Men and Women Writers: Where's the Bias?

This is a topic that tends to come up with frustration on how to explain it, but let's attempt to dissect this a little more.

As you should know by now, I am a female writer and author.  I know there are some fundamental and biological differences between men and women as well as the tendency to be more masculine and feminine.  Being a woman with more masculine traits or vice versa can conflict with society's perception of your identity, but many people who fall into that category are perfectly capable of making the distinction and embracing both their biology and their tendencies.

Some well-meaning people will say that 'there's no problem with how men/women do this' but then admit to what they think are harmless biases that affect their taste.  When writers see this, it can cast odd doubts about whether they wrote 'like a man/woman' and if they should announce it in an attempt to 'warn' their audience.  It's an odd bit of entitlement that some people want assurances on the content of the books before even reading it, especially when a feminine/masculine viewpoint or tone could very well be the whole basis of a surprise premise that could be ruined by assumption.

I caught myself debating.  Sure, I write like a woman, if that means I develop my characters emotionally and they aren't perfect tropes.  Yet, it's silly that such a broad sweep of the brush like that is an acceptable way to lump women together when male writers also use this description without uncomfortable discussions.  

I've seen the argument of inclusion, which is not a gendered desire and also on an individual basis.  Some people want to roleplay a character of their gender.  They call it escapism to retreat into a single character.  Popular books in fantasy are often focused on a main character or two, one male, one female.  When a man does this, I often see it described as his motivation to achieve his goals, that one has value as being a plot device.  In the same turn, if a known woman uses a male and female group, there is the dismissive assumption that it's a romance.  It's not that the male writer did not develop the romance as well, but when a woman writes it, it's a distraction that interrupts the story.

Female writers in fantasy often use initials and the famous example is JK Rowling.  Women going through traditional publishing are often told they can remove any unconscious bias of quality or content by not disclosing they are women.  After all, it's only a female voice if you know it is.  Sure, publishers want to maximize the potential for profit, but they are only perpetuating the bias that there is a gendered difference.

However, when the market at aims at women, they aim low.  I read that a male writer in a female-dominated genre, crime thrillers, said that when he wrote in a woman's voice it was 'simpler, whereas when he wrote as himself it was more subtle and metaphorical.'  Readers in fantasy, however, tend to argue the exact opposite, that men get to the point whereas women work on prose and mood more elaborately.  If you take this to have truth, then it would stand to reason that women writers gravitate towards writing fantasy rather than other popular genres for women because they AREN'T simple writers.  They like to create rich lore and explore characters and motivations in depth. 

This is why I can't stress enough that whether or not you are uncomfortable, diversify your reading.  On purpose.  Choose by taste AND perspective, especially if you've made the blanket assumption that men/women write a certain way. Writers that gravitate towards a certain genre aren't coming with the sinister agenda to tear it down and rebuild it.  You ADD to the existing library, maybe out of a sense that where you've been placed isn't where you go.  So yes, when people assume that you don't go there because their comfort level is challenged, it can be insulting.

I get it, I do.  The YA fantasy genre tends towards women writers that write transparent romance as the entire vehicle.  Ultimately despite that JK Rowling wrote a book that perfectly fit that genre description but it is above par with any expectation you might have had because of the trends that clog it.  It seems like only when an author attains notoriety for being different do we realize that not all books in a genre are the same.

I myself didn't write an 'adult epic fantasy for women.'  I set out to write an epic fantasy.  Because my characters are adults, my premise required them to operate as such.  They use foul language, they have sex without always fading to black...  In a fantasy world with different rules and norms, they also conform or rebel to THEIR society as it pertains to their character and motives. Yes, I think their personal and public lives are relevant and that's why it's an adult story.  Now add 'women' to that and you're attaching a label that places a spotlight onto all other books marketed towards women as 'simple, angsty, emotional.'  I am happy to be a woman.  I am all for not hiding that.  Perceptions do need to change and they won't as long as women are afraid of their voice and their ability to succeed.  However, don't MARKET me as a female author, market me as someone who speaks for the genre, not all women.

I know you might wonder how that affects self-published women like myself who do all of our own marketing.  Well, it works the same way only we keep control rather than worry when our publishers will stop championing us.  The buyer's market is still trying to assume something.  I found it difficult to write a blurb without giving anything away because it's a many-layered beast so I started simply with the first character to make it more personal.  However, because the character is a woman and one that the other characters look up to, I'm sure it set off warning bells.  My alternative that I'm using for the full trilogy release will be vague.  Basically, a group of survivors after a series of attacks, goes on a quest for revenge, only to learn there are much bigger forces at work.  No matter how I try there is simply no way to elaborate that without giving away plot points and I know it sounds trite and common.  I work with it regularly, but to be honest, I never much gave a shit about the blurb myself.  When I didn't have a clear idea of what I wanted to buy already, I'd head over to a genre section and roll the dice.  Didn't care about the cover or the blurb because I've always known not to judge a book by its cover.

However, simpler times...  If these biases existed today, I wasn't hearing them.  Yeah, the internet wasn't a storm of information like it is now.  There's more of everything now, especially opinions.  Because of that there is more potential to flourish, but also more potential to destroy.  What you say and how you say it DOES plant earworms (or the visual/mental equivalent) and harmless statements of 'the way things are' IS harmful to a market that thrives on popular opinion.  The writer's dilemma is often the disparity between the intent of their work and the bias of the market.

And as I've heard said before, most writers are not representative of all of their unconditional parts.  Writers of color are not required to speak for everyone else of color.  Female writers are not representative of all women.  In this way, men do have an advantage because they CAN write without the general assumption that they are making a blanket statement applying to all men.  Yes, I think we can safely say some things are more feminine or masculine and not mean anything harmful.  However, intent and effect are causal and you have to remember that the less descriptive you are, the more room there is to twist it into something harmful.

In this way, I can't blame people for wanting to stay silent sometimes.  Words are things to be carefully considered.  In fact, writers painstakingly attempt to do just that.  It's perfectly fine to stay silent until your words have the power and logic you want them too.  We all have to sort through how we feel and think and not invalidate it in others because it's not how we feel or think.  Being less offended doesn't make you right.  Be unaffected doesn't mean you have the upper hand in logic.  Then again, no extreme gives you clout where assumptions are concerned.  Maybe you did assume something, thinking it harmless.  It's not bad to catch ignorance.  You might even need someone to elaborate so that you are changing your mind based on logic rather than how it benefits them.  

When someone is really about equality and fairness, they aren't trying to kick someone else under the rug.  The aim isn't to have it as good as someone else had it because that just means turning the tables and letting someone else have a turn at being the oppressor.  New generations aren't going to understand taking turns, only which side of a bad decision they were on.  In that respect, you may notice that while I talk about the market bias affecting women, I am also conscious of how it reflects badly on EVERYONE.  

Women don't want to be lumped in as fluffy writers (although if you are and it works for you, no shame in that either) and men don't want to be lumped in as the problem.  When you see me talking about these issues in forums, I am very clear that the bias also exists in women!  The debate here isn't woman vs. man at all so much as market bias vs. women.  In the example I gave, even though men do the same in crime thrillers, the discovery that they are men does not hurt them in the market.  Even women I have spoken with admit that a female voice sometimes makes them uncomfortable because the visibility of female authors has been so low, that a woman's voice isn't something they are used to. They also often believe that any romance written by women somehow clouds the story or that the writing will be colorful but flighty and shallow.  And yes, people will parrot popular books even when it was a lukewarm read for them.  People like the idea of having a lot of people to talk with about a book.  In that way, the success of a book IS about visibility.  If certain books are being dismissed by 'harmless' biases, they fade into obscurity.  Women are not trying to faze men out-- they want to be a part of the discussion because they are just as passionate.

You don't cook delicious food by adding the same ingredient over and over.  It would be boring if a recipe were paprika and more paprika.  We also don't have to add EVERYTHING into a pot.  Strawberries and paint shavings aren't a match.  The problem with trying to debate any topic is that someone tends to love their straw men.  You know what I'm talking about before I even say it.  You express your concern with Puerto Rico and someone pipes up 'but there are starving kids in Africa.'  Yes, and we don't like that either, but start another thread and go to town.  More than one problem can exist at a time and we are capable of caring about more than one, but please-- help people gain some insight.  The world is full of half-baked knowledge. As long as we duck in and out of conversations without any resolution we aren't learning anything but hearsay.  I promise I'm probably already on several different threads already and each one of them has at least one person wondering if they should feel guilty for not focusing on something else...

Phew, I know this was a long one, guys, and the longer they are, the more my focus wanders, but I feel fairly confident it all fits with the post heading.  I'd love to keep some posts short and sweet but it can be quite difficult with layered topics like this.  As a rule, I try to see the good in people.  Experience has made me cynical, but in all honesty, when I can connect with people socially and individually, my perceptions do expand more than attempting to engage a group discussion.  I tend to single people out and ask them questions as diplomatically as possible.  I'm never trying to put people on the spot and make them look bad and while I am direct, I also like to assure them that I am not making my problems override theirs.  It can be hard to do-- the internet is largely full of people who like to put people on the defensive.  My intent is to disabuse people of that.  

That's a good tip I can leave you with today: operate on curiosity.  Try not to join a discussion with the intent of being heard.  Look for answers, look for views, look to unruffle feathers and find someone's rational argument.  People are often afraid to play what they might think of as a passive role, but when you take someone out of their comfort zone, they are more likely to explain why if you don't taunt or belittle a sore spot.  One guy I talked to had mentioned that he was someone that read male-dominated roles so he could include himself in that role.  I was curious to know why he didn't branch out so I started with the assurance that wanting inclusion can be cool, but what made him uncomfortable about a more omnipotent view or a woman's role?  He admitted that he would probably have a field day with a psychologist, but his own trials in life made his need for escapism to eliminate his presence as a reader.  While literally escaping into a book is also a kick-ass premise for fantasy, he was doing the next best thing for him.  I'm never one to judge someone for being weird, so I appreciated the candor.  I wasn't trying to force him to diversify or confront things he would need to see a therapist for-- it was important that he knew that.  What he was doing for himself isn't wrong, but he was having difficulty explaining why he avoided a woman's voice and, since he did attempt to choose his words well, I think he deserved for his words to be heard right and also not perpetuate a bias.  To summarize, ask your hard-hitting questions, but give someone the security to answer honestly.  If you think you're going to dig the truth out of everyone by being tactless, you will barely brush the surface.  When you want to know, humble yourself to the task.

See, this is why I write novels...  I can't really leave on any note without kicking and screaming... with diplomacy, of course.