ink, edited by Aidan Moher. Read along here!

I’m going to tell you a story about llamas. It will be like every other story you’ve ever heard about llamas: how they are covered in fine scales; how they eat their young if not raised properly; and how, at the end of their lives, they hurl themselves – lemming-like- over cliffs to drown in the surging sea. They are, at heart, sea creatures, birthed from the sea, married to it like the fishing people who make their livelihood there.

We at PodCastle are very proud to present a little piece of extra fantasy non-fiction. We don’t know how often we’ll present essays to you, but this one felt like it was worth doing something we haven’t really done before. We hope it challenges you. We hope it inspires you. We hope it makes you think. As always, thank you for listening.

(And don’t worry – We’ll have a fantasy fiction story for you in the next few days!)

Listen to the essay!

[Varda]

I just want to say I'm so excited Podcastle recorded this essay that I just shouted audibly at my computer screen and my husband thought I'd won the lottery or something. Kameron Hurley's essay was a really important read for me, both as a reader and a writer. My sincerest gratitude to the Powers That Be for running it. <3

[DKT]

 

It's an essay that's stayed with me since I read it last year, and challenged and inspired me. Hope it does the same for others.

I don't know if we'll do other essays on PodCastle or not - it'd be kind of cool, I think - and God knows there's plenty of material to choose from. We're setting bar pretty high with this one, though!

[Scattercat]

This is excellent.

[AncientWire]

This essay was wonderful.

[ttt]

Like, that was a waste of 32 minutes.

[eytanz]

Like, that was a waste of 32 minutes.

Moderator note: Please review the forum's rules before posting. If you dislike an episode, be it a story, or in this case, an essay, feel free to post feedback and criticism. Or if you really want to, feel free posting saying you didn't like it without feedback. But do so in a respectful manner.

That said, if you listened to this essay and didn't think it was a good use of your time, you're probably right, for the same reason that an algebra class is a waste of time for people who don't know basic arithmetic.

[Pippin]

I have been listening for over a hundred episodes, and stalking the comments for almost as long, but this is the first time I've been moved to actually comment. I started the episode while focused on other things and twenty minutes later I had restarted it and so I could sit down and really focus. There is a powerful message here, and since I work with kids I can't wait to play this to them and pass that message along.

[Richard Babley]

I'd like to start off by saying that the narraration was excellent.  It is very hard to bring an essay to life the way this narrarator did.

I believe that essays, more than many types of literature are meant to be discussed, so I'll start the discussion.  Please keep in mind that because I am raising points, it does not mean that I disagree with the message of the essay, but rather because I would like to discuss several specifics, and that I am not an editor, so I am not exposed to hundreds of stories every week that get rejected (Honestly I read "what we don't want" in submissions and think "really?  Who would send that in...)

This was a very powerful essay about women's role in literature, and although is hard some points that I absolutly agree with, there are some areas that I didn't like.  First of all, in an essay about truth in literature, the phrase "Google it" took me out of the essay completely.  Googling anything will give you any results that you want or better said, the results that google thinks you want.  There is very little fact checking on many google sources.

Second, it seemed to me that the majority of examples the author used were based on violence (women soldiers, shooting guns, violent revolutionaries, punching bag) and that we define women roles compared to men in literature as an ability or inability to do violence.  Violence being more often than not a representation of power.  My point would be, isn't too much entertainment in general based on violence.  Crime/rape shows, war, fighting is all over television and in literature.  We a redefining our Llamas, all llamas, as violent individuals, because we find (or are told to find) violence in general entertaining.

Third, here's a sentence that I have heard: 

"My daughter will learn self defense because there are many men that will take advantage of her."

In my mind, literature that defines a typical role of men as violent is not only damaging to woman as powerless, but men as violent devients.  Women are not the only sex that acts the roles set out for them in entertainment.

[Moritz]

First of all thank you for doing this episode. One of the reasons I love escape artists' three podcasts is that they are not the same kind of story all over again but come from different sub genres, different authors, different styles - it exposes me to science fiction, fantasy, and horror that I otherwise wouldn't have read/listened to and therefore broadens my horizon. This essay also kind of broadened my horizon, and I didn't mind the "interruption" of podcasts to bring me this.

As for the content of the essay itself, I generally agree with the author and think she points out some very, very important issues. I do agree with some of Richard Babley's criticism, especially point two concerning the violence. I, as a man, always thought it a virtue of women that in the general Western narrative stayed out of violence. When in my home country, a women fought at court to be a member of the fighting units in the army, I thought it was silly that she wanted to learn how to kill (well, I was about to be drafted and thought: really? she wants to go there out of free will where I have to? fine, take my place...)

There are a couple of points I didn't like about the essay, though I guess most of them are nitpicky:

a) the llama metaphor doesn't quite work, and it's a bit too long. This is because the author basically makes two statements:
1. women are systematically written out of history/ stories or their roles are rewritten.
I agree with her that this is true, and this is basically what her llama story says. In fact, the same holds true for other groups in societies, like people of color, ethnic and religious minorities, sexual minorities, etc., the only big difference that women are not a minority.
2. women are often accomplices to this rewriting
This point was the most interesting for me, because frankly, point 1. was rather obvious to me, because I identify with at least one of the minority groups. The fact that female writers can be as bad in reproducing stereotypes is something I know subconsciously - I mean, I have read all of Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books... - but it was interesting to have it spelled out again. Of course, this is not part of the llama story, because it would have meant that fluffy child llamas would also imagine all llamas to be scaly cannibals. So basically the llama story didn't really work for me.

b) I have problems with someone who talks a lot about the social construction of the world using the term The Truth.

c) Finally, one remark about "can you imagine that 4 out of 10 freedom fighters are female" - I think this depends a lot on your cultural background. When I grew up, our post offices had this, which according to the names is 2/3 female: http://www.derwesten.de/img/incoming/origs4616696/0243732408-w552-h2700-/RAF-Fahndungsplakat-RAF.jpg

But I guess these three points are just nitpicks and don't really criticise the core of the essay.

[Scattercat]

Of course, this is not part of the llama story, because it would have meant that fluffy child llamas would also imagine all llamas to be scaly cannibals. So basically the llama story didn't really work for me.

Or perhaps would think, "I'm not very scaly or cannibalistic; what's wrong with me?"

[Varda]

As for the content of the essay itself, I generally agree with the author and think she points out some very, very important issues. I do agree with some of Richard Babley's criticism, especially point two concerning the violence. I, as a man, always thought it a virtue of women that in the general Western narrative stayed out of violence. When in my home country, a women fought at court to be a member of the fighting units in the army, I thought it was silly that she wanted to learn how to kill (well, I was about to be drafted and thought: really? she wants to go there out of free will where I have to? fine, take my place...)

I would just note that being put on a pedestal and praised as the historically less-violent sex is not desirable, either. That's still a stereotype, especially since the historical fact of the matter is that some women were and are violent and bloodthirsty soldiers, too. If women seem nicer, it's only because we're taught from a young age to approach conflict indirectly and punished for being too loud or rude in ways that boys aren't. From my perspective, I'm a lot nicer than I really have the inclination to be, were I permitted to just share my unvarnished opinion. But from your perspective, it might seem as if women are just *naturally nicer*.

Same goes with women and violence. It's an illusion that women are somehow naturally more moral in this area. And we need more stories about bad, violent women too, women representing the full span of human evil just the way our male villains do.

[Richard Babley]

I would just note that being put on a pedestal and praised as the historically less-violent sex is not desirable, either.

Not in defense of Moritz's comment, but I would have to say that this large depends on perspective.  The choice whether one wants to do violence is largely personal regardless of sex.  I find that pacifists are often stereotyped as weak individuals simply because they are unwilling to do violence.  This is also false and not a desirable stereotype either.  I praise nonviolence/resistance in any individual, but not praise a sex in general for it.  My original point was that I didn't want power and strength to be interchangeable with violence in literature regardless of sex.

The second part of your comment is a rather long and sensetive discussion into genetics/epigentics and nature vs nurture and statisics that aren't possible to do without proper controls and would end up in rampent unprofessional speculation based on unreliable animal models.  

I'd suggest that the forum not go that path    

[Varda]

Not in defense of Moritz's comment, but I would have to say that this large depends on perspective.  The choice whether one wants to do violence is largely personal regardless of sex.  I find that pacifists are often stereotyped as weak individuals simply because they are unwilling to do violence.  This is also false and not a desirable stereotype either.  I praise nonviolence/resistance in any individual, but not praise a sex in general for it.  My original point was that I didn't want power and strength to be interchangeable with violence in literature regardless of sex.

Well, I agree there's a conversation to be had about violent themes and pacifism, but that's not really relevant to the specific context of Kameron Hurley's essay, no?

My point is that as long as we have stories that address the problem of war and violence, consistently shuffling off women into the pacifist role is sexist and historically inaccurate. This is true even of stories that celebrate pacifism and nonviolence. We need stories about the men who stayed home and took care of the children and held society together while the women went off to war. We need stories about women going to war for reasons of pride, or anger, or ego and the consequences thereof--more complex than "well obviously wimminz shouldn't be in war because raaaaape" or "they'll be too busy having their periods and tempting the men with their boobs to make good soldiers".

For an example, Seanan McGuire wrote a particularly outstanding military SF story featuring women in WDSF ("Each to Each"), which also managed to be critical of the war machine itself. I also thought Podcastle's "Feed Me the Bones of Our Saints" earlier this year was an outstanding story about women, war, and violence that strayed outside the box.

[DKT]

Re: Google it. That was actually a slight addition to the text, because we can't hyperlink audio. But this is the link Hurley suggested Googling. When I get home and have access to do so, I'll update the page to reflect that too. 

t seemed to me that the majority of examples the author used were based on violence (women soldiers, shooting guns, violent revolutionaries, punching bag) and that we define women roles compared to men in literature as an ability or inability to do violence.  Violence being more often than not a representation of power.  My point would be, isn't too much entertainment in general based on violence.  Crime/rape shows, war, fighting is all over television and in literature.  We a redefining our Llamas, all llamas, as violent individuals, because we find (or are told to find) violence in general entertaining.

There's definitely a big discussion to have on whether or not there's a necessity for violence, as well as the nature of violence, and if there's too much violence in our entertainment. But I don't see this particularly essay discussing those topics. "We Have Always Fought" instead is focusing on women being written out, or erased from the violent (traditionally viewed as masculine) parts of history, and pointing out that viewpoint inaccurate.

[benjaminjb]

I also think this was excellent. I remember reading it at Moher's place, but it seemed even more interesting having it read to me. That said, I welcome debate and discussion about it.

(That said, "Google it" was said in reference to one particular link that, as DKT pointed out, would be hard to link to in audio; that said, I also generally agree with the idea that all research, especially internet research, needs to be careful about avoiding biasing your info. Which, I take it, is part of the lesson of this essay.)

The positive stereotype is still a stereotype
Now that I've heard it again, this essay connects in all sorts of ways to other discussions about representation. Like, I remember going to a lecture once on "The Enemy," where the professor pointed out how enemies in narrative have to have some positive qualities to make defeating them worthwhile and difficult. (This is especially true in conspiracy narratives, where those Enemies are keeping us down.) So, in 19th century anti-Toms--the pro-slavery novels that were written to combat the message of Uncle Tom's Cabin--you get lots of cultural positives attached to black people: they are so innocent and trusting. Or, for another example, look at a lot of the post-Civil War literature that portrays black people as dangerous and wild (all negatives) but also strong and athletic (all positives). The point of the lecture on the Enemy or this article isn't whether a depiction is positive or negative, but how limiting that depiction can be.

(Neil deGrasse Tyson had an excellent observation on that point in regard to, iirc, Larry Byrd and Michael Jordan and how they were talked about while Tyson was growing up: Byrd was described as a careful student of the game, a guy who had to put his smarts to work; Jordan got described as a "natural athlete," a guy who was just great at the game without thinking or working. Sure, both "student of the game" and "natural athlete" sound positive, but they're both limiting descriptions: they limit how we see these particular people; and they're part of a larger system that limits how we see whole groups of people.)

Feminism helps men
I also want to stress the idea that an essay like this--and the discussion around it--isn't just for the happiness of women. As many people have noted, narrowing the options of other people also narrows your own. I could go into the toxic stew of gender and race divisions in the 19th-century American South (an area I spent a lot of time on in grad school); but I'm also reminded of a blogpost written by a male ex-pickup artist. This was a guy who bought into the cultural narrative that men should act a certain way and be attracted to certain women. And so he spent his time working towards that goal (sex with lots of women) and achieving it and being miserable.

I'm paraphrasing, but I remember he said something about making a pass at some woman who was attractive according to pickup artist standards, but who he didn't connect to in any other way. He narrowed his life choices according to this over-arching narrative of what masculinity was and what femininity was. Sure, he eventually realized that this wasn't the way to live; but imagine a whole society constructed around that narrative. (Or: walk outside. Ta-da!) Imagine a whole society where the narrative is so ingrained that you think it's the right way to be--where you don't even realize that you've bought into an ideology because it was purchased for you a long time before you were born.

("Honey, did we put 'patriarchy' on the baby shower registry? Because everyone got it for us.")

History is weird and big enough for all of us
I was just reading a 1960s comic book called Dial H for Hero and I got thrown out of the story when a bank closed for the day at 3pm. A bank that closes at 3pm? Ridiculous! Meanwhile, a super-genius boy who solves crimes by turning into super-heroes while keeping his identity secret from everyone--well, that's just the way things are.

It's always interesting, to me, to find what presuppositions I hold about people and the way things are that feel natural, but are really just historical constructs of a certain time. I mean, I grew up--and pretty much still am--a stereotype from a Woody Allen movie: New York, Jewish, Yiddish-compliant, middle class, left-liberal, good school, bagel-oriented, etc. Everyone around me pretty much fit into that category; and for most people, if you say "Jew," that's the image that pops: the Eastern European, mother-wishes-he-was-a-doctor Jew.

Which is why I loved learning about how radically Jewish demographics in America shifted over the years: up until the late 19th, if you went into a Jewish neighborhood, it wouldn't be Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazic Jews, but Sephardic Jews from Spain and Portugal speaking Ladino. Things in the past were different than they are today. And even today, things aren't the same all over: for fun, get an Ashkenaz and a Sephard into a room--along with an Ethiopian Jew and a Kaifeng Jew and a Cochin Jew--and ask them what "traditional Jewish food" is. Maybe--maybe!--they'll all agree on matzot, but otherwise, feh. (Idea for an article: "Jews have always fought over food.")

Which is a super-long way of saying that historical discovery/recovery seems like one of the best ways to challenge our current narratives, along with looking at how other people do things now. I would say that, as speculative fiction people, we could just invent something to challenge our presuppositions (c.f. Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness and a society without gender), but history usually beats us to these things. Or rather: the stories we tell ourselves tend to limit our imaginations about what is possible. History, as stuff that seems impossible but really happened, is a good way to challenge our limits.

[Richard Babley]

I just typed a long reply and it got deleted.

Aha google it was a link!!!

No podcastle isn't too violent, nor is it senslessly violent like other forms of entertainment.  Violence is fine as long as it serves a worthy purpose

I'd like to see women marinalized in other typically male areas, not just war, take a larger role.

I was a little afraid that Dickens (where my name comes from) was marinalizing women too much, and then I remembered "Tale of Two Cities."

Madam Defarge is an overbearing heartless blood thirsty revolutionary that carries a knife and a gun and imposes beheadings.  That somehow made me happy.

[Father Beast]

I find one of Moritz' observations enlightening.

2. women are often accomplices to this rewriting

Notably, the author herself.

In listening to this essay, I find that it is less about a conspiracy to marginalize women than a look into her own awakening and learning to think past the surface. By her own account, she used to feed into stereotypes and perpetuate them. It has taken time and thought for her to realize that she can, and probably should, do things differently.

The reality is, there have been women slave overseers, women slavers, women torturers. There have been men homemakers, men nurturers, men spinners. The fact that some professions tend to have a majority of one or the other doesn't change that.

Another reality is that some people think about the things they see and hear, and some people memorize some phrases and stick to them without thinking, and every variation in between. And this has always been the case.

As for myself, in my life I make a point of never referring to someone having a sexed role. They are not Truckers and Lady Truckers as the author suggested (and indeed, some people do say, just not me), they are all Truckers. that is not a woman Doctor and a male Nurse, that's a Doctor and a Nurse. Those aren't Prostitutes and male Prostitutes, Those are all Prostitutes. A little thing, maybe, but I don't get to choose for other people. Only for myself.

I call myself a man because I am full grown and constructed as a male. if I have tendencies which might be called "womanly" or "girlish", I recognize those are only things termed that way by my particular culture, location and time. Those designations have nothing to do with being actually male or female.

And finally, amidst all those stories about the scaly llamas that eat their young, there have always been llama herders who harvest the llamas for their hair and trust them to raise their own young.

[ToooooMuchCoffeeMan]

This is elegantly stated, and well-read, but...well. There's no way to say this without sounding snide: I wonder how old the writer was when she wrote it. I'm on my 50-somethingth turn around the sun, and none of this would have been new to me thirty years ago.

I think the most recent thing I learned in this area that struck me as novel was the Bechdel Test.

So I don't know. Every generation has to discover certain things for themselves. And then strut around for awhile thinking they're geniuses until they get some experience and humility to match their intellection. And then, maybe, they can go on to break new ground.

All that said: thank you for publishing this. It's something that bears repeating.

[Father Beast]

I think the most recent thing I learned in this area that struck me as novel was the Bechdel Test.

Ah yes, that test. I've been thinking about movies that probably fail. I think that Sleepless In Seattle fails to have two men talking about something other than a woman.

[Moritz]

Another issue I had with the essay is that there is a bit too much "I" in it. Now, it's natural to make an essay personal and put personal stories in there. The part about how she reacted in crowds sounded a bit too self-congratulatory to me, as well as the bragging about handling guns. Before you get me wrong, it would have pissed me of as much when a man would have said it.

[Varda]

So I don't know. Every generation has to discover certain things for themselves. And then strut around for awhile thinking they're geniuses until they get some experience and humility to match their intellection. And then, maybe, they can go on to break new ground.

This strikes me as a little unkind. None of us get to pick the cultural programming we're born into, and I don't think it's necessarily helpful to frame it so negatively when someone recognizes and gives up prejudice of any kind. We should celebrate and encourage this process at any age. Or, to put it another way, I like how XKCD puts it:



ETA: I'd also point out that if these things bear repeating by new generations, it may very well mean that the problem hasn't yet been fixed. May we all live to see the day when it really isn't news to the young that women were and are movers and shakers of history, because that means we finally taught it and modeled it right to begin with.

[DKT]

And finally, amidst all those stories about the scaly llamas that eat their young, there have always been llama herders who harvest the llamas for their hair and trust them to raise their own young.

I don't remember the essay saying anything about llama herders. Was someone suggesting llama herders were all leading the llamas to the slaughtering house?

(I'm also uncomfortable with the herders analogy in general, because it reads like you're saying llamas = women, and the human herders = men, who take care of the less than human llamas, and also harvest them. Maybe you're not suggesting that, and you're suggesting the herders are also llamas, but then I don't get why we would differentiate the herders?)

[Bees]

I'd like to see women marinalized in other typically male areas, not just war, take a larger role.

Great. So do we. This essay specifically dealt with women in combat roles and violent situations, though, so this isn't relevant here.

Part of the problem that necessitates essays like this (and videos and articles, as in the case of Anita Sarkeesian and others) is actually fairly well demonstrated in this comment thread. Conversations about women acting outside their socially/culturally prescribed roles are too often derailed by anecdotes, cookie-seeking by (real or imagined) allies, concern trolling, and #notallmen rabbit trails. It only adds white noise, not real content, to the conversation. As long as privileged voices try to shout down marginalized ones, the marginalized parties will continue having to hold the same conversation, forever and ever, amen. If that makes you uncomfortable, consider being part of the solution.

I like that the author notes her own complicity in misogynistic lines of thought. Self-awareness, frequent self-checking, and self-correction are signs of maturity. Blithely saying you never get it wrong, so obviously there's no reason to bring this up anymore, is not. Hurley doesn't let herself off the hook here, and neither should any of her readers. Especially when they're completely confident they're in the clear.

Men are trained to believe that their theories and anecdotal evidence outweigh the lived experiences of women. They don't. Sometimes you need to just sit down and truly listen to what's being said. Helpfully, this also applies when you are outside any marginalized group discussing their marginalization.

tl;dr: It's not always about you. Don't try to make it so.

[InfiniteMonkey]

I read this in print a while ago, and frankly my reaction is "eh".

I don't DISagree with anything the writer says, but I generally don't enjoy being preached to. Even with things I agree with.

I also don't have any romantic notions about or attractions to revolutionary movements. So that didn't didn't really do anything for me either.

(edited - I left out a crucial modifier. Sorry, it was early... and I'm stressed.... and there are wolves outside...)

[Voresia]

Another issue I had with the essay is that there is a bit too much "I" in it. Now, it's natural to make an essay personal and put personal stories in there. The part about how she reacted in crowds sounded a bit too self-congratulatory to me, as well as the bragging about handling guns. Before you get me wrong, it would have pissed me of as much when a man would have said it.

And there was also a section where she called herself a misogynist, listing some pretty embarrassing narrative mistakes. It takes guts to admit that you have those personal biases, that the first thing that comes to your head when you write is the standard fare garbage that you see in most movies. It’s especially embarrassing as a woman. I know very few people who will admit to something like that, though you know we all do it, but that’s the whole point of the essay. We need to see more diverse and complex female roles so that we don’t (any of us) continue to make those mistakes. The personal anecdotes, positive and negative, just serve to strengthen the message.

I also don’t quite get the “this is not a perfect metaphor” commentary on the Llama bits. To me it’s an example that is exactly as ridiculous as mainstream narratives assuming that all women are either passive, comforting motherly types or dynamo sex objects.

So ya, I loved this essay. Thanks so much for running it Podcastle!

[jkjones21]

Varda's been raving about this essay for weeks (maybe months? I'm not sure), and then she told me about PodCastle doing an audio recording of it, so I was like, "I should listen to that so I can say intelligent things about it."  Anna, Anne, and Dave, thanks for selecting this to read.  It was a good listen, and there was a lot more in there than just what I've heard Varda talk about in passing.

Some things that I wanted to respond to (whether these are important are relevant can be left up to other readers; please feel free to tell me I'm derailing, because that's the last thing this thread needs and it'd be better for me to learn something while being silent than to share nothing while yakking):

Varda nailed the thing about being excited when people share that they've had a realization; even if it's not new to you, you should never belittle someone else's epiphany.  I'd also like to add that it's pretty dismissive to suggest that Hurley was younger when she wrote this essay; there are multiple details in her story that indicate these are things she's been learning about from a young age well into her adult life (the point that she studied women fighters in depth for a decade after her grad school experience in South Africa points to the fact that this is not something she just recently realized, but that the essay is a culmination of ideas she's been considering for a long time).  Going against ingrained narratives is hard work, and no matter how experienced you might become in critiquing what you consume, there will always be assumptions that you miss because there's just a lot of stuff in the stream.

My memory is unfortunately fuzzy on this particular subject, but I recall reading a book on the importance of personal narrative in feminist discourse back when I was in grad school.  I wish I could remember it better, but the general gist was that personal stories typically don't get privileged in formal writing because we tend to view these instances of personal insight as intrusions.  A writer tells us about their experience in relation to a subject, and we feel like it's distracting from our own engagement (completely ignoring that this is a case of someone trying to form a connection with the reader).  Going further, personal narratives are often the only form of discourse available to underprivileged groups, and shunning that form of discussion silences those voices in favor of the ones with the resources to participate in methods of discourse (like formal research that before the internet was really only a possibility if you were a part of the academy) that are communally approved.  Hurley's use of personal anecdotes in this essay serves to highlight examples where she had epiphanies related to the subject of the essay; these are good things to share.  That she was the one on the subway train who thought to help the man who was having a seizure shouldn't be considered self congratulatory; it's more an indictment of our mindset that everything out of the ordinary is somebody else's problem (would the realization Hurley had have been more effective if she'd changed the narrative to make another stranger the one who tried to help the man, or is it just that she remembers this instance because it was her moment of epiphany?).

As for the Bechdel Test being the last novel thing to appear in popular feminist theory, I think it's best to dwell on the fact that a concept coined in the '80s is still considered novel (mostly because it's a concept we're still failing to take seriously in our popular fiction).

[Richard Babley]

Varda nailed the thing about being excited when people share that they've had a realization; even if it's not new to you, you should never belittle someone else's epiphany. 

Very true.

It's very hard sometimes to understand things from other people's background sometimes.  For instance Moritz grew up in West Germany (RAF poster).  So I can kind of understand the natural pacifism because I have lived in Northern Germany for a very long time.  Things that seem obvious to one group, may not be so to others.  Take Angela Merkel as an example.  When there is voting here, the fact that she is a woman doesn't matter, because much of pariment are female in Germany.  The Minister of Defense is Female in Germany (Ursula von der Lein).  BUT when I was in the USA I remember debates about whether enemies to the USA would see H. Clinton as a weakness because she is a woman.  A pundit that would say that in Germany would be ostrisized for stupidity.  BUT Americans would never seen that and Germans don't understand it when they hear it in the USA.

Personally I had trouble understanding fathers and mothers sometimes.  Now that I am a parent, I find my view have also changed.  No more liberal or conservation, just different.  I would not expect most people without children to understand, because I remember how it was without children.

When I am 50, I don't know if I'll remember how that naivity was...

We have to take these comments with a grain of salt, because we all have different background and different ages, and what you see as insulting may just be an everyday comment from someone else (it something I had to learn moving to N Germany because the people are so damn direct), and people most likely are not purposefully being mean.

[Richard Babley]

I'd like to see women marinalized in other typically male areas, not just war, take a larger role.

Men are trained to believe that their theories and anecdotal evidence outweigh the lived experiences of women. They don't. Sometimes you need to just sit down and truly listen to what's being said. Helpfully, this also applies when you are outside any marginalized group discussing their marginalization.

Really, now....

Come on...

Men are trained....  (in a discussion talking about stereotypes)

[jkjones21]

Men are trained....  (in a discussion talking about stereotypes)

Yeah, men are trained.  This isn't a flip comment about a sexist stereotype; we all have narratives that appeal to us, and the reason for that is because we internalize our social training.  It takes a lot of work to recognize that training in the first place, but it is there.  Try not to be so dismissive of what someone else is saying because it doesn't fit your personal narrative.

[Varda]

I'd like to see women marinalized in other typically male areas, not just war, take a larger role.

Men are trained to believe that their theories and anecdotal evidence outweigh the lived experiences of women. They don't. Sometimes you need to just sit down and truly listen to what's being said. Helpfully, this also applies when you are outside any marginalized group discussing their marginalization.

Really, now....

Come on...

Men are trained....  (in a discussion talking about stereotypes)

It's not a discussion about stereotypes. It's a discussion about the marginalization of women's voices and women's contribution. Bees made an excellent and important point that I think we should all keep in mind: this kind of derailing is unhelpful.

Now, to get back to the conversation at hand, this touched on something I thought was really important from Hurley's essay:

And there was also a section where she called herself a misogynist, listing some pretty embarrassing narrative mistakes. It takes guts to admit that you have those personal biases, that the first thing that comes to your head when you write is the standard fare garbage that you see in most movies. It’s especially embarrassing as a woman. I know very few people who will admit to something like that, though you know we all do it, but that’s the whole point of the essay. We need to see more diverse and complex female roles so that we don’t (any of us) continue to make those mistakes. The personal anecdotes, positive and negative, just serve to strengthen the message.

I really resonated this, and with Hurley's point about being a "self-aware misogynist" even while being a woman. We're all a product of our cultures, and I'm not sure it's possible to reach adulthood without internalizing at least some sexist stereotypes if you live in the Western world, even under the best circumstances (see also: #yesallwomen on Twitter). Why not just take that as a starting point and accept the fact we're going to make mistakes, and own up to them when we do? If I assume I already have sexist tendencies buried within my brain, it's easier to recognize it when it crops up and not excuse myself without a moment of hard personal reflection. The same is true of internalized racism, homophobia, ableism, and so forth.

[benjaminjb]

From a rhetorical standpoint, I like the position Hurley takes here of self-critique as a window into a larger social critique. I mean, she could have started from the "society is flawed and everyone is complicit" angle--but finger-pointing has some obvious problems, such as a tendency for readers to feel defensive or argue against the point.

That said, while I thought the essay nicely moved from "my inner struggle with misogyny" to wider, social issues, clearly some people thought the argument lingered too long on the "self-aware misogynist" self-accusation Hurley levels as her opening move. Perhaps, from a rhetorical angle, she would've been better suited by moving more quickly from "my problem" to "our problem with women."

But then we'd also miss some of the on-going nature of this struggle: Hurley may be self-aware of her misogynistic cultural training--and knowing may be half the battle--but there's still a whole other 50% of the battle to fight. And a lot of that battle is simply in keeping hold of what you know in the face of a larger society that is pledged to ignorance about this issue.

And perhaps it's only because I'm trying to write my own fiction now, but I feel like "personal struggle" and "knowing the right thing to do" is only a small part of this. I could heal all my faults and try to live a perfect life--always referring to "firefighters" rather than "firefighters" and "lady firefighters"--and still not actually make the world a better place. There seems to be a lot more that needs to be done besides being self-aware. Which is one reason why I like this essay for starting this discussion. And hopefully, also this essay will lead to more than just discussion but action in our own spheres of life.

[Father Beast]

And finally, amidst all those stories about the scaly llamas that eat their young, there have always been llama herders who harvest the llamas for their hair and trust them to raise their own young.

I don't remember the essay saying anything about llama herders. Was someone suggesting llama herders were all leading the llamas to the slaughtering house?

(I'm also uncomfortable with the herders analogy in general, because it reads like you're saying llamas = women, and the human herders = men, who take care of the less than human llamas, and also harvest them. Maybe you're not suggesting that, and you're suggesting the herders are also llamas, but then I don't get why we would differentiate the herders?)

Just because something wasn't mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think that is one of the points of this essay. My point is that no matter what the popular stories say, there have always been people who know the reality.

In my viewpoint, the llama analogy refers not to women or men, but to how we hear something popularly believed, and decide whether or not to accept what we first heard when we see the evidence.

[Father Beast]

It's not a discussion about stereotypes. It's a discussion about the marginalization of women's voices and women's contribution. Bees made an excellent and important point that I think we should all keep in mind: this kind of derailing is unhelpful.

As I understand it, the author was talking about the narratives we hear about stuff, and her awakening to the larger reality that those narratives don't accurately portray. In my experience, that kind of popular, inaccurate narrative is called a stereotype.

[Varda]

It's not a discussion about stereotypes. It's a discussion about the marginalization of women's voices and women's contribution. Bees made an excellent and important point that I think we should all keep in mind: this kind of derailing is unhelpful.

As I understand it, the author was talking about the narratives we hear about stuff, and her awakening to the larger reality that those narratives don't accurately portray. In my experience, that kind of popular, inaccurate narrative is called a stereotype.

Fair enough--it might be a difference of what we each got from it. In my opinion, calling "We Have Always Fought" an essay only about stereotypes is pretty surface-level. She uses common tropes involving female characters in stories as a jumping off point for discussing the greater implications, especially in relation to the historical record. I suppose we could call it an essay that talks about the problems that very specific stereotypes create.

Richard Babley's comment toward Bees struck me as dismissive and derailing (perhaps unintentionally so--one of the dangers of online conversation is how easy it is to miscommunicate tone and attitude), especially since there was so much substance to what she had to say. It warranted more than an, "Oh, come on!", which carries the implicit assumption that what she had to say was so obviously far off base that no reasonable person even needs to point out where they disagreed. Saying "because stereotypes!" struck me as false equivalence at best.

That said, while I thought the essay nicely moved from "my inner struggle with misogyny" to wider, social issues, clearly some people thought the argument lingered too long on the "self-aware misogynist" self-accusation Hurley levels as her opening move. Perhaps, from a rhetorical angle, she would've been better suited by moving more quickly from "my problem" to "our problem with women."

This is a very good point, and from a rhetorical standpoint, I totally agree. I imagine she went with the "I" statements as a means of coming alongside her readers and hopefully getting them to really listen before dismissing what she had to say. It's definitely weaker, rhetorically, than coming right out about what a widespread and general problem this is.

If anyone's interested in reading another fantastic little essay that does a GREAT job highlighting how widespread scaly-llama narratives are, check out SFF author Maria Dahvana Headley's "A Short List of Movies You Will Never See". She makes one really great point about the problem of flat female characters: aside from being dehumanizing, they're boring. As is seeing the exact same Straight Cis White Dude starring as Our Hero again and again and again, with no variation and no change. One thing I particularly love about Podcastle is what a great variety of protagonists we hear from week to week. It's refreshing, fun, and not boring. Addressing these problems means a better selection of stories for all of us, and better entertainment.

[Richard Babley]

It's not a discussion about stereotypes. It's a discussion about the marginalization of women's voices and women's contribution. Bees made an excellent and important point that I think we should all keep in mind: this kind of derailing is unhelpful.

As I understand it, the author was talking about the narratives we hear about stuff, and her awakening to the larger reality that those narratives don't accurately portray. In my experience, that kind of popular, inaccurate narrative is called a stereotype.

Fair enough--it might be a difference of what we each got from it. In my opinion, calling "We Have Always Fought" an essay only about stereotypes is pretty surface-level. She uses common tropes involving female characters in stories as a jumping off point for discussing the greater implications, especially in relation to the historical record. I suppose we could call it an essay that talks about the problems that very specific stereotypes create.

Richard Babley's comment toward Bees struck me as dismissive and derailing (perhaps unintentionally so--one of the dangers of online conversation is how easy it is to miscommunicate tone and attitude), especially since there was so much substance to what she had to say. It warranted more than an, "Oh, come on!", which carries the implicit assumption that what she had to say was so obviously far off base that no reasonable person even needs to point out where they disagreed. Saying "because stereotypes!" struck me as false equivalence at best.

Sorry, I didn't want it to sound that way, it was a knee jerk reaction to being called (what I interpreted as) a cookie seeking ally, a concern troller, or laying a notallmen rabbit trails.  I found it slightly offensive and dismissive.

But I probably reacted too soon or misintercepted Bee's comment, the internet sometimes causes things like that to occur. 

So lets just leave it at that. 

[Father Beast]

If anyone's interested in reading another fantastic little essay that does a GREAT job highlighting how widespread scaly-llama narratives are, check out SFF author Maria Dahvana Headley's "A Short List of Movies You Will Never See". She makes one really great point about the problem of flat female characters: aside from being dehumanizing, they're boring. As is seeing the exact same Straight Cis White Dude starring as Our Hero again and again and again, with no variation and no change. One thing I particularly love about Podcastle is what a great variety of protagonists we hear from week to week. It's refreshing, fun, and not boring. Addressing these problems means a better selection of stories for all of us, and better entertainment.

I would like to see the "Fall Phenomena" one. not because it's all women, but because it sounds fascinating. The author of that article seems to think these movies will never get made. I'm not so sure. there is a thriving indie film market these days, and it's easier than ever to make a movie.

But that brings up an interesting question. Just why is the majority of media slanted. I think it's because of the simplest reason of all. Money. That, and fear. I think most studio execs are perfectly aware that women are more important than commonly portrayed. Their big fear is that most people believe the myth, and they daren't run against that because it would be "unbelievable".

By analogy, science fiction was once believed to be unpalatable to the general public. Most people have gotten past that, with a third or a quarter of current TV programming being science fiction, and out of the thirteen or fourteen billion dollar movies, only one is not science fiction of one kind or another.

[Bees]

I'm very excited to share that a friend linked me to Hurley's reading of her essay. He was excited about what she had to say and wanted to share it with me and others. He's since listened to more podcasts, and hopes to someday publish a story with via the Escape Artists' group of sites. It's wonderful to me that her writing proved an entry point to someone, and an inspiration to another (male) writer who has, self-admittedly, struggled with many of the same things Hurley (and others of us!) admits to.

Varda, I would watch WOAD a thousand times. And memorize every line. Frankly every one of those film ideas and casts is a gem. If only!

I'm reminded of Saladin Ahmed's tweet yesterday, about a conversation with his daughter:

4-year-old "Daddy, I know what I want to be."
Me "Yes?"
Her "A princess."
Me "You have to be born a princess."
Her "Then I'll be a knight."

Representation and equity in roles is so important, for this reason right here. I hope she always knows she can be a knight. I hope as time goes on she sees that possibility reflected with increasing frequency in the media available to her. I hope essays like this, and collections like WDSF and Long Hidden, stoke that fire and that it never goes out.

[Unblinking]

Interesting essay.  I don't think it was the life-changing experience for me that it was for some, but I can see how it would be.  I thought the llama metaphor was milked past dryness, and I thought that it could've explored a bit more beyond using ability and willingness to commit fatal violence as a measure of the sexes, but overall I thought it was plenty worthwhile.

Regarding the stories about being the first one to step forward to help and seeing others follow in your wake, had a couple related associations:
1.  One of the Union Dues stories on Escape Pod had a superhero at a Wal-Mart doing a publicity event, something happens that results in an injury (I don't remember exactly what) and the super-strategist is left with an injured person and a crowd of hundreds of gawkers.  He cries out for someone to help him and they all just keep gawking and it just gets worse.  Someone pointed out in the comment thread that the super-strategist's strategy was flawed--to deal with a crowd like that you pick a person, single them out of the crowd, say something like "Hey, you in the red sweater, get some ice.  You, tall dude, help me bandage the wound," etc.   Once that was pointed out, i couldn't unsee it, and a super-strategist should've known what a regular forumite knew about strategy of dealing with a crowd.
2.  Reminded me of To Kill a Mockingbird where Atticus Finch breaks up the mob but speaking to the individual people in it, making them aware that they're individual people and not just pseudopods of the amoebic mob.  (yes that last part was not how Atticus referred to it)
3.  From my own personal history, I remember a time when I was maybe 8 maybe 9, out at the store with just my brother (who is 9 years older than me) to pick up some mundane thing on an errand in the winter.  Outside, in the parking lot, just ahead of us, someone slipped in the ice badly enough that they ended up flat on their back.  I remember being focused on continuing to walk--we didn't know the person, it wasn't our problem--it wasn't that I wished the person ill by any means.  I would have thought my brother would do the same--I'd never thought of him as a compassionate person (perhaps because he was enough older than me that there was never much in the way of emotional closeness between us), and wouldn't have thought he'd be compassionate to strangers.  But he stopped.  He asked the fallen person if they were all right, helped them up from the ground, made sure they were coherent enough to answer some simple questions, some other people who'd been with the person but walking ahead a little ways came back and were being very attentive and only then were we on our way.  Thinking back on it, even a short while later, I became less surprised at my brother's behavior and more surprised at my own.  Why did I want to keep on walking?  It didn't cost us anything to stop except a few seconds of our time and we were in no particular rush other than the usual winter behavior of trying to get somewhere warm.  If the person had been badly injured we could've called 911 from the store.  If I had been the one to fall I certainly wouldn't have wanted to just be left there to sort it out myself and under most circumstances I would've lived under the golden rule.  I don't know exactly why I wanted to keep walking.  The best way I can describe how I remember feeling is that I didn't consider that person a part of my personal narrative--that fall was a part of someone else's book and I had my own next chapter ahead of me.  Thinking back, that's a terribly cruel way to think, to leave other people to suffer on their own because they don't look like major characters in my narrative.  As with any memories, it's possible that it's incredibly flawed in a hundred ways, but for me seeing the way my brother behaved in that situation was a major ethical milestone for me, one which comes to mind pretty much whenever a similar situation happens when I see someone that might need help, and now I try to do as my brother had done and offer what help I can offer.  Even if it's not something potentially life threatening and it's something more like a ruptured grocery bag spilling stuff on the ground, to help that person try to gather it all back together again, or something.  It occurs to me that I've never told my brother that story--my guess is that for him there was no particular reason to attach permanent importance to that memory and it has probably gone away completely.

On another of the topics, gender roles:
1.   When I had to register for the draft for the first time, I found it incredibly unfair that women didn't also have to register for the draft.  I don't know what I would've done if I had been drafted.  I would be a terrible soldier.  I sucked at sports not because I was unathletic or unskilled but because I consistently overthought everything until the moment for action had passed.  Add to that that I have never intentionally caused physical harm to anyone in my life and I'm not sure I'd be able to, and I'd be a major liability on a battlefield.  I wanted to know why merely being a dude somehow made me more suited for being a soldier than a randomly chosen woman.
2.  Left unchecked, my wife is by far the more aggressive of the two of us, at least in private when we're being ourselves--our worst fights tend to be when one or both of those traits run rampant.  In public we both tend to go against our nature... perhaps because of societal training or possibly because of our chosen vocations.  She's a pharmacist which holds an element of customer service so being too aggressive is something to resist, while I'm an engineer where I am most valuable to my organization if I am more pushy because I will try to resist the organization making decisions that do not mesh with the realities of the engineering.
3.  In the company I work for, there is visible misogyny kind of taken for granted that seems to come from the highest parts of the organization.  Nothing that is so obvious that I would know how to report it as harassment, just kind of a general environment thing.  It's almost always women who clean up the kitchen when someone makes a mess, almost always women who plan the catering for company meetings, things like that.  This in an organization that's more than 80% men (I don't think that part is necessarily misogynistic on the company's part but due to us being an engineering company and there aren't a lot of engineers who are women).  This includes women in several departments in several different roles and positions.  I try to at least clean up the kitchen if I see something that needs cleaning, but anything that requires more time I feel like I'm jeopardizing my job if I'm not focusing on engineering because I always have tight deadlines to deal with.  Not really sure if/what I can do about that.
4.  Even if you had parents who didn't try to push you into particular gender roles, and even if you're aware of those gender roles, it doesn't always mean it's easy or possible to disregard the rules.  Some are so ingrained.  My parents were never pushy about those kinds of things.  My parents were divorced before any memory I have, but my dad was always part of the picture and he was far from a stereotypical man and he didn't try to make me a stereotype either, he was always very cool with whoever and whatever I wanted to be.  But despite that, crying is pretty much impossible for me.  I can probably count the number of times I've cried in the last five years on the fingers of one hand.  There have been times when I've needed to, to get an emotional release, but it just doesn't happen.  When I do cry it's almost always when I'm alone, and if I become aware that someone can see or hear me, it just shuts off like a closed tap--both the waterworks and the emotions that go along with them.  I am aware of this block, and I think it would only improve things if I could remove the block, but that self-awareness doesn't make the block go away.

But that brings up an interesting question. Just why is the majority of media slanted. I think it's because of the simplest reason of all. Money. That, and fear. I think most studio execs are perfectly aware that women are more important than commonly portrayed. Their big fear is that most people believe the myth, and they daren't run against that because it would be "unbelievable".

I don't think it's believability that Hollywood is concerned with necessarily, but conformity.  I think they and we recognize that many of the tried and true movie tropes don't represent reality, but there is so much momentum.  People buy lots of tickets for movies that are Hollywood formulas, which means that producers and movie studios fund more of them, then people buy lots of tickets.  Movie studios give us whatever content the most people vote for with their money, but people in general like ruts, they like the familiar, they have no motivation to shift momentum and Hollywood is a powerful echo of that. 

[Unblinking]

For an example, Seanan McGuire wrote a particularly outstanding military SF story featuring women in WDSF ("Each to Each"), which also managed to be critical of the war machine itself. I also thought Podcastle's "Feed Me the Bones of Our Saints" earlier this year was an outstanding story about women, war, and violence that strayed outside the box.

I love Seanan McGuire's work in general, but that was my least favorite of the podcasted WDSF stories.  It's not that the points it made were wrong, it's just that I felt its message went kind of superliminal.  Yes, yes, I get what you're saying, but ow, my head is ringing from you shouting directly into my ear from half an inch away.

[benjaminjb]

The author of that article seems to think these movies will never get made. I'm not so sure. there is a thriving indie film market these days, and it's easier than ever to make a movie.

You're right that, thanks to technological developments, it's easier to make a movie. But that doesn't contradict the main argument of the piece--which I think we could all agree with--that major studios are still leery about woman/women-centered movies. Which leads us to your next line, which I totally agree with:

I think it's because of the simplest reason of all. Money. That, and fear.

Setting aside for a moment the mostly-women/women-only movies that Headley posits here, I have some friends/acquaintances in entertainment, and I've heard many stories of people going in to the studio with big projects that feature women and being asked if they could just swap out the gender of the protagonist: "Does it have to be a woman?"

You're right that a lot of that isn't coming from an active dislike of women in media, but from fear that women-focused entertainment won't sell. (That is, either the studio person's boss won't like it or the audience won't go for it.)

But a lot of that fear is (or hopefully was) confirmation bias: "men won't go see a movie with a female lead" was such common wisdom that whenever a movie with a female lead flopped, people would say "see, just what I thought." And any time such a film succeeded, people would find some excuse for why this one film was an exception to the rule. "Oh, well, Sigourney Weaver is special."

I've put some of this into the past tense, because there's some evidence that this is changing; at the very least, Hollywood executives seem to realize that women go to movies too. ZOMG.

But that said, to return to Headley's list, I think it'll be a while still before we see a film that really focuses only on women in the way that today's films portray a world primarily of men. It's pretty easy to think of films that have mostly men with one or two women--that Jack Ryan film (Chris Pine, Kevin Costner, Keira Knightley, Kenneth Branagh); Ride Along (Ice Cube, Kevin Hart, John Leguizamo, Bruce McGill, Tika Sumpter, Laurence Fishburne); I, Frankenstein (Aaron Eckhart, Yvonne Strahovski, Bill Nighy, Miranda Otto, Jai Courtney, Kevin Grevioux, Socratis Otto), etc.--and that's just from January of 2014! How easy is it to find a film that has mostly women with one or two men? Or heck, how easy is it to find a film where the main characters are even split on gender?

Again, this could be changing, but it's still got a long way to go. (Maybe in Hollywood, it has a longer way to go for the reasons you pointed out: money and fear. That is, movies are so expensive now--not just to make, but to market--that it's a lot easier to say "no" to anything a little out of the ordinary. Of course, again, we've got the problem that "ordinary" is really made up of some really biased common wisdom.)

[Unblinking]

Another example of something that's been heavily man-skewed, but which I feel that has had been some movements in the right direction:  comedy. 

Saturday Night Live comes to mind in particular.  I remember thinking that Cheri Oteri just wasn't funny, but when I hear some recent interviews of what the SNL culture was at the time where the best written comedy was given to the male actors and the lesser stuff was given to the female actors, I think it was just a matter of the skits she ended up starring on were the ones where the writing was phoned in--the filler skits.  At the time I didn't really appreciate or think about the effect of writing on the quality of a show or of a role on a show, that's something I've only come to appreciate much later, but looking back I can see how that really hurt SNL's women.  I think that Cheri Oteri has talent for comedic delivery, they just gave her crap.

But I feel like since then there's been a gradual shift to trust women in comedic roles both at SNL and in the wider entertainment biz.  Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Kristin Wiig are some of the funniest people ever, bar none and their performances on SNL were some of the best bar none.  And all of them have gone on to bigger careers with lead roles.

Bridesmaids was amazing in this respect, a comedy movie with an ensemble mostly-female cast.  And although the movie was about a wedding and the trappings around it, the groom is almost never onscreen and I wouldn't even call him a major character--the movie is more about the stress of how an impending marriage can affect a long-time friendship, and about the stress of the wedding proceedings themselves. There is a romantic subplot, and maybe that wasn't needed, but given all of the strengths of the movie I can hardly fault it for that, but even that I thought felt more genuine than most romantic plots.

[Devoted135]

Slowly getting caught up after a few weeks of being behind in my podcast listening. I think it's very cool for PodCastle to branch out into essays, particularly ones that are as relevant as this one. This is an interesting thread to read through, and I'm glad to see how productive it has been.

One of the essay's points that I don't think has been particularly touched on here is the issue of confirmation bias. It's such an easy trap to fall into that oftentimes we don't even realize that it what is going on in our subconscious. As with the Sigourney Weaver example above, we notice things that confirm what we already thought and find ways to write off as an aberration things that don't fit into our worldview. I feel that this one is a lot harder to overthrow than more overt stereotypes/isms: it's hard to stop doing something you don't even realize you are doing!

[Father Beast]

But a lot of that fear is (or hopefully was) confirmation bias: "men won't go see a movie with a female lead" was such common wisdom that whenever a movie with a female lead flopped, people would say "see, just what I thought." And any time such a film succeeded, people would find some excuse for why this one film was an exception to the rule. "Oh, well, Sigourney Weaver is special."

Also, they credit a woman led cast as being the reason some shows do less well. My favorite example is Star Trek: Voyager. the ratings on it were not nearly as good as they were for Next Generation or Deep Space Nine. But I know why that was, it was because it was on the UPN network, which wasn't available in many locations, (I know, because I couldn't watch the last 2 seasons of Voyager on TV for that reason.) while the first two were syndicated and available everywhere. But some people still blame Janeway.

[Scattercat]

Janeway was about the only GOOD thing about the early seasons of Voyager.  :-P

I was so excited when it came on because I'd only ever seen the previous Treks in reruns and was stoked to have one that I was in on from the ground floor, as it were.  After they took out all the interesting plot bits of limited resources and after about the tenth encounter with a sentient godlike spacetime anomaly, I ended up giving up.  I always liked Janeway herself, though...

[Unblinking]

For those who are voting for the Hugos this year (final ballot deadline July 31st, next week):

This work itself is not on the ballot--I'm actually not sure there's a category that allows individual short nonfiction works to be published.  I guess it could be in Related Work category but those are usually longer works.

But the author Kameron Hurley is on the ballot for Fan Writer.  And the publisher Dribble of Ink is on the ballot for Fanzine.  This essay was published in May 2013, so it was within the eligibility period for your consideration for the award.

So, if you felt this essay was moving or at least worthwhile, you could consider voting for one or both Kameron Hurley and Dribble of Ink on your ballot in support of those who brought the essay to you.

[DKT]

Actually, the essay itself is a finalist for Best Related Work 

http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2014-hugo-awards/

[Unblinking]

Actually, the essay itself is a finalist for Best Related Work 

http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2014-hugo-awards/

Ah!  Can you tell that I haven't even bothered to read the titles in the categories I don't follow?    I was thinking related works were always longer

Anyway, can also vote for author and publisher if you feel so inclined...

[Unblinking]

I'm actually really glad you pointed that out, DKT, because I am voting for the Hugos and I didn't have that marked on the ballot.

[SpareInch]

I've just read through this thread a few days after listening to the essay, and I found something interesting, and more to the point, possibly relevant happening in my head.

Like someone else earlier in the conversation, it did come as a surprise to me that someone did NOT know that women have always fought. But then, this fact has repeatedly surprised me over the years, so I have sort of come to see that some people have suffered a woefully inadequate education.

Here in The UK, it is simply taken as read that women have been warriors. Women fought OPENLY (Not pretending to be men.) throughout WW2, in roles as varied as Spy, AAA Gunner, and even in one case as the commander of a Maquis Brigade.

And here is where the funny thing happened in my head...

It dawned on me that some of the things people might think they know better than the inaccurate stereotype, are themselves inaccurate stereotypes.

Ever heard of The Air Transport Auxiliary?

Their role was to take on air transport jobs in Britain which didn't actually require military pilots, and because one of those jobs was to deliver combat aircraft to operational airfields, a myth has grown up of an ATA made up of female pilots who regularly got mixed up in combat.

Yeah?

Most ATA pilots were actually men, and very few of them ever got mixed up in combat, though of course it was a risk.

And who was the first identifiable British military leader?

Boudicca, who led a Brythonic army in AD60 or 61?

What about Caraticus in AD43? Or Cassivellaunus a century earlier?

What I'm trying to say is that it is important to remember the role women have played in all areas of human endeavour, but it is equally important not to over glamourise that role and attribute the qualities of fact to a whole new fiction, just because it contradicts the old fiction.

Sounds obvious, but I thought it worth saying.

[Moritz]

I was on vacation for two weeks and had no internet access 

After listening to the essay and discussing it here, I am thinking about Escape Artists' role in the representation of marginalised groups. From my more or less un-marginal position (I am of mixed ethnicity but it doesn't really show), I always had the feeling that especially PodCastle represents women, races/ ethnicities, and LGBT topics rather well, not only in the stories but also concerning the authors. I might be somewhat blind there though.

[Unblinking]

After listening to the essay and discussing it here, I am thinking about Escape Artists' role in the representation of marginalised groups. From my more or less un-marginal position (I am of mixed ethnicity but it doesn't really show), I always had the feeling that especially PodCastle represents women, races/ ethnicities, and LGBT topics rather well, not only in the stories but also concerning the authors. I might be somewhat blind there though.

If I remember correctly, that was a specific goal with the podcast from the very beginning, something which Rachel Swirsky felt strongly about in her initial editorship, and which Dave and Anna have tried to carry through when they took over.  I think they've done well at picking diverse authors and stories, the best of the 3 EA casts and much better than average in SF publications as well.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

I think they've done well at picking diverse authors and stories, the best of the 3 EA casts and much better than average in SF publications as well.

And boy, do they pick DIVERSE authors and stories!
#DadJoke #SeeWhatIDidThere

(Sorry, I just woke up, and shouldn't be trusted with my own internet. )

[Varda]

Yayyy! This essay just won the Hugo award! Congrats to Kameron Hurley, and non-scaly llamas everywhere.

[Windup]

Yayyy! This essay just won the Hugo award! Congrats to Kameron Hurley, and non-scaly llamas everywhere.

Woot!!  And congrats to all involved.

[Unblinking]

Yayyy! This essay just won the Hugo award! Congrats to Kameron Hurley, and non-scaly llamas everywhere.

Not only that, but Kameron Hurley won the award for fan writer, and Dribble of Ink (where the essay was published) won it for Fanzine.

[DKT]

Yayyy! This essay just won the Hugo award! Congrats to Kameron Hurley, and non-scaly llamas everywhere.

Not only that, but Kameron Hurley won the award for fan writer, and Dribble of Ink (where the essay was published) won it for Fanzine.

Yay! Thanks for pointing that out, and Congrats all around to both Kameron and Aidan

[Myrealana]

Brilliant and insightful. I listened twice and shared on every corner of the 'verse I can reach.

It provides some excellent food for thought.

And congratulations to all on the awards!

[yicheng]

I found the whole thing to be rather sanctimonious, preachy, and altogether overly verbose.  She could have communicated the entirety of her essay with "Hey guys, I lead a very sheltered life and didn't know that women played a big part in history and sometimes even fought in wars.  Huh!".  Problems I had with this:

1) She keeps on using the royal "We", as in "We" must understand that there's more than one way to be a woman, and "We" have to shift our perspective to be more inclusive of women as non-tropey archetypes.  Somehow she seems to miss the irony of using her own life experience and paradigm shift as evidence that everyone single other person all must have been as sheltered and ignorant of history as she was.

2) I felt like the Cannibalistic Lama trope was overplayed and largely inaccurate, because it implies that the analogy to Cannibalistic Lamas (women who happily played the role of the domestic housewife) largely didn't exist, when it's obvious that they did, although largely within the confines of Western Victorian-era-influenced society.

3) The analogy on being the "first person to act" although inspiring, seems rather egotistical, as surely she doesn't think she's the first one to talk about the misrepresentation or underrepresentation of women as fully fleshed characters in stories.

Which isn't to say that I disagree with the theme of the essay: that women should be portrayed as more than window decoration or NPC's, but I just wished she was less preachy about it.  Her point might have been valid 10 years ago, but in an era where the best female athlete is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter, I kind of feel like she's a bit out of touch.

[eytanz]

Your opinion is your opinion, of course, and if you found the essay uninspiring or sanctimonious then that is entirely fine. But when you start bandying terms like "out of touch" or arguing that she must be unusually sheltered, you should consider how many people found this essay to be affecting and thought provoking. I'd suggest that the position she was writing from, and the position she was writing to, is very much one that a lot of people can relate to. If you happen to have had more historical knowledge than most, that's great, but I don't think that that makes you representative. If it didn't work for you, it didn't work for you, but you can't deny that it did work for a lot of people.

Which isn't to say that I disagree with the theme of the essay: that women should be portrayed as more than window decoration or NPC's, but I just wished she was less preachy about it.  Her point might have been valid 10 years ago, but in an era where the best female athlete is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter, I kind of feel like she's a bit out of touch.

I fail to see what the relevance of the existance of female martial artists now has to the question of the role women played in history. This article isn't about what women can do, its about what women actually did.

[DKT]

Which isn't to say that I disagree with the theme of the essay: that women should be portrayed as more than window decoration or NPC's, but I just wished she was less preachy about it.  Her point might have been valid 10 years ago, but in an era where the best female athlete is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter, I kind of feel like she's a bit out of touch.

That's interesting. I feel like, in an age where Anita Sarkeseeian's life, along with her family's, is threatened and harassed for running a video series on Tropes vs. Women in Video Gaming, this essay is every bit as relevant as it was a decade ago, and every bit as important. This is an issue, and one that needs to be pushed back on.

I'd also argue that cannibalistic llamas isn't supposed to be equivalent to domestic housewife, any more than it is supposed to be a one-on-one comparison to women as temptresses, or prizes to be won, or damsels in distress, or The Girlfriend. It's about working to break down stereotypes, and do better than lazy writing.

"Hey guys, I lead a very sheltered life and didn't know that women played a big part in history and sometimes even fought in wars.  Huh!".

Yicheng, it's hard for me to read this as anything but a personal insult to the author. I realize that it's more difficult to separate the author from the material in an essay like this, but I'd appreciate it if we could avoid oversimplifications and personal insults in the future.

[gutguzzler]

You know this is a shame. That you have to go ahead a run something like this. And I was really getting into my pod castle, the last few stories have been stellar. And then this. I had to make an account just to say this.

First off, how is this fantasy? I listen to pod castle for the fantasy, not the feminist rhetoric.

I feel like ever since the sexism scandal in sfwa last year this whole thing has gotten out of hand. Everything is so politicised now. You can’t fart anymore without being called a misogynist. But where are they? Where are all these misogynist monsters that are perpetuating all these grievous wrongs? They certainly don’t frequent these forums.

In fact this forum seems to me to be overwhelmingly in favour of inclusivity an equal rights. Nobody wants to perpetuate anything other than a good story. And it not just this forum, it goes for all genre fiction. Where are the patriarchal overlords?

I don’t know. But they are not here. They are not listening to fantasy podcasts or reading genre fiction that’s for sure.

So why, oh why, do we have to listen to this?  It was preachy, and condescending and just put me in bad mood.  The whole premise of the article assumes that we as the reader have already been duped by this false narrative. Well, hashtag- I’m so tired of being told what I, as a straight white male, think about women.

I’m not angry podcastle. I’m just disappointed.

[eytanz]

So why, oh why, do we have to listen to this?

You didn't. I'm pretty sure your podcast playing device has an off button, and there's no exam later on.

[yicheng]

I fail to see what the relevance of the existance of female martial artists now has to the question of the role women played in history. This article isn't about what women can do, its about what women actually did.

The relevance isn't on women in history, but rather what the author insists as a pervasive myth in  modern society that women can not fight.  I'm saying in that: while it may have been true 10 years ago, in this day and age where combat sports like Mixed Martial Arts regularly showcase women who are every bit as aggressive, skilled, and strong as their male counter-parts, it seems rather out of touch for her to portray warrior women as mythical llamas that we somehow don't know about.  It's obvious that at least a significant demographic do in fact know that women are powerful and have the capability to be Bad-ass Mother-F***ers.

If you happen to have had more historical knowledge than most, that's great, but I don't think that that makes you representative.

While I agree, the converse is also true.  Just because you (or the author) has less historical knowledge than most, it also does not mean you are representative.  From my own background, growing up outside of the West, I was well aware that women active participated in many wars through-out history.  The problem is that the author seems to assume that her own past ignorance of history must mean a vast majority of the people (i.e. the royal "we") she is talking to must be similarly ignorant, and it thus being her job to enlighten the rest of us.

I'd also argue that cannibalistic llamas isn't supposed to be equivalent to domestic housewife, any more than it is supposed to be a one-on-one comparison to women as temptresses, or prizes to be won, or damsels in distress, or The Girlfriend. It's about working to break down stereotypes, and do better than lazy writing.

You may argue that, but the way as it's portrayed in the essay:  Cannibalistic Scaly Llamas == domestic housewife, where as Real-lief Llama == women warriors.  I see where it was meant as an analogy of real-life to representation in fiction, but it's an ill-fitting analogy to begin with and she continues to beat it into the ground.  I do agree that tropes are lazy, but they aren't necessarily bad, just the over-use/over-reliance of them.

Yicheng, it's hard for me to read this as anything but a personal insult to the author. I realize that it's more difficult to separate the author from the material in an essay like this, but I'd appreciate it if we could avoid oversimplifications and personal insults in the future.

How is that a personal attack?  The author explicitly states that she had no idea women fought in wars until a professor told her so, and she essentially admits to having lead a sheltered life at one point in her own essay.  I'm not ascribing anything to her personally other than what she's already said in her essay.  In fact, I'm sure she's a very well-meaning person, and probably much more reasonable than her essay would seem to indicate. 

[Talia]

How is that a personal attack?  The author explicitly states that she had no idea women fought in wars until a professor told her so, and she essentially admits to having lead a sheltered life at one point in her own essay.  I'm not ascribing anything to her personally other than what she's already said in her essay.  In fact, I'm sure she's a very well-meaning person, and probably much more reasonable than her essay would seem to indicate. 

It came across as flippant sarcasm, that's all. That coupled with the "out of touch" comment kind of made your post sound a bit meaner spirited than I think you intended. Happens - whenever I post criticism of pieces here or elsewhere I just remind myself that the authors sometimes read these boards too. I find it changes the tone of my posts.

[eytanz]

I fail to see what the relevance of the existance of female martial artists now has to the question of the role women played in history. This article isn't about what women can do, its about what women actually did.

The relevance isn't on women in history, but rather what the author insists as a pervasive myth in  modern society that women can not fight.

The article is about the pervasive myth that women didn't fight. The misconception that women can't fight is just one reason for that. Another is the misconception that women fighting is some sort of modern innovation.

If you happen to have had more historical knowledge than most, that's great, but I don't think that that makes you representative.

While I agree, the converse is also true.  Just because you (or the author) has less historical knowledge than most, it also does not mean you are representative.  From my own background, growing up outside of the West, I was well aware that women active participated in many wars through-out history.  The problem is that the author seems to assume that her own past ignorance of history must mean a vast majority of the people (i.e. the royal "we") she is talking to must be similarly ignorant, and it thus being her job to enlighten the rest of us.

It's a valid point that the West is not, in any sense, the majority of the world. But this is a Western author writing to a Western audience in a Western-based publication (A Dribble of Ink) and reprinted in another Western-based publication (Podcastle). Her audience is the society she came from. And her use of "we" isn't the Royal "we" (which is exclusive - the Royal "we" does not include the person being talked to), but an inclusive use. She uses "we" to mean "myself and others like me". That doesn't mean she assumes that everyone is like her.

I am someone who frequently shares your frustration, especially in discussions about race - there is a lot of writing by Americans that imply that their racial attitudes are universal, while they are quite alien to me (not, mind you, because the ones I grew up with are better. They're just different). But it's important to realize that just because what she is saying may not be universal, that doesn't mean it's less valid. It's definitely worth considering that Podcastle has a global audience and maybe more care needs to be taken to acknowledge that when posting essays such as this. But your response seems to be saying that because you know better, there is no point for anyone to have the discussion. Which is not, I think, a particularly useful approach to handling cross-cultural differences either.

If you believe that Kameron Hurley has led a sheltered life, I don't wish to argue that with you. But you need to realize that practically everyone growing up in the English-speaking West has led a similarly sheltered life. And while that is not "most" of the world, it is a large enough part of it - and a part of it whose cultural significance in today's world is far larger than it's proportion of the population would suggest - that your apparent claim that she's an exceptional individual in that regard simply does not hold true.

[jkjones21]

You know this is a shame. That you have to go ahead a run something like this. And I was really getting into my pod castle, the last few stories have been stellar. And then this. I had to make an account just to say this.

Welcome!  Regular forumites will likely be pleased that PodCastle's decision to run a special episode with a piece of nonfiction related to a major issue in speculative fiction has spurred you to join in the discussion.  Hopefully this will encourage Dave and Anna to run more episodes of this nature in the future!

First off, how is this fantasy? I listen to pod castle for the fantasy, not the feminist rhetoric.

It's fantasy because scaly llamas don't exist!

I feel like ever since the sexism scandal in sfwa last year this whole thing has gotten out of hand. Everything is so politicised now. You can’t fart anymore without being called a misogynist. But where are they? Where are all these misogynist monsters that are perpetuating all these grievous wrongs? They certainly don’t frequent these forums.

Personally, I can't fart without being called a gasbag, but I generally just take that as being told the truth.  As for things being politicized, well, you know, stories are political.  Every single one.  If it doesn't seem political to you, then that's probably because it's reinforcing a narrative you agree with.  Congratulations!  This is the first step into a larger world of literary critique.

As for 'misogynist monsters,' well, the problem is that they're kind of hard to spot, seeing as they generally don't look monstrous at all.  Most are just folks who think there's nothing wrong with the way women are treated in general, despite evidence that we have a tendency to pigeonhole 51% of the human population into a very narrow set of social roles.  These folks probably frequent the forums more often than you think, but since PodCastle's always been about inclusivity for marginalized groups, they realize it's not a good place to have their 'non-political' narratives reinforced.

In fact this forum seems to me to be overwhelmingly in favour of inclusivity an equal rights. Nobody wants to perpetuate anything other than a good story. And it not just this forum, it goes for all genre fiction. Where are the patriarchal overlords?

Here you go.  Read the closing thoughts from the editor of Tangent's review of Women Destroy Science Fiction.

I don’t know. But they are not here. They are not listening to fantasy podcasts or reading genre fiction that’s for sure.

Hurray!  No patriarchal overlords here!  Let's call that a victory for feminist ideology (even if it's an empty victory because we're still having these conversations).

So why, oh why, do we have to listen to this?  It was preachy, and condescending and just put me in bad mood.  The whole premise of the article assumes that we as the reader have already been duped by this false narrative. Well, hashtag- I’m so tired of being told what I, as a straight white male, think about women.

I’m not angry podcastle. I’m just disappointed.

I'm sure all the people involved in bringing you this episode, which you didn't have to listen to in the first place, are deeply apologetic for making you feel uncomfortable about playing life on easy mode.  It's such a travesty when man feels get hurt.  I think a baby panda dies or something.

You don't want baby pandas to die do you?

[benjaminjb]

::Wild applause for jkjones21, making points clearly and having fun doing so::

[Scattercat]

But where are they? Where are all these misogynist monsters that are perpetuating all these grievous wrongs? They certainly don’t frequent these forums.

IRONY

(It means "sort of like iron.")

Where are the baby pandas?  I'll kill those boogers my own self.

[Varda]

Where are the baby pandas?  I'll kill those boogers my own self.

Bite their heads off! That's where the nougat is.

[Unblinking]

That's interesting. I feel like, in an age where Anita Sarkeseeian's life, along with her family's, is threatened and harassed for running a video series on Tropes vs. Women in Video Gaming, this essay is every bit as relevant as it was a decade ago, and every bit as important. This is an issue, and one that needs to be pushed back on.

I'm glad you brought up Anita Sarkeesian, because that whole crapstorm has been on my mind a lot lately, especially as an illustration of how far things need to go in the realm of treating women equally.  It boggles my mind the hateful spew that has arisen from corners of the Internet as a result of Sarkeesian's interesting points.  And here's the thing--just like this essay, if you don't agree with the points or you don't think they're worth discussing, then turn it off and go do something else.  And if you believe that there's no point discussing this stuff because all the related problems have already been solved--then maybe this is a sign that they're not as solved as you thought they were, or alternatively take solace in knowing that these important topics haven't been forgotten now that they've been solved (to help prevent backsliding).

First off, how is this fantasy? I listen to pod castle for the fantasy, not the feminist rhetoric.

It's fantasy because scaly llamas don't exist!

To chime in my two cents on this small point in a larger post that I largely agreed with: I thought this essay was fitting for Podcastle.  But not because of the scaly llamas.  The scaly llamas are never portrayed as anything but a metaphor (and honestly were the weakest part of the essay IMO).  I thought it was fitting for Podcastle because it's a discussion of how our fictional narratives affect our view of the world.  Podcastle is a purveyor of fictional narratives and so it's appropriate to consider how the kind of fiction we consume can affect our view of the world.  IMO, it would've been appropriate for Podcastle without scaly llamas or any other speculative metaphor because of its discussion of narrative.  And it would've been equally fitting for any other venue interested in discussing fiction and the effects of fiction.

And, in the end, it's the editors who decide what is appropriate or not--Podcastle has not done nonfiction before, so this is a step in a new direction, and it was Dave and Anna's choice to take a step in that direction.  I think that the thoughtful conversation it's inspired illustrates its usefulness as Podcastle material.  And as long as nonfiction is produced IN ADDITION TO the regularly scheduled fiction, and as long as users aren't somehow required to consume everything that Podcastle produces, then I don't see what there would be to complain about.

[yicheng]

The article is about the pervasive myth that women didn't fight. The misconception that women can't fight is just one reason for that. Another is the misconception that women fighting is some sort of modern innovation.

Let's break this down into several myths, all of which this essay addresses at different points.

1.  The myth that women can't fight.
2.  The myth that women didn't historically fight in wars
3.  The myth the women may have fought in wars, but that it was only a recent phenomenon.

It seems like you agree with me that Myth 1 (which the author does talk about and address) is largely in the process of falling out of favor already.  Myth 2 and 3, while perhaps true, is really part of a larger problem with general ignorance of history coupled with the appropriation of history as a narrative tool to justify some sort of agenda.  Women are certain not the only victims of this, and as you alluded to this kind of historical appropriation often had a very racial tone to it.  For example, when I was going to school in the states, the narrative was that the Native Americans were stone-age primitive hunter/gatherer tribes instead of actually sophisticated and highly complex agricultural and trading empire that built tremendous earthen and wooden structures on the scale of the Mayan pyramids.  I think the solution for this isn't simply replacing one kind llama narrative with another, but rather to understand that history is not a solidified monolithic thing, and that often there are many many ways of interpreting and drawing lessons from it.  Their might very well be cannibalistic scaly llamas, and there might well be furry grumpy llamas that make good sweaters.  The existence of one doesn't necessarily mean the non-existence of the other.

It's a valid point that the West is not, in any sense, the majority of the world. But this is a Western author writing to a Western audience in a Western-based publication (A Dribble of Ink) and reprinted in another Western-based publication (Podcastle).

I would also dispute that all of the West is as she is, or that non-Western societies are somehow immune from historical appropriation.  We just tend to have different narratives and thus can more easily see the bias in someone else's narrative.

Her audience is the society she came from. And her use of "we" isn't the Royal "we" (which is exclusive - the Royal "we" does not include the person being talked to), but an inclusive use. She uses "we" to mean "myself and others like me". That doesn't mean she assumes that everyone is like her.

She may not mean that, but the use of the royal "we" comes off as sanctimonious and preachy, which I'm pretty sure is not her intent.

I am someone who frequently shares your frustration, especially in discussions about race - there is a lot of writing by Americans that imply that their racial attitudes are universal, while they are quite alien to me (not, mind you, because the ones I grew up with are better. They're just different). But it's important to realize that just because what she is saying may not be universal, that doesn't mean it's less valid. It's definitely worth considering that Podcastle has a global audience and maybe more care needs to be taken to acknowledge that when posting essays such as this. But your response seems to be saying that because you know better, there is no point for anyone to have the discussion. Which is not, I think, a particularly useful approach to handling cross-cultural differences either.

I completely agree that it doesn't make her point any less valid, and in fact I completely agree with the *intent* of her essay.  I'm just complaining that about the *way* which she made her point, which comes across more like vinegar and instead of honey.

If you believe that Kameron Hurley has led a sheltered life, I don't wish to argue that with you. But you need to realize that practically everyone growing up in the English-speaking West has led a similarly sheltered life. And while that is not "most" of the world, it is a large enough part of it - and a part of it whose cultural significance in today's world is far larger than it's proportion of the population would suggest - that your apparent claim that she's an exceptional individual in that regard simply does not hold true.

I honestly have no idea what Ms/Mrs Hurley is like.  I am only going by what she says in her essay, and in it, she implies that she viewed her early life as rather sheltered.

[yicheng]

Here you go.  Read the closing thoughts from the editor of Tangent's review of Women Destroy Science Fiction.

So, I may have missed something, but how is this the patriarchy?  It's one guy who, while obviously biased, does make a fairly good point that the scifi community as a whole tends to be much more liberal/progressive as compared to the larger society in which it was a part of.  His argument that sexism, homophobia, and racism didn't exist because anecdotally he's never see it happen seems rather weak, but how is this evidence of a patriarchal and systemic oppression of women/minorities.  If anything, the existence and popularity of magazines like Women Destroy Science Fiction seems to suggest that the very opposite is true.

[Unblinking]

So, I may have missed something, but how is this the patriarchy?  It's one guy who, while obviously biased, does make a fairly good point that the scifi community as a whole tends to be much more liberal/progressive as compared to the larger society in which it was a part of.  His argument that sexism, homophobia, and racism didn't exist because anecdotally he's never see it happen seems rather weak, but how is this evidence of a patriarchal and systemic oppression of women/minorities.  If anything, the existence and popularity of magazines like Women Destroy Science Fiction seems to suggest that the very opposite is true.

To clarify--Women Destroy Science Fiction isn't a magazine, it's a special edition of Lightspeed that was launched because of a perceived need for such an issue, which the Kickstarter results for the special edition implies that many many people thought it a worthwhile goal.

I've seen various discussions of gender parity in current SF/F publications, most notably a series of articles by Susan E. Connolly in Clarkesworld which digs into publication numbers for each, for example this one:
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/connolly_06_14/

[gutguzzler]

But where are they? Where are all these misogynist monsters that are perpetuating all these grievous wrongs? They certainly don’t frequent these forums.

IRONY

(It means "sort of like iron.")

Where are the baby pandas?  I'll kill those boogers my own self.

you know I read somewhere that they thinking about changing the definition of misogyny from someone who hates women to: someone who disagrees with me.

[gutguzzler]

So, I may have missed something, but how is this the patriarchy?  It's one guy who, while obviously biased, does make a fairly good point that the scifi community as a whole tends to be much more liberal/progressive as compared to the larger society in which it was a part of.  His argument that sexism, homophobia, and racism didn't exist because anecdotally he's never see it happen seems rather weak, but how is this evidence of a patriarchal and systemic oppression of women/minorities.  If anything, the existence and popularity of magazines like Women Destroy Science Fiction seems to suggest that the very opposite is true.

To clarify--Women Destroy Science Fiction isn't a magazine, it's a special edition of Lightspeed that was launched because of a perceived need for such an issue, which the Kickstarter results for the special edition implies that many many people thought it a worthwhile goal.

I've seen various discussions of gender parity in current SF/F publications, most notably a series of articles by Susan E. Connolly in Clarkesworld which digs into publication numbers for each, for example this one:
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/connolly_06_14/

Yeah I read that, and it had some interesting conclusions. Apparently women authors are more likely to be published than their male counter parts. That was based on the submission / acceptance ratio. They published the stats and then said that no conclusion can be extrapolated from this information. I'm not sure why they backed off so hard. If I had to guess I'd say it's because they didn't want to be accused of misogyny for debunking the 'patriarchal culture of genre fiction "narrative"' or whatever. A theme people have spend so much time and effort expounding upon.

[Unblinking]

But where are they? Where are all these misogynist monsters that are perpetuating all these grievous wrongs? They certainly don’t frequent these forums.

IRONY

(It means "sort of like iron.")

Where are the baby pandas?  I'll kill those boogers my own self.

you know I read somewhere that they thinking about changing the definition of misogyny from someone who hates women to: someone who disagrees with me.

I don't see any way to read that comment that isn't in violation of the forums rules of civility.  At the very least, it seems to be participating in the same behavior it claims to be criticizing--categorically dismissing the opinions of others who don't agree.

Yeah I read that, and it had some interesting conclusions. Apparently women authors are more likely to be published that their male counter parts. That was based on the submission / acceptance ratio. They published the stats and then said that no conclusion can be extrapolated from this information. I'm not sure why they backed off so hard. If I had to guess I'd say it's because they didn't want to be accused of misogyny for debunking the 'patriarchal culture of genre fiction 'narrative'' or whatever. A theme people have spend so much time and effort expounding upon.

I'd say it's because there are a lot of complex interactions between variables that aren't taken into account by the data available for this study.  It's easy to knee-jerk and draw hard and fast conclusions from a small study, if you don't know what you're doing.  

What I find interesting in that particular article is how the biggest oldest magazines, which I've heard called The Big Three (Asimov's, Analog, F&SF) over and over have a huge bias towards men, while many of the newer publications like Lightspeed and Daily SF have pretty close to 50/50.

[Scattercat]

Yicheng, a male editor with a position of privilege feeling entitled to write an article dismissing the complaints of female authors as "shrill" (a highly gendered insult), and particularly doing so in the context of passing judgment on a project intended to celebrate women in genre, is in itself a symptom of both the toxic bias already in existence and the difficulties of getting those in a position of privilege to see and understand the problems.  The man has never experienced or seen direct sexism, so therefore it doesn't exist and women are making it up and getting hysterical.  There are layers and layers of built-in patriarchal privilege dripping from every pore of that linked article, which is why Jason linked it as an example of the pernicious and often unseen influence of the underlying structure of historical bias.

For additional examples, well, you should probably be able to find one really easily.  Here's a hint: he doesn't understand how statistics work.

[Fenrix]

Regarding studies and statistics and whether they can be considered rigorous or anecdotal:

Obtaining a large enough sample size to achieve statistical significance is a challenge. Frequently studies are snapshots and have a very limited time frame. If there is a major change from one year to the next, the sample size is unlikely to be large enough to draw any statistically significant conclusions. 

Obtaining a quality sample is a challenge.  Published data can be aggregated without the need for additional access, but submission rates are much tougher. Also, none of the data tends to have check-boxes in order to be able to sort data easily, introducing gaps and sources of potential error (not to mention required investment of time to sort the data).

Some times it may be better to present data that is not statistically significant, caveat the heck out of it, and let it remain anecdotal until the sample size is large enough. This aids in avoiding the brand of "lies, damned lies, and statistics".

[Scattercat]

Yeah, Varda and I both spent a lot of time documenting and collating stuff that we hadn't ever bothered to collect in the past to help Susan with her article, and Escape Pod was still one of the lowest-data markets on there (because we had no ready access to submissions data in any kind of sortable format.)  Even most of the others still only had a few hundred data points apiece, and no way to tell what was influencing which without a lot more data, a lot more complicated math, and preferably some kind of controlled experiment.

[gutguzzler]

It's true that men are published more, but that's because they submit more.

I was going by the stats in the conclusion piece: http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/connolly_08_14/

So if you look at the ratios women were a lot more likely to be published than men.  So they have a higher submission / publication ratio. But nobody wants to hear it, and you gotta wonder why not?

I don't see any way to read that comment that isn't in violation of the forums rules of civility.  At the very least, it seems to be participating in the same behavior it claims to be criticizing--categorically dismissing the opinions of others who don't agree.

Is that directed at me or scatter cat, who just called me a misogynist because he disagreed with me?


And regarding the whole tangent thing, I once read somewhere dave trunsdale is the most reviled man in the industry. Him and people like him, are the minority (a widely persecuted minority at that), and to say otherwise is willful ignorance. I think it's safe to say that that horse is well and truly dead, but flog away if it makes you feel better. I think it's safe to say that the tide has well and truly turned on the issue of sexism, so why pretend otherwise? It just makes for bad blood. We should be moving past all this, and if you want to discuss sexism and argue about misogynists I don't think it's necessary to do it on a fantasy podcast.

Lightspeed won the hugo, probably because of WDSF. This story won a hugo, and it's all part of the backlash to the original controversy last year.  Women write great sf. It's not even an argument anymore.  Women are just as good as men. Who says they're not? Anyone here? Anyone on http://forum.escapeartists.net/ ? On any genre fiction forum anywhere?

I just think enough already. The horse is dead.

[eytanz]

Posting as a moderator:

I just think enough already.

One thing we agree on, though perhaps not for the same reason.

In this case, the discussion has veered far enough from the topic of the historical erasure of women into a related but different discussion about publishing practices. Let us return to the actual content of the essay, please. Any more discusssion about whether or not there is sexism in genre fiction publishing should be continued elsewhere in the forum. More importantly, any further insinuation that this essay got the attention it did for political reasons, rather than because it struck a cord with the audience will be moderated strictly. Furthermore, anyone who feels that any topic has been resolved to the degree that there is no point in discussing it is free to not discuss it. The only people in these forums who are allowed to tell other people to stop discussing things are moderators.

Disagreement is welcome. But it must be expressed in a way that is respectful of the people you disagree with, if not with their motives.

Thank you.

[yicheng]

Yicheng - I had just posted above that this discussion should not be continued in this thread. Please do not ignore moderator posts.