[hildea]

There's a lot to discuss here. I wanted to comment on this one:

Originally Posted by patrickt

The men complained of factual errors that ranged from mountains in at part of Wyoming that had no mountains to the army using DC-3s to fly people around the country. The men found the errors ruined the reading and the wife jumped up and raged, "None of that matters. It's the relationships that are important."

And she was absolutely right as a representative for women. Part of what I enjoyed about Tony Hillerman's books were the details about the Navajo life and culture. My wife read one of the books and had absolutely no interest in that. She was looking for relationships.

I don't agree at all that interest in factual details is gendered, either amoung authors or readers. But it might be that you don't recognise all types of research, because they are outside your own areas of interest or expertise. Some examples:

• Courtney Milan on inheritance laws in England during the Regency
• Mary Robinette Kowal on early 19th century hat decorations, codes during WW1, and orbital mechanics
• KJ Charles on Edwardian shooting parties
• Marie Brennan on fighting while wearing a victorian dress (with video)

Sure, anecdotal evidence isn't. But your example is anecdotal, too.

Originally Posted by Jane Austen's Persuasion

“But how shall we prove any thing?”
“We never shall. We never can expect to prove any thing upon such a point. It is a difference of opinion which does not admit of proof. We each begin probably with a little bias towards our own sex, and upon that bias build every circumstance in favour of it which has occurred within our own circle