Man Booker Prize shortlist announced

[TimMason]

Is sexism ok as long as it is anti-male?

when Virago started up, publishing was heavily male-dominated; they went some way to correcting an imbalance. They were explicitly feminist. I think it's difficult to argue that they were not, at that time, doing something that needed doing - and many of their authors agreed with them. Not only did they print new women's writing, but they also put back on the shelves books that had gone out of print, and for which they helped forge a new readership.

You could argue that that was then, and now is now, and that there is no longer any need for what Virago does. But I'm not sure that, say, 'Tipping the Velvet' would have made it into the big bookshops if Virago hadn't been there to publish it. And they still publish challenging books with a feminist perspective. There are Marxist publishing houses, there are libertarian publishing houses, there are houses that publish for all kinds of niches (including publishing houses for geeks and publishing houses for sports), so it seems to be fair enough that there should be a publishing house with a feminist outlook. It's not as if they prevent male authors from being published!

[Sparrow]

So that's a 'yes' then.

[TGS]

Quite frankly it it wouldn't matter if the were a dozen publishing houses publishing only women writers, or a dozen literary prizes only for women. The world is dominated by white men - the publishing world is no different. Pointing at a few examples of "special" treatment for women and characterizing that as sexist misses the point entirely.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Female authors c.130
Male authors c.0

Is sexism ok as long as it is anti-male?

It depends on whether you define "sexism" as "bias based on sex" or "oppression based on sex."

Virago has bias based on sex; it only publishes books by female authors. It does not contribute to oppression based on sex; male authors are in no way disadvantaged by not having access to Virago.

It is possible that male authors of romance novels are subject to sexism; male authors of "literature" are not.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by TGS

The world is dominated by white men - the publishing world is no different.

Are there figures for the gender discrepancy in the publishing industry?

Added: I found it interesting that Virago republished Margaret Oliphant's 'Hester' (in a tatty version that was basically a photocopy of a public domain edition, with an added introduction).
Oliphant would never have been published but for the generous munificence she received from men in the publishing industry (specifically Blackwells). Their support went far beyond the bounds of commercial interest.
But for these men, Oliphant's voice would be unheard today. It's sad we're supposed to villify them these days, rather than offering them the thanks they deserve.

Another addition (soz): As a purely personal opinion, I'm not in sympathy with a world view that divides humanity into 'white' people and 'black' people. I've never met a 'white' person, or a 'black' person; and I can't help thinking that such terms perpetuate division, rather than otherwise.

[HarryT]

It is a thorny problem. Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe that a white-only publisher was also OK?

[beppe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is a thorny problem. Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe that a white-only publisher was also OK?

you are right Harry in pointing to the thorniness of the problem.

I do not like to invoke symmetry on issues like this one.
It might put everybody off track, artificially, and hide the real problems.

You know very well that everything can be decomposed in its symmetrical and antisymmetrical component. Both are essential.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by TimMason

when Virago started up, publishing was heavily male-dominated; they went some way to correcting an imbalance. They were explicitly feminist. I think it's difficult to argue that they were not, at that time, doing something that needed doing - ...

A point worth emphasising.

Originally Posted by TimMason

You could argue that that was then, and now is now, and that there is no longer any need for what Virago does. But I'm not sure that, say, 'Tipping the Velvet' would have made it into the big bookshops if Virago hadn't been there to publish it. And they still publish challenging books with a feminist perspective. There are Marxist publishing houses, there are libertarian publishing houses, there are houses that publish for all kinds of niches (including publishing houses for geeks and publishing houses for sports), so it seems to be fair enough that there should be a publishing house with a feminist outlook. It's not as if they prevent male authors from being published!

Definitely. That is a political stance, where a women-only policy may be part of the politics, but not the outset. "Tipping the velvet" is an interesting example. There is a complete dearth of interesting quality literature with lesbian themes, while themes of male homosexuality is a good deal better covered. Edit: relatively better covered.

Originally Posted by TGS

Quite frankly it it wouldn't matter if the were a dozen publishing houses publishing only women writers, or a dozen literary prizes only for women. The world is dominated by white men - the publishing world is no different. Pointing at a few examples of "special" treatment for women and characterizing that as sexist misses the point entirely.

I agree.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

A...

Another addition (soz): As a purely personal opinion, I'm not in sympathy with a world view that divides humanity into 'white' people and 'black' people. I've never met a 'white' person, or a 'black' person; and I can't help thinking that such terms perpetuate division, rather than otherwise.

I believe you're trying to divert attention in the discussion by drawing the race-card. Let's re-phrase what TGS* said: Power and money are controlled by - to a higher degree than other socio-cultural groups - male members of the species Homo sapiens of primarily Caucasian descent.


*I hope TGS agree

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is a thorny problem. Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe that a white-only publisher was also OK?

Let me play with the idea...

Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe
that a Socialist-only publisher was also OK?

Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe
that a men-only publisher was also OK?

Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe
that an American-only publisher was also OK?

Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe
that a black-only publisher was also OK?

Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe
that a Libertarian-only publisher was also OK?

Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe
that a Scandinavian-only publisher was also OK?

Would the same people who accept that a women-only publisher is OK equally believe
that a Christian-only publisher was also OK?

Drawing the race card is muddying the waters considerably, I feel.

[HarryT]

I must respectfully disagree, Ea. I think personally that if one accepts the idea of "discriminatory" publishing houses, then one has to accept that even those whose form of discrimination one finds personally distasteful do have a right to exist. That's what freedom of expression is all about.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I must respectfully disagree, Ea. I think personally that if one accepts the idea of "discriminatory" publishing houses, then one has to accept that even those whose form of discrimination one finds personally distasteful do have a right to exist. That's what freedom of expression is all about.

Wherever did I say I didn't agree with it?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ea

Wherever did I say I didn't agree with it?

Perhaps I misunderstood you; if so, my apologies. I too entirely support the right of all such publishers to exist.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps I misunderstood you; if so, my apologies. I too entirely support the right of all such publishers to exist.

I felt that by using that specific example you were drawing the race-card in the discussion. I think that it can easily side-track the discussion from any relevant points by using a politically and emotionally sensitive example. The original talking point was whether or not it was right for women to have a literary prize where only they could be considered eligible for nominations.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ea

I felt that by using that specific example you were drawing the race-card in the discussion.

No; I was simply using it as an example of a example of selective publishing that some people may find distasteful, and saying that if one accepts those selective practices that one does support, then one should also be prepared to tolerate those that one doesn't.