In general I don't care for "victim" politics, where groups that feel slighted cry Nous accusons and point fingers at their slighters.
But I've been called to action by a Sisters in Crime blog post, "Best Books? Says Who?," which heavily criticizes the absence of women in Publisher's Weekly annual Top 10 books.
Through its Sisters In Crime Monitoring Project, SinC has determined that books written by women don't get reviewed as often as books by men. Of 50 major review-sites that SinC monitors, 48 were weighted heavily in favor of books written by men. If books by women aren't being reviewed, the logic goes, then books by women aren't getting considered by award panels.
Here are a few of the stats cited by SinC:
* Ellery Queen, 81% male reviewed
* LA Times, 85% male
*
Many women write "soft boiled" or "cozy" mysteries, and Sisters in Crime suggests that that's one reason their works are seldom reviewed in major publications or awarded major prizes. Evidently only thrillers and hard core mysteries are loved by reviewers and award-givers.
The overall picture is one of a pink ghetto.
Even though I'm a card-carrying member of Sisters in Crime (which does accept men as members, by the way), I actually wasn't aware of the extent to which women authors are ignored by major book reviewers. And I have to say I'm pretty shocked.
I'd like to think that the world has moved beyond the old boys-club mentality, but for whatever reason, women authors simply aren't advancing in the game as much as men.
I don't like the notion that bias exists against women authors, but I'm definitely affected by it. For example, I'm in the process of switching from writing cozies to thrillers, and I'm even considering using a gender-neutral pen name for my first thriller. Would I be doing all of this if cozies were regularly reviewed in the LA Times, and if awards weren't dominated by thrillers and male names? Definitely not.
I'm not proud of it. I just can't deny it.
No comments:
Post a Comment