Sexism in SF and F?

Share

There are several topics that flare up with a certain amount of passion from time to time on the internet, sexism and racism being foremost among them. These are important topics that ought to be discussed, and while I think most start out as well-meaning exchanges, they often deteriorate into exercises in frustration. Someone will make a comment, to which someone else will reply, “That’s racist.” What the second person meant was, “That’s a racist comment,” but often times it’s not what was actually said. The person on the receiving end of that comment will then get indignant and reply, “I not a racist!” and off we go to the racist debate races.

Overall I think the science fiction and fantasy community is one of the most open-minded  communities I know of—we’ve all heard numerous times how the first interracial kiss on network television took place on Star Trek, between Kirk and Uhura—but at the same time, to say that there is no racism or sexism would be so ridiculous as to render the speaker of such  nonsense as a fool or a liar.

Last night I got an email from one of my assistant editors, who said that there’s another kerfuffle (his wonderful word) going on about sexism in SF and F, and out of curiosity, he went back into his records and crunched some numbers to see where he stood. He admitted he “was actually kind of worried that the exercise might reveal some sort of imbalance that might reflect unconscious bias on my part,” but he was interested enough to pursue the numbers, no matter where they led. I have to give him a lot of credit for looking the issue squarely in the eye despite his concerns.

This naturally led others on the team to do the same. It took a while to compile all the numbers, because no one on the team actually tracks themon an ongoing basis (with the one exception that I do track the gender of what we actual publish. However, with submissions, I would very much prefer the assistant editors focus first on the quality of the story and not the gender of its author). Having said all that, here’s the breakdown, by assistant editor:

1)

“I just went through and did the numbers for all the manuscripts I pulled from the regular slush, which gives the following additional information:

Male authors: 135
Female authors: 69

Again, an almost 2:1 ratio of male to female submitters.  (Just to check, I looked at the names on the most recent 100 submissions through the regular slush, and for the clearly gendered names, the male to female ratio was 56:27, so 2:1 seems to be about what we get.)

With these, I just did straight rejection/non-rejection..

Rejection rate for males: 72.6%
Rejection rate for females: 76.8%

A difference of 4.2%, which isn’t all that significant: if I switched just 3 female manuscripts from rejection to non-rejection, the rejection rate for females would have been lower than for males.

Adding the earlier group in with this group:

Male authors: 328
Female authors: 176

Rejection rate for males: 53.7%
Rejection rate for females: 55.0%

For a total of 404 manuscripts, a difference of 1.3% between male and female rejection ratios.”

**********

2)

The next set of numbers ran thusly (with a third category added for people who submitted stories under names that are sexually ambiguous, i.e. R.T. Morganfeld, or Pat Frantella, so ‘O’ is for ‘other’):

“Total Count: 659

By Gender:
F      184        27%
M    411        62%
O    64        9%

Next Action
F    Recommend    26    14%
F    Reject        158    86%
M    Recommend    84    20%
M    Reject        327    80%
O    Recommend    9    14%
O    Reject        55    86%”

**********

3)

“In honor of the latest kerfuffle on the interwebs about sexism in SF, I went through all the submissions sent to me that I have responded to (excluding the ones that were sent in large batches at the very beginning of my tenure.)

Male author: 193
Female author: 102
Male/Female co-authors: 1
Undetermined: 5

So male author submissions outnumber female author submissions almost 2:1.

What about disposition?  I have 4 possible dispositions: Highly Recommended, Recommended, Borderline, Recommend Rejection.

Recommend Rejection rate for males: 40.4%
Recommend Rejection rate for females: 40.2%

Borderline rate for males: 28.0%
Borderline rate for females: 28.4%

Recommended rate for males: 29.5%
Recommended rate for females: 26.5%

Highly Recommended rate for males: 2.1%
Highly Recommended rate for females: 4.9%

Until I went through and counted up these figures today I wasn’t keeping track of my rejection rates at all, let alone by sex. I was actually kind of worried that the exercise might reveal some sort of imbalance that might reflect unconscious bias on my part, but the numbers are remarkably balanced.”

**********

 

My own contribution to these numbers comes in the form of actual publication numbers. Going back to the beginning of 2008, IGMS has published (or bought and is waiting to publish) 93 stories total, 65 of which were written by men, 28 of which were written by women. Not a perfect 2:1 ratio, but close enough to satisfy me. And to be extremely clear on this subject, I am not in any way, shape, or form, suggesting that we ought to be publishing twice as many male authors as female authors. I can’t control the number of submissions I get from any group or gender; I’m just saying we publish them at about the same ratio that we receive them.

The funny thing (to me, anyway) is that I didn’t really need to see the numbers to know we had a good balance; I could tell by the reactions from readers. I’ve received angry emails from female readers who are convinced we are running a sexist magazine that discriminates against women (here’s a tip for you: getting into a ‘dialogue’ with these kinds of people, trying to convince them you don’t have secret sexist editorial policies, is a fool’s errand), and I’ve also received angry emails from male readers complaining about how I’m always publishing “feminist fiction that tells men women can do whatever they want and the men just have to shut up and take it.”

I figure that as long as I’m equally pissing off both sides, I must be fairly close to getting it right.

So that’s one editor’s experience, along with a peek at the behind-the-scenes numbers. Obviously I can’t speak for the genre as a whole, so I’m curious to hear what the rest of think, and what experiences you’ve had in this area.

 

A pair of footnotes to this post:

1) The numbers presented above under #1 and #3 actually came form the same assistant editor, but were regarding his reading different slush piles. We have different avenues of submission for writers with different degrees of experience and this particular editor reads from both piles.

2)Surprise, surprise, there’s already fallout from this post. Someone somewhere has written about this post here on Magical Words, describing me as being callous because I described IGMS’s publication of women as “close enough.” Probably my own fault. I bent over backwards trying not give anyone reason to scream, but inevitably people who want to scream about something will always find a reason to do so. For the sake of clarity, let me point out that the only reason I was satisfied with calling it “close enough” is that the numbers of submissions and rejections didn’t form a perfect 2:1 ratio, and so I wasn’t expecting the publication numbers to form a perfect 2:1 ration either. I was speaking in rough numbers because it seemed to me to be unnecessary to build a spreadsheet and determine that the precise ratio was 245.683:129.788. I’m not running a center for social justice, I’m running a fiction magazine, and my goal is to do so as reasonably, as fairly, and as entertainingly as possible. If they still want to scream at me about that, I can’t stop them, but that’s all I was trying to convey.

Share

31 comments to Sexism in SF and F?

  • When I first read the title of this post, “Sexism is SF and F” I wasn’t even close to thinking about submissions/sales numbers. My first thought was the ratio of male/female protagonists. Since the days of Heinlein’s obviously male-chauvinist novels, it seems the trend has been toward strong, independent female characters or non-chauvinist male characters.
    The SF/F/H community has never struck me as an “old boy’s club” as it applies to writers. I’ve always felt that the only bias is – as it should be – toward good writing.

  • Grr. Everyone take note and remember what has been said about self-editing! I read my post FOUR times before hitting submit, and STILL managed to screw up the title of this post!

  • Try posting a blog with that title, Lyn (Seixsm IS SF and F) and I imagine you will see some traffic…

    You raise a great point, though, even if inadvertently. The word “sexism” means different things to different people. It makes having a conversation about it that much more challenging.

  • I should also mention that I don’t know exactly what the current kerfuffle is about. I didn’t go looking for it myself, and the gist of the conversation as brought to me by these asst. editors was about the ratio of women being published in the genre, so that’s the direction I took. And once again, covering my butt, I will add that I didn’t go looking for the current debate not because I don’t think it’s important, but because I’ve read dozens of variants of this conversation already and don’t feel the need to seek out every controversy every time it rears its head.

  • I have to say that I wouldn’t know about male to female protagonist ratios. My favorite genre in SF/F is urban fantasy and that is heavily dominated, at least in my reading world, by strong female characters and female authors. Now, you get into hard sf, and stuff that drifts into what might be considered “war porn” and you’ll see far fewer female MCs or authors, I think. (That’s my guess, I’d be willing to bet some funds on it, but I’m willing to be shown I’m wrong, too). I have no idea in YA, either, as I don’t read much. There are lots of female protagonists–I’ll reserve judgment on “strong” because I don’t read YA as much either. The YA I’ve read has been good, but I’ve read it on the basis of several reviews by friends I trust not to hand me something I’ll hate–and I’ve not read Twilight.

    I can say most authors I read are women (most, not all, AJ, David, Ed, and Stuart), most authors I talk to are women, most agents we queried were women, most agencies we looked at had a substantial number of women. So, when people talk about sexism in SF/F, I want them to be more specific–do they mean authors? Do they mean agents? Do they mean publishers? Do they mean readers? Do they mean characters?

    Ed> Thanks for crunching the numbers and posting them. They do break pretty along the lines of the submissions–which is interesting. It suggests a lot more men submitting than women, and yet I seem to know a lot more women who are writers–maybe they don’t think IGMS is the right fit for them. But that does make me wonder. Are there more women out there dreaming and writing but not submitting? It’s only really recently started to flip that there are more women English profs than men, though the English major has always been heavily female.

    And I have to say that, yeah, definitions are important. Sexual difference isn’t necessarily sexism.

    All in all, a very interesting post!

  • I also thought this was going down the protagonist road.

    Your numbers work for me. As a reader I don’t really care about the gender of the author – I care about the story being told.

    Great post.

  • Pea faerie> Thanks for your additions to this conversation. I wonder how much of what you describe is a factor of reading more novels than short stories. It might be interesting if someone crunched the numbers comparing short stories to novels and all of the differences that crop up. It’s been a known fact for years that there are more women readers than men (especially when it comes to novels). I think that’s a big part of the reason for the recent (in that last decade or so) birth and surge of paranormal romance novels; it is very much a targeted sub-genre, aimed at women. As for YA, my daughters both read a lot of it and I see a lot of strong female characters there, but I don’t know if that a factor of the genre as a whole or if it’s just a reflection of the reading preferences of my girls.

    Perry> Maybe one of the other MWer’s can tackle that subject, since there seems to be some level of interest.

  • What I find most disturbing here are the submission figures. I was under the impression that women read more than men do. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean that more women want to be writers than men, but I’d be surprised if that weren’t true. I honestly expected that more submissions would come from women than men.

    Granted, readership gender breakdown varies by genre and sub-genre, and you might expect that the gender breakdown by author would follow, but even that can surprise you. Did you know that John Locke has a 70% female readership? That figure astounded me, given the chauvinistic and somewhat amoral nature of his lead character and the level of violence in his stories.

    What I’m getting at here is that the disparity may have more to do with the self-confidence of male versus female writers. Are fewer women submitting work because they feel less confident about doing so than their male counterparts? Or are there really twice as many male authors as female? The latter seems unlikely to me. If the former is true, then I say this to the reticent women authors out there: “Write your book and get it published. I want to read it!”

    As for what I read now, I’m with @Perryw. I don’t care if the author is male or female. I’m just after a good story.

  • Ed – thanks for posting this topic and for showing the numbers. Your assistant editor was right to sit down and check, even though the other indicators were that there wasn’t a problem.

    Perry – that’s a laudable sentiment and I agree with it, but…(you knew there was going to be a but, right?) there are other indicators in the larger book world that a bias persists against women’s writing as it’s perceived by the publishing industry. I think it was the most recent Booker prize that caused a huge outcry in some sectors because the winners are almost always male. When called on to defend the trend the judges essentially said that women write well, but they write about trivial stuff, whereas men write about big, important stuff. The university where I work just this year agreed to start a certificate in Women’s Studies, to much disagreement by older male colleagues who argued that they already taught women’s issues in their classes. They didn’t understand that teaching one female author and one female protatonist (written by a male author) a semester was not sufficient coverage.

    But that’s the literary and academic world, not SF and F specifically. I think there’s been a tremendous amount of progress in these genres toward not being sexist, even in my life time. I was in high school when Jordan’s Wheel of Time series began and even though at the time I would have denied being anything like a feminist I was hurt and offended by the misogyny underlying his portrayal of women. BUT when I first said this out loud to other SF fans I was told that I was being overly touchy. I was also criticized for thinking Heinlein was chauvinistic. (Mind you I enjoyed his books, I just didn’t like the male chauvinism.) Now a days saying that either Jordan or Heinlein have serious issues in their portrayal of women won’t set off a flame war. Most fans I’ve met will agree whether they like the those two authors or not. That’s real progress.

    On the other hand…I went to a LosCon panel on How to Write Strong Women Characters and all the panelists were women writers and agents including the moderator. The moderator opened the discussion up to the audience asking “what do you think makes strong female characters” and then proceeded to shut down all but two women speakers (after the other panelists prodded her to let them speak). She kept deliberately passing over women with their hands raised to call on men, saying “But I want to hear what the men think about this.” She kept doing it even after one male audience member said “Look, I’m not here to be heard. I’m here to learn to be a better writer. So, I want to know what real WOMEN think makes a real, strong woman character. I want to get inside THEIR experience.” And he was cheered by the rest of the audience (even split between men and women.) That didn’t stop the moderator.

    I think where sexism persists in the SF and F world it’s often shared stereotypes of women that some women feed/encourage/believe themselves rather than simply men being pig headed. There are fewer and fewer (YAY!) cases of overt sexism, but now we’re getting into the gray areas that are harder to hash out. Are sword wielding babes in bikinis inherently sexist? Not necessarily. Are female characters who use violence easily or as their first choice unfeminine? I’ve heard people call such characters “men with breasts.” I’m not sure I agree. In fact, my current WIP has a female berserker who has violent impulses daily, but she’s also an incredibly maternal character.

  • Thanks for the insights, Sarah. Very helpful addition to the conversation. That panel sounds like it could have been a very interesting one if the moderator had gotten out of the way. I might propose something similar at the next cons I attend.

  • Hepseba ALHH

    Thank you for opening a very interesting discussion. To me, one of the most interesting things is that it appears to be almost perfectly mirroring a similar discussion that has been going on in the Astronomy community for the past several years. One of the biggest meetings this year actually invited a well-respected sociologist to give a talk on unconscious bias, which was extremely informative. Some of her points were:
    – Unconscious bias really is unconscious and people guilty of it (most of us) are NOT racist, sexist, etcist.
    – The results of unconscious bias are usually produced equally by everyone, so women will be just as biased as men in a lot of things (such as expecting men to be better leaders).
    – This is because unconscious biases come about due to mental short-cuts that we all use called schemas (expectations about the world), and we tend to fall back on these short cuts when we’re pressed for time, or don’t have much information, or a few (small minority) in a larger group are easily placed in a sub-group.

    She gave a very interesting example about orchestras. For a long time most orchestras believed there were simply more talented male musicians than female. Then they switched to doing blind auditions where the applicant played from behind a screen so the people hiring couldn’t see them at all. Suddenly orchestras became very gender balanced. The fact that you, Ed, and your assistant editors are probably MOST interested in the stories you receive rather than thinking about sort of hiring someone to be one of your authors probably helps you review submissions in a pretty author-gender-blind fashion, so it makes sense to me your numbers would be pretty well balanced. Still, unconscious bias being unconscious, it IS good to run the numbers and double-check.

    To babble just a tiny bit more, I’m curious if the question that some have raised about women submitting less than men is similar to the trend that has been noted in Astronomy where women apply for fewer jobs than men. There are all sorts of reasons why either could be true (the second IS true) including the stereotype that men are more aggressive than women. From my experience, I wonder if part of it is a reticence on the part of women to jump through all the hoops of an academic job search and career (an academic job in astronomy today usually requires moving to three jobs in the space of about five years at the conclusion of graduate school, usually complete physical relocations). Are women less willing to go through the work of getting published in fiction? or are there other hardship or interest factors that might keep their submissions low?

  • Hep> Wow! That is totally fascinating to me. I only know the way it looks from the English dept. (Even in a school with a lot more men than women, I have a lot more female English majors, for example).

    I’ve heard that argument made about academics in general–there are fewer tenured women because women are less willing to make the moves, etc. Or MORE willing to sacrifice the high profile, tenure jobs for family, etc. (Often it is followed with, “so it is okay that women have fewer high positions than men because they choose it…” which I don’t agree with). But that’s another topic and I’ll leave it alone.

    But I do wonder if women somehow aren’t submitting as much–or aren’t writing as much. It took me a while before I started writing (I was in my late 20s before I remotely considered doing it seriously). After that I wasn’t too hesitant to submit (but I’d been in acadamia, so the idea of submission wasn’t as scary).

    I noticed in the self-pubbing convos we’ve had on MW, that the outspoken “I’m self-pubbed” people were predominately male. Now, the “traditional is good too” champions included men, too, (AJ and David among others). So it made me wonder, are a lot more of the self-pubbed people men? The most outspoken about resenting needing “traditional” approval and losing money to publishers were men. It might be interesting to know gender stats both in who self-pubs, and who is successful in self-pubbing. But that’s my own curiosity.

  • Razziecat

    This is one subject I could go on about for days, and there simply isn’t room here for everything I’d like to respond to. Some very good and interesting points were made in the article & the comments! I would add that one reason there may be fewer women submitting is that women may (I don’t know for sure) be given much less encouragement in the SF/F genre when they first get into it. SF in general is still seen in the larger world as a man’s interest (note the tv commercials during SF shows). This doesn’t reflect reality. I can only go by anecdotes, personal experience & the testimony of online communities I frequent, but there are many women involved in reading/writing/
    gaming/cosplaying SF/F. Those in the academic world may be able to speak to the experience of women who want to write in those genres: Do their teachers & mentors try to steer them to “traditional women’s genres” such as romance? What happens when a woman submits a science fiction story to a creative writing teacher–is she taken seriously & encouraged, or laughed at/ condescended to? I truly don’t know.

    I discovered some time ago that all of my favorite authors are women. This was not a conscious decision on my part, but now I make a point of looking for male authors who write stuff I want to read.

  • Edmund, I wonder what the difference is between men and women submitting in longer fiction? Do you think more women might be submitting to book pubs, and more men to shorter fiction venues? I’d imagine that when the numbers include romance, it might be heavily female oriented. Just guessing.

  • Good one, Faith. It would be interesting to see this same set of stats from a publisher like Harlequin!

    It could very well just be that fewer women writers are interested in writing SF/F, but I doubt that. The book’s genre is just a backdrop for a story that could (and perhaps should) include romance, mystery, and thriller aspects.

    For example, famed romance author Nora Roberts wrote a trilogy of books (The Key Trilogy) where the story line is described this way: “mortal women quest to unlock the spellbound souls of ancient demigoddesses.” Her name made those books romance stories (as did the main plot line I’m sure), but I’d be willing to bet any fantasy reader (male or female) would feel right at home. I have a low tolerance for romance, but I’ve read her stuff before, and she’s a good storyteller.

    Perhaps “genre bending” gives some women authors an opportunity to explore SF/F under the guise of a genre with which they feel more comfortable. I don’t know. Just thinking into the keyboard here.

  • Fascinating numbers, Ed, and a terrific discussion. I do see some turn in the genre away from what was a highly sexist past. UF and books for young adults and middle readers, which are driving the industry right now, seem to have a higher percentage of female authors (and highly successful female authors) than some of the more traditional sub-fields. And I think that’s all to the good. As others have said in this thread, it shouldn’t matter who is doing the writing. The story should be all. But, of course, that’s an ideal, and we’re not there yet.

  • Jamie

    I’m curious how the numbers are affected by ambiguity. For example, my name is Jamie. I submit under my real name, but do I get counted as male or female? The name itself doesn’t provide that information and I imagine there are many others like that. Also, not all authors submit under their real names, and while, yes, their real name should be included in the submission, it isn’t necessarily the full name. Rob Thurman for instance is actually Robin. With the growing number of traditionally male names being taken over by females (ex: Ryan, Kyle) this isn’t a great gender identifier anymore.

  • Jamie

    In rereading my post, I should have been clearer that I wondered as to how the manuscripts that couldn’t be clearly identified would have affected things. It seems to me that more women than men have ambiguous names, but that might be a biased perspective.

  • Razziecat

    Jamie, not to threadjack, but you are correct in regard to women having ambiguous names. When a name goes “unisex” it’s almost always a name that started out “male.” You see girls being named Ryan, Taylor, Morgan, Jordan, Avery & so on; but you don’t see boys being named, for example, Amanda, Jessica, Emily, etc. So it is getting harder to tell the gender of an author by name, not even counting those who submit under a completely different name.

  • pepperthorn

    Not to change the direction of the conversation, but I have a serious pet peeve when it comes to discussions of -isms, including sexism. I find it really irritating when people complain about sexism (and other isms) in older works without taking into account the social standards of the day. I don’t think it’s fair to accuse an author of being a sexist for treating or portraying a female character in a way that would be considered normal or even generously liberal for the time it was written.

    For example, I just read H. Beam Pipper’s SF classic Little Fuzzy. There is only one female character and we only dip into her pov twice. This is what it says the first time: “She ought to have known this would happen. It always did. A smart girl, in the business, never got involved with any one man; she always got herself four or five boyfriends, on all possible sides, and played them off against one another.” That just doesn’t cut it today. But this was written in the late 50’s / early 60’s so the fact that she’s “in the business” at all is impressive. And she turns out to be a super cool military spy, a move that was unusually feminist for the day.

    So even though Piper seems sexist, when taken through the filter of his day, he might even be exactly the opposite.

  • Pepperthorn> While I’m all for recognizing works in their original contexts–I do that in my own academic work–there is nothing wrong with acknowledging the sexism, racism, classism, whateverism problems in the text. For example, Chaucer. There are lots of moments in Chaucer that defy stereotypes of women: the whole episode with the Wife of Bath, for example and some of the women in the Legend of Good Women. Of course, there are also some examples of sexism. Now, in his culture he was certainly thinking beyond the norm for women, but he also reflects values in his own time. That’s different from, say, Milton, who is remarkably sexist in Paradise Lost, I think even beyond some people in his own (or relatively near) time–say Shakespeare (a generation earlier, at least, but an example nonetheless). S’s women conform to “of the day” standards, and yet he goes beyond the day with the way he addresses their problems and their place in society, suggesting how constricting it is (take Hermia’s predicament in Midsummer, for example).

    I don’t believe in giving authors a “pass” because of their cultural moments. We might still read them, might still love their work, but I don’t think that ignoring it or saying it is “okay because it was the time” is really the right response. I’ll always love Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings, but that doesn’t stop me from noting that, gosh, the heroes really are really, really white and the women are few and far between and, for the most part, the same (which does include really white), and the villains are dark skinned, and look arabic (or Saracen, really). Sam and Frodo’s moment of looking at one of the Saracen men (who ride oliphants) and thinking “gee, I be back home he has a family and a normal life…” is way progressive, but the bad people are all still associated with blackness/dark-skinnedness, etc. And it is a bit problematic. It does reflect his cultural upbringing in South Africa, but that doesn’t make it okay, nor does it make it a problem to suggest that he’s wrong in his portrayal of them.

  • @Hepsebah – you make a really good point about unconscious bias. It’s one of the reasons I often try to distinguish between sexism and misogyny since not all sexist (or other -ist) ideas are motivated by ill will. As for the Astronomy thing – I’m not an astronomer, but I have some dear friends who are and what I’ve heard indicates that there is a significant contingent of older female scholars who are essentially eating their young. I saw this phenomenon to a lesser degree in English, but apparently it’s worse in the sciences – having fought so hard and given up so much in the way of personal life to become the successful scholars they are, these women can’t allow other women to succeed in any way that’s at all easy so they treat their female students much worse than their males students. They essentially punish the younger generation of women for being female in a less sexist environment. Combine that with the extreme stress brought on by the perception (right or wrong) on the part of young women scholars that they have to be better than the men to get just as far and the rate of burnout or early drop out seems to go up, seriously reducing the number of women available to become published authors. Now this is anecdotal, not statistical, but I must say I’ve seen this phenomenon first hand (in English) and it’s ugly. The meanest misogynists I ever met in grad school were women, not men. If the men were misogynists, they generally had the sense to keep it under wraps.

  • pepperthorn

    pea_fairy> Perhaps, I didnt express my self well. I think we are saying the same thing in different words. I totaly agree that we can’t and shouldn’t ignore the sexism and/or racism in older works. It doesnt make the sexism and/or racism right or ok. I just think that our modern society tends to point fingers and make accusations too quickly, with good reason given what we’ve gone through to get here, without taking historical perspective into consideration first. This is of course a huge generalization but I see it happen quite often and, as I said, it’s a pet peeve.

  • Hepseba ALHH

    really quickly @ Sarah: I have never seen any direct examples of women astronomy professors treating their female students more harshly than their male, but there is a persistent “suck it up” attitude when it comes to giving advice about getting ahead in astronomy careers (which really technically applies to men and women both). That is frustrating. I’m not sure if there’s a good analog in the writing community though, so I’ll stop there.

  • Just reading through this conversation is fascinating.

  • I agree with Lauren, intriguing.

    Interesting stats, Edmund. It would be interesting to see how they compare with RoF, SF&F, Clarkesworld, and other pro markets. I’d guess that the states changes slightly from zine to zine, based on the type of stories they tend to publish and the types of submissions they receive.

    Back to revising…

    -NGD

  • I just had to thank everyone for a fascinating conversation with a lot of great insights. This is the kind of productive, respectful conversation I wish it were possible for everyone to have on such an important topic. Thank you all.

  • Scott M. Roberts

    Aw, man. Now I’m tempted to say something insincere and derogatory just to offset the equitable mood…

    >>It would be interesting to see how they compare with RoF, SF&F, Clarkesworld, and other pro markets.<<

    I can't give you their slush submission numbers, obviously, but with a little work, it's not hard to get at least some of their publication numbers. (Dell-family magazines seem to be giving me some issues; I can't find a back-issue index on Asimov's or Analog's site.)

  • Mikaela

    I am a bit late, but I spent the weekend at Eurocon. It was a lot of fun. Swedish tv filmed Ian McDonald’s GoH speech (it is about a lot of things, but sexism in Science fiction is one of them): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD6siOUN_so

  • Thanks, Mikaela. I’d love to get to a Euroco one day, so I’m jealous. Thanks also for the link to the video. Much appreciated.

  • […] blog entry regarding the Inter Galactic Medicine Show magazine – http://www.magicalwords.net/edmund-r.-schubert/sexism-in-sf-and-f – went as far as to compare their submissions and percentage of acceptances on a gender […]