Quote from: Sgarre1
You should get all the female writers you know to submit stories (good stories, of course) that meet your criteria (and meet the particular Pod's genre criteria) to any of the Pods because, yes, believe it or not, the Pods can all only choose from what is submitted.
Well, I don't want to get them to submit stories they don't want to write. Also, I am learning about how women think from the stories they write. What troubles me is that what I am learning and what women are telling me are at odds.
Well, that wasn't a reply to your post, it was a reply to Deflective's (sorry, should have included the quote box). And that wasn't a call to get women to write stories they don't want to write, it was meant to address the stated disbelief that the Pods can only publish work that is submitted. There's an implication that somehow stories by women that don't feature relationships or don't feature women who start at the bottom/are oppressed are being screened out somehow, which has been nicely flipped around into this "they tell me these are the stories that get submitted, so someone tell me why women are so down on themselves and why feminists aren't outraged".
Also, I think that "learning how women think" by reading stories on the pods is a fools game, as you're only learning how women who write think, and specifically only women who write fiction think, and specifically only women who write genre fiction think, and specifically only women who write genre fiction that gets submitted to the pods think, and specifically only women who write genre fiction that gets submitted to the pods and accepted by the pods think. Doesn't seem like a wide enough sampling to encapsulate a sex's thinking patterns, and thus reductive (without even going into how concepts like an editor's age, reading habits, and consciousness of market are influencing their decisions). But then you've already addressed (and pre-apologized for) it seeming like you're applying this to all women, so, really, I guess I'm at a loss....I don't feel there's enough here to label this as a "trend" in any way, perhaps more just the wider understanding that all kinds of people write all kinds of things (which we like or dislike but none of which is inherently "wrong" in apporach) but that some groups (and some part of some groups) write with (unconsciously) or about (consciously) influences that do not affect all of us.
I'm not going to somehow be surprised when an African-American writer tends to focus more on race in his stories, because this is something that has been an inescapable and constant part of his/her life, even into an era that finally sees a non-caucasian President (and what is "inescapable" to this writer is "ignorable" by me, being a member of the enfranchised, and thus always seems as if it's being made too much of when it is touched on). And I'm not going to be surprised if some female writers tend to include relationships issues in stories, and the struggle of power in that relationship forms part or all of the main conflict of the story, just as I'm not suprised how many stories written by men feature parent (specifically "mommy") issues or issues about sex and power. None of these are "trends" (which implies conscious choice to me), but I would call them "currents". Of course, the important question is whether the story is good or not, but then, what makes a good story is highly debatable. Now, if the complaint is that inclusion of these elements automatically makes a story considered good by some with an agenda ("The Burning Alien Bed" gets automatic acceptance from COSMIC KNOCKABOUT WIVES) even if it isn't, well, yeah, that sucks but welcome to the real world - life isn't fair and all kinds of people have all kinds of agendas. But I don't think the editors at ESCAPE ARTISTS have agendas (other than to print good stories) and I think that the debatable line between what makes "a good story" versus what makes "a story I don't like" is very grey indeed.
I think I know why they write stories about being dominated in relationships, it just seems to go against "[not wanting] to be seen as being reactive in their relationships." But in these stories even though the woman character spends 90% of the story being reactive in her relationship, the fact the she becomes proactive at the end is what's important. It just seems to me to be a step backward because the woman could have been proactive for 100% of the story. I don't think I'm right because we live in a time when stories are picked a part to find aspects that are offensive, and I haven't seen anyone offended by this.
Well, if you understand why they write stories like this, then what this might really come down to is the type or purpose of fiction being written and read. Maybe they don't write stories where women are proactive for 100% of the story because this doesn't seem as reflective of the real world to them (this reason you understand for them feeling this way) and they are attempting to have the story be, at least somewhat, a reflection of the real world as they see it and not, automatically, some kind of wish fufillment. That "wish fufillment" isn't meant as derogatory, BTW, simply the acknowledgment that some writers are attempting to write worlds and people they want to see, and others are attempting to write the world as they see it. And neither is wrong (although I know which I prefer).
I'm not saying that all women write stories about relationships. I'm saying that of the stories about relationships with reactive instead of proactive women characters* most are written by women. This isn't a bad thing or a good thing. I think it's interesting. Also, I think it's at odds with the message that I am receiving from women about how they want to be perceived.
So, generally "I'm not a victim...now read all my stories about being a victim". Except, as you say, they aren't about being victims...
but the authors may be thinking of them as strong because they eventually take command of their relationship.
... they're about the struggle to not be a victim.
So, generally "I'm not a victim..now read all my stories about what I have to face to not be a victim". How one "wants to be perceived" is usually at odds with the real world (or one wouldn't have to
want it in the first place).
Maybe part of the problem is that what some readers want out of science fiction (tales of possibilities) is not how some writers of science fiction want to approach it. Some writers want to write about possibilities, but not ignore the obstacles some face in embracing those possibilities (which reminds me of all those sci-fi futures in which we're travelling about in space and the conflict is with some alien race, or some deep-seated human character aspect, but all this supposes some point in our future where everyone started working together and things like nationalism, class, population problems, race, economy, etc, all fell by the wayside - which basically says "give me the future fun, not how we got there"). Maybe a larger amount of those "some writers" tend to be from disenfranchised groups. It would make sense.
Or maybe I'm just babbling again.
If I had written "Kindness of Strangers"...
But you didn't, a woman did. There is no "universal person".
...the central conflict would have been the relationship with the aliens, no matter the sex of the main character. Nancy Kress took the same situation but decided that the woman dealing with a man she loved rejecting her is more interesting and important than the aliens. I've seen this pattern several times and every time I've checked the writer has been a woman. So the conclusion that I draw is the FOR THE MOST PART guys would rather write about conflict with aliens, and women would rather write about relationships.
But she did write about conflict with aliens, she just included other stuff. If you'd written it and went into exacting detail about military strategy against the aliens, or went into detail about the technology behind their weapons or crafts, then I'd consider it Military SF or Hard SF and thus found it boring because those genres bore me. You're bored by more humanistic SF, maybe? (nothing wrong with that).