PDA

View Full Version : We can't publish you. You're the wrong gender.



Pages : [1] 2

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 11:44 AM
That's right. I'm male, therefore, my writing obviously cannot appeal to your female crowd. Not your lesbian crowd, your female crowd.

I bumped into a publisher that catagorically refuses to read anything of mine because of my gender. This just seems wrong to me. I support equal rights for women, god damn it. I don't live in a different world from females; sometimes my perspective isn't even different.

You can't publish me because of that dangly thing between my legs? I'm sorry, my ability to purchase your books and magazines just crash landed on the eastern seaboard.

I'd love everyone's thought on this sort of discrimination. Is it justified? Isn't the writing biz the same as any other business? Has anyone else come across this?

Edit:

I'm keeping a list of the Publishers in this post that only publish female authors, as I find them. Feel free to join me in boycotting them.

Virgin Publishing Ltd


First things first. We accept submissions from female authors only, with no exceptions. We have found that, in this genre, authors tend to write better for their own gender. Besides, the fact that all our authors are guaranteed to be women is a valuable part of our marketing strategy.
The KKK has a similar marketing strategy.

#

Lunacat Publishing


We do not want to discriminate against male authors, but...
Then don't.

KTC
12-28-2006, 03:13 PM
I find a LOT of publications seeking WOMEN only, Bart. Happens ALL the time. I absolutely do not like it. I constantly choke on the double standards of this world.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 03:39 PM
I find a LOT of publications seeking WOMEN only, Bart. Happens ALL the time. I absolutely do not like it. I constantly choke on the double standards of this world.

Double Standards only pass if people let it happen. Frankly, I'm pissed enough about this do something... but I'm not sure what, yet. My personal boycot of these deplorable publishers will probably not help much.

What would happen if I had a magazine out that only published male authors? Hah! The world would dump on my head like a load of shit-bricks.

KTC
12-28-2006, 03:45 PM
You would be in a lot of trouble, my friend.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 03:58 PM
You would be in a lot of trouble, my friend.

I don't resign as quickly as you, I think.

I think I'm going to call the ACLU and see what they say. I'm pretty sure you can't openly descriminate against gender in the US.

KTC
12-28-2006, 04:07 PM
Well, I will listen intently for the outcome...but I tell you, I look all the time for new publishing possibilities and I come against this gender wall on a DAILY basis. Not just every now and again. Post the results, please Bart.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 04:08 PM
Well, I will listen intently for the outcome...but I tell you, I look all the time for new publishing possibilities and I come against this gender wall on a DAILY basis. Not just every now and again. Post the results, please Bart.

'kay.

If its at all possible, can you send me the names of the bigotted assholes publishers you've encountered that present this gender wall?

KTC
12-28-2006, 04:12 PM
lol. Next time I come across one, I'll post it.

Bmwhtly
12-28-2006, 04:15 PM
I'm pissed enough about this do something... but I'm not sure what, yet.I'll get the petrol-bombs, you round up an angry mob.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 04:23 PM
I'll get the petrol-bombs, you round up an angry mob.

Sounds like a plan.

Misty_Blue
12-28-2006, 04:48 PM
Discrimination makes my blood boil, right from the time when as a performer/ singer, I found out I was being paid half the amount the male acts were getting paid! I hope you get some justice B!!

janetbellinger
12-28-2006, 05:27 PM
This is really discriminatory. You could likely win an appeal in court if you felt so inclined. I once received a letter from a Canadian Roman Catholic Board of Education refusing to consider my teaching application because I was not Catholic. Now becing Cathoic is not a requirement; you just have to have a letter of reference from your Roman Catholic parish priest. Like, how are non-Catholics supposed to get one? Personally, I like to see a male's point of view in a woman's magazine.

That's right. I'm male, therefore, my writing obviously cannot appeal to your female crowd. Not your lesbian crowd, your female crowd.

I bumped into a publisher that catagorically refuses to read anything of mine because of my gender. This just seems wrong to me. I support equal rights for women, god damn it. I don't live in a different world from females; sometimes my perspective isn't even different.

You can't publish me because of that dangly thing between my legs? I'm sorry, my ability to purchase your books and magazines just crash landed on the eastern seaboard.

I'd love everyone's thought on this sort of discrimination. Is it justified? Isn't the writing biz the same as any other business? Has anyone else come across this?

Edit:

I'm keeping a list of the Publishers in this post that only publish female authors, as I find them. Feel free to join me in boycotting them.

Virgin Publishing Ltd


The KKK has a similar marketing strategy.

#

Lunacat Publishing


Then don't.

#

Magic Carpet Publishing

(I'm waiting to hear back from Magic Carpet about whether or not they consider male authors.)

ChaosTitan
12-28-2006, 05:57 PM
I'm probably about to get lynched for this one, but am I the only person sitting here going, "So what?"

Niche markets exist all over the place. There are magazines and imprints that only accept manuscripts if you are African-American. Same for a variety of other races and cultures. So what? They cater to a niche audience. Let them. There are hundreds of other places to submit your stories.

Jongfan
12-28-2006, 06:02 PM
What would happen if I had a magazine out that only published male authors? Hah! The world would dump on my head like a load of shit-bricks.


Exactly.. this is just wrong.. Go git em..

Misty_Blue
12-28-2006, 06:06 PM
I'm probably about to get lynched for this one, but am I the only person sitting here going, "So what?"

Niche markets exist all over the place. There are magazines and imprints that only accept manuscripts if you are African-American. Same for a variety of other races and cultures. So what? They cater to a niche audience. Let them. There are hundreds of other places to submit your stories.

There may be thousands of others, but would we allow one magazine to say 'we only accept Manuscripts from white people - no blacks?" I know its hard to fight for what you believe in, but discrimination if left to its own devices tends to spread.. I'm with Bartholomew on this one!

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 06:24 PM
I'm probably about to get lynched for this one, but am I the only person sitting here going, "So what?"

Niche markets exist all over the place. There are magazines and imprints that only accept manuscripts if you are African-American. Same for a variety of other races and cultures. So what? They cater to a niche audience. Let them. There are hundreds of other places to submit your stories.

Put it in business terms. Writing is my job, and they won't hire me because I'm male. The only difference is that I'm freelance, not paid-by-the-hour.

A niche market is all well and good--the material they sell is aimed at one group of people. Why must this material be supplied by women only?

Are you telling me that if I started a magazine that was by men, for men, and wouldn't hire females---you'd be okay with that?

What if I started a magazine that was by whites, for whites, and wouldn't hire Jews? Sounds a bit like how a certain dictator got into power.

Celia Cyanide
12-28-2006, 06:35 PM
The KKK has a similar marketing strategy.

I understand why you have a problem with this, but I think comparing it to the KKK is ridiculous.

Discrimination. Bigotry. Know the difference.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 06:52 PM
I understand why you have a problem with this, but I think comparing it to the KKK is ridiculous.

Discrimination. Bigotry. Know the difference.

A lesser evil is still evil. The likes of the KKK are the very reason they shouldn't be allowed to do this. If they can start a rag that only hires women, the KKK could certainly open a chain of stores that only hired whites. Why not?

Female-only Gyms I can understand. Magazines? Nope. Sorry. Even Cosmo has male contributors.

Maryn
12-28-2006, 06:56 PM
I think I'm going to call the ACLU and see what they say. I'm pretty sure you can't openly descriminate against gender in the US.Your case will not stand up in court. It's perfectly legal for a private entity to discriminate against people who are not part of a protected class. As a group, men are not legally protected, having not been victimized by past discrimination.

Maryn, whose lawyer is shaving at the moment

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 06:59 PM
Your case will not stand up in court. It's perfectly legal to discriminate against people who are not part of a protected class. As a group, men are not legally protected, having not been victimized by past discrimination.

Maryn, whose lawyer is shaving at the moment

Doesn't mean I can't try.

What's the difference between being victimized by a past descrimination, and being victimized by a current one? Men are people too, and I'm seeing a disturbing trend in this, and other things, where man-bashing is becoming acceptable. I shudder at the actual logic behind the decision to exclude males from their publication.

Worse comes to worse, I'll still never read anything with their name on it. Ever.

Bart, who needs a catchy tag-line.

James D. Macdonald
12-28-2006, 07:01 PM
Surely you don't mean the Magic Carpet Books that's an imprint of Harcourt Brace, do you? I mean, I've been published by them (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0152015205/ref=nosim/madhousemanor/). The rest are tiny little niche publishers -- assuming you wanted to get published by them at all, I'd have to ask why?

For the rest, why do you think pseudonyms were invented? I bet that if they got all their authors together in person that they'd get a couple of real surprises.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 07:05 PM
Surely you don't mean the Magic Carpet Books that's an imprint of Harcourt Brace, do you? I mean, I've been published by them (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0152015205/ref=nosim/madhousemanor/). The rest are tiny little niche publishers -- assuming you wanted to get published by them at all, I'd have to ask why?

For the rest, why do you think pseudonyms were invented? I bet that if they got all their authors together in person that they'd get a couple of real surprises.

The Magic Carpet Books I am talking about has an AOL email address and is based out of Conneticut.

Same place?

If they were connected to Harcourt Brace, they kept it very, very quiet. All I know is I saw a submission guideline that said "Female only." Unless the niche is something like lesbian erotica, why wouldn't a male write for said niche?

Pen Names are all well and good, until I try to cash a check made out to Thuvia von Klick.

Ronnie
12-28-2006, 07:13 PM
I'm with Maryn on this one. If they said they didn't accept work from old people, minorities, certain religions, then you'd have a case. Fact is, white males are almost the only classification that it's OK to discriminate against.

I'm think if they'd said they only accept from heterosexuals it would still be kosher. At least that's how it used to be, not sure if that's changed.

Being female, I don't think I'd be this upset if, say, Maxim told me they wouldn't accept my work.

If this company's audience demands a female voice only, why not cater to that? Would you prefer they say they allow male submissions only to SASE them without even reading the work you went to the trouble of submitting.

Julie Worth
12-28-2006, 07:17 PM
In the case of Virgin Publishing, the founder of the umbrella company--Virgin Enterprises--is a man. A "sister" company is Nexus Books, which publishes S&M books for straight male readers.

maestrowork
12-28-2006, 07:19 PM
I think in principle discrimation is wrong. In practice, however, these businesses have the right to dictate how they want to run their PRIVATE business and what kind of books/authors they publish. Is it fair? No. But you also have the right to not buy their books. I think it's time to move on.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 07:21 PM
Fact is, white males are almost the only classification that it's OK to discriminate against.


And, fact is, thats pathetic.



If this company's audience demands a female voice only, why not cater to that? Would you prefer they say they allow male submissions only to SASE them without even reading the work you went to the trouble of submitting.

Why should an author have to lie about who he is, just because the owner of some magazine is a sexist pig?

And they aren't just discriminating against White Males.

They're discriminating against black males too. And Asian males. And homosexual males. And Jewish Males. And Buddhist males. And all sorts of other males. Guess what? I fall into one of the above catagories.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 07:22 PM
I think in principle discrimation is wrong. In practice, however, these businesses have the right to dictate how they want to run their PRIVATE business and what kind of books/authors they publish.

Apply that logic to an an inner city office building.

Is it still true?

Maryn
12-28-2006, 07:23 PM
I'll make myself unpopular now. (Geez, is that smart? At the only site where I give a damn what people think? Probably not.)

Lunacat bills itself as Science Fiction and Fantasy by Women. Virgin Publishing has plenty of imprints that accept male mss., but its Black Lace imprint is aimed at the female reader of erotica and accepts mss. only from women. Their guidelines say "First things first. We accept submissions from female authors only, with no exceptions. We have found that, in this genre, authors tend to write better for their own gender. Besides, the fact that all our authors are guaranteed to be women is a valuable part of our marketing strategy." So they've even explained that it's a marketing decision.

In my experience, both erotica and fantasy written by men is quite different than that written by women, overall. (Yeah, yeah, I'm sure we can all name exceptions, but let's not.) It's entirely possible both these publishers know that men rarely-to-never write what their readers buy. Or that they'd like to give women--long the victims of discrimination in publishing and everywhere else--a hand up in the publishing world. Or maybe they're just man-haters who've been rejected too many times because they're hideously unattractive. My point is that their reasoning is not ours to know or to judge.

Whatever their reasoning, the smart writer follows publishers' guidelines. They don't want your manuscript, so don't send it. It's no different from publications who only want black authors, or Hispanic authors, or authors who breed dogs, pilot a jet, or have traveled France. The publisher feels, right or wrong, that the experience of being a female has a direct impact on whether you can write what they want to buy.

Maybe they're wrong, but it's their right.

Maryn, failing to be outraged

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 07:30 PM
So they've even explained that it's a marketing decision.

No, they've disguised petty sexism.

If it is their right to discriminate against me, why can't I have, say, a Horror Rag that only hires black male authors. EVERYONE Knows that black males write the best horror.

KimJo
12-28-2006, 07:38 PM
I'm not outraged, but I do think it's a bit unfair, because there are men who can write quite well for/as women, just as there are women who can write well for/as men. Personally, I'm a woman and when I try to write from a woman's point of view, I fail miserably; on the other hand, my YA fantasies are written first-person from the POV of teenage boys, and a couple friends of friends who have read them without knowing who wrote them thought they were written by a male. My romance WIPs are from the POV of the male leads, because I found I couldn't get inside the minds of the female leads nearly as effectively. If there were a publishing company that said, "We accept submissions from men only", there might be more of an outcry than Bartholomew's finding here, because our society has become accustomed to thinking of women as being discriminated against and men as being the discriminators. I do understand it as a marketing decision, and I agree that each company has the right to make its own decisions in that area, but I think the companies that do this might be losing out on some really good stories.

Bartholomew, have you thought about asking a female friend to submit your work in her name, assuming you have one you trust to pass the advance and royalties on to you?

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 07:42 PM
Bartholomew, have you thought about asking a female friend to submit your work in her name, assuming you have one you trust to pass the advance and royalties on to you?

An interesting idea, but I'm not grasping at straws for a publisher. Yet. ;) This is incidental to my trying to sell something; it is a very surreal thing to see, in large bold letters, "Your kind is not welcome here."

Bart, who's heading to the back of the bus.

James D. Macdonald
12-28-2006, 07:47 PM
Pen Names are all well and good, until I try to cash a check made out to Thuvia von Klick.

List Thuvia as a DBA name at your bank. (That's "Doing Business As.") Piece of cake. And you can copyright the work in Thuvia's name, too.

When Dean Koontz was writing category romance, he was doing it under a female name.

The next thing I'd suggest is to get a whole pile of the books these people have published, read them, and honestly ask yourself if you've written what they're printing.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 07:51 PM
List Thuvia as a DBA name at your bank. (That's "Doing Business As.") Piece of cake. And you can copyright the work in Thuvia's name, too.


Ooo. I didn't know you could do that!




The next thing I'd suggest is to get a whole pile of the books these people have published, read them, and honestly ask yourself if you've written what they're printing.

...the sad part? I have.

Bart, who refuses to be ashamed for writing smut, being white, or being male.

Celia Cyanide
12-28-2006, 07:57 PM
A lesser evil is still evil.

It's not even in the same league, and should not be compared. A magazine that chooses to publish only works written by women is not the same as a group guilty of lynching, harassment, hate speech, death threats, and burning crosses on private property. You're not being victimized in the same way, just because you can't be published by a magazine you don't want to buy anyway.

KimJo
12-28-2006, 07:59 PM
Getting a DBA account is pretty easy; I have one for my business. You just have to tell the bank what name you want on the account, or at least that's how it worked at the credit union where I have mine; the paperwork is filled out in your legal name with the DBA name listed as well, and when you endorse a check you sign both names.

Shadow_Ferret
12-28-2006, 08:05 PM
I guess, like Maryn, I too am failing to be enraged.

It's not like they make a secret that these are women only avenues. They state it very plainly, in fact.

Therefore, either create a female psuedonym or send it to one of the many agents or publishing companies that do accept all genders.

Ferret, having tea with Maryn and wondering what all the fuss is about

tourdeforce
12-28-2006, 08:08 PM
If their gimmick is 'stories by women', then they have every right to limit submissions to women only.

Jaycinth
12-28-2006, 08:09 PM
Bart, were I a lawyer, (I'd love to have extra time to persue that) I'd get your stuff together and march you down to the ACLU so fast you'd wet yourself. (sorry, unnecessary crudity.) I understand why they are saying that, but it is not fair. It can't even hold up the banner of affirmative action. Of course, if you sue them, then they could spendf all their cash fighting you and wind up out of business, depriving a bunch of writers of their current creative outlet.

You can write under a pseudonym, that is the easiest choice. And what James said about setting up an account at the bank 'DBA' is true...and easy. During the early part of the previous century, and during most of the centuries before that, female writers used names that were obviously male in order to get published...(and accepted into colleges, and accepted into law firms...medical schools....)

Hey Bart, why don't you try writing under an 'Uber Feminine' name, and then, once they have accepted it and printed it, go public withthe fact you are a guy. That should be a barrel of laughs.

tourdeforce
12-28-2006, 08:12 PM
For an anthology of stories by African-American writers, should Caucasians and Asians be allowed to submit?

maestrowork
12-28-2006, 08:16 PM
List Thuvia as a DBA name at your bank. (That's "Doing Business As.") Piece of cake. And you can copyright the work in Thuvia's name, too.

When Dean Koontz was writing category romance, he was doing it under a female name.

I don't know... it all sounds deceptive to me.

Also, I assume that while Koontz wrote under a female name, he used his real name with the publisher and cashed his checks using his real name. I am not convinced that he actually pretended to be a woman with his publisher.

Celia Cyanide
12-28-2006, 08:27 PM
Also, I assume that while Koontz wrote under a female name, he used his real name with the publisher and cash his checks using his real name. I am not convinced that he actually pretended to be a woman with his publisher.

I always find a way to turn the conversation toward my new favorite writer...JT Leroy! I read the article in New York Magazine. Laura Albert did pretend to be a man. She never told anyone she published with that she had actually written the books. She just made sure everyone was willing to pay other people.

Sheryl Nantus
12-28-2006, 08:30 PM
I have to echo Uncle Jim's point - they're not exactly big-time publishers and if they want to cut off their collective noses by narrowing down who can submit to them... let them!

James D. Macdonald
12-28-2006, 08:30 PM
If this is the Magic Carpet Books (http://www.magic-carpet-books.com/) you're talking about, they seem to be doing reprints of Victorian erotica, plus a few others that seem to all have been written by the same individual. They seem to have been in business for about a year.

What is it about this publisher that makes them the perfect fit for your book?

Mom'sWrite
12-28-2006, 08:50 PM
Bart, were I a lawyer, (I'd love to have extra time to persue that) I'd get your stuff together and march you down to the ACLU so fast you'd wet yourself. (sorry, unnecessary crudity.) I understand why they are saying that, but it is not fair. It can't even hold up the banner of affirmative action. Of course, if you sue them, then they could spendf all their cash fighting you and wind up out of business, depriving a bunch of writers of their current creative outlet.



Before you go off to the ACLU you should spend a little time looking at the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission's website. EOE laws only apply to the employees of companies with full time employees of 25 or more (or 15+ depending on how long they have been in business). As a freelancer, our dear Bart is without legal protection, even from the ACLU. Small companies are under no obligation to abide by any laws barring discriminatory practices and neither are the big companies when it comes to hiring contract, consultative or freelance workers. Just thought you ought to know.

Ronnie
12-28-2006, 08:52 PM
And, fact is, thats pathetic.

Then take it up with the people who make the laws, because while this private organization is operating within the boundries of law, aside from boycotting their work and getting others to boycott (which by the way is a wonderful tool allowed by the citizens of this CAPITALISTIC country), trying to take it up directly with them is a waste of your valuable time.

They are telling a group which represents roughly half of our population that they don't want their work because they believe that their paying customers don't want it. NOT discrimination, IMO.

Guess what - I could list dozens of jobs/freelance opportunities I'm not suited for and wouldn't be considered for based on some aspect of me. For instance, after a few pregnancies and a couple years of nursing babies I can guarantee you won't see me dancing topless. The people who own the bars have figured out that their customers don't want to see someone like me so they woudn't even entertain the idea of putting me up there. Are my feelings hurt? - HELL NO. I wouldn't say they're discriminating against me because I'm not what their customers want. Crude example, I realize, but I'm just saying that if a company doesn't think you're right why would they have an obligation to spend their time considering you. And not considering you may be their loss, but it's how they've chosen to operate because the bottom line in ANY business is to *gasp, shock, horror* MAKE MONEY! If they think reading submissions from men is cost prohibitive they're simply NOT going to do it.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 08:57 PM
For an anthology of stories by African-American writers, should Caucasians and Asians be allowed to submit?

I can divide humanity up sixty five ways to hell freezing over. You're black, but are you African or African American? African? Well are you Kenyan? Ugandan? Kenyan? Cool. Which tribe? Which family?

Sexism and bigotry can be taken to absurd levels. The fact remains, this publisher basically put a sign in their window that said, "Men need not apply."

Tell me Asians and Whites can't apply, I'll be just as pissed.



It's not even in the same league, and should not be compared. A magazine that chooses to publish only works written by women is not the same as a group guilty of lynching, harassment, hate speech, death threats, and burning crosses on private property. You're not being victimized in the same way, just because you can't be published by a magazine you don't want to buy anyway.


Don't purport to know what I buy.

The KKK is formed by the same type of people who have that nasty little sign in front of a town not too far from where I live that says, "No n*****s" -

I've heard certain groups of women talk about the evils of the male gender before; just because sexism is trendy doesn't make it right. Hate speech against males exists. I've seen it, I've heard it. This magazine, for all I know, supports it---and screw that. They're being sexists pigs, period.


If this is the Magic Carpet Books (http://www.magic-carpet-books.com/) you're talking about, they seem to be doing reprints of Victorian erotica, plus a few others that seem to all have been written by the same individual. They seem to have been in business for about a year.

What is it about this publisher that makes them the perfect fit for your book?

It isn't. I've been trying to find something besides an AOL email address for them; I'm starting to think they're defunct or reformed.

Carrie in PA
12-28-2006, 08:57 PM
My way of thinking is:

We will publish anyone except White Protestant Women With Children = wrong and discriminatory.

We cater to White Protestant Women With Children, and choose to only accept submissions from them = fine and dandy.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 09:03 PM
NOT discrimination, IMO.



We accept submissions from female authors only, with no exceptions.

Slap any reason you want to behind this and it is still blatant, piggish sexism, and if I had printed that, my ass would be on a wire, and I'd be facing a potential law suit.

Being male or female is not a choice I made.

Not being able to dance topless? That's a choice I did make.

There is a difference between "Males need not apply," and "Please have experience."

If it isn't a call for stories about lesbian encounters or pregnancy survival tips, or something that is biologically FEMALE in nature, my being male does not exclude me from the shared experience of being human.

tourdeforce
12-28-2006, 09:06 PM
Slap any reason you want to behind this and it is still blatant, piggist sexism...


Not in the world of special interest publishing (or other creative based ventures).

It is not discrimination to seek females writers for your f'emale writers project' just like it is not discrimination to only seek actresses for a female role in a movie.

Ronnie
12-28-2006, 09:07 PM
Hey, Bart, I see you're in good ole OP, KS. I'm also in the area (Shawnee). What a co-inky-dink!

I saw a bumper sticker the other day about how this state is bigoted. Had to agree there. With all that is going on here, I would rate discrimination against males small potatoes. Now Fred Phelps - there's something to really piss me off.

Are you talking about the little club in Edgerton with the sign in the window?? Seen it!

And Phil Kline, don't get me started...

Sassenach
12-28-2006, 09:08 PM
Koontz simply used a pen name with Harlequin.

WildScribe
12-28-2006, 09:12 PM
The Magic Carpet Books I am talking about has an AOL email address and is based out of Conneticut.

Same place?

If they were connected to Harcourt Brace, they kept it very, very quiet. All I know is I saw a submission guideline that said "Female only." Unless the niche is something like lesbian erotica, why wouldn't a male write for said niche?

Pen Names are all well and good, until I try to cash a check made out to Thuvia von Klick.

Lots of people write under pen names. Tell them your pen name, then ask for a check made out to B. Whateveryourlastnameis. Or have it made out to your mom or your female best friend and go with them to cash it. Whatever you have to do.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 09:18 PM
Hey, Bart, I see you're in good ole OP, KS. I'm also in the area (Shawnee). What a co-inky-dink!

I saw a bumper sticker the other day about how this state is bigoted. Had to agree there. With all that is going on here, I would rate discrimination against males small potatoes. Now Fred Phelps - there's something to really piss me off.

Shawnee is nice. I used to live down in tanglewood--that private housing sector near the DQ.

Small potatoes. Big potatoes. I'll eat them all. Fred Phelps drives me to fits of rage you wouldn't believe--but he's been done to death. This is maintaining my interest quite nicely, and is less likely to hurl me into the throes of cardiac arrest.

Ronnie
12-28-2006, 09:20 PM
Being male or female is not a choice I made.

Not being able to dance topless? That's a choice I did make.

Technically, with today's medical advancements, it is a choice you can make. (Just being a smartass).

And maybe I want to work in topless bars but can't. Again, though, with today's medical advancements...

sealy
12-28-2006, 09:21 PM
The writer who cannot write to all audiences is not a very good all around writer, imo. It is therefore shortsighted of the publishers to seek out same gender writers. They should use a subjective evaluation of any writer's work. If he can write the material, then why not use him? It's really stupid.

Seal

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 09:24 PM
Technically, with today's medical advancements, it is a choice you can make. (Just being a smartass).

And maybe I want to work in topless bars but can't. Again, though, with today's medical advancements...

Hehehehe.

Well, I nothing's stopping me from applying at a topless bar, but the management would give me funny looks.

Maybe this is the same sort of situation. But it really doesn't feel like it. I can't pretend to be a sexy woman (except in the blackest recesses of my mind) but my lack of breasts doesn't seem to impede the way my pen moves across paper.

CasualObserver
12-28-2006, 09:27 PM
Bartholemew, the only thing about this that shocks me is that some yuppie twenty-something hasn't bounced up spouting for you to "check your priviledge". (Incidentally, that phrase makes me want to OMG BREAK THINGS. SMASH. BRRAAAUGH!)

For the blissfully unenlightened, priviledge-checking presumably started in women's lit class and spread - like that movie about the pod people, eerie similarities - from there. It's a fun game! Try it out with me: any time someone objects to bad behaviour aimed at them and based solely on attributes they were born with and cannot help, point out that they need to "check their priviledge", which is the code word for "I am more important than you because of attributes we were each born with and cannot help... only with irony this time, which makes it good!"

Now with less sarcasm:
Some brilliant little yahoo came up with the idea that if you are a member of any class which has ever been deemed "priviledged" then you have no right to object to being discriminated against. There is no such thing as reverse discrimination, there is only priviledge-checking and the poor abused minority "leveling the playing field". In reality it becomes a game of "more repressed than thou", with black gays telling Jewish gays to check their priviledge, black women telling white female rape victims to check their privilege, upper class white college girls telling scholarship-riding white college boys to check their privilege, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

With the right sense of humour it's really rather funny.

And can anyone tell me whether "privilege" has a "d" or not? Neither looks right and I haven't had enough coffee yet.

scarletpeaches
12-28-2006, 09:29 PM
Privilege.

Anyway, to me, there's no such things as positive discrimination. It's just discrimination, plain and simple. And wrong.

Bart, (can I call you Bart?) I'm with you on this. Oh, and I'm female. But white. So I should maybe check my privilege, whatever the heck that means?! :)

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 09:30 PM
Bartholemew, the only thing about this that shocks me is that some yuppie twenty-something hasn't bounced up spouting for you to "check your priviledge". (Incidentally, that phrase makes me want to OMG BREAK THINGS. SMASH. BRRAAAUGH!)

For the blissfully unenlightened, priviledge-checking presumably started in women's lit class and spread - like that movie about the pod people, eerie similarities - from there. It's a fun game! Try it out with me: any time someone objects to bad behaviour aimed at them and based solely on attributes they were born with and cannot help, point out that they need to "check their priviledge", which is the code word for "I am more important than you because of attributes we were each born with and cannot help... only with irony this time, which makes it good!"

Now with less sarcasm:
Some brilliant little yahoo came up with the idea that if you are a member of any class which has ever been deemed "priviledged" then you have no right to object to being discriminated against. There is no such thing as reverse discrimination, there is only priviledge-checking and the poor abused minority "leveling the playing field". In reality it becomes a game of "more repressed than thou", with black gays telling Jewish gays to check their priviledge, black women telling white female rape victims to check their privilege, upper class white college girls telling scholarship-riding white college boys to check their privilege, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum.

With the right sense of humour it's really rather funny.

And can anyone tell me whether "privilege" has a "d" or not? Neither looks right and I haven't had enough coffee yet.

Privilege is the correct spelling. The D is dialectal. I'm still reading your post. My head hurts. Will edit.

Edit:

Yeah. I keep expecting someone to day that, but I think this is a pretty level headed forum, so it prolly won't.

Sassenach
12-28-2006, 09:32 PM
The writer who cannot write to all audiences is not a very good all around writer, imo. It is therefore shortsighted of the publishers to seek out same gender writers. They should use a subjective evaluation of any writer's work. If he can write the material, then why not use him? It's really stupid.

Seal

Since most writers specialize to some degree, I'd have to disagree.

Bartholomew
12-28-2006, 09:37 PM
Since most writers specialize to some degree, I'd have to disagree.

A lot more don't than do, imo. Stephen King is rare in that he uses the same name for almost all of his stuff.

But I know a bunch of authors who haven't specialized, per say, but keep their genres divided by their seperate pen names. I would argue that a good writer specializes in whatever his, or her, current project is.

scarletpeaches
12-28-2006, 09:40 PM
Sassenach, I would say if a writer's work is judged solely on the writing, fair enough. Horror writers submit to horror publishers, romance writers to agents who specialise in romance, all well and good.

If, however, my writing was judged solely on the genitalia of the person who wrote it, I would be horrified. Outraged, even.

veinglory
12-28-2006, 10:39 PM
The exception being publisher for and by women, black people, gay men etc etc. Some publishers are part of certain demographic communities. I write gay male erotica, sometimes for women readers, sometimes for men. If the publisher or editor only wants gay males writers to submit, I'm cool with that. It's their choice.

Celia Cyanide
12-28-2006, 10:42 PM
Don't purport to know what I buy.

You're the one coming here telling us not to buy it because you don't approve of their business practices. I'm just going by what you said. It sounds to me like you don't want to read a magazine that only accepts women writers.


I've heard certain groups of women talk about the evils of the male gender before; just because sexism is trendy doesn't make it right. Hate speech against males exists. I've seen it, I've heard it. This magazine, for all I know, supports it---and screw that. They're being sexists pigs, period.

You DON'T know that they support it, and you have no reason to assume they do. Hate speech against males exists, but this not it, Bart. Some organizations give scholarships exclusively to minorities and women. Some people think this policy is discriminatory. But they have no reason to assume that these organizations hate white men. There is a difference. Discrimination is not equal to hate.

PeeDee
12-28-2006, 10:44 PM
I've been making the joke for years and years that I'd better not get into an accident, because I'm an American Male descended from dead white european males. I'm doomed, no matter what way you slice it.

If only my wife weren't at work, I'd go oppress her freedom some more.

I do agree with you, Bart, in principle. I think that it reaches a point where we work so hard to cater to minorities and "special" groups and whatever else we call it that we wind up reversing everything and discriminating against, more or less, ourselves.

That's about as far as I get on the matter, though. Mostly, I would just quietly go to a big, cooler publisher (Eos, I have my eye on you) and let the small fish fry themselves.

Serenity
12-28-2006, 11:02 PM
I actually did a little internet research on two of the publishers you mention. Both state very clearly up front in their submission guidelines that they only accept sumbissions from female writers. I have to ask, and PLEASE don't jump down my throat for doing so, but did you submit in spite of this guideline? And out of a list of publishers that print in the same genre (a list of 33, with 6 links out of date/not working-- I won't put the link up here, because of the content of some sites, but if you want it, pm me), they were the only two that had that guideline that I could see.

I agree with James. Ignore them and move on to people that do want to see your work.

edit: Actually, I guess I just agree with James now, since Victoria's post is gone...

Maryn
12-28-2006, 11:07 PM
Revisiting the thread... I still have no problem with publications demanding actual experience of their writers. My thorough research will never be enough for me to write for Soldier of Fortune or Cruise Travel Magazine, since I've neither had military training nor taken a cruise. (Might be fun to combine, eh?)

Being blunt, until you've had a clitoris and a vagina and know what it feels like to have them stimulated and penetrated, all the while wondering whether your thighs are too fat, what you're going to do about your son's C in Spanish, and if your lover will finish up in time for Leno, it's unlikely that you can write it as if you'd lived it. Not impossible, but a helluva stretch.

I've seen a fair amount of erotica by women writing from a male POV that works (for me, anyway), and much, much less going the other direction, a man writing from a female POV. I can only assume it's harder than you'd think.

Maryn, freeing you all to use that as a straight line--and freeing you all to use that, too

PeeDee
12-28-2006, 11:15 PM
Being blunt, until you've had a clitoris and a vagina and know what it feels like to have them stimulated and penetrated, all the while wondering whether your thighs are too fat, what you're going to do about your son's C in Spanish, and if your lover will finish up in time for Leno, it's unlikely that you can write it as if you'd lived it. Not impossible, but a helluva stretch.

Women think about all that!?

Men are mostly just thinking about Aisha Tyler.

......we're a very strange species.

I'm just going to go make a cup of tea, then, because this thread has now gotten odd. :)

AzBobby
12-28-2006, 11:16 PM
I hate discrimination as much as the next person -- especially so-called reverse discrimination that is considered all right, even when the victims have not personally discriminated against anyone else -- but the reasons and excuses for it all reside on such a slippery slope here.

Imagine you're the owner of a right-wing talk radio station and looking to hire an afternoon host. Don't you have the right to discriminate against the liberal applicant (assuming he doesn't pretend otherwise)? Wouldn't it go against your business and marketing plan to hire Phil Donahue for this? You can reverse the example and imagine yourself an Air America station owner interviewing Rush Limbaugh for the job. I honestly don't see how this could work fairly according to everyone's idea of equal opportunity, loose definitions of bigotry, and so on -- except to say that my common-sense response is to believe both radio stations have the right to hire from their own ilk in order to remain consistent with their point of business and marketing, their very reasons for being, their identification.

The oily part here is that liberals and conservatives are identified by points of view, not inborn attributes like skin tone or gender. But, so are members of religious groups who can stand behind the bigotry shield; some still believe gays, too, are defined only by point of view. And (esp. in writing) gender can be faked, just as political points of view can be faked to get a job as a talk radio blowhard. But is that an ethical way to deal with the employer in either case, especially if publicity of the scam results in showing that they don't sell what they promise to sell?

The easy counterpoint is to say, what if the publisher posted rules such as white-only, male-only, Christian-only, straight-only, etc.? Well, the tough answer, ugly as it may be in special cases, is they should have as much right to discriminate as anyone else. That's the civil liberty angle, as far as it goes. I think our government strikes a decent balance for civil rights by applying the anti-discrimination laws against large companies and not small ones -- although I don't know how that legally works for, say, a large corporate religious radio station.

But I don't see how we can argue against the freedom to sell a particular point of view, or sell based on particular points of identification such as gender, religion, or other areas of bias, natural or not, ugly or not. I think a lot of business revolving around arts, politics, religion, and heritage would be adversely affected by taking this idea too far.

Jenan Mac
12-28-2006, 11:25 PM
I'm wondering how is this different from a Pagan press refusing to look at manuscripts from a writer who's a Shia Muslim, or the bazillions of churches who require even their janitorial staff to profess their faith? And the latter's been held up in court, IIRC.

veinglory
12-28-2006, 11:33 PM
Quite so, Jenan. I think people getting extremely outraged buy not being included in something just haven't had enough experience with being excluded to get sanguine about it yet. Shrug.

Sassenach
12-29-2006, 12:39 AM
A lot more don't than do, imo. Stephen King is rare in that he uses the same name for almost all of his stuff.

But I know a bunch of authors who haven't specialized, per say, but keep their genres divided by their seperate pen names. I would argue that a good writer specializes in whatever his, or her, current project is.

I meant that most writers aren't capable of writing in every genre.

Using Stephen King as an example of anything other than Stephen King is silly. He makes his own rules.

greglondon
12-29-2006, 01:02 AM
As a group, men are not legally protected, having not been victimized by past discrimination.

Having not been victimized by past discrimination, men are therefore considered OK to discriminate against now?

The legal gymnastics this country puts itself through is amazing sometimes. I mean, I get affirmative action as a way to correct situations where minorities are not representative in some business or something. But to actually say its OK to completely rule out men as equals just boggles.

Bart, get yourself a pseudonym. Or find a publisher who isn't a bigot.

Personally, I'd rather not work with a bigot, so I'd probably pick the second option.

James D. Macdonald
12-29-2006, 01:10 AM
Is there any reason to think that this Magic Carpet Publishing even exists?

If everyone were to boycott them, how would that differ from their normal sales numbers?

Do the policies of a tiny number of very minor publishers matter so much? If you're down to their level, frankly, it's time to consider putting the manuscript back in the desk drawer and trying something else.

PeeDee
12-29-2006, 01:14 AM
I don't think Bart's down to submitting to these publishers, if I'm reading his posts right. I think he's submitting to other, bigger publishers regardless, and he noticed in his research that these small publishers had the clauses he mentioned.

Celia Cyanide
12-29-2006, 01:19 AM
Bart, get yourself a pseudonym. Or find a publisher who isn't a bigot.

Personally, I'd rather not work with a bigot, so I'd probably pick the second option.

How do you know they are bigots? Do they say in their submission guidelines, "We hate men, so we won't read their manuscripts?"

veinglory
12-29-2006, 01:19 AM
If you want to boycott a larger women-writers-only-please publisher I guess Black Lace counts. But, um, I think losing their male readership would have a rather limited impact.

MajorDrums
12-29-2006, 01:22 AM
I actually did a little internet research on two of the publishers you mention. Both state very clearly up front in their submission guidelines that they only accept sumbissions from female writers. I have to ask, and PLEASE don't jump down my throat for doing so, but did you submit in spite of this guideline? And out of a list of publishers that print in the same genre (a list of 33, with 6 links out of date/not working-- I won't put the link up here, because of the content of some sites, but if you want it, pm me), they were the only two that had that guideline that I could see.

I agree with James. Ignore them and move on to people that do want to see your work.

edit: Actually, I guess I just agree with James now, since Victoria's post is gone...

I hope you answer the question I bolded in the quote, Bartholomew. Because it seems to me like you knew what the guidelines were but submitted anyway, and are now using the rejection as an excuse to get on a soapbox.

greglondon
12-29-2006, 01:23 AM
Being blunt, until you've had a clitoris and a vagina and know what it feels like to have them stimulated and penetrated,

Most people haven't fought dragons or swung a sword in anger, but for some reason that doesn't prevent an entire genre of fantasy. no human has traveled between the planets in space ships, lived with human clones, worked with artificial intelligent robots, or visited terraformed planets, but that hasn't prevented a whole genre of science fiction.

As it happens, I just rewrote a sex scene in my science fiction novel. It had to be from the point of view of the woman because she was the one dealing with an issue, and the reader needed to know what was going on in her head because she couldn't say certain things to the man.

And I did exactly what I do for every other scene I know nothing about. I got a whole lot of beta readers who knew the topic and listened to them. In this case, I've been having women read it and comment. And then I listen to them, go back and try to get it so that the story communicates to the reader.

That the publisher says "No male authors" tells me that they're bigots, and I have no interest in working with bigots, so I'd find a different publisher. If they want to be bigots, that's their choice. But don't be telling me "you can't write well about something you've never done". Of course we can. Writing about stuff that never happened is the basic job description of all fiction writers. Writing about stuff that no one has ever done is the basis for entire genres within fiction.

Celia Cyanide
12-29-2006, 01:27 AM
That the publisher says "No male authors" tells me that they're bigots

How does it tell you that? Can you explain?

I used to read a magazine called "The Junior High Writer" that did not publish stories by anyone over the age of 14. That did not tell me they hated old people. If you don't approve of submission guidelines, fine. But the guidelines don't make everyone who works at that magazine a bigot.

greglondon
12-29-2006, 01:30 AM
How do you know they are bigots? Do they say in their submission guidelines, "We hate men, so we won't read their manuscripts?"

No, because they state up front "no male authors". If they allow male authors to submit and reject them because they can't write from a woman's point of view, fine. But if they reject authors simply because of their gender, not because of their ability, then its a prejudgement of the writing of any and all male writers. And that's bigotry.


First things first. We accept submissions from female authors only, with no exceptions.

There is no other way to spin this other than prejudice of gender.

Celia Cyanide
12-29-2006, 01:33 AM
No, because they state up front "no male authors". If they allow male authors to submit and reject them because they can't write from a woman's point of view, fine. But if they reject authors simply because of their gender, not because of their ability, then its a prejudgement of the writing of any and all male writers. And that's bigotry.

It's not a prejudgement of the writing. They aren't saying the writing is bad. They're saying they want to publish work by women.

greglondon
12-29-2006, 01:40 AM
It's not a prejudgement of the writing. They aren't saying the writing is bad. They're saying they want to publish work by women.

when the next company in the deep south just 'happens' to not have any african americans working for their rather large company, and they say they aren't prejudice, they don't think african americans are any worse than anyone else, they just wanted to hire whites, you'd let that fly?

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 01:44 AM
Being blunt, until you've had a clitoris and a vagina and know what it feels like to have them stimulated and penetrated, all the while wondering whether your thighs are too fat, what you're going to do about your son's C in Spanish, and if your lover will finish up in time for Leno, it's unlikely that you can write it as if you'd lived it. Not impossible, but a helluva stretch.

I couldn't write sex like that...or rather, I couldn't HAVE sex like that and I'm female! I'm sure there are men who get bored with women asking, "Does my bum look big in this?" or talking about homework when they (the man) wants to have sex...personally when I have sex, I like to concentrate on that...I've never stared at the ceiling wishing he'd get it over with!! To me that's treating sex like a chore and even though it's been a while, through choice, I still remember it as being something enjoyable. ;)

This kind of attitude perpetuates the myth that all women are Bridget Jones types, obsessed with dieting and 'suffering' sex to keep men happy.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 01:51 AM
This is a controversial opinion, but I will say it anyway.

*ahem*

Many's the time where I've felt sorry for men. A lot of women hate them, blame the entire gender for the sins of a few, and find anti-male sentiment acceptable. Sexism works both ways.

And no, I wouldn't want to be in a marriage where I was the little woman at home, breeding child after child. Chained to the kitchen sink. I just think sexual equality shouldn't just apply to women. What's sauce for the goose...

Women having been historically disadvantaged is no excuse for ANY form of discrimination these days. Positive discrimination? No kind of discrimination is positive in my book.

I love being a woman but I'd never love it so much that I couldn't love men too. ;)

Celia Cyanide
12-29-2006, 01:52 AM
when the next company in the deep south just 'happens' to not have any african americans working for their rather large company, and they say they aren't prejudice, they don't think african americans are any worse than anyone else, they just wanted to hire whites, you'd let that fly?

That's a ridiculous comparion, and I'm going to bother to answer.

JoeEkaitis
12-29-2006, 01:59 AM
Well, the numbers certainly say we've got this equality thing nailed down!

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 02:00 AM
That's a ridiculous comparion, and I'm going to bother to answer.

You just did. :D

Celia Cyanide
12-29-2006, 02:03 AM
And no, I wouldn't want to be in a marriage where I was the little woman at home, breeding child after child. Chained to the kitchen sink. I just think sexual equality shouldn't just apply to women. What's sauce for the goose...;)

I'm not disagreeing with you, scarlet, and in all honestly, I probably wouldn't be interested in reading a magazine that only published female writers. I just have a problem with the assumption that anyone who works for such a magazine must hate men, and are all bigots. If a magazine only published literature by black people, I would not assume it was because they hated all white people, and didn't think they deserved to be published at all. I wouldn't think it was a negation of me as a white person, at all. I see why people would have a problem with a magazine making such a distinction, but calling them bigots for making it is taking it way too far, IMO. When magazines don't publish literary fiction, they are discriminating against genre fiction. I realize this is different than discriminating based on who the author is, but in both instances, it is not a negation of that which is being excluded.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 02:05 AM
I hereby wish to make it known that I love men, although not as often as I'd like. :D

Carrie in PA
12-29-2006, 02:07 AM
And no, I wouldn't want to be in a marriage where I was the little woman at home, breeding child after child. Chained to the kitchen sink.

WTH?

Oy. Walking away...

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 02:10 AM
I was making the point that liking one gender shouldn't mean you hate, or want to downgrade, the other.

Carrie in PA
12-29-2006, 02:12 AM
I was making the point that liking one gender shouldn't mean you hate, or want to downgrade, the other.

Nor is it necessary to denegrate people in one's own gender for making choices we wouldn't make ourselves.

Anyway.

PeeDee
12-29-2006, 02:13 AM
I just love everybody except teenagers.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 02:13 AM
Er, no, I wasn't. I was using hyperbole, to show...oh, forget it.

And it's 'denigrate'.

Talia
12-29-2006, 02:13 AM
I'm probably about to get lynched for this one, but am I the only person sitting here going, "So what?"

Niche markets exist all over the place. There are magazines and imprints that only accept manuscripts if you are African-American. Same for a variety of other races and cultures. So what? They cater to a niche audience. Let them. There are hundreds of other places to submit your stories.

I agree. They don't want to publish you, so move on. Failing that you can write under a pseudonym and get a friend to bank the cheques and pass on the money. Or have the cheque sent to a company name. There are ways around everything if you are so inclined, but writing angry threads and boycotting publishers hurts only one person - you. What a waste of energy!!!

Do you really think you can damage these publishers? The answer is no. Does it mean they are bigoted or hate men? Maybe. But more likely they are misguided. Their experience has shown them it doesn't work to have male writers so they have generalised this to all male writers.

The best revenge is success. So go find another publisher, get published, sell millions of copies to women and then when you're interviewed if you're still feeling slighted you can say "I was rejected by some publishers because I have dangly bits between my legs".

TeddyG
12-29-2006, 02:14 AM
WTH?

Oy. Walking away...

Carrie you are learning I see....:D
Yep..Yep..Yep..that is a remark to walk away from!

Carrie in PA
12-29-2006, 02:14 AM
Er, no, I wasn't. I was using hyperbole, to show...oh, forget it.

And it's 'denigrate'.

Wow, thanks. Duly noted.

PeeDee
12-29-2006, 02:20 AM
http://divedesk.com/blog/islam/drag-queen-kiss.jpg

And now, we're all peaceful again.

limitedtimeauthor
12-29-2006, 02:21 AM
Don't make me unclasp myself from this sink in a minute and come over there...

ltd.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 02:21 AM
Is that a photo of Bart trying to sneak past that company's slushpile?

limitedtimeauthor
12-29-2006, 02:21 AM
ooh, Pete,when did you get that taken?

ltd.

PeeDee
12-29-2006, 02:22 AM
Too much blush, you think?

It's Haskins, on Fridays.

limitedtimeauthor
12-29-2006, 02:26 AM
No, actually, you got the blush just right, just ask my munchkin, who got play makeup for the holidays...

ltd.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 02:27 AM
It has a touch of the Little Britains about it...

PeeDee
12-29-2006, 02:29 AM
http://static.flickr.com/47/146161957_ada8c298c2_m.jpg

See? Now I can get published by anyone.

(who advertises on a street corner, anyway)

Celia Cyanide
12-29-2006, 02:42 AM
Nor is it necessary to denegrate people in one's own gender for making choices we wouldn't make ourselves.

I don't think she meant to say anything about women who choose to have children because they want them. I thought she was referring to women who would really like to be doing something else, maybe instead of, or maybe in addition to, being a wife and mother, but their husbands or boyfriends don't approve. That's what "chained to the kitchen sink" sounded like to me.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 02:44 AM
Well yes, Celia.

My intention was to show how ridiculous it is to talk down either gender; also I was alluding to the popular misconception that if you stick up for men, you're not being politically correct and would say women need to be baby-making machines, 'chained to the kitchen sink'.

I assumed the ridiculous tone of the post would be apparent.

Carrie in PA
12-29-2006, 02:52 AM
It's no big deal, really. As a SAHM I get that sterotype a lot and perhaps I'm a bit over-sensitive to it.

But I really could do without the snarky grammar policing.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 02:53 AM
Spelling, not grammar!

Sorry, sorry. I give my word the mischief will stop now and apologise for causing offence.

Carrie in PA
12-29-2006, 02:56 AM
Spelling, not grammar!

Sorry, sorry. I give my word the mischief will stop now and apologise for causing offence.

Fine, I could do without the snarky spelling policing! :tongue

It's all good. :)

CasualObserver
12-29-2006, 03:30 AM
Er, no, I wasn't. I was using hyperbole, to show...oh, forget it.

And it's 'denigrate'.
\(^o^)/

And it's SP for the win!

Sorry, had to jump in there with that. Back to reading the rest of the replies for Casual.

ETA: And now that I've read the rest I can hear you all saying, "Casual, you are not helping." My apologies, but... but... it was FUNNY. I'll behave now, promise.

MMcC
12-29-2006, 03:37 AM
You can have your pen name added to your bank account as an "AKA" and cash checks in that name.

Frankly any publisher has a right to set its own guidelines. While I don't think refusing outright to even look at manuscripts from men is something I would do, the fact is it's legal and bellyaching about it just leaves you with a bellyache.

jbal
12-29-2006, 03:41 AM
I'm probably going against the grain on this one, but whoever they want to publish or discriminate against, it's their prerogative. Why would you even submit to a place that said outright they didn't want your work?
I didn't know you could cash checks made out to a pseudonym, so I'm with MMCC. Just submit under a woman's name.
"The sign says long haired freaky people need not apply" and all that.

Shadow_Ferret
12-29-2006, 03:57 AM
Why would you even submit to a place that said outright they didn't want your work?


Because it's Bart and it gives him a reason to get all angsty and post about it.

jbal
12-29-2006, 03:58 AM
Ah, gotcha.

PattiTheWicked
12-29-2006, 04:06 AM
I look at it this way. There are plenty of markets out there. If a few of them say they only want submissions from black writers, Canadians, lesbians, or Spooky Goth Girls, then that's fine with me. There's certainly no shortage of places for a 38-year-old white suburbanite to submit.

priceless1
12-29-2006, 04:35 AM
Personally I love writers from both sexes because of their distinct perspectives, and I feel publishers who limit themselves to one gender cut off a valuable voice. However, that's their right. They have every right to have specific criteria in their submission guidelines, even if their submission guidelines say women only or short green-skinned mole people only.

Given your logic, where does the discriminatory line get drawn? We accept stories of personal journeys with a social conscience. Does this mean that the romance novelist or cookbook writer can sue me on the grounds that I've excluded them from our lineup? I understand you're frustrated and angry, but you're expending energy venting over something that's within a publisher's right. Move on. If you're a terrific writer someone is going to snap you up.

Just my trouble-making two cent's worth.

maestrowork
12-29-2006, 04:41 AM
I wonder if I should sue the girl scouts. I think they discriminate against little boys like me. ;)

Before someone says "boy scouts" -- let me just tell you, the girls' cookies are better!

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 04:46 AM
I'm wondering if Maestro knows what 'cookies' is slang for in Scotland.

Yup, he probably does...

Serenity
12-29-2006, 04:47 AM
I wonder if I should sue the girl scouts. I think they discriminate against little boys like me. ;)

Before someone says "boy scouts" -- let me just tell you, the girls' cookies are better!

:Ssh: :e2zipped: :e2paperba

Bartholomew
12-29-2006, 04:54 AM
Because it's Bart and it gives him a reason to get all angsty and post about it.

You're a ferret, or I'd tell you to bite me. :p

Jongfan
12-29-2006, 05:09 AM
Wow

IMHO, You have 2 options.

1) Screw em, find another publisher
2) Become a women (pen name) and submit

Is it right? No

It tells me the publisher thinks sex can only be written by women.
I read hundreds of books a year, all genres, written by both sexes.

I have read the posts in this thread. I don't think only women have issues of adaquecy in the bedroom. Men suck in their little pot bellies , try to hide the receeding hair line and wonder if they are up to soap opera sex standards.

Sure, women feel more pressure due to the stick figure models portrayed everywhere.
It comes down to confidence and a healthy sexual attitude. Another reason more men should write erotica. It would open a world of uncharted areas and give some insight as to what they feel, go through and like.

As a woman, I enjoy reading erotic material written by men. I find it refreshing to get the male perspective. I have found some to be very sensual and riveting.

Both men and women are sexual therefore, both can write it.
It is a matter of the reader's taste. Not all people like all things.

So Bart, I suggest you go with option # 2

Bartholomew
12-29-2006, 05:10 AM
I don't think Bart's down to submitting to these publishers, if I'm reading his posts right. I think he's submitting to other, bigger publishers regardless, and he noticed in his research that these small publishers had the clauses he mentioned.

Basically.

I'm officially of the opinion that the Magic Carpet I saw doesn't exist anymore, and that I pulled their Subbing Guidelines off of an older list. A lot--a LOT--of the publisher's I'm bitching about are small presses. My problem isn't that they won't buy me, specifically, my problem is that they refuse to consider any male perspective, ever, end of story, get your testosterone away from us.

@ Black Lace

Yes, I understand they probably don't have a strong male readership. I'm hoping to appeal to the fairer half on this two, not start some retarded gender war.

If discrimination is wrong, its wrong. If you justify it, even once, than you can, by association, justify it anywhere. Maybe Black Lace really does have some obscure economic reason for being bigots. Who knows?

But if some other group with a different agenda sees this, all of a sudden they'll want to have their own discriminatory rag.

I recognize the difference from being a sexist asshole and from being a racist asshole. But there are a lot of people who won't. If you let one group, however oppressed you think they are, play to excusiveness in their hiring, the others will wonder why they can't too.

What would happen if some very large chain of mexican diners decided, for ECONOMIC reasons, that they can only hire Latinos? And what if a large Italian chain decided the same thing? They could easily argue that Italians and Latinos give them authentic atmosphere.

And someone else, say a black man, for variety, decides he wants a business thats run only by Black Muslims? Why couldn't he?

I'm not saying all this is gonna happen because some editor at Black Lace is being sexist. It won't.

I'm saying that, by PRINCIPLE, if one type of discrimination is wrong...

...then they all are, period.

PeeDee
12-29-2006, 05:13 AM
The only place I accept gender descrimination is as Hooters.

greglondon
12-29-2006, 06:11 AM
That's a ridiculous comparion, and I'm going to bother to answer.

It's not ridiculous in the least.

You want to refuse to publish me because I didn't write your GENRE, that's fine. If you only publish Romance, and I only write Science Fiction, then you're excluding me because of my actions, not because of my gender, race, religious, or sexual preference.

But if I write something that is in a GENRE you publish, and it's as good as or better then some of your female authors you've published, and you refuse to publish me because of my GENDER, then that's bias, a prejudgement of my abilities based solely on me being a man, and its a form of bigotry.

veinglory
12-29-2006, 06:13 AM
Only to the extent women and man (in practice, not theory) write identical types of fiction. Identity is, to some extent, genre. (Although we have already have many other threads on this)

greglondon
12-29-2006, 06:20 AM
Only to the extent women and man (in practice, not theory) write identical types of fiction. Identity is, to some extent, genre. (Although we have already have many other threads on this)

If you want me to take on a female pen name to write Romance, I'd go along with it. (or a gender ambiguous name).

I've heard of authors doing this when they switch from one genre to another so they can avoid the public humiliation of the "Michael Jorden suddenly tries baseball and fails miserably" result.

But if my work is good, and you flat out refuse to publish me because I'm a man, then I'll call it bigotry.

veinglory
12-29-2006, 06:25 AM
I said in practise not theory, and 'to the extent'.

There are 'female' genres of fiction, racial 'genres' of music etc etc. Some people class eminem as urban and others wouldn't. Is it really a biggee so long as some people will put out his music and others go out and by it?

Also, private insitutions get to set their own rules. A guy can't write for Black Lace and I can't become a Shriner. I cry bitter tears.

There are plenty of other presses and clubs so nobody is losing anything. Discrimination without disadvantage is just semantics.

greglondon
12-29-2006, 07:05 AM
There are plenty of other presses and clubs so nobody is losing anything. Discrimination without disadvantage is just semantics.

You'll note my advice was to find another publisher. So, I'm aware there are other opportunities, such that no one has to "lose anything".

But I'll call a spade a spade. And I'll call bias by the name "bias". And someone who won't publish good material because of their gender is prejudiced.

Celia Cyanide
12-29-2006, 07:09 AM
But if my work is good, and you flat out refuse to publish me because I'm a man, then I'll call it bigotry.

Call if what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.

Unless the guidelines actually say, "we don't publish men because we don't believe they can write and we hate them all," then you're just extrapolating.

Kentuk
12-29-2006, 08:15 AM
Change your sex and resubmit. Lie as long as you can and then it will be their problem. Women used to have to pretend to get published. Or you could wait a hundred years and wait for the pendulum to swing.

greglondon
12-29-2006, 08:16 AM
Unless the guidelines actually say, "we don't publish men because we don't believe they can write and we hate them all," then you're just extrapolating.

Speaking of extrapolation, you'll note I never used the word "hate" or described these people as "man-haters" or any such thing. I've said they're biased or prejudiced. And the term for someone exhibiting that sort of behaviour is a bigot, which is someone who is intolerant of some other group.

I don't care what their emotional state is. I don't care if they "hate" men, or if they think they're simply "better" than men, or if they view themselves as carrying some sort of "white-woman's burden" to save poor men, or if they emotionally view men as equals.

I don't care how they FEEL. I care about what they DO. And what they DO is to show a complete intolerance for male writers, regardless of quality.

You're the one extrapolating that I think they "hate" men.

Bartholomew
12-29-2006, 08:18 AM
A guy can't write for Black Lace and I can't become a Shriner.


I'm one of the few masons at my lodge that gets uppity about this. The masons are every bit as sexist as black lace. Tit for Tat does not make right.

Bartholomew
12-29-2006, 12:19 PM
I hope you answer the question I bolded in the quote, Bartholomew. Because it seems to me like you knew what the guidelines were but submitted anyway, and are now using the rejection as an excuse to get on a soapbox.

Never assume. Why would I waste my time submitting to Black Lace? As far as I'm aware, I don't have a vagina.

I Did Not submit to Black Lace. They had a sign in their window that said I wasn't welcome to do so. It pisses me off.

I did not climb on this soap box because someone rejected me, Good Lord. Either discrimination is wrong or it isn't. Justify one instance, you justify them all, with very few exceptions.

JimmyB27
12-29-2006, 03:42 PM
Call if what you want, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.

Unless the guidelines actually say, "we don't publish men because we don't believe they can write and we hate them all," then you're just extrapolating.

When they made black people stand on the buses to let white people sit, they never actually *said* they hated black people.

TeddyG
12-29-2006, 03:56 PM
Oh for goodness sakes...would you guys get a grip on reality please!

A magazine saying they want only female submissions or a publishing house, is doing so because they are in the business to make money and they know what their readership wants....how in the world can anyone in their right mind compare that to anti-black or any other "anti" sentiment or bigotry.

There are Private schools on the Upper East Side in Manhattan and all over that you could not even get a form to register your kids unless you know someone on the Board. It is PRIVATE. That may be bigotry or not fair in your eyes...but it is PRIVATE.

If you are a single heterosexual male, and not trying to troll or be mean, are you going to walk into a Lesbian bar where the sign clearly states, "this is gay/Lesbian bar?" Is that bigotry too when you are asked to leave cause you do not belong?

Or are you going to insist that Tor publish your psychological thriller - because they say they ONLY WANT fantasy novels? That is bigotry too?

Get a grip. Stop griping about the submission requirements of a mag or a publisher. They know their public. They are there to make money. They don't hate you cause you are white, black, christian, jewish, chinese or indian, male or female. They want to make money. They know what they are looking for.

And if they are looking for female authors and you happen to be male..move on, or change your pen name. Didnt anyone here ever hear of George Eliot?
Though sooner or later even using a pen name you are going to have to come out of the closet.

Please..this convo is so off the top it is incredible.

JimmyB27
12-29-2006, 04:03 PM
A magazine saying they want only female submissions or a publishing house, is doing so because they are in the business to make money and they know what their readership wants....how in the world can anyone in their right mind compare that to anti-black or any other "anti" sentiment or bigotry.


Stealing a Mars bar is not the same as robbing a bank with a shotgun, but they are both still wrong.

Bartholomew
12-29-2006, 04:17 PM
Stealing a Mars bar is not the same as robbing a bank with a shotgun, but they are both still wrong.

And they're not both punished with 20 years in prison, either.

But they are both punished.

Sexism isn't a crime, in private. I can choose to be sexist about any number of things.

They can choose to be sexist about writers they hire. They are. I'll denounce sexism to my dying die, and never change someone's mind. But there really are better things to talk about. Both sides have been hashed out more than enough, and in all honesty--I can see their point. I don't agree with it, but I see it.

greglondon
12-29-2006, 05:18 PM
Or are you going to insist that Tor publish your psychological thriller - because they say they ONLY WANT fantasy novels? That is bigotry too?

Once again:

rejection because of genre is rejection because of my behaviour, which is fine.

rejection because of my gender, even though i wrote something in the right genre and it was better than your female writers, is not.

kikazaru
12-29-2006, 06:24 PM
No it is not fair and it seems to me that they would want to publish quality works that would make them money no matter what gender wrote it. However, they're still in business because they've hit on something that works for them I suppose and if they are catering to women who ONLY want to read women writers on the subject, then it's entirely their perogative to attempt to comply

If there was a magazine called "Fraternity - The Magazine For All Things "Men" who only wanted submissions by men on subjects like, having a suit made on Saville Row, or their experiences in a Monestary, which condom they prefer, a barber shop comparison on who gives the best straight razor shave in the city, their opinion on men's grooming products etc etc. would they be considered sexist as well? They want a man's opinion so that other men could have the benefit of their experience before they buy or try, and that is perfectly reasonable - not sexist - considering their readership and their mandate.

While this is somewhat annoying for you, in my opinion it is not worth getting to worked up over when there are many, many other markets where you could sell your work.

greglondon
12-29-2006, 06:57 PM
If there was a magazine called "Fraternity - The Magazine For All Things "Men" who only wanted submissions by men on subjects like, having a suit made on Saville Row, or their experiences in a Monestary, which condom they prefer, a barber shop comparison on who gives the best straight razor shave in the city, their opinion on men's grooming products etc etc. would they be considered sexist as well?

Product reviews of condoms is one thing.

Fiction is something else entirely.

If "Fraternity" magazine also published a couple of fiction stories every issue, but refused to publish a woman author even though she happens to write good material for their genre, then yeah, it's sexist.

If a woman can DO the job, but the boss-man refuses to HIRE them strictly because of their GENDER, then its sexist.

As long as it is FICTION we're talking about here, I see no reason to automatically disallow authors based on their gender.

kikazaru
12-29-2006, 07:28 PM
Not product reviews, but fiction by and for women is the same idea. They want stories from a woman's point of view. Being a writer requires you to get into the head of any character and if you are good at your job you can do it, however if the publishers have told their readership that their fiction is for women BY women, then accepting something from a male writer is being dishonest to the people who pay their salaries. My husband likes thrillers, however he will NOT read a thriller written by a woman and he can always tell - even if the author uses initials (I know this because I have tried to sneak a couple whose authors use initials). Sexist? Maybe, however that is entirely his perogative to read what he would like. It could be that this company has found a niche that makes them money because if it wasn't lucrative, the company would change their mandate.

There was a movement in the early 90's for "men's empowerment" and spearheaded by Roberty Bly (I believe) his book was called "Iron John." He conducted workshops which as I recall involved getting a bunch of guys out in the bush beating drums while attempting to get in touch with their masculinity. If he called for submissions from men (either fiction or non) on the subject of reclaiming their maleness would he be called sexist? And would women have the right to cry foul because he wouldn't look at their submissions? Im no they don't.

davids
12-29-2006, 07:36 PM
What about business? Good business-I agree with Greglondon if a publisher or agent does this-I pass-this game is also a BUSINESS.

But if I write something that is in a GENRE you publish, and it's as good as or better then some of your female authors you've published, and you refuse to publish me because of my GENDER, then that's bias, a prejudgement of my abilities based solely on me being a man, and its a form of bigotry.
__________________

LeslieB
12-29-2006, 10:17 PM
Why does that guy who couldn't understand why Hooters wouldn't hire him to be a waitress come to mind?

I think what is being missed here is that a magazine or publisher is not in business to buy work from writers. It is in business to sell stories to readers. Most niche publishers are selling "Stories written by people just like you," or "Stories written by people you want to know more about." If their market is women who want to read stories written by other women, then you as a man cannot supply what the publisher needs to make sales. It is as simple as that.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 10:20 PM
Seems to me that if women only want to read stories by other women, they're judging the author rather than the writing.

OF COURSE we can write across the gender gap. We make stuff up. We lie for a living. That's what we are. A bunch of liars. Why the gender of the author should matter, I don't know. I know men who write women better than some women do.

PattiTheWicked
12-29-2006, 10:24 PM
It's the same reason that some publishers want work submitted by only Asian writers, or African American writers.

I can research and learn until the cows come home, but the fact is I'll never know what it's truly like to be a black man, an Asian woman, or a Canadian lesbian bellydancer. If that's what their readers want, then I'd be foolish to submit my work to a market that isn't interested in me.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 10:26 PM
I'd rather read a well-written female character created by a man, than a caricature by a woman.

PattiTheWicked
12-29-2006, 10:33 PM
I'd rather read a well-written female character created by a man, than a caricature by a woman.

I totally agree -- but one thing everyone is kind of overlooking is that the presses that have gender or cultural restrictions are usually smaller companies, with a very specific niche audience. They know their readers, and apparently their readers have said, "Yea, verily, this is what we want." Big publishing houses don't do this, and truthfully, they're the ones I'd rather submit to anyway.

Do I think it sucks that companies discriminate? Well, kind of, yeah. Am I put at some horrible disadvantage because they do so? Nope, not in the least.

aruna
12-29-2006, 11:10 PM
I didn't know you could cash checks made out to a pseudonym, so I'm with MMCC. Just submit under a woman's name.
"The sign says long haired freaky people need not apply" and all that.

I don't know if this works in the us. but I have a business account under my pseudonym; ie, my pseudonym is the name of my business. Thus I can recive cheques both in my legal name and my pseudonym. Both names are on my business creditcard. My cheques say: "legal name" trading as "pen name".

greglondon
12-29-2006, 11:22 PM
Do I think it sucks that companies discriminate? Well, kind of, yeah. Am I put at some horrible disadvantage because they do so? Nope, not in the least.

I'm going to point out this one more time, and then I'm done with this thread, mkay?

What I said is that companies that only publish female authors are biased and prejudiced. They discriminate. And the only noun word I know of to describe a person or group who is biased, prejudiced, and discriminates is "bigot".

I did NOT, repeat, NOT, say it put someone at a horrible advantage because some small woman-only publisher discrimnates against men and refuses to publish men's work.

I did NOT, repeat, NOT, say that such an organization is run by "man haters" or whatever emotive plea anyone wants to make.

I simply described the behaviour for what it is. bias. prejudice. discrimination. And called the people behaving this way by the term bigot, which is the proper term to describe someone exhibiting this behaviour. I simply described what they do and labeled them accordingly.

I then said I'd have no interest in working with these sorts of people anyway, so I recommended that Bart find a different publisher than bother with these bigots. They aren't worth it.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 11:23 PM
He could pull a Michael Crichton and badmouth them by another name in his novel?

MMcC
12-29-2006, 11:47 PM
There is a difference between exclusion and discrimination, though it is a very fine line. Not knowing too much about this publisher (and not caring), I can't comment on them, specifically. But I don't have a problem with promoting a minority-- or any group, truthfully-- to the exclusion of others under the correct circumstances.

scarletpeaches
12-29-2006, 11:50 PM
I don't agree that there are ever right circumstances.

Promotion, yes, but exclusion to the point of prejudice? No.

maestrowork
12-30-2006, 01:11 AM
So do you think a battered women shelter discriminates and are bigots because they don't allow men to join? Do you think girl scouts or boy scouts are bigots? Do you think the Gay Republican organization should be open to straight Democrats? Do you think senior citizen residences should allow non-senior citizens to live there? Do you seriously think everything (private or public) should be open to everyone, or else they are all bigots?

James D. Macdonald
12-30-2006, 01:15 AM
Let's say that the Metropolitan Museum of Art put on a show of Women's Art Through the Ages.

Should they hang a Rembrant in there too, because it's as good or better than any of the other paintings?

Celia Cyanide
12-30-2006, 01:20 AM
What I said is that companies that only publish female authors are biased and prejudiced. They discriminate. And the only noun word I know of to describe a person or group who is biased, prejudiced, and discriminates is "bigot".

Then it is entirely your issue. Well, we're all writers here, and I don't think everyone agrees that "bigot" is first and obvious word choice for anyone who discriminates under any circumstances.

LeslieB
12-30-2006, 02:30 AM
Seems to me that if women only want to read stories by other women, they're judging the author rather than the writing.

Personally, women's fiction and magazines aren't my cuppa either, no matter if they are Women's Day, Cosmo, or Rusty Razorblade Weekly. But it isn't up to us to tell people what they should buy. As my mother says, the customer isn't always right, but they *are* the ones with the money.

scarletpeaches
12-30-2006, 02:39 AM
So do you think a battered women shelter discriminates and are bigots because they don't allow men to join? Do you think girl scouts or boy scouts are bigots? Do you think the Gay Republican organization should be open to straight Democrats? Do you think senior citizen residences should allow non-senior citizens to live there? Do you seriously think everything (private or public) should be open to everyone, or else they are all bigots?

That's taking the argument to ridiculous lengths. The problem have is that we're talking about a publishing house. Publishing houses are about books. By saying they'll only take submissions from women, they're showing they're not about books, but people, and the gender of the author doesn't affect the ability to write. Talent, drive, persistence, all of those affect your writing career, or should anyway. Gender doesn't. (Or shouldn't).

If you're talking about, for instance, a battered women's shelter, then you're referring to a place where gender is an inherent part of the problem, that is to say, all the residents are women who have been battered by men. So it's understandable they would all be reluctant to have men around the place.

When it comes to a publishing house, or rather, a company that claims to be about books, it's rather...deceitful? Distasteful, to make it known they're not about books at all, but books with conditions.

Of course, genre houses are about books with conditions - books as long as they're horror, books as long as they're romance.

But 'books as long as the author is female' is not a book with a condition inherent to the book. It's carrying a condition completely unrelated to the quality of the book. The gender of the author.

I really don't understand why people bring in other examples like battered women, political groups and so on...all of these groups have understandable conditions for joining. Conditions or qualifications related to the subject being dealt with.

MMcC
12-30-2006, 02:40 AM
I don't agree that there are ever right circumstances.

Promotion, yes, but exclusion to the point of prejudice? No.

That's the point. It isn't necessarily prejudicial just because it's exclusionary.

scarletpeaches
12-30-2006, 02:42 AM
Can someone please explain to me why being in possession of a vagina would affect what I write?

LeslieB
12-30-2006, 03:10 AM
Can someone please explain to me why being in possession of a vagina would affect what I write?

What you write? Nothing. How your writing is marketed? Possibly a great deal.

A company like this is usually focusing on gender/race/orientation/etc. for one or both of two reasons. They could feel that the group has a harder time getting published, and therefore are trying to give them an 'easy button' by cutting out a certain amount of the competition. The other reason is that they are selling authenticity. The selling point is "This isn't just a writer pretending or imagining he/she is an X, he/she really is an X!" Some readers want to feel that they are getting the straight story, so to speak, from someone who has lived the sort of situations they are writing about.

scarletpeaches
12-30-2006, 03:12 AM
Thanks for the post; it makes the reasoning on this a lot clearer for me.

I still don't agree with it, and never will, but it makes the 'opposing argument' easier to understand, at least.

kikazaru
12-30-2006, 03:21 AM
Can someone please explain to me why being in possession of a vagina would affect what I write?

I don't think it does (unless you could actually write with it and then you would have a great career in the circus). ;)

These are the conditions that the company has issued because it must benefit them monetarily. If a publisher of children's fiction set the criteria as only accepting work from children under the age of 16, that is also a form of discrimination to those who are older. If a seniors magazine only wished to publish articles written by and for those over 65 that again leaves large swathes of the writing population out in the cold. I don't believe in either of those instances anyone would question these conditions. I don't understand why the perogative of this publisher is an issue, when there are many niche markets and this is but one of them.

James D. Macdonald
12-30-2006, 04:52 AM
These are the conditions that the company has issued because it must benefit them monetarily.


Given how marginal the companies under discussion are, I'm not certain this is a strong argument.

Bartholomew
12-30-2006, 05:44 AM
Given how marginal the companies under discussion are, I'm not certain this is a strong argument.

Yah. Black Lace isn't exactly huge.

This is purely an arguement of principle, but I don't think anyone is persuading anyone else.

Christine N.
12-30-2006, 07:03 AM
This really isn't discrimination, it's their submission guidelines. Think of it this way, if they want to limit their choices, and miss the chance on what could be some quality work, that's their business. There are plenty of fish in the sea, as they say.

You're not being hired, you're selling something to them. Anyone can refuse a segement of the population to buy from. You don't have to buy a newspaper from the guy on the corner because he smells like fish, you can go to the guy three blocks down who smells like cheap cologne.

Now, if you applied to the company for employment, say, as an editor, and they refused you based on gender, THAT'S discrimination. And stupid if they tell you, because you can sue.

Is this a Romance publisher? I've heard that statment about male writers from quite a few Romance publishers and fans. Kirzaku, there are several magazines that only accept articles written by young people. It's not discriminatory, it's their target audience. New Moon is one that I know of. Actually I think they do take some from adults, but the magazine is mostly run and written by kids. It's a specialty magazine, like this publisher is a specialty publisher.

Anyway, personally I don't think it's anything to get worked up over, any moreso than when I look at agents websites and they say "no children's books" or "no fantasy". It's their right to set up what kind of author they want to work with.

Elektra
12-30-2006, 08:21 AM
Double Standards only pass if people let it happen. Frankly, I'm pissed enough about this do something... but I'm not sure what, yet. My personal boycot of these deplorable publishers will probably not help much.

What would happen if I had a magazine out that only published male authors? Hah! The world would dump on my head like a load of shit-bricks.

I know this doesn't help you any, but what if women started a petition?

MMcC
12-30-2006, 08:40 AM
Can someone please explain to me why being in possession of a vagina would affect what I write?

Gads, I would hate to even ATTEMPT to write without mine! But my vagina is a beloved and-- dare I say it?-- celebrated part of who I am and I love that it has such a huge part ot play in my personhood.

This just reminds me of an acquaintence who used to always say "sex is over-rated." I always responded "you're doing it wrong."

*shrug*

</rant>

<-- me and my vagina are going to go write some more naughty stories

Silver King
12-30-2006, 09:29 AM
I own a business. It has nothing to do with publishing, but the parallels are nearly identical to this discussion.

I sell leather products. I deal only with vendors who provide goods I can sell. If you offer me something made of silk, I'll decline. How about some furs? Nope, sorry. Vinyl that looks just like leather? There's the door.

The point is, give me what I want, and I'll buy it. I won't even attempt to sell products that don't adhere to my guidelines.

I found a niche that keeps me in business. Don't waste my time, or yours, trying to sell me something I can't use.

aruna
12-30-2006, 09:40 AM
Anyway, personally I don't think it's anything to get worked up over, any moreso than when I look at agents websites and they say "no children's books" or "no fantasy". It's their right to set up what kind of author they want to work with.

Amen to that. I've been discriminated against so often in my life that cases like this just don't raise my hackles one little bit (I seem to remember that veinglory said something along those lines, further upstream). Actually, I find being discriminated against was a GREAT learning experience! Probably nothing has given me so much drive as that. My guess is that those who are so outraged have very likely never had to deal with it on a daily basis.

That said, I recently read an interesting exchange in the Letters section of Mslexia. Mslexia is a magazine in Britain for women writers. I believe it was first conceived because of the perception that women writers weren't breing given a fair deal. They weren't taken as seriously as male writers - which is in fact still the case in Britian; more male writers get reviewd in the broadsheets, more male writers get shortlisted for the big prizes. So Mslexia was born.

Today Mslexia has developed into the absolute best writing mag in Britain, chocked full with interesting and intelligent articles which are relevant to both sexes. Recently, a male writer wrote a Letter to the Editor complaining about discrimination. He thinks that now that Mslexia is mainstream it should be open to both sexes. Mslexia's reply was absolutely non-apologetic - "sorry, no. If you want a magazine as good as Mslexia, go make one yourself."
Sure its exclusion - but it just failed to get me hot under the collar.

Similarly, there's a fairly new publisher in Britian which accepts not just women writers only, but only women writers over the age of 40. The rationale is that women of a certain age are not being proportionally represented in British publishing; it's all chick-lit with 20-something heroines. This publisher (having a senior moment - forgotten the name!) believes that women over 40 have great tales to tell and wants to give them the opportunity.

Yes, it's a double discimnation - but SO WHAT? Yes, it's only a niche publisher and most probably men and women under 40 (or people who are both!) won't be interested in it anyway. But what if, in a few years, they produce a couple best-sellers? What if they discover a new JR Rowling, or a writer who wins all the literary prizes? What if it beocmes a publisher like Bloomsbury, with clout and capable of big advances? Should it then open its doors to everyone?

Maybe, maybe not. If they do, publishing may revert to the old status quo, of older female writers not being taken seriouly, or told to write "young" heroines (yes, this happens. I have been told to do so myself).

I honestly donl't have a problem with this.

TrainofThought
12-30-2006, 10:51 AM
Bart,

I agree that this is discrimination. I read some of the posts tossing a few in the Ďbad analogyí slush pile and some just gave me a headache. It is one thing for a publishing company to accept a particular genre for their market, but to outright state they wonít READ a writing based on gender is discriminatory. ďIllegal gender discrimination is any action that grants or denies opportunities, privileges, or rewards to a person just on the basis of their sexÖ ď Wikipedia. Is a publishing company required to follow state laws? It probably depends on the state and size of the company.

What bothers me is how many writers are fine with the fact that publishing companies have a right to discriminate, yet theyíre appalled if a writer uses connections to publish. An example is Christopher Paolini where several threads put him down and question his merit. Why isnít merit questioned with the publishing industry when discrimination is used?

Bart has every right to vent and scream discrimination. Iím surprised by the lack of concern writers have regarding agents and publisherís dealings. My post isnít to bash the industry, but to point out how accepting writers are with it, regardless of law, yet they sometimes fall short with accepting one of their own.

Sorry I went off track. I can feel the attacks coming, but I had to get this out. It blows my mind.

aruna
12-30-2006, 12:55 PM
The subject of revese discrimination in publishing just doesn't bunch my knickers. If a particulatr group of people (blacks, women, gays, what have you) couldn't get published because of who they are, then why shouldn't they create their own publishers, magazines, etc, for the audience that wants to read them?

It's not as if male, white and/or straight peoples couldn't get published at all. Now THAT would be a problem.

In a perfect world there would be no discrimination. In an imperfect world, imbalance has to be addressed by tipping the scale in the other direction in some cases. But even in a perfect world, people will want to read the experiences of people just like them. That's just the way it is.

The writing discimination I most often encounter these days is age. The British Granta award, for instance, is for the ten (or 20???) best new YOUNG authors every ten years. Now, some writers only start writing seriously after they have turned 40. I think it should be for the twenty best NEW writers, regardless of age.

Recently I applied to a travel magazine. It wanted YOUNG journalists with travel and writing experience. Well, I have traveled through countless countries, lived in four continents, and have serious credits both as a journalist and a novelist. So, though it said YOUNG, I applied anyway. They also said that rejected applicants would not receive a reply,. I did not get a reply. Should I get into a rant because of the age discrimnation? No. I simply shrugged and moved on.
Perhaps their readers are young and wanted a "young" perspective, or perhaps they want to give young writers a chance. Who cares? I can get published elsewhere - though it would have been nice.

waylander
12-30-2006, 02:42 PM
Recently I applied to a travel magazine. It wanted YOUNG journalists with travel and writing experience. Well, I have traveled through countless countries, lived in four continents, and have serious credits both as a journalist and a novelist. So, though it said YOUNG, I applied anyway. They also said that rejected applicants would not receive a reply,. I did not get a reply. Should I get into a rant because of the age discrimnation? No. I simply shrugged and moved on.
Perhaps their readers are young and wanted a "young" perspective, or perhaps they want to give young writers a chance. Who cares? I can get published elsewhere - though it would have been nice.

That is now illegal under recent legislation isn't it?

Christine N.
12-30-2006, 04:32 PM
Train, I accept it, because it's not like they're the only publisher in the world. They're allowed to make up whatever guidelines they want. And like the magazine Aruna mentioned, Bart, if you're so mad, start up your own publisher where only male authors are considered.

You might have a market for it - especially if it's Romance. Male-only written romance. That might be interesting. LOL

Angelinity
12-30-2006, 04:47 PM
wow, heavy subject!

people (including publishers) are motivated by gain and will react in synergy with market demand. we've all suffered from discrimination at one time or another, it's the way of the world. fortunately, trends change--sometimes slowly and sometimes abruptly... tomorrow, publishing standards could swing the other way, and women-writers would be the ones crying over spilt milk.

how to get around it? make your writing so good, that gender doesn't matter.

i have a writer friend who uses a female alias. though male, his female characters had become more believable than their male counterparts; and though i was suspicious over the strong 'male vein' in his writing, i didn't really give it much thought untill he gave himself away -- so i asked and he had to let me in on the secret ;)

he'll be published very soon :) congrats!! ;)

Bartholomew
12-30-2006, 05:13 PM
Bart, if you're so mad, start up your own publisher where only male authors are considered.



hyp∑o∑crite [hip-uh-krit] –noun

1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Bartholomew
12-30-2006, 05:15 PM
make your writing so good, that gender doesn't matter.



This won't matter. The publications in question won't read male submissions.

MajorDrums
12-30-2006, 07:47 PM
Never assume. Why would I waste my time submitting to Black Lace? As far as I'm aware, I don't have a vagina.

I Did Not submit to Black Lace. They had a sign in their window that said I wasn't welcome to do so. It pisses me off.

I did not climb on this soap box because someone rejected me, Good Lord. Either discrimination is wrong or it isn't. Justify one instance, you justify them all, with very few exceptions.

Care to explain what those "very few exceptions" are?

One thing I learned on AW is when you are ready to start submitting your work to publishers and/or agents, you do your homework on the publishers/agents you want to submit to. You do this, not only to increase your chances of getting published, but to ensure a good fit for your work to be properly and effectively represented; publishing is not a service, and it's not a one-way street of
authority. Researching publishers and agents of interest has been said time and time again on this board. In a previous post, someone said that the guidelines were clearly stated on their website. If you did your homework, you already knew that, and if it upset you, there were other ways of handling the situation. A better way would be to relay your concerns to the publisher before submitting your work, and then look into whether or not legal action is necessary or even worth the time, money, and effort.

To compare what you went through to signs that read "No niggers allowed" in storefronts and such is extremely flawed, and you purposefully made that comparison just to be inflammatory. The publisher in question did not write "No dicks allowed" in your rejection letter, or use another derogatory term to describe men, did they? That would have been an adequate comparison.

Don't act as if you are being victimized or held down by this publisher, Bartholomew. It's too easy to come on a messageboard and pop off about The Evil Publisher That Rejected You, and then take out your rage at other posters who don't blindly agree with you, or use this as an opportunity to broadbrush society.

PeeDee
12-30-2006, 07:59 PM
I don't think Bart's either raging (well, a bit) or going on about the evil publisher which rejected him. I dont' believe he even submitted to these publishers. He just found them while hunting.

maestrowork
12-30-2006, 08:45 PM
“Illegal gender discrimination is any action that grants or denies opportunities, privileges, or rewards to a person just on the basis of their sex… “

Sorry, like someone else said, this is not a case of employment. If the publishing company refuses to hire males, then you may have something there. As is, they simply only want to buy goods from certain vendors, and as a private company, they really do have the right to be selective based on whatever criteria they choose. Equal opportunities laws don't apply here and there's a reason -- you simply CAN NOT tell a company how to run their business.

scarletpeaches
12-30-2006, 08:55 PM
Gads, I would hate to even ATTEMPT to write without mine! But my vagina is a beloved and-- dare I say it?-- celebrated part of who I am and I love that it has such a huge part ot play in my personhood.

This just reminds me of an acquaintence who used to always say "sex is over-rated." I always responded "you're doing it wrong."

*shrug*

</rant>

<-- me and my vagina are going to go write some more naughty stories

But you don't need a vagina to write! There are people with...*whispers* penises...who write, too!

That said, I agree with your 'doing it wrong' remark. I said that to a friend of mine. A while later she fell headlong in love with a guy, married him, conveniently forgot she'd ever said sex was over rated.

Anyhoo. Back on topic. It's been said that many people aren't bothered about this because there are so many publishers out there.

That's true, there are, but does that mean we should ignore it because there are other places we can go? Ignore one instance of discrimination because there are so many other undiscriminating people in the world?

Ninety-nine good people doesn't change the badness of one on his own. Does that make sense? I wouldn't say, "I can forgive one criminal because there are ninety-nine people who've never done anything wrong."

Bartholomew
12-30-2006, 09:04 PM
Care to explain what those "very few exceptions" are?


Public Restrooms, Female / Male only gyms, lockerooms, and full-contact sports (though I'm of the opinion that a sufficiently powerful woman should not be automatically excluded from said sports).


One thing I learned on AW is when you are ready to start submitting your work...<snip>

First off, I'm not in love with your tone. It sounds like you're talking down to me, but I'll assume that this is because it is on a message board and that your syntax isn't showing through well.

I did do my homework. I was shopping a piece of short fiction. While doing said homework, I stumbled across what I assumed to be an anomaly. I shrugged it off and went on in my search. I found another sexist rag within the hour. Then I started this thread.

I am not going to contact Black Lace or Virgin about their sexist policy. I will, however, say whatever I please about it. I looked into legal action and decided, days ago, that it was not only a silly waste of effort, but also not plausible. As many have pointed out, sexism in this situation is not illegal.


To compare what you went through to signs... <snip>

Why are you assuming that they've rejected me? I didn't submit my work to them. If anything, I've rejected them.

Convince me there is a difference between saying, "You can't write as well, you're a man" and saying, "You can't write as well, you're black," and I will cheerfully revise my post comparing these sexist submission guidelines to the sign you've mentioned, and apologize to boot.


Don't act as if you are being victimized or held down by this publisher, Bartholomew.

No problem. :)


It's too easy to come on a message board and pop off about... <snip>

Black Lace has not rejected me. I have not submitted to them. Stop making strange assumptions.

I am not "broadbrushing" (I really like that word) society; I am defending the principles of equality using the very same freedom of speech that allows these sexist publications to attack these principles. If one form of bigotry is bad, God Blast It, they all are, period.

And at whom have I raged? I rage in German. Ask Dclary.

greglondon
12-30-2006, 09:08 PM
http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/372595.html

Bartholomew
12-30-2006, 09:14 PM
http://www.lyricsandsongs.com/song/372595.html

Yes, Yes it is.

I'll see your Monty Python and raise you one Rowan Atkinson (http://www.tvheaven.ca/black.htm).

I'm derailing this thread now.

scarletpeaches
12-30-2006, 09:14 PM
This publisher we're discussing - what's their position on trannies?

Celia Cyanide
12-30-2006, 09:17 PM
Convince me there is a difference between saying, "You can't write as well, you're a man" and saying, "You can't write as well, you're black," and I will cheerfully revise my post comparing these sexist submission guidelines to the sign you've mentioned, and apologize to boot.

Bart, I don't think you've been able to make the case that saying, "we only accept submissions by female authors" is the same thing as, "you can't write as well, you're a man." If everything you've quoted, you have NEVER shown us anything to indicate that any of these publications believe that men are inferior writers. Christine, I believe, brought up publications that only accept submissions from young people, and I don't think you could make the case that they are really saying, "You can't write as well, you're old." It's just part of the theme of the magazine. I'm not saying you shouldn't have a problem with it at all, but you can hardly equate that with someone telling you that you can't write as well.

You've mentioned that if someone were to produce a magazine that only published male authors, there would be an uproar. But Christine suggested the possibility of a magazine that published romance by only male writers. I see how there would be a niche market for that. There would probably be a lot of readers, male and female, who would be interested. And not because they think women can't write romance well.

Bartholomew
12-30-2006, 09:17 PM
This publisher we're discussing - what's their position on trannies?

I kinda wondered that myself.

And I wonder what they do when a submission is authored by someone with a unisexual name.

scarletpeaches
12-30-2006, 09:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAZTLVJSlNw

Bartholomew
12-30-2006, 09:22 PM
Bart, I don't think you've been able to make the case that saying...<snip>


Then there is clearly some sort of tragic miscommunication. There is a disturbing trend in US society that allows male-bashing to be perfectly acceptable. I would think that, in such circumstances, they would choose their words more carefully. They are being sexist, and unless they can supply a reason, that sexism, to me, says, "Men can't write as well."

I do not believe that female-only authors in any way effects their market.



You've mentioned that if someone were to produce a magazine that only published male authors, there would be an uproar... <snip>

I say the same thing about a male-author only magazine that I say about Black Lace. Sexism in this situation is not justifiable. Romance for Men might be a viable market: it certainly is for women. But Romance By Men, For Men, is sexism and, however subtle, it implies that women can't do it as well.

scarletpeaches
12-30-2006, 09:25 PM
There's room for both genders in the publishing world, and the reasoning, "Our readers like what they like, and we only publish books by women so our readers can find what they're looking for," doesn't sit well with me.

I think, if you're a grown woman looking for books by women, fair enough. Your choice. But to claim you need an entire publishing house to help you find books by women is just...well, stupid. If you can't find books by women on your own, you really shouldn't be allowed out of the house.

Angelinity
12-30-2006, 09:29 PM
This won't matter. The publications in question won't read male submissions.

oh! -- change your pen name?? :D

scarletpeaches
12-30-2006, 09:30 PM
I think you have to provide full frontal pics as well, to prove you don't have the Evil Penis of Doom. :D

Bartholomew
12-30-2006, 09:33 PM
oh! -- change your pen name?? :D

My pen name and I have discussed this. It doesn't want to have surgery.

Maryn
12-30-2006, 11:33 PM
Now, if you applied to the company for employment, say, as an editor, and they refused you based on gender, THAT'S discrimination. And stupid if they tell you, because you can sue.Not a legal suit that you'll win. Private businesses may discriminate all they want, so long as they do not discriminate against a legally protected class. Men are not a legally protected class.

Maryn, who ran this by the lawyer she sleeps with

Bartholomew
12-30-2006, 11:39 PM
Maryn, who ran this by the lawyer she sleeps with

My virgin ears!

Er, eyes!

TrainofThought
12-31-2006, 12:06 AM
Sorry, like someone else said, this is not a case of employment. If the publishing company refuses to hire males, then you may have something there. As is, they simply only want to buy goods from certain vendors, and as a private company, they really do have the right to be selective based on whatever criteria they choose. Equal opportunities laws don't apply here and there's a reason -- you simply CAN NOT tell a company how to run their business.I posted the definition of illegal gender discrimination because many of the posts discuss product and market. Bartís original post didnít mention the refusal of his product based on what the company promotes. They refused to read his product based on gender, which is discrimination. Whether he has legal rights is a separate issue.

I understand the equal opportunity laws do not apply, but if you believe discrimination is wrong, as I do itís hard to ignore. The government can tell a company how to run their business; your reason applies to private or nonprofit organizations that have rights to set their own standards. Case in point is your example of the Boys Scouts of America.

The discussion is whether declining a product solely on gender is acceptable for a publishing company and if they have legal rights. I donít think it is acceptable and laws are meant to be changed if need be. I wouldnít be voting in 2008 if women sat back and said, ďWell thatís just the way it is. At least I have the right to go grocery shopping and cook.Ē Okay, Iím being a smartass.

Iím just trying to understand why some writers think discrimination is acceptable in the publishing industry, legal or not. Or maybe I misread the posts and Iím not communicating my point (in original post) effectively.

PattiTheWicked
12-31-2006, 12:44 AM
Again, this is not about "writers thinking discrimination is acceptable", because I really don't see this as discrimination. It's about being choosy, based on marketability. This is about [usually small] publishers whose readers only want to read submissions by a certain demographic.

I'm a Wiccan. If I write an article and submit it to a Christian magazine, are they discriminating against me when they say "No, thanks, you're not Christian so we're really not interested in your work"?

No. They're simply deciding not to buy from someone who doesn't meet the standards they've set in their submission guidelines.

Getting all bent out of shape because some little indy publisher won't accept submissions from men is just silly.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 01:04 AM
I'm a Wiccan. If I write an article and submit it to a Christian magazine, are they discriminating against me when they say "No, thanks, you're not Christian so we're really not interested in your work"?


You're Wiccan because you chose to be. Being Wiccan probably makes it hard for you to write for a Christian audience, though, certainly it could be done.

Did you choose your gender? What is it about genitals that precludes men from writing about women and vice versa?


Getting all bent out of shape because some little indy publisher won't accept submissions from men is just silly.

Why?


Again, this is not about "writers thinking discrimination is acceptable", because I really don't see this as discrimination.

Whew. I'm glad there's no discrimination going on here! I was starting to worry.



It's about being choosy, based on marketability. This is about [usually small] publishers whose readers only want to read submissions by a certain demographic.

...otherwise known as discriminating.

TeddyG
12-31-2006, 01:10 AM
Iím just trying to understand why some writers think discrimination is acceptable in the publishing industry, legal or not. Or maybe I misread the posts and Iím not communicating my point (in original post) effectively.

Because it is NOT discrimination. Because it is a PRIVATE business. Like a private school which does not take money from the government can damn well decide who to take and who not to take as a student.

Because this is just all so silly. If you think your works are just so great that any mag., publisher and agent would take them on and publish them, then prove it. Stop jumping down the niche markets which cater to a specific crowd.

And if you dont like their submission rules, open your own mag, allow only men to submit to it, and turn down all women.

Next thing you will be saying, is that editors who turn down your submissions are bigoted because they dont like what you write. They should publish it simply because you wrote it.

The comparisons made here to real bigotry and real discrimantory practices just belittles the real bigotry.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 01:21 AM
Because it is NOT discrimination.
discrimination –noun
1.an act or instance of discriminating.
2.treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3.the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4.Archaic. something that serves to differentiate.




The comparisons made here to real bigotry and real discrimantory practices just belittles the real bigotry.

Tiny problems should be considered after larger ones have been dealt with. That's common sense.

You arbitrarily saying "It is not a problem" does not nullify the issue.

Yeah, people are dying in the Sudan from starvation and there are Arabs rotting in holding cells in Cuba because they're brown. That really isn't what this thread isn't about, though. The thread is about sexual discrimination in the publishing world. If you want to post rhetoric about whatever you consider "real" bigotry, take it outside.

PattiTheWicked
12-31-2006, 01:31 AM
You're Wiccan because you chose to be. Being Wiccan probably makes it hard for you to write for a Christian audience, though, certainly it could be done.

Did you choose your gender? What is it about genitals that precludes men from writing about women and vice versa?

Well, if we have to talk about things we didnt' choose, how about this: I'm white, and heterosexual. If some publisher wants to publish stories that show 'the voice of black America' or 'lesbian perspectives', I'm out of the running there, too. It's not like anyone's making me sit at the back of the bus or eat at a separate lunch counter -- they just don't want to publish my work because their readers have said this isnt' what they want to see.


Getting all bent out of shape because some little indy publisher won't accept submissions from men is just silly.

Why?

Because there are far worse things out there than a rinkydink publisher saying "I don't want your work because you're a man."


Whew. I'm glad there's no discrimination going on here! I was starting to worry.

According to your definition of discrimination you posted, definition #3 is "the power of making fine distinctions, discriminating judgment". I don't see that as a bad thing. And in business, the ability to make judgments and distinctions is a necessity to keeping your company afloat.

Look, you can scream "discrimination" until the cows come home, and if it were a situation where NO publishers would ever look at you because you're male, then I could see it as a gripe. But the number of publishers who have these restrictions in place are (a) a very very small segment of the publishing world (b) aren't really huge publishing companies and (c) have a very select readership. Your career as a writer is hardly damaged because Feminist Monthly or some such won't look at your work, that's all I'm sayin'.

TrainofThought
12-31-2006, 01:37 AM
Because it is NOT discrimination. Because it is a PRIVATE business. Like a private school which does not take money from the government can damn well decide who to take and who not to take as a student.

Because this is just all so silly. If you think your works are just so great that any mag., publisher and agent would take them on and publish them, then prove it. Stop jumping down the niche markets which cater to a specific crowd.

And if you dont like their submission rules, open your own mag, allow only men to submit to it, and turn down all women.

Next thing you will be saying, is that editors who turn down your submissions are bigoted because they dont like what you write. They should publish it simply because you wrote it.

The comparisons made here to real bigotry and real discrimantory practices just belittles the real bigotry.Inserting my comment about not understanding why writers accept discrimination and attacking me is unjust. This is under ĎFor All Writers: the AW Roundtableí, and if I can recall the AW guidelines correctly, Iím allowed to post comments for discussion. If you donít like it, donít read my posts and put me on Ignore. It isnít all right for you to belittle another writer, who I might add you never conversed with before. You know nothing about me so donít guess what I may or may not say. Youíre comments are SILLY to me and this is the last you will hear from me.

AdamH
12-31-2006, 01:52 AM
This is a really interesting discussion. Really!

Haven't had a chance to read the whole thread because it's gone on pretty long...and I simply don't have the time. So, I apologize ahead of time if I'm rehashing old arguements.

Stories are products. Just like a can of Coke, a Big Mac, the shirt I'm wearing, a box of paperclips, ect...

A publisher is a business that buys said products. Just because they prefer Coke over Pepsi doesn't mean it's discriminatory. It means their customers like Coke better.

A writer is the seller of these products. Just because you sell Pepsi and can't change your can into a Coke because you were born with a Pepsi label isn't a dig against you. Just that business is not interested in your product. Move on to a new publisher that sells and wants Pepsi.

It's only discriminatory if you were selling yourself (i.e. applying for a job there) to...let's say...edit stories. And they say they won't take you only because you're a man. That's discrimination, and you'd have a case.

I want to write so much more but I'm at my regular work and just on my way home. So I may come back later.

Sorry again if this has been all touched upon.

-Pepsi man, who definitely digs the Coke. :D

Christine N.
12-31-2006, 01:57 AM
Oh Dear Dog, this is the silliest thread I've ever read.

A) how does starting your own specialty press make you a hypocrite. Ok, fine then, whatever. I thought it was a good idea, one that was novel and could make quite a stir (and money)
B) They are allowed to take whatever kind of subs they want. You don't have to like it. Most restaurants have the policy that they can refuse service to anyone. You don't have to like it.

It's not a public company, nor is it a governement-run one. As long as they don't chain the workers to their desks, their allowed to run it however they want.

It's not male bashing - it's business. If there were a magazine, publisher, whatever that only read and published male authors, I wouldn't care, because it obviously wouldn't be a market I would be interested in, and I MOVE ON.

Now, that being said... if they were the ONLY publisher in the whole wide world that published the kind of thing I write, and only took male submissions, I'd probably be mad. But then I'd probably self-publish anyway. :)

Bart, I like ya, dude, but the horse is dead and gone.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 01:58 AM
...I'm white, and heterosexual. If some publisher wants to publish stories that show 'the voice of black America' or 'lesbian perspectives', I'm out of the running there...

Fair enough. But there is a difference between an anthology of stories by great Lesbian Midgets and a publisher deciding to only publish books by lesbian midgets. (We've left the practical and entered the hypothetical a long time ago, and lesbian midget is a lot more fun to type that "male.")

Its a subtle difference, I think. In the first case, the publisher is building something historical. "These people had this in common."

In the second case, the publisher is... well, just being bigoted. "Well, my target audience doesn't care to hear from subset X."


Because there are far worse things...

Derailing the thread is my job, thank you.



According to your definition of discrimination you posted...<Snip> Your career as a writer is hardly damaged because Feminist Monthly or some such won't look at your work, that's all I'm sayin'.


I agree.

But when you let one subset get away with bigotry, other subets want to do it too. This is an arguement of principle. "Males Need Not Apply" and "We Prefer Female Authors" are different statements, and these "rinkydink" (cute!) publishers should not discount someone's work because they're from a different subset of humanity.

It would be different if it were non-fiction! I agree that I have no place writing about lesbian issues. But they publish fiction, and that is where it becomes the bad kind of discrimination.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 02:01 AM
Bart, I like ya, dude, but the horse is dead and gone.

Nay! (Neigh?)

Shades of Humanity
12-31-2006, 02:01 AM
I applied for a gym membership at Curves the other day and was rejected. How dare they follow a business model and allow only females to work out there! Gosh darnit, I'm gonna sue.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 02:04 AM
I applied for a gym membership at Curves the other day and was rejected. How dare they follow a business model and allow only females to work out there! Gosh darnit, I'm gonna sue.

Annoying Posting Habit #2,312:

The Poster joins a long thread and brings up an issue that was dealt with sixty-three pages ago.

A.P.H #4:

The poster joins a thread and blasts the O.P. out of context.

#

Anyway, this thread is dead and it's starting to get nasty. Lock?

Shades of Humanity
12-31-2006, 02:10 AM
Annoying Posting Habit #2,312:

The Poster joins a long thread and brings up an issue that was dealt with sixty-three pages ago.

A.P.H #4:

The poster joins a thread and blasts the O.P. out of context.

#

Anyway, this thread is dead and it's starting to get nasty. Lock?

:Hug2:

Please forgive my online etiquette. In the world where I spend most of my waking (and sometime sleeping) hours, there are no computers and debates are settled by Death Knoll spells, swords, and enchanted artifacts.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 02:13 AM
:Hug2:

Please forgive my online etiquette.


It happens.




In the world where I spend most of my waking (and sometime sleeping) hours, there are no computers and debates are settled by Death Knoll spells, swords, and enchanted artifacts.

Dude, thats what this thread TOTALLY needs.

I declare this thread HIJACKED! in the name of Spain!

Ok, wait. Wait. I'll be the evil wizard, and you be the dragon.

<aHem Hem hem>

By the power of Jorgan's Nose Hairs, Beast, I shall drive ye to the hell that spawned you!

PattiTheWicked
12-31-2006, 02:27 AM
Fair enough. But there is a difference between an anthology of stories by great Lesbian Midgets and a publisher deciding to only publish books by lesbian midgets. (We've left the practical and entered the hypothetical a long time ago, and lesbian midget is a lot more fun to type that "male.")

Agreed. Henceforth, all complaints shall use Lesbian Midgets in the example. My apologies in advance to any actual Lesbian Midgets who may be reading the thread :)


Its a subtle difference, I think. In the first case, the publisher is building something historical. "These people had this in common."

In the second case, the publisher is... well, just being bigoted. "Well, my target audience doesn't care to hear from subset X."

Hm. I see where you're coming from, I do. I'm just not sure how it's discriminatory, in a negative way, to say "our readers don't want to read stuff by this group of writers. I think it's more "selective" than discriminatory.

And if a publisher decided he wanted to print work by white people only, or men only, or Canadians only, then that would be his prerogative.


But when you let one subset get away with bigotry, other subets want to do it too. This is an arguement of principle. "Males Need Not Apply" and "We Prefer Female Authors" are different statements, and these "rinkydink" (cute!) publishers should not discount someone's work because they're from a different subset of humanity.

It would be different if it were non-fiction! I agree that I have no place writing about lesbian issues. But they publish fiction, and that is where it becomes the bad kind of discrimination.

I think the biggest source of the disagreement on this thread is that not everyone sees it as bigotry.

I have a dear friend who is Hispanic. She only dates other Hispanic people. She tells me it's because she's attracted to Hispanic men -- not white guys, black men, or Asians. Just Hispanic guys. It doesn't make her a bigot. It means she knows what she likes, and she only dates guys who meet her I Like That qualifications.

No one is saying that men can't write as well as women, or that a straight person can't convincingly write a gay character. And I totally agree with you in that by declining to publish work by a significant portion of the population, these publishers are probably missing out on some great writing. But they're simply saying that their readership -- i.e., the People Who Pay Them -- want to hear from one subset and not others.

PattiTheWicked
12-31-2006, 02:28 AM
Ok, wait. Wait. I'll be the evil wizard, and you be the dragon.

<aHem Hem hem>

By the power of Jorgan's Nose Hairs, Beast, I shall drive ye to the hell that spawned you!

:::rolls 1d20:::

That's it. I'm whacking you with my Mighty Sword of Irrelevance.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 02:29 AM
Hm. I see where you're coming from, I do. I'm just....



What? Where have you been? God. The thread is about Dragons now. Dragons and Wizards.

Sean D. Schaffer
12-31-2006, 02:31 AM
Veddy Intedesting!

I wouldn't worry too much about this discriminatory action, Bartholomew. I'd just go to companies that will hire men. Like Maryn pointed out, men are not a protected class. So, the best thing I think you can do is just move the horse on to greener pastures. Find a publisher that will accept male writers and go with that.

Although I agree your first-page scenario of a male-authors-only magazine would probably be met with immense amounts of disgust and possibly even lawsuits. It's not fair, but that seems to be the way this wacky world works.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 02:31 AM
:::rolls 1d20:::

That's it. I'm whacking you with my Mighty Sword of Irrelevance.


:::Rolls 1d20:::

Woot! Natural 23 baby! You suffer a critical miss!

PattiTheWicked
12-31-2006, 02:32 AM
Hey, I'm a little slow on the uptake.

Eek! What's that?!

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/340902/2/istockphoto_340902_cartoon_drawing_dinosaur.jpg

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 02:33 AM
Holy Molee, I didn't think you'd go get a real dragon! :cry:


:flag:

Christine N.
12-31-2006, 02:37 AM
Dragon? Where?
I have a pet dragon in my backyard. Oh, wait, no, I have dragons in my books... wizards too.

Shades of Humanity
12-31-2006, 02:39 AM
Dragon? Where?
I have a pet dragon in my backyard. Oh, wait, no, I have dragons in my books... wizards too.

My wizards can beat up your wizards :tongue

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 02:42 AM
My wizards can beat up your wizards :tongue

Psh. No way. Prove it.

Duel! Duel! Duel! Duel!

Shades of Humanity
12-31-2006, 02:56 AM
Psh. No way. Prove it.

Duel! Duel! Duel! Duel!

Hermaphrodite (Aphrodite's adrogenious brother) lifts his(her?) cloak and shows off his spindly legs, hoping to distract Bartholomew.

scarletpeaches
12-31-2006, 02:58 AM
Hermaphrodite was actual Aphrodite and Hermes' son. :) Born with the genitalia of both parents.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 03:04 AM
Hermaphrodite (Aphrodite's adrogenious brother) lifts his(her?) cloak and shows off his spindly legs, hoping to distract Bartholomew.

GAWK.

Shades of Humanity
12-31-2006, 03:13 AM
Hermaphrodite was actual Aphrodite and Hermes' son. :) Born with the genitalia of both parents.

Eww, Hermaphrodite was her brother and son?

Okay, okay I got my greek mythology all wrong :)

Hmm...but now I'm trying to figure out how he could've been brother and son. It would mean that Aphro did her father..... eh, I'd rather not know

scarletpeaches
12-31-2006, 03:15 AM
Oh...I'm sure she gave birth to him. That would explain the combination of her and Hermes' name. But I'm not sure. I just think it's funny. :)

scarletpeaches
12-31-2006, 03:16 AM
Oh. I googled it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphroditus

Christine N.
12-31-2006, 03:43 AM
Nope, my wizard is all powerful. And if not, his apprentice can whi[ your butt. Then I'll have my dragons, which strangely all have names after characters in Shakespeare plays, come and BBQ you.

Hermaphrodite isn't any weider than Athena's birth. She jumped out of Zeus' head, after he complained of a splitting headache.

benbradley
12-31-2006, 04:45 AM
How far do such editors go to verify that the authors (NOT the submitted writings, the AUTHORS!) meet the stated qualifications?

As far as I know, I'm bigoted against dragons and would rather not read any of their writings, but if one should use a WASPy male penname, say James White, and write, submit and publish some enjoyable SF (that's Science Fiction) that I read and later found out it was written by a dragon, I wouldn't be too upset. It just might open me up to the idea of reading other writings by dragons.

Christine N.
12-31-2006, 05:37 AM
LOL.
Go buy a copy of Joe Ekaitis' book... it does a very good job of addressing the subject of dragons in the arts. Griffins too.

Do you find that you like novels by Griffins, if Dragons aren't your thing? I find a good Dragon novel rather enjoyable on a winter afternoon.

PattiTheWicked
12-31-2006, 07:26 AM
You can always tell when a manuscript has been submitted by a dragon. The edges of the pages have singe marks on them.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 07:31 AM
And then they reject you, you can call the ACLU and be like, "They hate lizards!"

Jongfan
12-31-2006, 07:39 AM
OMG....let it go already

This is out of control. I have seen so many ref. to uncalled for things such as real discrimination.

If a publisher makes it absolutely clear that they wish to publish works by one gender... either find another publisher or become that gender.
This is becoming an out of control , whiny thread..
Give it a rest already

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 07:45 AM
OMG....let it go already

This is out of control. I have seen so many ref. to uncalled for things such as real discrimination.

If a publisher makes it absolutely clear that they wish to publish works by one gender... either find another publisher or become that gender.
This is becoming an out of control , whiny thread..
Give it a rest already

<Ahem>

Jong. We're talking about dragons now. Dragons.

<Glare>

:)

PeeDee
12-31-2006, 07:59 AM
If a DRAGON submits something to you, WHY are you rejecting it? Are you out of your mind?

Previously, you just had to worry about whiney author phone calls going "Why did you reject my booooooooook?"

Now, you have to worry about being FRIED TO A CRISP on your way to work!

I would have 100% acceptance rate for Dragons. Let it be known.

scarletpeaches
12-31-2006, 08:00 AM
Is this dragon male, female or transgender?

Sean D. Schaffer
12-31-2006, 08:28 AM
Is this dragon male, female or transgender?


Can the dragon be all three?

:poke:

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 08:41 AM
Psh. The tongue of dragons would leave any editor---except possibly evil editor---a gibbering madman.

PeeDee
12-31-2006, 09:23 AM
And the dragon would owe me five bucks.

Sean D. Schaffer
12-31-2006, 09:26 AM
And the dragon would owe me five bucks.


Can the dragon pay you with a money order?

PeeDee
12-31-2006, 09:29 AM
He would want to pay with cash, or something worse than a dragon would be comin' round.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 09:33 AM
He would want to pay with cash, or something worse than a dragon would be comin' round.

I sure hope you accept radioactive gold dubloons in payment.

*Reports PeeDee's fee-charging ways to the B&E board.*

aruna
12-31-2006, 11:17 AM
But Dragons are SOOOO out. Personally, I think Vampires and Werewolves are discriminated against in publishing

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 01:28 PM
But Dragons are SOOOO out. Personally, I think Vampires and Werewolves are discriminated against in publishing

Vampires certainly are.

...! We need VAMPIRE DRAGONS!

NINJA Vampure Dragons!

Oh yeah, I'm hot tonight.

Christine N.
12-31-2006, 04:24 PM
Teenage Mutant Ninja Vampire Dragons.

Bartholomew
12-31-2006, 04:27 PM
Teenage Mutant Ninja Vampire Dragons.

On the rocks, with a twist.

Shades of Humanity
12-31-2006, 05:18 PM
Teenage Mutant Ninja Vampire Dragons.

So...they dwell in the sewers, stealthily crawling up plumbing and await for the next unfortunate tush that sits down on the toilet seat. The only question is: do they fry it, or bite it?

JulesJones
12-31-2006, 06:06 PM
In the case of Virgin, it is not the publisher who "won't accept submissions from men". It is one and only one of Virgin's imprints, an imprint aimed specifically at catering to a female readership. Guys who want to submit erotica to Virgin can do so.

And there is a very practical reason for the women-only policy for Black Lace. It is that *on average*, men and women write (and read) different styles of erotica, and Black Lace is aimed at the female market. Direct quote in another writing group from someone who used to work for Virgin:
"After a few manuscripts, despite the ludicrous pseudonyms that most of
the authors use (Penny Birch? Delver Maddingley?) I quickly learned how
to tell whether a writer was male or female. Typically, female authors
would describe feelings and sensations, inner thoughts, and would do
interesting things with viewpoints and emotional responses. Male authors
described what'll fit where if you push it."

Never mind any "tit for tat" considerations. The fact that the erotica market has been strongly skewed towards the typical male taste has the practical consequence that many men have never been exposed to the sort of material Black Lace is looking for, and don't understand that it's different to what Nexus is looking for, while women who write erotica have generally had plenty of opportunity to read Nexus-type material.

Of course that doesn't mean that men are incapable of writing the sort of erotica that Black Lace wants, and the Black Lace editors are well aware of this. But it does mean that John Random Smutwriter is much more likely to be getting a no from Black Lace, based on whether the tone of the work is a good fit for the imprint, than is Jane Random Smutwriter. And if I had a slushpile the size of Black Lace's, I'd be very tempted to discourage a large chunk of the smut-writing population that can't see the difference between the Nexus and Black Lace imprints, quite apart from the "by women for women" marketing factor. And "by women for women" *is* a big marketing factor, because so many women find porn aimed at men a turn-off rather than a turn-on.

As for the complaints about no publisher would dare to say they'll only accept submissions from men -- well, maybe not publishers, but as far as specific imprints or anthology series are concerned, you're clearly not looking very hard, because there are erotica markets out there that do just that. And yes, I've shrugged and sent my story somewhere else. I understand what the slushpile and marketing concerns are, even if I think they're likely to miss out on some good stories.

greglondon
12-31-2006, 06:35 PM
I believe female komono dragons can reproduce without having a male dragon. Or something like that. So maybe their ideas of gender don't quite map to our "male" and "female" versions. If that's the case, there probably would not be a female-only komono dragon publishing company.

Plus, if they bite you, you can die from the infection. Not as flashy as a fireball, but still, dead is dead.

scarletpeaches
12-31-2006, 06:38 PM
Would this komodo dragon be wearing a kimono?