Women are Geeks and Nerds — But Are They Thinkers?
As part of my postgraduate studies this year, I'm doing a paper called Literature and Technology, which features such awesome writers as Pat Cadigan, Neal Stephenson, Bruce Sterling, William Gibson, Neil Gaiman, Jean Baudrillard, Philip K. Dick and Italo Calvino. I recently received an email from the lecturer who will be in charge of this geektastic experience and was not surprised to see that, out of the eight people taking the course, only two of us are female. Not that it bothers me. Nevertheless, it did make me think.
We no longer live in a world where boys play with all the cool toys while the girls have to make do with stupid Barbies and miniature tea sets. (If you must know — I never owned a Barbie but I did have an eccentric obsession with my sister's tea set. I found out later it was because I like small things, and tea. The set itself was purely a convenient vehicle for my developing tendencies). I know many women who write SF, and who do it very well. Though it seems that, when it comes to readers of the genre, males are still more prevalent than their female counterparts. Furthermore, I have noticed that women who do read SF tend to have read less of the so-called classics of the genre — books like Neuromancer, Fahrenheit 451, The Time Machine, 20 000 Leagues Under The Sea, A Clockwork Orange, The Difference Engine or The War of the Worlds.
There is something these novels all have in common: their status as defining genre works have elevated them to a status where they have made regular appearances on the set text lists of universities, whether the subject be the study of SF itself or what they say about the evolution of mankind.
That got me thinking: could this be part of the reason they do not appeal to a female audience? Because they are exalted within the halls of academia, further distancing them from mainstream approval.
SF can be a problematic genre, particularly when studied as opposed to reading for pleasure. Much of it is written from a male perspective — perhaps partly explaining the gender difference in readership. It's frustrating because while SF can sometimes lag behind in terms of representation, it can also leap ahead in its attack on fundamentalist morality. That is why I am surprised to find the study of SF in an academic context still a predominantly male-orientated field. Intrinsically, a female perspective is different, and isn't it exactly our differences that should bring us together? You know, because that way we broaden our minds?
I have an ugly feeling about all this.
SF and fantasy author Lisa Tuttle
That feeling is that, when it comes to SF, some women are put off by the idea of engaging with the story because of its maleness; that certain schools of feminist rhetoric have taken away from them the ability to engage in a text because of the text—not because of who wrote it. SF and fantasy author Lisa Tuttle has defined feminist literary critique as "asking new questions from old texts". Where will the new questions in SF come from if women are not engaging with the genre from an academic point of view? What's even more troublesome is the idea that women don't want to read about technology and science; that it bores them and is so removed from the scope of their everyday lives they dismiss it out of hand. I'm talking about the general female demographic — straight and queer; in terms of the former, I know few who have ever read any SF (unless they're rabid fans of course). As for the latter, the numbers there are more uplifting, but a generous amount are still reading what generally amounts to romances set in space.
What I really want to know is this: what is the likelihood that the reason many women don't read SF — particularly classic canon works — is because it's one of those instances where they still believe it to be a boy's world? Man-toys for man-brains and therefore outside the scope of female enjoyment. I find it strange that female empowerment have gained so much in other areas of our lives — corporate and sports for instance — but that there appears to linger a division when it comes to a literary genre.
Thoughts?
And remember, anything you think can be held against you.
- Login or register to post comments
- Comments [22]
Tweet
Comments [22]
My 1/2 cents
Couple things:
I loved Science Fiction and Fantasy books when I was a kid/young adult. Some of the first book I read were by Piers Anthony (Xanth series then the Adept Series - mostly all fantasy) and a few from Poul Anderson and C J Cherryh. I can hardly remember the names of the books or what half of them were about and I mostly picked based the covers ~ sorry ~ visual person here. (Dune, The Mote in God's Eye, Leviathan about a possessed spaceship? Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) To be honest - it was my father's paperback collection of something like 200 books.
I agree with the "written from a male perspective" could possibly be off-putting. BUT I don't think that ever detered me from reading if it was a story I related to or liked. (I also agree with Rusty on it's hard to go back - Some stuff I liked when I was a kid doesn't appeal to me now.)
K - I have a thought, and take it for what it's worth - but some people are pragmatic and would rather live in the reality that is now then spend time fantasizing about alternate universes and new forms of light speed travel.
I am one of those people that likes to live inside my head so I think that's why I latched onto the bookshelf and rode it like a cross universe road trip adventure. Other people went skiing in Banff or to Greece.
Visit the FREE Lesbian Coloring pages at ~ illustrocity.blogspot.com
Made me think
In simplest terms, it served a purpose when I so often needed to escape. Now that there is not so much to run from, it doesn't have the same allure. Thanks for the nudge.
Good point on the pragmatism.
Good point on the pragmatism.
I tried, repeatedly, to read Piers Anthony but he just annoyed the crap out of me. Too cutesy with the puns. Ugh.
I know!
"Hand-ball" I mean... right then and there I realized I was outgrowing his books! Definitely great for pre to early teens. Like... Harry Potter of the late 70ies and 80ies *better written I think though, my opinion of course
Visit the FREE Lesbian Coloring pages at ~ illustrocity.blogspot.com
Oh and
Mundanes = Muggles... humph
Visit the FREE Lesbian Coloring pages at ~ illustrocity.blogspot.com
Have to say the Sci Fi genre
Have to say the Sci Fi genre has never really appealed to me in book form. I can't think of one Sci Fi book I've read, in fact. It's just not my taste I guess.
"I think enjoying SciFi is
"I think enjoying SciFi is all about being able to suspend your beliefs and accept something you might otherwise normally scoff at."
Maybe so, but Fantasy requires that to a much stricter degree; good science fiction always presents theoretically possible ideas, so really, suspending belief shouldn't be a requirement for well-written SF.
Good point. I don't
Good point. I don't particularly like fantasy. I suppose more accurately I should've said not 'suspend disbelief' but 'make a theoretical leap' or something similar.
transporter or the Cruciatus Curse
I'm a fan of both SciFi and Fantasy and I think you had it right the first time. Which takes less suspension of disbelief in order to enjoy the ride — the transporter from Star Trek or the Cruciatus Curse from Harry Potter?
I'm reminded of Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
I would probably be the one
I would probably be the one to throw your theories into a tizzy. I've read at least half of the books you mentioned and more by the same authors (particularly Gibson) and like The Insomniac have read Heinlein, Asimov, Dick and more. I was a big SciFi fan starting with Stranger in a Strange Land for a college course. The books you show in your blog that I haven't read, I've seen the movie versions of (shock and surprise for all who know what a Kubrick fan I am that I've seen Clockwork Orange but not read it).
I think enjoying SciFi is all about being able to suspend your beliefs and accept something you might otherwise normally scoff at. The best SciFi does that in a way that's also entertaining.
I know someone
who's a Trekkie ... she's in her early 40's and has a room (or more) filled with Star Trek memorabilia.
When this fact is raised (behind her back), the attitude is generally "tut-tut" and insinuations are made that she's "crazy" or at least a bit 'out there' ... followed by "why doesn't she put the collection on eBay?" ... she should clear her house of her interest and introduce more Martha Stewart.
This attitude is (I think) the crux of why girls/women don't allow themselves to get into SiFi .... As kids, boys are encouraged to use their imaginations, girls are encouraged to be practical (bath the baby doll).
As a youngster, I lost count of the number of times I was told I was "away with the fairies". My bother, who was never without a Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) book in his hand, wasn't told that. Men are allowed to have abstact thought or be somewhat "weird" ... women on the other hand, are mothers (or potential mothers) and are expected to be based in reality at all times.
Allow me to go off on a feminist tangent for a minute
Since the beginning of time, a greater proportion of women have been called "crazy". Nearly every famous female figure has had her sanity publically questioned.
It's still happening (only more in pop culture or politics these days) ... To use a celebrity example: Britney births 2 babies in 2 years, gains some weight and wears a pink wig. 'Naturally', she loses custody of her kids ... Years later this 28 year old woman is still under Permanent Conservatorship. Charlie Sheen is with his kids, without question, despite some rather disturbing facts and rumours. Double standard.
The history books are filled with 'mentally ill' famous wives, 'crazy' broads and "radicals" who went against the societal norm and were locked up because of it, punished or burned at the stake.
My point is, this 'lack of interest' in SiFi, is more to do with deep-rooted negative beliefs about girls/women who think outside the box. Because of this, many women have a deep rooted fear of being called "nuts" ... so they limit their interests to what is considered 'acceptable' for a girl.
Thanks mom
Your comment reminds me again to be thankful for my parents. My mom enrolled me in a SciFi book club when I was about 12 and I never looked back. I can't remember anyone poking fun at my preference for SciFi other than the normal teasing directed at any geek — male or female.
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna
I tried reading sci-fi. Most
I tried reading sci-fi. Most times it was just words and after the 3rd time reading the first page...back on the shelf it goes. I. Am. Not. A. Reader.
But some books have appealed to me. It's when they are genderless in being.
I can't stand it when books go so far into detail and do it in all one breath like they're some kind of god that a picture maginally transforms and reels right in their head like as if you were standing right on the edge to the point of actually being right there.
And writers do write like that. Or at least that is how I read it.
Romance ..."women novels"...boring. Those Erotica romance novels...boring and pointless.
I normally loose interest before finishing. The last book I've read from start to finish was Dan Brown's DaVinci Code. I read it in a day and a half. I read it when it came out - well before the movie was even made.
I read most of the Left Behind books. All within 2 days a piece.
As for those books you've mentioned.... I have no clue what they are about. So I wouldn't read them.
As for the question, yes women are thinkers...but what does reading something what the masses read have to do with being a thinker?
Wouldn't thinking be more on the line of creating rather then consumming?
For me, not so much
For me, it is not that these are manly things or thoughts. I mean, I was the girl who shunned Barbie and rigged Hot Wheels track off the roof of the house. I also spent a lot of time being Spock.
While none of the tomes you mention as classics remain anything more than distant memories for me, I enjoyed reading and even toyed with writing quite a bit of Sci-Fi in junior high and high school. I kept up with the Star Trek books with something close to obsessive zeal, and only let my collection go about a decade ago.
But for the most part, Sci-Fi was replaced by more active political pursuits. You see, that is what it offered me: a glimpse of other realities, more tolerable possibilities. But the shit is so damn chauvinistic! I rode for a while with Dragon Slayers and Chrystal Singers, which walk the fantasy/SF line, but even they tended to sport male saviors. I don't care who writes it, I want strong women in my books. I want those strong women in charge and taking care of themselves and their communities. When a strong female character gets bailed out of a hard spot by a guy she didn't need in the first place, I want to punch something.
In short, I out grew it.
speaking of social SciFi!
Couldn't resist posting this bit of social SF on Star Trek: The Next Generation. This episode aired in 1995 -- one of the earliest kisses between two women ever on television (and to this day one of the hottest in my opinion.) Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkTMNHC2smM
Here's the context:
A group of Trill scientists, led by Dr. Lenara Kahn, will be using the Defiant to conduct experiments. Lenara is a joined Trill who, while her symbiont was joined to a previous host body, was married to one of Dax's former male hosts, Torias. Dax shows some concern, since Trill society expressly forbids relationships with lovers from past lives. The penalty for "reassociation" is exile from the Trill homeworld and the eventual death of the symbiont when the current host dies. However, Dax decides to make the best of it, believing she can control any feelings she may still have for her former wife, and even chooses to attend a dinner reception for the scientists. There, the two women meet at the buffet table and share a laugh. Despite the casual tone of their conversation, however, an attraction begins to develop between the two.
Insomniac
Uhura & Chapel
Hey Insomniac,
Uhura and Chapel had a scene in the original Trek where they were being controlled by Greek god types who had them fondling each other on a stone bench. Don't remember if there was a kiss or not. That scenes pissed me off for a very long time. I was pretty young when I first saw it, but knew too well how males like to toy with females for their entertainment. Of course, later in life I saw it as the critique on that social injustice that it was meant to be.
oops, I meant Deep Space Nine
Apologies to loyal trekkies...
Taem--I'll hunt for it, thanks!
I thought I found the episode but that part wasn't there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ry1vchJ7Gg
Captain Kirk and Uhura kiss though which must have been shocking to late 60s audiences.
Insomniac
Insomniac - you are so right
Insomniac - you are so right of course. Just because a text is considered a "classic" by some institutions does not necessarily mean its reputation should be cemented as such.
There is a lot of Margaret Atwood on the reading lists (Oryx and Crake, The Handmaid's Tale) but they are social SF more than their technical counterparts. From my experience at least, I've found women in university more attracted to these books. Then again, their choice might be culturally influenced.
Tiff - I must admit, I prefer LeGuin's fantasy to her SF. If you're just getting into SF, try out some Nancy Kress or James Tiptree, Jr (Alice Sheldon)
Hmmm
I don't know why the genre doesn't appeal to more women. I've been into fantasy for years, but am only just getting into science fiction recently. Have you read Le Guin's The Lathe of Heaven? I loved that one....
A SF novel still unfinished
I don't know why more female academics are not studying SF as a genre. I do find it interesting that I have read most of the SF classics that you cited, despite the fact that it is my least favorite genre.
TheInsomiac's mention of Marge Piercy reminds me that I never finished reading her novel, He, She and It, which was assigned in a Gender and Technology course I audited about ten years ago. I winged the discussion.
Still searching for the right brainy quote.
Very interesting question
As someone who has/is more likely to read the SF "classics" such as Wells, Heinlein, Gibson, Dick, (would Octavia Butler part of this list...) than stand in the SF section and see what's new, I am particularly intrigued by these statisitics. Perhaps it has less to do with SF as a genre and more to do with the questionable notion of what constitutes "the classics" in any literary form. If feminist literary theory has shown us anything, it is that the literary "canon" is hardly an objective list of the best and most worthwhile in literature. I read an SF book by Marge Piercy called Woman on the Edge of Time in college that had a huge effect on my thinking about what was possible -- I still think of it and refer to it on a regular basis 20 years later. Have you heard of it or read it? Anyway, thanks for your great blog and good luck with your work
Insomniac
Classics
And some of the "classics" of SciFi just don't hold up well. I tried to re-read The Foundation Series last summer and had to stop. It just felt too dated. On the other hand, Dune is one that I re-read every 2 or 3 years. (The Silmarillion is the only book I've read more times than Dune.)
"When you look for the bad in mankind expecting to find it, you surely will." ~ Pollyanna