Author Topic: male sexuality in SF  (Read 13957 times)

Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #25 on: September 20, 2007, 02:12:53 PM
eytanz -

Your arguments are cogent, but it appears you've glossed over one of palimpsest's explanations of bias.  Everywhere she wrote "systemic" you've changed that to "systematic".  It's only a syllable, I know, but it does make a difference.

But where my problem with palimpsest's argument lies is in the reverse - she is making a distinction between the "systematic bias" and the quality judgments.

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


SFEley

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
    • Escape Artists, Inc.
Reply #26 on: September 20, 2007, 04:33:14 PM
Chinese, and Indian culture (who represent 20% of the world population between them) is extremely under represented in science fiction, but I see none of the heat and light in trying to globalise these under-representations than I see in Americans banging on about feminism, gay rights and the black issue.

This is an excellent point, Simon.  I'd like to see a more international presence as well.  We've had a number of submissions from authors in India, but I haven't found any yet that I could buy.  I'm hoping that doesn't discourage them.

Simon, if you have any links or suggestions for ways to get the word out in other nations' writing communities, I'd love to hear about it.  Thanks.

ESCAPE POD - The Science Fiction Podcast Magazine


Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #27 on: September 20, 2007, 08:05:11 PM
<Content Removed>

Arse, I really need to learn not to lose my temper in public...  Excuse me, while what was posted wasn't shockingly offensive, i'd rather not have my name tagged to it...  So it has been removed

That's really a shame, because I've been thinking about your post all day, and just now meant to respond to it.  However, if you'd prefer to pretend you didn't say it, I guess I'll let it go as well.


Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!


Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #28 on: September 21, 2007, 02:17:28 AM

Argh.  Chodon.  Did I say anything like that?  Did I say "Given a purchasable story with gay characters and an even more purchasable story without gay characters, I would buy the gay story and reject the other one?"

I did not.  It's actually a null question, because I don't compare stories against each other at all when I'm buying.  In the above scenario, with two purchasable stories, I'd buy them both.  I always buy every story I think I should buy.  I don't adhere to strict quotas -- "Whoops, bought five stories this month, better reject all the others" -- or anything.  This means our backlog grows and shrinks somewhat organically, but I'm okay with that.

Fair enough, Steve.  I guess I just misunderstood how the EP business model works.  I figured it was to purchase the 52 stories a year that are played and that's it.  It sounds as though my assumption was incorrect.  IF that was the model, I hope my previous post and concern about bumping stories I may be more interested in for a story with a gay protagonist would be better understood.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #29 on: September 21, 2007, 02:46:45 AM
Fair enough, Steve.  I guess I just misunderstood how the EP business model works.  I figured it was to purchase the 52 stories a year that are played and that's it.  It sounds as though my assumption was incorrect.  IF that was the model, I hope my previous post and concern about bumping stories I may be more interested in for a story with a gay protagonist would be better understood.

Not to speak for Steve here, but I don't believe there's a business model outside of not putting Steve in the poor house. I do believe he's said the only reason it's not a non-profit is the record-keeping would cost too much.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #30 on: September 21, 2007, 03:36:18 AM
Fair enough, Steve.  I guess I just misunderstood how the EP business model works.  I figured it was to purchase the 52 stories a year that are played and that's it.  It sounds as though my assumption was incorrect.  IF that was the model, I hope my previous post and concern about bumping stories I may be more interested in for a story with a gay protagonist would be better understood.

Not to speak for Steve here, but I don't believe there's a business model outside of not putting Steve in the poor house. I do believe he's said the only reason it's not a non-profit is the record-keeping would cost too much.

I do hope that's not true anymore, especially given the soon to be two spinoffs.

That said, one of the (many) reasons I'm happy about the fact that in a month or so I'm actually going to have an income is that I'd be able to finally donate some money towards Escape Pod and it's progeny.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #31 on: September 21, 2007, 12:42:42 PM
eytanz -

Your arguments are cogent, but it appears you've glossed over one of palimpsest's explanations of bias.  Everywhere she wrote "systemic" you've changed that to "systematic".  It's only a syllable, I know, but it does make a difference.

But where my problem with palimpsest's argument lies is in the reverse - she is making a distinction between the "systematic bias" and the quality judgments.

Hmm... I just noticed this correction. You're right, of course, but (unless I misunderstood palimpsest), I believe I was responding to what she was actually saying, and just consistently misspelling that word "systemic" in my post, rather than misreading her.



Anarkey

  • Meen Pie
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 703
  • ...depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Reply #32 on: October 09, 2007, 07:39:52 PM
Hmm... I just noticed this correction. You're right, of course, but (unless I misunderstood palimpsest), I believe I was responding to what she was actually saying, and just consistently misspelling that word "systemic" in my post, rather than misreading her.

I'm not sure whether I can explain why the difference is so important and why it impacts your argument, but I'll give it a go.  Systemic bias can be countered with awareness, systematic bias needs much more.  Thus it can be helpful to be aware that in the TOC's of many of our genre magazines authors and protagonists of stories are overwhelmingly white and male.  Merely noticing this opens up avenues by which to correct it, because systemic bias works primarily by being invisible.  When people notice it, they can (and often do) compensate to avoid it. 

In systematic bias the decks are stacked so as to disallow you fixing the thing merely by noticing it.  You're not going to fix segregation by reading a sign saying "coloreds only".  Noticing the sign would do nothing, on its own.  You have to take the sign down to start the ball rolling, an act with far-reaching legal and social ramifications.

No laws need changing for F&SF to be more gender or culture balanced.  No social revolutions are required for a magazine to appeal to those readers that feel shunned by the so-called "big three" (and I am one of those readers, I'll just come clean and tell you) and market itself to the shunned.  There needn't be demonstrations in the street.  All it takes is for people to notice the imbalance, point it out, and act accordingly.

The reason I think this is a critical point is because in these discussions there is often a level of knee-jerk defensiveness when people try to raise awareness of systemic bias (and I'm not talking about your response, here, eytanz, which I would never characterize that way) because in systematic bias you can blame.  There is something very obviously wrong (an unjust law, say, or physical intimidation by groups trying to keep the status quo) but in systemic bias it's everyone's fault.  We're all doing it and we - often - don't even know we're doing it. 

When someone says,"Check your zipper, your fly is down," most people just shrug and zip it up, because everyone's had their zipper down at one point or another.  When it's "Might I get a female protagonist about half the time?" or "Your magazine is whiter than a snowstorm" people get all defensive instead of saying "Huh, you're right, lemme zip."

I think this reaction comes, in part, from the unzipped's concern that they are being accused of purposeful racism or sexism.  Systematic, intentional bias.  And that's an offensive accusation.  But it's not the one that's being made.  Thus, I think the emphasis on "systemic bias" is a way of letting people off the hook instead of pointing fingers, the way "systematic bias" does, and that's why I think the omitted syllable is critically important to what palimpsest laid out.

Winner Nash's 1000th member betting pool + Thaurismunths' Free Rice Contest!