I don’t think anybody said that. It’s okay to speak about things in a general sense. Peter Wiehe made a sensible remark and some people saw it as a callous statement. I don’t understand how, but then again I’m very ignorant to the social climate of today.
There is some truth in your satire… even if you meant it to all be a joke of ignorance. If you don’t agree that women like to write about romance, feelings and relationships more often than men… then we can agree to disagree.
A category then. Point still stands.
You can’t just substitute “categories based on the author’s identity” for “genres” and say it’s the same argument. One necessarily has some bearing on what the content of the book is and the other does not. But if you feel you must make generalizations based on the author’s gender in order to decide what books might be worth reading, it’s your loss.
I don’t know if they do or don’t like that, and neither do you.
Honestly, I was just fixated on the idea that female authors typically write about female interests and mostly from a female perspective, that I didn’t see where the conversation was actually going with some of the people here. I didn’t see it as bashing female authors at all. I’m a little concerned that some may have only saw that. I didn’t mean for it to be hateful. I don’t dismiss female authors. That wasn’t my argument or even my point at all. I even suggested a female author and it wasn’t some thoughtless token. She wrote a really great sci-fi story.
It’s so hard to discuss things and make generalizations (which aren’t inherently evil) without coming off as an ignorant, hateful bastard these days. I’m not saying you think that I am.
Not on a case-by-case basis, but broadly speaking I believe it to be true. However, see my comment to E. Joyce above and you’ll see where I’m coming from.
Because I am, or was once, a card-carrying scientist, I will say that this whole conversation is ridiculous. There are way too many factors in play to make generalizations. My mother wrote some award-winning mystery novels back in the 90s, and she was pressured to put more romance in them, which irritated her, as male authors were not pressured to do this. Was this pure sexism, or is there quantifiable evidence that women are larger consumers of mystery novels and want more romance in them? I don’t know.
Through my mother, I met a man who published romance novels under a female pseudonym. Can anybody tell? Would more men like to do this but feel they can’t? I don’t know. Do more women write romances because they want to, or because it’s a money-maker and “appropriate” writing for women? I don’t know. Do more women read romances because it’s acceptable reading material for them, because they like it more than men, or some combination? I don’t know. How many men read romances secretly or openly? I don’t know.
How much is the socialization of girls to be “emotional” a factor here, and how much is the socialization of boys to be unemotional coming into play? I don’t know.
Maybe it is true, and maybe it isn’t. But you don’t know, and neither does anyone else, because of the many, many factors here that are difficult to tease apart. Broadly speaking, I think generalizing about millions of people: all Italians, all women, all redheads, all Aries, etc, is a really pointless errand that furthers division in the service of absolutely nothing but furthering division. If that’s your thing, then you are certainly not alone in it.
I didn’t think you were saying female authors were bad. I thought you were saying “Female authors usually don’t interest me because they mostly write about romance instead of big ideas (because that’s what women are most interested in),” and it seems that is indeed what you’re saying.
The reason that generalizations based on identity are widely considered unacceptable in this space is that they are rarely actually accurate (although there are many places you could go where people would largely agree with you), but you seem very convinced that they’re valid, so I’ll stop arguing.
Right: the difference between “particular authors write this way because that’s what they want to write about” and “particular writers write this way because that’s what the audience wants to read about” (not to mention “particular writers write this way because particular writers and editors think that’s what the audience wants to read about”) is a fundamental - but by no means the only - stumbling block for this kind of argument, which I think is profoundly unedifying and obviously pretty contentious.
(OK, just one more reason - are we really meant to think that there’s some like essential continuity of experience between, say, George Eliot, Toni Morrison, Patricia Highsmith, and Ursula LeGuin that makes “female author” a useful category? And that’s just people writing in English!)
Spot-on, Mike. All we can truly say about “female authors” is that they are subject to different social pressures than men. And the dizzying array of how those pressures are experienced-- by women of different skin colors, different classes, and different upbringing-- make even that statement unedifying.
I think nobody said women write inferior books or women write less about big ideas. And nobody said women write always about romance or men write never about romance.
The author that was forced to add more romance to her book because she was a woman, that was sad.
And female authors in not a genre but categotization.
As I said I’m neither generally against female authors (only when I’m in the mood for straight action) nor against books with romance (same).
If I have to narrow down what ticks me off about romance, I think there are two things:
Sorry if my original posting came off like I hate women or like I don’t respect good literature with romance in it.
Edit: Women seem to enter the thriller stage since several years. Maybe that will change my behaviour.
For some centuries, indeed, women have been writing thrillers. And histories and horror and all sorts of things.
I don’t like romances either.
Yes, I recall Mary Shelley with “Frankenstein”. I wasn’t aware of thrillers by women. For some time women seemed to dominate the criminal genre and men the thriller genre. That both has changed.
No, it’s not my thing. But I feel like people want it to be my thing.
I really enjoyed reading your history and experience with writers. Sincerely, thank you for sharing that. I hope I’m not reading too much into your comment about once being a scientist. I would hope that a scientist would always be a scientist.
Yeah. Different pressures, for sure, as evidenced by you mentioning about the male author writing under a female name.
Thank you for clarifying. They are only valid in so much to form an initial opinion, not to act upon for sure. We may not agree entirely, but I appreciate the discourse and think we both come at it from good intentions.
I read the arguments on both sides and it’s so weird. Both come from a place of good intentions I feel, but some believe we should just recognize and accept our differences and others feel that acknowledging differences is to paint people with a harmful, broad stroke. It really does come down to individual versus group identity thought. I find it fascinating because both trains of thought can be harmful when they go too far. I’m somewhere in the middle, to be quite honest.
Anyway, Peter, I didn’t sense any malice with your initial comment that spawned this separate thread. I just wish others could see it from the other perspective and recognize it for what it was; a generalization that carries some truth. Not truth in all cases, obviously, but some truth nonetheless.
The problem that I’m running into here is from my perspective is that it’s not “acknowledging differences” but “perpetuating stereotypes”. Your statement assumes that these differences are true fact, but most people in this thread arguing with you (me included) disagree.
Something doesn’t have to come from a place of malice to cause hurt. Especially given this platform is full of female IF authors - it’s hard to read Peter’s original statement and not feel like it’s also dismissive of both my work and the work of the many other talented women in the community. (This is one of a few reasons why I write under a non-gendered pen name.)
That was a petty thing for me to say, and I apologize. But as @Encorm said, this whole conversation has the feel of dismissiveness to women writers. That may not be the intent, but it is the result, because it is dismissive. That’s not how we’re perceiving it; it’s how it actually is. None of us are immune from saying things like this occasionally, but I do wish I didn’t run into this attitude so often.
I am not arguing that we should not acknowledge our differences. I am questioning whether those differences actually exist, and if so, whether the reason for them is biologically based. I am not arguing the opposite of your point, I am arguing that the entire premise of the point is flawed.
Even though you said “but”… there’s no hard feelings. There never was. You’ve been civil enough and I hope I’ve come across that way too.
I can’t easily dismiss how you feel and what is so predominantly felt among many here. I do wonder if people are being extra sensitive in these times. I also wonder how much of it comes from what has been experienced personally, versus what is felt from having this sentiment dominate our media. Psychologists must be having a field day given our social climate!
I knew you were still a scientist! 
I won’t go into details, but the work of John Money is very disturbing to me. Especially when you read the interviews of his case subjects later on. It’s pretty grim and I hope none of your opinions are based on that man’s work… or the work of those who may have based theirs on his. I’m really concerned that his literature may have infiltrated a lot of academia as substantiated fact.
That actually breaks my heart. Damn. I know you just eluded to why my position bothers you, but can you share what happened to you once that has caused you to feel that your given name is a detriment to your work (and obvious passion) for writing? You don’t need to go into details, but sharing experiences is a good thing to help people to be more understanding and compassionate towards the struggles of women. What happened, N.?
There wasn’t any one precipitating event. I have a career in STEM and I’ve been involved in STEM-adjacent male dominated spaces since I was a teen. I’ve gotten a good long look at how differently people treat my ideas when they know they’re mine vs when they think they’re a male colleague’s, and I don’t need to fight that fight again in what is supposed to be a fun hobby. This is also why I have quite a few opinions about the nature of generalizations about men vs women because they’re often used as an excuse to ignore all the very real issues (like harassment) that drive women away from my field in favor of “women just aren’t as interested! Oh well.”
(The other reasons I use this pseudonym are: 1, I like my privacy so the fewer details about me that are readily accessible, the better. 2, not a problem here but if I ever use this name elsewhere on the internet it will cut down on harassment significantly.)
No. But we are getting to a place where we can push back on sexist arguments with relative safety. And I always push back on pseudoscience, because science is in worse trouble than any one group of people these days.
Why would it be? It is utterly baffling that you would associate me with John Money in any way. I do know who he is, and I find it troubling that you would bring that to this table.
And about the “but”: it’s hard to be 100% civil when I’m actually discussing whether 90% of women writers-- 9 out of every 10 female authors here-- “like to write about romance, feelings, and relationships more often than men,” making their work uninteresting to people like the OP. I mean, it honestly sort of floors me that this is a conversation that needs to be had.
Nonetheless, there is no excuse for snide remarks, which do not ever help, so I retract the “but”.
That sounds like it went on way too long. You must have been very angry and frustrated. That’s very unfortunate… it sounds like those male co-workers ruined your opinion of most men. I’m still not understanding why you feel that you can’t use your real name in your writing work though. I’m sorry if that sounds dispassionate, but you really made me double think about things and I’d really like to know why you can’t use your name in your own writing?
I don’t know what’s it like to be marginalized by my sex, but I do know what it’s like to be marginalized, in general, and it lead to feelings of being unappreciated, ignored and being treated unfairly… so I might have some idea what you went through, but obviously not completely. Maybe not at all.
This is my trial, I suppose. 
A simple no would have sufficed. I bring up Money’s name because he was at the forefront of a lot of theory surrounding gender as a social construct for a very long time in universities. We’re talking decades. He posited the exact same question you brought up. Are we men and women because our culture encourages it or is it mostly biology. He didn’t think biology was a strong factor. Sorry if you felt I was associating you with a monster, but that’s the danger of trying to get at the heart of a matter. I feel like I’m walking on eggshells… or a minefield.
I might save us a lot of time and trouble down the road if we just blow past a lot of the finer talking points, for a moment.
[Question/comment about trans-athletes removed by Mod - this subject is politically and conversationally volatile and off topic in this forum.]