Have marketing distinctions genderized literary fiction?

Toothpaste · Feb 9, 2011

Libbie said:
Hahaha!

I feel extremely fortunate that most of the books I studied in my English classes either had women (or girls) as main characters or were gender-neutral.

Sincerely curious, what were these gender-neutral books?

Libbie · Feb 9, 2011

Toothpaste said:
Sincerely curious, what were these gender-neutral books?

Flowers for Algernon and The Heart is a Lonely Hunter are the only ones that are coming immediately to mind. I feel like there were more.

Toothpaste · Feb 9, 2011

Did any have female protags?

I guess what I'm getting at is the second you said "gender-neutral" I immediately guessed that that they would be books with men as protagonists. This is another unconscious bias, and one I personally try to deal with in my writing and might have succeeded a bit with ALEX but not since, is trying to create a female "everyman", where a woman can be the protagonist of a story and the story not be about the fact that she's a woman, but rather a story of "ideas". As you put it, "gender-neutral".

I was rather hoping I was wrong though, so that you could give me some suggestions to read up on

. Can you think if any didn't have male protags?

ETA: Just had another thought, in FLOWERS at least Charlie goes through a sexual awakening as his brain develops, so it still deals with a male POV of male sexuality. I wonder if Charlie was a girl, and nothing else about the story changed whether it would then no longer be gender-neutral because suddenly it's a story about a woman awakening to the world around her? Not sure about this, just thinking out loud. . . or well, you know, whatever "out loud" is on a writing forum . . .

Amadan · Feb 9, 2011

Libbie said:
Flowers for Algernon and The Heart is a Lonely Hunter are the only ones that are coming immediately to mind. I feel like there were more.

Those are only gender-neutral if you assume default-male is "gender neutral."

aruna · Feb 9, 2011

Toothpaste said:
(now, if you're saying that men who don't like angsty novels won't like this, just as women who don't like angsty novels won't like it, that's different)

Yep, that's me! I don't care about the writer or the MC's sex; it's the angstyness I hate.

Priene said:
Droning angsty men bore me quite as much as drony angsty women. My ennui is an equal opportunity employer.
.

You took the words out of my mouth!

Amadan said:
Re: marketing. I read The Time Traveler's Wife before it was a big deal and a movie, but I probably would have avoided it once it started being marketed as a litfic love story (i.e., "women's fiction").

I read it AFTER it became famous and didn't get the appeal at all.
But take a book like We Need to Talk About Kevin.
Written by a woman with a man's name (not pen name!) and won the Orange Prize. ABout a family situation. Won the Orange Prize.
I'd be curious to know who it was received by male critics, and male readers. For me it's totally gender-neutral.

Toothpaste · Feb 10, 2011

Isn't the Orange Prize just for female authors? Isn't it therefore more likely a book about a "female situation" might have a chance in such a contest? The existence of the Orange Prize is proof enough that women writers in general feel ignored by critics and judges and therefore had to start their own contest (and yes, I realise people have already debated the validity of having such a contest, and questioned why there aren't all male contests etc - the answer of course being that "gender-neutral" contests tend to lean towards all male anyway).

As to your personal taste Aruna, that's awesome, but I kind of feel it's beside the point. Just as I feel when a man shows up saying he reads books by everyone. That's lovely to hear, but it still doesn't mean that the bias doesn't exist with others. This isn't a debate about our personal tastes (if it was then my discussing this in the first place would be ridiculous as my writing and taste tends towards the stereotypically male - again I realise how silly it is to call something "male" when I myself write that way and yet . . .), this is about an existing issue that is prevalent amongst readers, publishers and reviewers, despite our own personal preferences.

aruna · Feb 10, 2011

I don't believe there's anything awesome in my own personal taste, Tothpaste; it's just that I believe that Doris Lessing is already a legend in her own right, and as succesful a literary fiction author as any male, if not more so. I see her as far more an institution in literary fiction in the UK than, for instance, Martin Amis. I don't see Priene's dislike of her kind of work as having anything to do with her being female; that's all I wanted to say; just wanted to lend my voice, as a woman, to his. Sure there's a bias but in time things will improve.

Libbie · Feb 10, 2011

Toothpaste said:
Did any have female protags?

I guess what I'm getting at is the second you said "gender-neutral" I immediately guessed that that they would be books with men as protagonists. This is another unconscious bias, and one I personally try to deal with in my writing and might have succeeded a bit with ALEX but not since, is trying to create a female "everyman", where a woman can be the protagonist of a story and the story not be about the fact that she's a woman, but rather a story of "ideas". As you put it, "gender-neutral".

I was rather hoping I was wrong though, so that you could give me some suggestions to read up on . Can you think if any didn't have male protags?

ETA: Just had another thought, in FLOWERS at least Charlie goes through a sexual awakening as his brain develops, so it still deals with a male POV of male sexuality. I wonder if Charlie was a girl, and nothing else about the story changed whether it would then no longer be gender-neutral because suddenly it's a story about a woman awakening to the world around her? Not sure about this, just thinking out loud. . . or well, you know, whatever "out loud" is on a writing forum . . .

Well, by that definition, books with female protagonists wouldn't be gender-neutral, either. My definition of gender-neutral was more like "this book doesn't deal with a theme of 'looking at X problem from a male perspective,' (or from a female perspective)" as in the case of, say, Rabbit, Run, which is the story of a guy trying to reconcile himself to adulthood, and which has a distinctly "this is a male approach" kind of theme to it. (That was a lot of commas, but I feel secure that I used them all correctly.)

The Heart is a Lonely Hunter has a (young) female protagonist who is ultimately the focus of the book, but the book spends time in the POV of many different characters, showing their takes on the world and on their town...women and men.

The only TRULY gender-neutral book I've ever read, where the sex of the narrator is never mentioned, is Written On the Body by Jeanette Winterson. I definitely didn't read that in high school...it's a bit racy for even the most progressive English class.

Libbie · Feb 10, 2011

Amadan said:
Those are only gender-neutral if you assume default-male is "gender neutral."

For god's sake, people. Default-female isn't "gender neutral" either. Please try to consider men and women equally.

And The Heart is a Lonely Hunter's main protagonist is a nine-year-old girl. But it does spend time in the POV of various characters, both male and female. Have you read the book?

Priene · Feb 10, 2011

Toothpaste said:
The existence of the Orange Prize is proof enough that women writers in general feel ignored by critics and judges and therefore had to start their own contest.

It's proof that some women, and Kate Mosse in particular, were angered by the all-male Booker Prize shortlist of 1991. It hardly proves the general case you're asserting.

Amadan · Feb 10, 2011

Libbie said:
For god's sake, people. Default-female isn't "gender neutral" either. Please try to consider men and women equally.

What do you think a "gender neutral" book would be? I don't think an all-women book or an all-men book is gender neutral. Obviously there are lots of other ways books can be "coded" for gender.

I haven't read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, but I have read Flowers for Algernon. A book with no (or a few incidental) female characters is not "gender neutral." That doesn't mean the story and characters might not appeal to both genders, but having no protagonists you can identify with unless you pretend you're the same gender/race/etc. is a big part of what makes a lot of books and movies unappealing to overlooked groups.

Note, I'm not saying men only want to read about male protagonists and vice versa.

Toothpaste · Feb 10, 2011

Libbie said:
For god's sake, people. Default-female isn't "gender neutral" either. Please try to consider men and women equally.

And The Heart is a Lonely Hunter's main protagonist is a nine-year-old girl. But it does spend time in the POV of various characters, both male and female. Have you read the book?

The point is, that with FLOWERS you have a male protagonist dealing with becoming a self aware male as he becomes smarter and yet you classed it as gender-neutral. The argument was that you were presenting a male POV as gender-neutral, not that we were presenting a female POV as such. Default female is definitely not gender-neutral, nor has it ever been, that's actually the point. But many consider (possibly not yourself, but please, remember, this isn't about personal taste, this is about a general bias) the male POV to be gender-neutral, like yourself, as opposed to it being a male POV.

Further I'd argue that possibly the one true form of gender-neutral protagonist is a child, because they haven't matured sexually. So you have THE HEART, you also have TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD etc. And, if I may put myself on the same list as such amazing authors, you have ALEX. I wonder if this is one of the reasons I love children's books so much, that boys and girls get to be read in the same way, no gender distinctions (though, alas, despite this, boys are still reluctant to pick up books with a girl main character, sigh).

The point was, that many people (again, maybe not yourself, but you did do it too) see gender-neutral as default male. But they never see it as default-female. And that's a pity.

Aruna - fair enough. And I'm glad you assume things will improve. So do I, but I feel they won't improve on their own. People need to discuss these issues, bring them to the fore.

ETA: I should add that, no, I haven't read THE HEART, but I did google it when you mentioned it and the synopsis did mention the girl. But it also mentioned the main character as a deaf man and three other main male characters, and not a single grown female main character. Also note that the lone girl, is a tom-boy. So your gender neutral book has nothing feminine about it, but a heck of a lot of the masculine.

Toothpaste · Feb 10, 2011

Priene said:
It's proof that some women, and Kate Mosse in particular, were angered by the all-male Booker Prize shortlist of 1991. It hardly proves the general case you're asserting.

Uh huh. Okay. I'm wrong, you are right, there is absolutely no gender bias out there.

Fascinating how each individual example of a bias against women, be it the survey of reviewing that started the other thread, or women feeling a need to have their own writing contest, or that Franzen gets shelved in lit fic while writing on topics that would get women shelved as women's fic, or articles about how female authors get given girly covers even when the subject matter isn't girly, how each example tends to be greeted with "Well that's only one instance, it's not proof of anything". What is enough proof? Honestly. How much proof do people need? It's a very difficult thing to prove in the first place, and yet people are, time and time again offering up examples only to have them shot down as just one example and nothing concrete. Each may be one example of one particular instance, but all of them together are pretty significant. At least, that's what I'd think, clearly I'm alone on this.

I'm tired. I need lunch. I may or may not return to this thread. I'll see how I feel . . .

Shady Lane · Feb 10, 2011

In my AP Literature class two years, ago, I read:

Pride and Prejudice
Grendel
Beowulf
Jane Eyre
1984
A Farewell to Arms
Their Eyes Were Watching God
a lot of poetry, mostly Plath and Eliot

That's 3 female protags, and I think Beowulf should be excused, tbh, since people were dumb back then and pretty much didn't know women existed, but we still have to read it.

But we did okay with reading classics with female protags. Just thought I'd share my experience.

LaceWing · Feb 10, 2011

vidaweb.org took a look at the major magazines and tallied up who got reviews and who gave them.

http://vidaweb.org/the-count-2010

Since I often check magazines such as these for recommendations, I take seriously the implication that reviewers are to be questioned as much as publishers.

Oh, and then there are the editors of various short story outlets, most of whom are male, though I've lost the link to the article on this.

Deleted member 42 · Feb 10, 2011

Shady Lane said:
I think Beowulf should be excused, tbh, since people were dumb back then and pretty much didn't know women existed, but we still have to read it.

Oh Shady! The pain!

The monster, Grendel's dam, is a woman.

And part of the horror is that she is female.

The women are crucial--but I suspect the reason they're crucial sorta gets skipped in the average AP class.

And I love to freak out my students by arguing that the poet Anonymous is a woman.

Deleted member 42 · Feb 10, 2011

I note that not much has changed since Virgina Woolf wrote A Room of One's Own.

Libbie · Feb 10, 2011

Amadan said:
What do you think a "gender neutral" book would be? I don't think an all-women book or an all-men book is gender neutral. Obviously there are lots of other ways books can be "coded" for gender.

One that doesn't specifically take the stance of "This is a book that examines Issue X from a MAN'S perspective." or "from a WOMAN'S perspective." Most books, I think, are really gender-neutral stories, but we choose to label them as "for men" or "for women" based on the sex of the characters, which is making the totally silly assumptions that 1) women won't enjoy stories with male characters, and vice-versa, and 2) that just because a character is of a particular gender, that book MUST be about the experience of that gender. There are many books, in fact, that are simply stories of HUMAN experience without bringing into it how that human's gender changes his or her struggle.

Let me give you some examples from the other side of the fence, so you can see what I mean about gender neutrality by an example of contrast. Two of my favorite collections of short stories are The Dog of the Marriage by Amy Hempel and Male of the Species by Alex Mindt.

Although most of the narrators in Hempel's stories are women, most of these stories are about emotional struggles that both men and women face -- specifically, the dissolution of relationships (it's a common theme throughout the collection.) I consider The Dog of the Marriage to be gender-neutral, since the focus is on the emotion of loss in the context of relationships, not on how women uniquely perceive loss of relationships.

By contrast, Mindt's collection is about what it's like to be a man; what unique struggles are experienced by fathers, sons, brothers; what it's like for a man's perspective on life to change as he ages; and other stories that are specifically written to view the world through a man's eyes, in ways that directly speak to society's views of maleness. I do not consider Male of the Species to be gender-neutral. I still love it.

I haven't read The Heart is a Lonely Hunter,

Then why did you automatically assume that it's got no female characters, or even that it has an all-male cast? That was a funny sort of knee-jerk reaction you had.

but I have read Flowers for Algernon. A book with no (or a few incidental) female characters is not "gender neutral."

I really don't give a shit how many characters of any gender are in a book or a story. What makes it gender-neutral or gender-biased is the CONTENT AND THEME OF THE STORY, not its cast. Flowers for Algernon is about a person's loss of self as that person becomes more acceptable to society, and about how society negatively judges those who are different and tries to change them. That is a theme that spans gender. And if you (general you) have a problem connecting with all-encompassing human themes because your plumbing doesn't match the character's, then I question whether the empathy center of your brain functions properly.

That doesn't mean the story and characters might not appeal to both genders, but having no protagonists you can identify with unless you pretend you're the same gender/race/etc. is a big part of what makes a lot of books and movies unappealing to overlooked groups.

I truly feel sorry -- truly; this is not sarcasm -- for people who are so self-centered that they cannot identify with other human beings, no matter what their gender or skin color or socioeconomic condition. We are human beings first and foremost. I have no problem immersing myself in a story that has all-male characters, all-black characters, all-wealthy characters, all-French-speaking characters, or whatever. I believe there is something sadly un-nurtured in the minds of people who must have a particular identifying character who is just like them, and they cannot connect with and understand a story about people who are different from them.

There is something really, really wrong with a society that raises its children to believe that they can only empathize with those who are so similar to themselves as to be indistinguishable.

Libbie · Feb 10, 2011

Toothpaste said:
The point is, that with FLOWERS you have a male protagonist dealing with becoming a self aware male as he becomes smarter and yet you classed it as gender-neutral.

I read the book as a human protagonist becoming a self-aware human as he becomes smarter; and the tragedy of his loss of sense of self, the tragedy of his understanding of how others judge him.

Yes, part of his awakening self-awareness is his realization that he's attracted to women (or one specific woman, at least.) So? Sexuality is part of humanity. The story would not have been one bit different to me if Charlie had been gay, or if he'd been a woman who realized she was attracted to a man, or a woman who realized she was attracted to a woman.

But many consider the male POV to be gender-neutral, like yourself, as opposed to it being a male POV.

Suddenly we're talking about POV, when I thought the issue was theme and content.

Can you or can you not identify with a general, human-centered THEME when it's presented in the male POV? Or do you insist that you must only digest your human stories via a female POV, because you are female? If you can identify just fine with a human story told by a character who happens to be male, then what is the big deal here? I fail to understand why this is such a problem for you, Toothpaste. I can see being upset over a perceived bias in the industry, but to endlessly pick apart one reader's personal perception of "gender neutrality" because it does not line up with your own seems, frankly, ridiculous.

Further I'd argue that possibly the one true form of gender-neutral protagonist is a child, because they haven't matured sexually. So you have THE HEART, you also have TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD etc. And, if I may put myself on the same list as such amazing authors, you have ALEX. I wonder if this is one of the reasons I love children's books so much, that boys and girls get to be read in the same way, no gender distinctions (though, alas, despite this, boys are still reluctant to pick up books with a girl main character, sigh).

Perhaps I am more enlightened than all other adult readers on the planet, then, because I literally have no problem at all identifying with a narrator with a mature sexuality who doesn't look like me. Whether you personally choose to call such books gender-neutral or not, I don't care. TO ME, experiencing them as a reader, unless they explicitly deal with issues that ONLY affect men or women, then they are gender neutral.

Somehow I doubt I'm the only one out there like me, though. Even I don't have an inflated enough sense of self to believe that I am the Buddha come again. I really doubt that as many people as you seem to think have THAT MUCH of an issue with understanding and appreciating a different perspective on life -- that goes for male readers as much as it does for female. I really do think that the apparent schism in literary fiction is due to two factors: 1) more men write literary fiction, just as more women write romance; and 2) the pool of female writers of literary fiction has been further diluted by the advent of Women's Fiction as a marketing category, thereby putting a good many women writers out of the scope of certain awards and review columns. We could argue about whether that move was intentional or not, but it would serve no real purpose.

The point was, that many people (again, maybe not yourself, but you did do it too) see gender-neutral as default male. But they never see it as default-female. And that's a pity.

*eyeroll* Except that I listed The Heart is a Lonely Hunter as one of my gender-neutral picks, so uh.... Also, I'm sure I've read more books -- many more -- that I consider to be gender-neutral and have female narrators, but none are springing to mind right now because stating the same points over and over and over again has EXHAUSTED MY BRAIN on this topic.

ETA: I should add that, no, I haven't read THE HEART, but I did google it when you mentioned it and the synopsis did mention the girl. But it also mentioned the main character as a deaf man and three other main male characters, and not a single grown female main character. Also note that the lone girl, is a tom-boy. So your gender neutral book has nothing feminine about it, but a heck of a lot of the masculine.

You haven't read it. If you haven't read it, you are really in no place to judge what it's like. End of story.

I am done with this discussion. It has gone well into the realm of farcical. Toodle-dee-doo.

Toothpaste · Feb 10, 2011

Libbie said:
I really don't give a shit how many characters of any gender are in a book or a story. What makes it gender-neutral or gender-biased is the CONTENT AND THEME OF THE STORY, not its cast. Flowers for Algernon is about a person's loss of self as that person becomes more acceptable to society, and about how society negatively judges those who are different and tries to change them. That is a theme that spans gender. And if you (general you) have a problem connecting with all-encompassing human themes because your plumbing doesn't match the character's, then I question whether the empathy center of your brain functions properly.

I truly feel sorry -- truly; this is not sarcasm -- for people who are so self-centered that they cannot identify with other human beings, no matter what their gender or skin color or socioeconomic condition. We are human beings first and foremost. I have no problem immersing myself in a story that has all-male characters, all-black characters, all-wealthy characters, all-French-speaking characters, or whatever. I believe there is something sadly un-nurtured in the minds of people who must have a particular identifying character who is just like them, and they cannot connect with and understand a story about people who are different from them.

There is something really, really wrong with a society that raises its children to believe that they can only empathize with those who are so similar to themselves as to be indistinguishable.

On this we absolutely agree. And there is something wrong with our society that instead of teaching boys they can enjoy books with girls as main characters we try to find more "boy books" for them to read.

But we are unique, not the norm, and it is the norm about which we are speaking.

When those of us brought up the gender-neutral concept, we did it because for many many many OTHER people gender-neutral ONLY exists when it's a book with a male protag. A book about ideas, not about gender or whathaveyou, for many can only have a male protag. WAITING FOR GODOT for example is a play about existentialism and ideas. Not about men waiting for Godot. Cast women in the roles, and almost universally an audience will question "How now does the play change with women in the parts, what does this say about the female condition?" Not: "Oh it's the exact same play dealing with the exact same themes as always, just women are acting in it. Carry on."

So when you gave examples of gender-neutral works that featured mostly men (aside from one tom-boy girl), it was another example of how men aren't seen as PEOEPLE first, men second. What I mean is, the story isn't about men, it's about ideas and how issues affect individuals. Not how they affect MEN. Whereas women are often times seen as women first, and not people. Take almost any film that isn't about women, and you'll have a stock female character for example. Why is it there is only one woman usually? (or maybe two, a love interest and a friend) The reason is that "woman" is on par with a male character type. So while you'll have many different kinds of men (let's use the action movie model) - geek, leading man, black dude (and yes, the minority thing gets to me too, but this is a discussion about women at the moment), comic relief, muscle head, villain. You'll have one type of woman: hot really tough chick. POSSIBLY the geek might also get to be female. Okay, and possibly there is a damsal in distress as well.

I am not saying that I personally see women as women first, people second. Or that gender-neutral for me can't involve women as protags. I am saying that the majority of people out there do. This isn't about MY personal tastes, this is about society. A society where marketing classifies as something by women as meant only for women, and something by men as universal. As something starring women as meant only for women, and something starring men as something universal.

And like I said at the beginning, when I see a cry for more "books for boys" I get truly upset because there are many books out there boys could totally get into, if they could just get over the girl as main character thing. I think THAT'S what we should be focusing on, not catering to this existing social norm.

Point is, I agree with you in almost all your sentiments about books and how you read them. We have a heck of a lot in common that way. But our personal attitudes are not common, even if here on a writing forum it may seem that way. This is a special place, not the norm. And my purpose in discussing these matters as level headed and rationally as possible is to bring to light an unconscious bias that otherwise could easily be ignored by the likes of us because we don't share in it.

Toothpaste · Feb 10, 2011

Libbie said:
I am done with this discussion. It has gone well into the realm of farcical. Toodle-dee-doo.

I am very very sorry to hear that. I thought, up until this line, you and I were having a really quality discussion. I had no clue we were driving each other crazy.

I think what it comes down to very basically is your disbelief that you are special in the way you read books. That you simply don't believe the majority of people out there don't have the same attitude as you (or I - again, I'd like to stress that nothing I've said about others' perception reflects my own). And so my saying what I'm saying frustrates you simply because you don't believe other people really see the world as I have said.

I don't know how to convince you of it aside from pointing to the things you addressed: why would marketing people categorise books in such a way if they didn't think it would sell more books? Publishers don't do anything to lose money. So ask yourself, why are books sold how they are, if there isn't a bias already existing for readers?

In any event, I was very excited when you started this thread because you seemed to see what I was getting at. Yet it seems as we go on, and the more I point out how unique your perspective is, the more frustrated you get with me and the more you seem to think I'm saying that that's how I look at books.

I'm a very empathetic person, and it might be hard to believe, but I can analyse how others approach reading while not sharing that approach.

So yeah. I'm very sorry I'm being farcical to you. Maybe when you get a moment to catch your breath you can re-read my points not as accusatory towards you (I don't for a second think you aren't telling me the truth, I am not denying that you see gender-neutral with both female and male protags), I am merely trying to point out what OTHERS do. This was NEVER personal. Never about you. And never about me for that matter.

Amadan · Feb 10, 2011

Libbie said:
One that doesn't specifically take the stance of "This is a book that examines Issue X from a MAN'S perspective." or "from a WOMAN'S perspective."

Then I'd disagree with your definition. Most books aren't even about "examining issues," at least not explicitly, and I think few authors say "I'm going to write this from a MAN's/WOMAN's perspective" (as opposed to "I'm going to use a male/female POV character," which isn't quite the same thing).

By your definition, noir detective stories are "gender neutral" since Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler weren't all "We're going to write detective stories from a MAN's perspective, 'cause Agatha Christie is just womaning up the genre too much."

Most books, I think, are really gender-neutral stories, but we choose to label them as "for men" or "for women" based on the sex of the characters, which is making the totally silly assumptions

That would be silly, but no one is saying that.

Then why did you automatically assume that it's got no female characters, or even that it has an all-male cast? That was a funny sort of knee-jerk reaction you had.

I didn't assume an all-male cast. I Googled it and read a few reviews.

Shady Lane · Feb 10, 2011

Medievalist said:
Oh Shady! The pain!

The monster, Grendel's dam, is a woman.

And part of the horror is that she is female.

The women are crucial--but I suspect the reason they're crucial sorta gets skipped in the average AP class.

And I love to freak out my students by arguing that the poet Anonymous is a woman.

Ah! You are so totally right.

Truth is, I might not have read Beowulf very carefully...second semester senior and all that

Ken · Feb 10, 2011

... well I guess there were the Hardy Boy and Nancy Drew books that were specifically written for boys or girls. I read all the Hardy Boy books when I was a lad and enjoyed them a lot. Would be interesting to know how the Nancy Drew books differed? Those were mystery books too if I'm not mistaken.

To me it doesn't matter what gender an author or protagonist is. I've read plenty penned by women or having female MCs that I've enjoyed a lot, like Julie of the Wolves, by Jean George. A great story is a great story.

Toothpaste · Feb 10, 2011

Sigh.

That's awesome to hear. And I'm guessing most people at AW would say similarly.

Our personal preferences are beside the point however. I suppose people really do feel the need to come into such threads and talk about personal preferences. If that's the case, I suppose most people in this thread assume I judge what I read based on an author's gender or main character's gender because I am trying to advocate against that. The thought of course being: "Well I'm gender blind, so I just don't see what you're talking about, the fact that you do see a gender bias clearly means you have one."

Alas, this is not the case. This isn't about individuals. It's about an unconscious bias that absolutely exists in society (see the many examples of it in this thread and the closed one) and how we, who don't share that bias, can attempt to remedy that.

Have marketing distinctions genderized literary fiction?

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

On a wing and a prayer

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

On a wing and a prayer

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

Out to lunch

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

my name is hannah

Deleted member 42

Deleted member 42

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

Worst song played on ugliest guitar

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!

my name is hannah

THE RECKLESS RESCUE is out now!