Are men no longer writing mainstream fiiction as much as in the past?

[AG31]

it is predominantly authors from marginalized or under-represented segments of society. (Give it a few years and male authors might be considered one of those)

Both the funny and scary thing is that it's not unimaginable anymore that one day, all art will be done according to PC quotas.

For the last approximate 10 years male, particularly white male, creators have been specifically shut out of many parts of the entertainment industry. Not 100% of course, established creators have managed to stay in and a few new creators of course do make it. As a whole though this has become a major part of the business strategy across all sectors of entertainment.

I find all of this fairly depressing. I wish we could learn to correct injustices without swinging the other way.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

If you peruse a website such as querytracker.com and look at what agents and publishers are seeking, it is predominantly authors from marginalized or under-represented segments of society. (Give it a few years and male authors might be considered one of those)

There is also a push for more D.E.I where characters and story arcs are concerned

They are seeking what they aren't getting enough of. Given the number of new male authors isn't declining (I believe there's more books being published by more authors every year, just now we're getting more from women too), presumably men are still submitting manuscripts anyway, or getting agents to take them on anyway.

Some years ago there was research that suggested men think there are equal numbers of men and women in a photo when there's about 1/3 women, and women spoke half the time when it was more like 1/3. Women often thought similarly. I wonder whether perceptions are more accurate nowadays?

Certainly it's only in the last few years that I've stopped being surprised when a TV expert is female, or there's more than one woman on a panel. Since the 90s I've gone from often being the only woman in a meeting of 30 people at work, to averaging 50:50. I still find it a bit weird, but mostly nice. I wonder what the men my age think? They'd never admit publicly if they preferred a male-dominated office!

 

[MrPixel]

I find all of this fairly depressing. I wish we could learn to correct injustices without swinging the other way.

I feel the same way. There have been wrongs that need to be righted, but de facto exclusion of the now-not-in-favor cohort as a means to achieve this is also wrong. Can't we achieve a just balance, and move forward with that?

There has been a lot of hand-wringing after the recent US election (...sorry, it's politics, sort of...) about Gen Z males voting their frustration with the perception they are being left behind. I have to sympathize with this perception in looking back at my own career path (I'm now 11 years retired). I was locked-out of consideration for positions I was most definitely qualified for, because it was suddenly vogue for corporate America to require four-year degrees - even in Underwater Basket Weaving - before they'd consider your résumé.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I am now retired but I will admit to preferring a male dominated/female influenced workplace when I was employed.

The reality was that being male led afforded organizations greater credibility with customers, vendors, and partner organizations. Having a strong female influence on the work environment make the culture more equitable and friendlier.

 

[AG31]

They are seeking what they aren't getting enough of. Given the number of new male authors isn't declining (I believe there's more books being published by more authors every year, just now we're getting more from women too), presumably men are still submitting manuscripts anyway, or getting agents to take them on anyway.

Some years ago there was research that suggested men think there are equal numbers of men and women in a photo when there's about 1/3 women, and women spoke half the time when it was more like 1/3. Women often thought similarly. I wonder whether perceptions are more accurate nowadays?

Certainly it's only in the last few years that I've stopped being surprised when a TV expert is female, or there's more than one woman on a panel. Since the 90s I've gone from often being the only woman in a meeting of 30 people at work, to averaging 50:50. I still find it a bit weird, but mostly nice. I wonder what the men my age think? They'd never admit publicly if they preferred a male-dominated office!

I wish we had reliable stats. I'm old enough to remember what a shock it was when Bill Cosby had a starring role in I Spy. Today it seems to me that black representation in TV and movies is considerably higher than their 13.6% of the population, but I'm also aware of the dynamics you describe here. It could be that they just leap out at me. I wish I could ask about the real stats without sounding like I'm a racist.

Likewise regarding women on TV. It feels to me like women represent more than 50% of those present. But, again, I'm aware of how our perceptions don't necessarily match reality, and am left to wonder.

Then there's this regarding women. Women's appearance in particular groups pretty much matched those groups' decline in prestige. Secretaries used to be (in the 19th century) important men. Teachers, likewise. The advent of female clergy is almost perfectly matched with the decline in organized religion.

Not saying anything about which is cause and which is effect (affect???). Just an observation.

 

[AG31]

even in Underwater Basket Weaving

And I bet you were really, really good at it!!!!!

 

[M_K_Babalon]

If you peruse a website such as querytracker.com and look at what agents and publishers are seeking, it is predominantly authors from marginalized or under-represented segments of society. (Give it a few years and male authors might be considered one of those)

There is also a push for more D.E.I where characters and story arcs are concerned

I'm a black dude. Am I one of those?

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I wish we had reliable stats. I'm old enough to remember what a shock it was when Bill Cosby had a starring role in I Spy. Today it seems to me that black representation in TV and movies is considerably higher than their 13.6% of the population, but I'm also aware of the dynamics you describe here. It could be that they just leap out at me. I wish I could ask about the real stats without sounding like I'm a racist.

Likewise regarding women on TV. It feels to me like women represent more than 50% of those present. But, again, I'm aware of how our perceptions don't necessarily match reality, and am left to wonder.

Then there's this regarding women. Women's appearance in particular groups pretty much matched those groups' decline in prestige. Secretaries used to be (in the 19th century) important men. Teachers, likewise. The advent of female clergy is almost perfectly matched with the decline in organized religion.

Not saying anything about which is cause and which is effect (affect???). Just an observation.

There's plenty of stats available - certainly for the UK, Ofcom produces ones for TV and radio, Variety does a survey annually including the film industry. Summary.

The conclusions are complex - ethnic minorities are a bit overrepresented as a whole compared to the UK population, but underrepresented compared to the general ages and locations who appear on TV and also in the industry, especially compared to the working-age population in the cities where most TV is made (near in mind the UK non-white population in 1950 was under 0.1%, so there's huge variation by age and location, with White British being a minority in many cities or boroughs). Asians (ie south Asians) are particularly underrepresented on screen. Women and men appear in roughly equal numbers overall, but variations by type of show, women underrepresented as writers and in senior management, and apparently a decline in women writers etc during and after Covid.

LGB+ appears to have good representation, but in fact gay men do, lesbians and bisexuals don't. Disabled people are hugely underrepresented on screen and behind it. But no-one's really interested in them...

When the BBC and other broadcasters made real efforts to get more female representation on shows 10-15 years ago, you heard lots of people complaining that they weren't against women, just that the female comedians weren't funny, the history presenters had annoying breathy voices, the science presenters were clearly chosen for their looks... Now, there's way less complaints, much more on a par with the numbers of complaints male presenters get. So I suppose people get used to what they see. Still get complaints about anyone with significant disability, though.

 

[AG31]

There's plenty of stats available - certainly for the UK, Ofcom produces ones for TV and radio, Variety does a survey annually including the film industry. Summary.

The conclusions are complex - ethnic minorities are a bit overrepresented as a whole compared to the UK population, but underrepresented compared to the general ages and locations who appear on TV and also in the industry, especially compared to the working-age population in the cities where most TV is made (near in mind the UK non-white population in 1950 was under 0.1%, so there's huge variation by age and location, with White British being a minority in many cities or boroughs). Asians (ie south Asians) are particularly underrepresented on screen. Women and men appear in roughly equal numbers overall, but variations by type of show, women underrepresented as writers and in senior management, and apparently a decline in women writers etc during and after Covid.

LGB+ appears to have good representation, but in fact gay men do, lesbians and bisexuals don't. Disabled people are hugely underrepresented on screen and behind it. But no-one's really interested in them...

When the BBC and other broadcasters made real efforts to get more female representation on shows 10-15 years ago, you heard lots of people complaining that they weren't against women, just that the female comedians weren't funny, the history presenters had annoying breathy voices, the science presenters were clearly chosen for their looks... Now, there's way less complaints, much more on a par with the numbers of complaints male presenters get. So I suppose people get used to what they see. Still get complaints about anyone with significant disability, though.

Thanks for this, and for summarizing it. I hope someone will do the same for the U.S.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Oh, you got that right. There is the occasional diamond in the rough but there's a terrible lot of garbage

Ted Sturgeon made that observation about SF back in 1957: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Thanks for this, and for summarizing it. I hope someone will do the same for the U.S.

I'm sure many organisations do such work - one example is the Geena Davis Institute, who have a 2024 analysis of children's TV here.

It "offers a comprehensive analysis of gender, race, LGBTQIA+, disability, age, and body-size representation in children’s TV shows. ...
Key findings reveal persistent gender gaps, with male characters outnumbering female characters by over 13 percentage points, and a significant underrepresentation of LGBTQIA+ and disabled characters. Additionally, while characters of color comprise 52% of all characters, this marks a notable decrease from 2022. However, female leads did reach a record high in shows made for children."

 

[Bramblethorn]

Some years ago there was research that suggested men think there are equal numbers of men and women in a photo when there's about 1/3 women, and women spoke half the time when it was more like 1/3. Women often thought similarly.

Definitely a big part of it.

Looking at the new fantasy/SF section for one of the better-known bookshops in my city, they have 48 books listed. 15 of the authors, almost a third, are white guys: Brandon Sanderson, Jeff VanderMeer, Stuart Neville, Alan Moore, Karl Ove Knausgaard, Anthony Ryan, TJ Klune, J. M. Miro, Daniel Abraham and Ty Franck (collaborating as James S.A. Corey), Raymond E. Feist, TJ Klune again, Lev Grossman, Paolo Bacigalupi, and Gregory Maguire (whose "new" book is almost 30 years old but I guess they're re-releasing it to accompany the movie). Given that guys are about half the population and not all guys are white, that seems like pretty good rep.

Looking at Tor, one of the more progressive-branded SF/F publishers, out of 14 books listed in their winter releases, 6 are by white guys: Jedediah Berry, Travis Baldree x2, Ed McDonald, L.E. Modesitt Jr., Brandon Sanderson.

Laments about the death of the white male author seem premature. But for people who grew up in the era when such lists would've been 80%+ male, and got used to that as "normal", seeing something closer to equity is going to feel weird.

I'm not immune to this; when I skimmed through those lists before counting them up, I would've guessed more like 1/4 white guys. Names like Feist, Moore, and Sanderson barely register because I'm just used to them as part of the landscape, whereas the non-white-guy names are less familiar and so they get my attention.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Yeah, as I said, everything will eventually be forced into quotas. I wonder why so few people have a problem with this kind of thinking.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yeah, as I said, everything will eventually be forced into quotas. I wonder why so few people have a problem with this kind of thinking.

"Measuring the thing we're discussing" != "forced into quotas".

 

[AG31]

"Measuring the thing we're discussing" != "forced into quotas".

Once upon a time I'm sure I knew what != meant. Does it mean "not equal?"

 

[AwkwardMD]

Once upon a time I'm sure I knew what != meant. Does it mean "not equal?"

Correct. The exclamation point is a NOT operator in some programming languages.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Other than my early years as a streetwalker, my only professions were Private Investigations and Fugitive Recovery. The FR was actually just a part of the PI work. It did, however, require other training and an additional license. I'm pretty certain that it hadn't changed since Dad was a PI when I began. He had black, white, Latin, and Asian associates. I had the same. However, that I became a supervisor as a black woman was new. His former partner, well, one of them, was the head of the agency I went to work for, and yes, him knowing Pops played a role. But it took Rulan about 20 years to make a supervisor rank, and Dad did it within a year and a half. Rulan is black, and Dad is white.

They'd always had women, but in the 80s, most of the women were used as bate and didn't do real investigative work. But they haven't quit hiring white dudes.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Once upon a time I'm sure I knew what != meant. Does it mean "not equal?"

Yep. I forget which language I learned it in, but that's what it means as conversational shorthand.

 

[WhiteTailDarkTip]

Ted Sturgeon made that observation about SF back in 1957: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

Quoting Ted Sturgeon makes me nostalgic for “Baby is Three” & “Amok Time”

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Yep. I forget which language I learned it in, but that's what it means as conversational shorthand.

Often pronounced 'pling' or 'bang' or apparently 'crash' by said programmers. I once knew a lass called Pling. There was a shortening of her name she didn't like, so she got called ElizabethNotLizzie which got shortened to NotLizzie and Not, and then Pling. I believe an ex of hers was known as Plong over a decade after they split up...