My first inclination is to say that there's not enough data to say for certain.

I'm not entirely sure there's enough data to form a well-reasoned opinion but it does seem that opinions are forming across the blogosphere.

In the Eclipse Two situation, my understand is this:
- roughly 50% of the writers invited to submit didn't. We don't know the breakdown of male vs. female invited, but we do know that most of the writers who didn't deliver were women.

- Of the female writers that did deliver, only one's story clicked with the editor.

- There were only two slots available for the open submission and we don't know the gender breakdown of submitters.

The first Eclipse anthology started with controversy, not because of the gender mix in the table of contents but how unbalanced it was on the cover. Who decides which names are put on the cover, the editor or someone in marketing at the publisher, or someone else completely? I don't know the answer to that.

Some editors may go out of their way to ensure a gender balance. Some may completely disregard gender and choose solely on how the story works for them. Maybe gender plays a role into the type of stories an editor buys but I'm not qualified to say.

If I was convinced for certain that a specific editor was gender-biased, I wouldn't hesitate in avoiding them. In this specific case, I'm not convinced yet.

I would like to think that I'm mostly gender and race-blind. I like stories that entertain or make me think, but in the end give me a brief respite from reality. Rarely do I stop to consider what shade their skin is or what dangly bits they do or don't have.

My first inclination is to say that there's not enough data to say for certain.

I'm not entirely sure there's enough data to form a well-reasoned opinion

I have been saying this in the entry above. Let me bold it so it will be even more clear.

When self-professed gender blindness translates into a 90% and higher male TOC, brows will be raised.

It is very easy to say blame mysterious "women authors who didn't deliver", but frankly it's the editor's job to come up with the ToC. This editor already had issues because of perceived gender imbalance of the cover of Eclipse 1. He completely disregarded this when time came to choose stories for Eclipse 2. It doesn't matter to him - very well. I doubt that his male readership will suffer, but I bet that at least some of his female readership will vote with their feet.

It is very easy to feel these issues do not matter to you when you are not the one discriminated against (this is a general, rather than personal, statement).

It is very easy to feel these issues do not matter to you when you are not the one discriminated against (this is a general, rather than personal, statement).

I can't argue with your perspective on the gender issue. I lack the perspective to know what issues you do face on a personal level (generally speaking). I try to be aware of the issues but there's a difference between awareness and experience. Thanks for being patient with me while I try to come to a better understanding of the issue.

I would like to see submission statistics, but it does clearly smack of genderism. Is a male reader more likely to prefer stories written by male authors, and vice versa? I don't know. I wouldn't think so, given my personal preferences, but I could be an anomaly.

Here's the point that I'm torn on. If it's wrong for a male editor to predominantly choose stories by male authors, wouldn't it also be wrong for a female editor to predominantly choose stories by female authors? I don't believe there should be any discrimination whatsoever, male or female, white or non-white, but in a world where discrimination exists, can there ever be a true balance?

We as readers should vote with your wallets and not support markets we feel are unfair and I think Eclipse is going to feel the bite of that decision, fairly or unfairly. What's perceived is just as damaging as reality, especially if the editor doesn't take the steps to fix what he believes is a misperception.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply. I appreciate it very much.

Here's the point that I'm torn on. If it's wrong for a male editor to predominantly choose stories by male authors, wouldn't it also be wrong for a female editor to predominantly choose stories by female authors? I don't believe there should be any discrimination whatsoever, male or female, white or non-white, but in a world where discrimination exists, can there ever be a true balance?

You raise a very important question, and I am not sure what's the correct answer. There can be two, I think. One is to say that since there's clearly gender imbalance in many genre anthologies, women editors have the right to take affirmative action. Another is to say that a balanced TOC works best to attract a diverse and non-irate readership.

I personally like to see balanced ToCs. It doesn't have to be 50/50. Even such a "gender-themed" collection as S&S 23 has five male names in the ToC. And that's a good thing, I think. Another example: "Paper Cities," an Urban Fantasy anthology edited by Ekaterina Sedia, has 13 male and 8 female names, which is to show that women editors will not always have a predominantly female ToC.

I also think that editors should listen to what their readers have to say. If the readers raise gender questions and express their displeasure at a ToC, a cover, etc. - an editor, however powerful and established, should listen closely, otherwise it comes across as disrespectful.

Personally, I'd like to see more mixed-gender editorial teams. This is one of the reasons I admire Fantasy Magazine, and really hope that Cat Rambo will edit an anthology some day.

My 2 cents are probably worth a mere half-pence, but:

Maybe I'm an Old-Fasioned Male Editor, but I sometimes think this issue is irrelevant in some ways. As an editor, I don't care if the writer is female or male, black or white, human or anemonie -- I don't really care. What matters is the work.

Granted I do look for "different" perspectives, so I might be more inclined to accept a well-written story dealing with a Muslim woman's experience in the South (haven't got one of these yet, but it would be interesting) over the fiftieth story that week starring a redneck hero (not that there's anything wrong with the redneck hero archetype -- I use him often myself and the regular readers I have talked to expect him to show up from time to time). But the modern South is a really diverse place. I hope to show that in my little zine, but in the end I have to go with the best written stories/poems/features no matter the sex/race/religion/home planet of the author.

Just an FYI, my TOC so far for the upcoming summer issue in July has 3 male writers and 2 females so far.

I sometimes wonder if the correlation (if any) between female editors having more female authors in their collections is possibly the end result of female writers being more likely to submit to female editors?

I can't speak for other publications edited by males as I am working within a very small niche, but the overwhelming majority of my submissions are from males.

Thank you for your reply, TJ.

I sometimes wonder if the correlation (if any) between female editors having more female authors in their collections is possibly the end result of female writers being more likely to submit to female editors?

An interesting question. I have very little experience and a tiny repertoire of stories. I am not specifically seeking out female editors to submit to, but there are some markets I now avoid.

Let me ask you this. If you get a not-so-well-written story dealing with a Muslim woman's experience in the South - will you ask for a rewrite?

Edited at 2008-06-19 05:39 am (UTC)

"Let me ask you this. If you get a not-so-well-written story dealing with a Muslim woman's experience in the South - will you ask for a rewrite?"

I guess it would depend on how much of a rewrite is required and the quality/originality of the storyline itself. It would also depend on if the story met my needs; it must have the Southern, Fried, and Weird qualities I look for in my little niche publication.

Maybe I'm an Old-Fasioned Male Editor, but I sometimes think this issue is irrelevant in some ways. As an editor, I don't care if the writer is female or male, black or white, human or anemonie -- I don't really care. What matters is the work.

See here for why this argument isn't really valid.

Interesting and well-written blog post. Thanks for sharing!

I still feel there is some underlying - perhaps naive and idealistic - validity to my argument. If we ever hope to have true equal rights there should be some truth to that statement, I think. But that said, I'm open and willing to advertising in other venues/online forums to get a more diverse slush pile. I think that's a great idea. Any suggestions on where to advertise?

TJ, I do love you and know your will is good, but this reminds me of a true story about an Israeli rabbi who went to Ukraine to open a new synagogue. During Shabbat he needed a non-Jew (goy) to help with some things Jews are forbidden to do on Saturdays. He didn't know where to find one because obviously non-Jews don't walk into the synagogue on their own, so he just stood there and cried, "Oh where, where will I find me a goy?" And the whole congregation laughed, because the street outside was full of goyim - one only had to step out and invite a stranger.

This is just a silly idea, but since you are in the South I'm sure there are community colleges in your area that have a high ratio of persons of color attending, and I am sure some of these colleges offer writing classes. What if you advertise a contest with a prize of say, 100$ for the best southern fried story, with preference to those featuring themes of color, and advertise this contest in one of these places? It will get you submissions and publicity, and you'll be encouraging new, underrepresented writers. If you decide to do something like this, I will donate 20$ to your prize fund. Four more donors and you are set. What do you think?

Another idea is to solicit a story from a person of color who is visible, which would suggest that your mag is open and encouraging of diversity.

Just random ideas. I wholeheartedly agree with K.Tempest Bradford that a more diverse slushpile will likely result in a more balanced ToC.

: ) I like the story about the rabbi, and I see where you are coming from.

About the contest:

"This is just a silly idea..."

Not at all. I've thought about contests in the past. It would take an additional time investment I'm not sure I have to give at the moment but it is an interesting idea, one I'll give further thought towards. I appreciate your offer to donate funding, that is really too kind of you.

I'm also tossing the idea of making some themed issues for next year -- perhaps one with a "Delta Blues" theme and another with a focus on the Southern experience for migrant workers. These are aspects of the South I think readers might be interested in.

Regarding soliciting some high profile authors I think this, too, is a great idea. Thanks!

Glad some of this made sense.
Do let me know what you decide regarding the prize. :D

Thank you so much for linking to your article. I haven't seen it before, and it's more than excellent.

Much of the problem here is perception. If writers don’t perceive that markets are friendly toward them as minorities or toward stories that don’t just feature white males, they won’t bother to send to those markets. They also won’t bother to buy the magazines.
Oh, yes. Even though I'm not a person of color, I'm always actively looking for non-white-male stories. The markets who don't cater to this - whether from naivete or patriarchal reasons are unlikely to get my attention either as a reader or as a writer.

Okay, here goes.

My feeling is that there is a subtle/not-so-subtle undercurrent of gender bias, and in a way, I put it down to readers, rather than editors.

How so, you ask.

I don't know why it is, but male readers *seem* to (and I generalise here, obviously) prefer male writers and male protagonists, whereas female readers (unless they're reading a genre specifically geared towards women - eg romance or women's lit) don't seem to care so much about the author's gender.

Now, a savvy editor is going to pick up on it. Some might decide to challenge the norm and say, release an SF anthology with a higher number of female writers and others are going to swing with it because they know what sells.

TBH though, I'm one of those people that doesn't actually care any more. If my work is rejected not for being crap, but for being written by a woman, then do I really want to work with that editor anyway?

A few figures to toss into the mix. In The Del Rey Book of SF&F the four indisputably sf stories are by 2 males and 2 females: "Gather," Prisoners of the Action" (two male collaborators), "Jimmy," and "Special Economics."

When I edited fiction for OMNI I published more males than females overall. At SCIFICTION it was a bit more even I think but I still published more males than female. The latter two venues were totally open submissions.

My anthologies are always closed.

My horror anthologies have been overwhelmingly male: The Dark has four females and eleven males. Inferno has four females and sixteen males.

Thank you very much for commenting, and for adding the statistics. Apologies for misrepresenting the male/female breakup in the Del Rey anthology - will correct this.

May I ask you if you ever think about the male/female composition of your ToCs, both the by-invitation and the open submission ones?

You're very welcome. That's ok--several of the stories are open to interpretation as to what "genre" they're in so if you read a story you might categorize it differently than I would ;-)

The Del Rey book was as accidental with regard to gender balance as any other anthology I've edited. By the way, it's not 50/50. It's ten males (including two in a collaboration) and seven females.

So in two words--not much. I contact writers whose work I like (in whatever genre) --I usually ask twice as many writers as I expect to actually produce the stories for an anthology.

That's sometimes a problem. There are a few writers I've solicited several times for anthologies and they either don't respond or say yes and then don't come through. Eventually I stop asking them.

So...if I know I can get really good stories out of specific writers every time out why should I bother nagging the writers who I doubt will come through for me.

At the magazines I worked at, I never thought about gender. In anthologies, if I happen to notice a preponderance of one gender over the other I may make an extra push near the end of the process.

Thank you so much for your reply.

as a side note,
I usually ask twice as many writers as I expect to actually produce the stories for an anthology.
This is very interesting. I am going through my first editorial experience right now - editing a volume of academic articles. Out of about forty people we initially contacted, 29 said yes and sent their abstracts (half were major names and half young Ph.Ds). Of those, 13 scholars sent us articles. I thought this was because we (the editors) are still in the very beginning of our careers... but perhaps the 50% rate is a universal formula.

But I have to admit it's quite startling that someone would ignore *you*.

Ha! Plenty of writers ignore me. But I am apt to nag those I really want in the book.

If an editor reads a batch of blind submissions and winds up liking and choosing 90%+ stories by straight white males, is this a problem?

Should an editor make alterations in the table of contents based on perceptions of the demographics (or demographic interests) of the magazine's/anthology's potential audience?

I think the former scenario doesn't happen too often, because subs are so rarely blind. I think the latter is a reasonable question for editors to consider with respect to sales, but it's also reasonable not to consider it. If you create an anthology full of stories you kind-of like, rather than ones you actually like, well...

Blind submissions, statistically, end up with more female participants being chosen. Not just in fiction, but in other arenas as well. I'll see if I can find the data for you (this was brought up at wiscon a lot and I made notes), but I think one of the best examples is orchestral tryouts where all the auditioners sat on the opposite side of a curtain from the judges so that no one knew what gender (or race) they were and led to a significant increase in women who got in.

Test it for yourself. though you'll have to toss out any stories you recognize as being from a particular author. From the data, not necessarily the market ;)

You know, I would not be surprised to find blind subs favoring women. There are all sorts of political, cultural, and historical reasons why male authors (let alone those of the straight, white variety) get chosen when the process isn't blind that it skews what gets published. Though my list of fave authors tend to skew male generally, it seems like I often wind up liking the work of female authors more in mags or anthos.

I am grateful for those who choose to do it, but I don't know how well I'd do as a fiction editor. Probably wind up with an ulcer...

Interesting post.

There are of course exceptions to the rule, but every time I've seen someone post numbers like this, it seems to suggest that male-only editoral staffs tend to select more male stories and vice-versa. Although the numbers I've seen are rarely so flagrant as the Firebirds numbers you posted. Those are pretty far out there.

But I do think there's no point in arguing (as in your hypothetical discussion above). Choosing stories is completely subjective, except in the case where an editor chooses an author for the sole fact of knowing they will sell X more copies.

There are of course exceptions to the rule, but every time I've seen someone post numbers like this, it seems to suggest that male-only editoral staffs tend to select more male stories and vice-versa.

When Sean Wallace and Paul Tremblay ran Fantasy Magazine, they tended to feature more female than male authors. Sean has a post about it somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

Likewise, Ellen Datlow wrote above with some statistics, including some male-heavy anthologies. Does a 4 female to 16 male ratio in the Inferno anthology seem more or less flagrant to you than the ratio 4 male to 13 female ratio in the Firebirds anthology?

I have to confess I am wary of the word "flagrant" in this context - and certainly we've seen unbalanced ToCs many times before, usually skewed to the male side of the spectrum. Just a reminder, Eclipse 2 ToC only has one woman.

However, it would be lovely to hear from Sharyn whether she considered gender when choosing stories, especially for the second Firebird anthology.

As K.Tempest Bradford pointed above, while choosing stories may be subjective, encouraging a diverse slushpile is a very good idea, and this doesn't happen overnight.

Jaylake posted back in the day about F&SF, "Yet if the readership is largely male (slightly less than 30% of subscribers to F&SF are female, I believe), if there is a gender bias in the stories selected for publication, it's serving the interests of the paying customers"

I believe the readership of F&SF is largely male for a reason. After a very short while I stopped subscribing to F&SF and stopped sending them stories. I have a pretty diverse taste and enjoy all kinds of stories, but I believe my money is better spent with people who don't disrespect and/or dismiss my demographic group.

Was it this one? Click Here

Yes it was, thank you very much!

This is a topic I have a hard time entering into (as a white male who really doesn't think about such things except when someone else brings them up). My mother was a member of NOW and I went to the occasional rally and whatnot, and things still don't pop into my head when they possibly should.

Debbie did a post re: GUD Issue 3's breakdown a few weeks ago (I think Rich Horton might have done a breakdown for Issues 0 and 1?) I vaguely remember seeing that.

We don't read blind, but generally we just see someone's username, which most of the time may as well be gender neutral. I tend to read a lot of stories at once, when slushing, so who any person is blurs out of my mind very quickly. And while a person's gender may be "obvious" from the writing... many of our readers have been surprised.

Out of curiosity, I went back to my own issue:

fiction
M: 11
F: 9

poetry
M: 6 (4 unique)
F: 3

reports
M: 2
art
M: 6 (2 unique)
F: 3

comics

M: 2

[TOTAL]
M: 27 (21 unique)
F: 15

More unbalanced than I would have guessed, but where does this fall for what other folks think? For the record, four pieces were specifically requested for the issue (two female (fiction), two male (a poem and a report)).

Tally of Issue 1, headed by Sue Miller:

fiction
M: 9
F: 9

poetry
M: 8 (3 unique)
F: 2 (1 unique)

reports
M: 1

art
M: 6 (5 unique)
F: 3 (2 unique)

[TOTAL]
M: 24 (18 unique)
F: 14 (12 unique)

...

Issue 2, headed by Sal Coraccio

ISSUE 2

fiction
M: 12 (11 unique)
F: 3

poetry
M: 2
F: 3

art
M: 8 (6 unique)
F: 1

[TOTAL]
M: 22 (18 unique)
F: 7

Issue 2 is our least balanced issue to date, it seems, but that's not a trend (as you can see from Debbie Moorhouse's Issue 3 post).

Very interesting statistics, thank you!

...is people (mostly men) saying, "I don't really notice. I just pick quality stories. They mostly happen to be by men."

I also see "Male readers like male writers/characters". (Which is true except when it isn't. Look at all the boys reading Tamora Pierce, for example.)

Both these stances seem to me to carry an implicit "And that's okay by me! It's up to women to do something about it, if you don't like it." So I want to ask the men posting here in agreement with that stance -- do you ever wonder if _you're_ missing out on something? Or does it just seem to you that there is an objective difference in quality, or enjoyability or something?

Because I think this is a problematic stance.

I don't mean to say the numbers are all, or or that anybody's taste is invalid, or that there is no "quality" we can point at. Nor am I discounting the effect of people who just don't get back to editors.

I just wonder. Timmi Duchamp mentioned in her Wiscon GoH speech this year that privileged groups get to decide that the narratives of other groups are incomprehensible/uninteresting. She put into words a thought that's been worrying me a fair amount. 'cause I think it's not just women who are hurt by implicit gender bias (where/if it exists). It's all of us.