Today’s announcement of the Orange Prize long list got me thinking about the relevance of gender specific prizes and publications in the 21st Century. I realise these prizes and publications are supposed to counteract years of male domination in publishing, but looking back at a list of the Booker shortlists for the last thirty years there have been many shortlists where women writers dominated and plenty of female winners. Will there be a point when publications and prizes based on segregating writing by gender will not be necessary?
While googling about the female only prize, it was refreshing to read Sadie Jones’ thoughts on the matter, when shortlisted for the Orange Prize in 2008. “I think there should be a literary prize for men. I have a son, and you hear a lot about boys not reading. Anything that adds interest or glamour for boys can only be good sense.” Yet here we are, two years later and such a prize, which certainly might help encourage more male reading, is conspicuous by its absence. I also wasn’t aware until today that AS Byatt has forbidden her publisher to submit her novels, calling the prize sexist and unnecessary.
As an ex-English teacher, seeing so many female only writers’ organisations and publications (both print and electronic formats) as well as prizes like the Orange award, does highlight the fact that there is little in place to encourage male readers or writers, something schools struggle with daily. I also wonder how long it would take for a male only prize to come under fire for doing exactly the same thing as the well respected Orange Prize. A male only writing journal would almost certainly face the same criticism.
My feeling on the issue is that good writing is good writing and segregating work by gender (or sexuality or race – but that’s a whole other post) is insulting to readers. Women writers such as Toni Morrison, Ali Smith, Maggie Gee, Tania Hershman and, my absolute favourite author at the moment, Amy Hempel all sit on my bookshelf, alongside a host of other writers, both male and female. I don’t ever really consider the sex of the author when choosing a book. I’m more concerned whether the story/collection sounds like it has something interesting to say or, when browsing, if the opening grabs my attention. If the writing is working, the author should be invisible, in which case what does gender matter?
I know a good number of women writers and readers check in on this blog from time to time and I’d be interested to hear your views on the subject. Is the Orange Prize’s mandate out of date? Does the gender of an author really matter? Is this effort to redress past imbalances in the publishing world unnecessary in 2010?
Dan Powell 
17 Responses to Are women only lit prizes really necessary in 2010?
I wish gender didn’t matter. I’m shocked by how often I’m told by male readers (friends, partners of friends, etc) that they wouldn’t consider reading a book by a female author because it’ll be about “girly things.” It doesn’t make sense to me, but apparently it does to them.
I don’t know if this means that gender-oriented awards and so forth are still necessary, but I’m interested to read other people’s comments on the matter.
As a woman writer, I think having a women-only award is a little patronising, if anything – unless there is also a men-only one too.
In sport, there is a clear reason for separating the male competitions from the female ones (except horseriding events of course, for the very same reason!).
In writing, in this day and age…. what *is* the reason? If it is only “to make up for centuries of women being kept down” or some such thing, I say do away with it – let’s call it evens.
I agree with mazzz in Leeds: it is patronizing. As you pointed out, perhaps these types of “supports for women in the arts” came about for good reasons, to try to adjust the scale, formerly, unfairly, weighted for males. Today, it suggests that women writers don’t measure up to male writers or “compete” with them fairly, that they need special forums so they can succeed.
That said though, I too have heard similar comments to the ones Jen refers to and I know of modern women writers who use their first initial and surname as their author name rather than face the ramifications (poorer sales) of a feminine monikor . . .
And re: the teacher who observed that”there is little in place to encourage male readers or writers, something schools struggle with daily.” I’ve worked in schools for years and completely agree.
I don’t know what the solution is then–general reading attitudes (I think) do seem to still be gender biased . . . but maybe that is partially DUE to things like women only writing contests, awards, grants that suggest there is an unbridgeable divide between F and M writing quality and content . . .
I think I’m with mazzz again: “Do away with it – let’s call it evens.”
‘That said though, I too have heard similar comments to the ones Jen refers to and I know of modern women writers who use their first initial and surname as their author name rather than face the ramifications (poorer sales) of a feminine monikor’
If the data is correct and 70% of readers are female, I find the need to hide a female name behind initials a bit weird. I suppose for J. K. Rowling it makes sense, writing for children, as boys might be swayed that way, but it seems unnecessary that adult writer’s resort to initials for this reason.
I don’t know if it’s so much a _need_ to hide gender from male readers as a wish to not potentially alienate them if they could be thus alienated–and I’ve read (though sadly can’t remember the source) that yes, the 70% of readers in general being women is true, but the % of readers that read “serious” books (say, literary fiction or non-fiction) does not show the heavy female domination.
I don’t know . . . I also wondered about it–and if maybe the perceived “need to appear male to succeed as author” is just a carry over from days of old and is just silliness.
I’d love to hear from people who think there is value in gender-exclusive contests, etc.
It’s was a great post, Dan. Thought provoking.
Unfortunately, I still think a women’s prize is necessary in literate given that I think a lot of literary awards are still dominated by men.
It does seem strange given that gender norms, as you stated, mean that men aren’t really reading that much.
I love that women play an active role in this industry, because compared to other areas I work in, even left-wing politics, it’s still a man’s world.
But I agree that the end point should be that work is considered on it’s merit not the genitalia of the person that created it but given that women are undervalued in society at large, I still think it’s necessary.
I did read that around 70% of those working in publishing today were women (need to look into that side of this issue more). I take that to be the editors, publishing staff etc. which on the surface shows an industry where the majority of the professionals working are now women. Of course, the really interesting figure would be how many of those women hold the top jobs.
Just read an interesting article (found via Ben Solah’s twitter feed) that relates to this issue.
Same Old Story: Best-Books Lists Snub Women Writers
Interesting look at the judging process of a mixed gender prize. Presents a decent argument FOR having a women only prize.
This recent attention drawn to the lack of women winning these awards is what came to mind first when I read this post, Dan. I guess even if we’re all academically non-biased it hasn’t quite translated to the real world.
It’s weird. I look at the Booker shortlists and you see plenty of women there and plenty of women winners. Then you read something like the article I linked to in the comments and the experience there seems to reflect the opposite. I suppose its too much to expect for everyone just to focus on the writing. Kind of depressing.
I’m with Sadie Jones – I’d like to see a version of the Orange prize for male authors. I love the Orange prize and the books it highlights, but I find the whole concept sexist and something that I no longer feel is needed.
Thanks for all the interesting comments. This is far from a simple issue and I appreciate the response and input.
I have found the controversy over comments made by Daisy Goodwin particularly interesting this week.
The Orange Prize misery.
She’s received criticism for her comments, yet they raise interesting questions. Do women writer’s have to write serious, some might say, grim books in order to be taken seriously? Does a more light-hearted tone immediately lead to labeling as chick-lit?
This issue has two, equally razorsharp edges.
I went through the Booker Prize list for the past twenty years and was disgusted at the man to woman ratio.
In the last twenty years only Five women have won the Booker Prize.
1990 3:3 (AS Byatt’s Possession: A Romance)
1995 1:4 (Pat Barker’s The Ghost Road)
1997 2:4 (Arhundati Roy’s God of Small Things)
2000 1:5 (Margaret Atwoods’ Blind Assassin)
2009 3:3 (Hilary Mantel Wolf Hall)
(the ratios are of women:men nominated that year)
In the past 20 years only twice have more women than men been nominated (2006 & 2003) a woman didn’t win either of those years … and on three occassions have there been equal numbers of men and women – two of those years the winner was a woman.
So by in large – the nominations and the winners are overwhelmingly men.
The problem with all women awards – they give the impression that women are a minority – they need a ‘special award’ and this feeds into the mentality that women are a minority group. In most countries women are the majority of the population demographic.
But hell – what do you do? Seems that you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
I’m going to have to unbury the half written blog post from International Women’s Day and post it up!
… and as an aside – I totally agree with what you say about boys and reading! I have a son and he is an avid reader at five and a half. Book, literature and writing are all cornerstones of our family life. If more men read, then perhaps more boys would want to read? We can be grateful Dan we’re raising boys who will always love reading!
Thanks for your detailed comment, Jodi.
Admittedly, I didn’t do a detailed analysis of the Booker figures, just had a look through the list of shortlists and winners. I agree that the women only winning 5 out of the last twenty seems unrepresentative, but it also may simply have been that in those fifteen years the men who won/were shortlisted simply wrote the better books.
I have no real issue with the Orange Prize, it has brought some great books to a wider audience, amongst them one of my all time favourites, Maggie Gee’s ‘The White Family,’ but can’t help feeling a male only prize would immediately be shouted down as sexist.
As I said before, the idea that a women only prize is necessary is saddening. As you say women are not a minority, and if the figures of the number of women in the publishing are correct they make up a majority in the literary world. That being the case you would think things would be close to evening out. We are living in the 21st Century after all. But then I don’t have my flying car and personal jetpack to get about in yet either.
I’ve read a few more interesting additions to this argument so might have to do another post at some point.
If I’m feeling better in the morning I will get my post up.
I don’t normally go about doing a detailed breakdown of gender – I didn’t the Booker originally just to see how it panned out when I was researching the blog post – which never went up (because I decided to celebrate women authors rather than bemoan their status in the literary world)
You make a really important point – which I think everyone might have skipped over – that women’s writing is seen as ‘domestic’ and thus, somehow of less importance or relevance. That ‘domesticity’ of female writing is something which seems to have women held back from winning those major prizes – I have some quotes in my unpublished article which attests to this.
So even if women are up there in terms of numbers – the fact they are women seems to bias the interpretation of their writing when it comes to these major prizes.
Thanks for opening the floor and letting us all let rip with our thoughts.
I really agree with Jodi’s point about women’s writing being seen as more domestic, which kind of removes the idea that men’s writing may been seen as objectively better.
Another comment was the women’s writing was seen as more grim, which someone said was due to anything vaguely more upbeat written by women is usually thrown into ‘chick-lit’ and not taken seriously.
On the subject on boys not reading, I totally agree that this is a problem. I’m not sure that a men’s prize would change that though. Most boys wouldn’t have a conception of these awards.
At risk of being dismissed as just a Marxist, I think it has a lot to do with how boys are socialized under capitalism. They’re brought up to be rough and play with trucks etc and I remember as a kid being called a ‘nerd’ for preferring to read over playing football.
I think it’s a much larger task to change those gender roles.
I’m totally with you on the issues with raising boys. The social perception of boys causes a lot of the problems, you only have to see the negative way boys are presented in everything from newspapers to infant t-shirt slogans.
Boys are hard-wired to like action and guns and trucks and things though. Both our boys have been brought up with an open policy on what they play with, yet they still gravitate toward the guns and trucks. It was most marked in our eldest, who didn’t have an older sibling to mirror. He still wanted the boys toys.
Steven Biddulph’s ‘Raising Boys’ has a lot of great things to say about boys and positive upbringing if you are interested.
As you say, the real test is expanding the view of the male role to include those things that certain, blinkered parts of society see as feminine. As a homedad, I can at least be sure that my boys will grow up questioning the roles society tries to assign to specific genders.
Comments are closed.