Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldwalker
There is no "reverse sexism" any more than there is "reverse racism"; it's either sexism or it isn't, and excluding books because of the sex of their authors is a Bad Thing.
|
"
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." --Anatole France
Freedoms or restrictions applied "equally to everyone" do not necessarily lead to fair & equitable treatment.
Saying "It's just as sexist to refuse to carry books by male authors as to refuse to carry books by female authors" pretends that male and female authors have had equal opportunities to be published, to be known, to win awards for their writing. It pretends they get equal respect in the public sphere for being "authors" instead of (or in addition to) "factory workers" or "parents." It pretends they are afforded the same access to develop the skills required, and have the same amount of time to practice those skills.
Today, perhaps, this is approaching truth. (But Rowling published under her initials because the publisher didn't believe people would buy a book about wizard boy written by a woman.) But a hundred years ago? Women were *not* given equal opportunities to write, and setting aside space to acknowledge the ones who had not only talent, but managed to take advantage of the rare chance for a woman to be published, is not supporting discrimination.
We will not end oppression and discrimination by pretending history doesn't have any of it, nor by treating everyone today as if people have always had equal rights and opportunities.