Token.

[mrissa]

I haven't read very much of lj this morning; I'm pretty busy with markgritter's grandpa arriving tomorrow. But there's one experience I wanted to mention in light of a suggestion I came across:

I spent two summers doing research in physics as an undergrad, with the NSF's REU programs. For one of them, I was the only woman out of eight students. This is about the national ratio of female physics undergrads to the total population, or was when I was an undergrad, and while I haven't followed Physics Today as obsessively, I believe it's similar now.

In all honesty, I was at least as intelligent and at least as talented and at least as enthusiastic about physics as any of the guys there, and obviously smarter(/etc.) than at least a few. But I spent all summer fighting the assumption that I was not as competent as they were, not just because I was a woman but because we all knew that institutions would go out of their way not to have single-gender programs. The default assumption was not that they took the top eight students who applied, but that they took the top seven students who applied, and then the top female applicant to round things out to fit the statistics. The rest of them could be there as physics students. Knowledge or assumption of a quota system made sure that I had to be there as a woman -- even if I'd been their top applicant of the year.

If speculative fiction magazines announced that they were having set-aside spots for women writers in their issues, I would get myself a genderless pseudonym if I didn't decide to stop submitting to those magazines completely. I will be damned if I'm ever going through that again if I can help it. And I wish it on no one else, either. It was absolutely miserable. A quota system means that your work always has to be twice as good as anybody else's to demonstrate that it was good enough to begin with. Hell with that. Categorically and absolutely: I am not. Going. Back.

Comments

[diatryma.livejournal.com]

A couple of the girls (I have to grow up and call us women) I work with run into that with their adviser, a thirtysomething man. He has told them that they had an edge for their NSF money because the NSF sets aside a few grants specifically for women and other minorities... which meant that yeah, exactly as you said, they must have gotten the Girly Grant rather than the Scientist Grant.
Stupidheads. I'm in a fairly feminine department in a fairly feminine engineering discipline, and it's still stupidheads.

[grndexter.livejournal.com]

Here's your laugh for the day.

I am a white male who, during college, was refused jobs because I was a white male. Two of the jobs, the HR person came right out and told me, "I'd LOVE to hire you, you're just exacdtly what we're looking for. But we're under court order to hire blacks (1)/blacks and or women (1).

Since then, I've been discriminated against because I was too young, too old, (as above) too white, too male, too honest, and because I chose to go to a tough (academically) school and get an education and my resume couldn't compete with the people from the party schools where they handed out 4.0 GPAs for Christmas stocking stuffers.

One National Accounting Firm told me they weren't hiring, then hired English major grads because "We can teach anyone to be an accountant, but we can't seem to teach accountants to write." (They said to me, the now published author.) So at least in that case, the joke's on them.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

I have soured on more than one market after hearing that they explicitly try for a gender-balanced TOC.

Not soured enough to never submit there again. But it gave me pause.

[leahbobet.livejournal.com]

I have not been really following this slapfight.

May I ask who's said they try for that?

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

Oh, it wasn't in the slapfight (which I've only been dipping in and out of myself). I'll shoot you an email.

[mamapduck.livejournal.com]

http://mamapduck.livejournal.com/8418.html

Sums it up for me. I'm a mind, not a color.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

That's one downside of _any_ quota system.

[reveritas.livejournal.com]

totally agree. for people who haven't been on the "plus" (note quotes) side of a quota system it might seem cool to get that chance, etc. but no -- you have to deal with the peer shit and a lot of times it's straight up not worth it.

that said, i know this isn't the point of your post, but if you were going to take a genderless pseudonym what kind of thing would you go for: initials, something like Pat or Chris, or something like Taylor or Peyton or Carter which could go either way, or ...? just curious, i love all things related to names and the creation thereof. :)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

The problem with this is that I read almost all "genderless" names as female in this field. I spent the first day of World Fantasy Con boggling: "Chris Roberson is a dude!" He is. He is an extremely dudely dude, no ambiguity of gender presentation whatsoever. But I read "Chris," I thought "woman," even though I've had several friends named Chris who were quite masculine guys.

[thorintatge.livejournal.com]

I've never even heard of a woman named Chris. I guess I knew some women named Christine or Christina or Christa or even Crystal must go by Chris, but I didn't think they would use that nickname officially. I think of names that shorten to Kris as the reason the name is referred to as gender-neutral.

I don't recall ever hearing of a female Peyton or Carter, either, to be honest. Not knowingly, anyway.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

One of the people I turned to with this boggling realization was a woman called Chris. I don't remember if she wants her real name linked to her lj name, though.

[sethb.livejournal.com]

Some years ago I had a discussion (on Usenet and in email; if I find it, I have permission to repost) with a woman who had been an engineer for many years. She said that in the early days, with a lot of discrimination against women, she was always considered to be way above average as an engineer because that was the only way a woman could succeed. After Affirmative Action came in, she was generally considered to be an engineer only to meet quotas. She really didn't like that.

I'll note that both types of "considered" were statistically justifiable.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

It's rough, but as you point out, it hardly matters whether the quota system actually exists; some mediocritans will always play the quota card even though true quotas are actually fairly rare. Far more rare than the hysteria about them would suggest.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I think it does matter. I think it matters a great deal whether the people who are saying, "The editors bought that story because its author was [female, black, non-North-American, whatever]," are mediocre whiners or are the actual editors of the publication.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

What editor is going to say that? Even if there was a 50% female rule, for example, that doesn't mean that the women published were published because they were female, as the thousands of rejected women who still didn't make it into that magazine would surely attest.


In the same way, if, say, F&SF gets reader letters demanding more SF and less fantasy, and van Gelder obliges and puts in more SF, what does that mean? Well, it means that he published the best SF stories he could find, and indeed, he may well have done it at the expense of some superior fantasy story. This is even the case when there is no need for balance — two great stories about senile wizards will not likely both be published in the same issue or even in two issues in a row. (Sometimes they would, sure, but not frequently.) If those two stories had been submitted eighteen months apart, perhaps both would have received a slot.

The "woman" issue is exceptional because it has political baggage, and that political baggage exists because of a nation of mediocre whiners. They see a woman (or a black person, or whomever) in a job and say "That job should have been mine!" Of course, for 299 of the 300 whiners claiming that women are taking their jobs, it's not true even when specific quotas are in place. It's the old "handicapped parking space" fallacy, in which every driver who passes an empty handicapped parking spot in an otherwise full lot is convinced that the spot would have been his or hers if not for the blue stripes. So what is twenty other cars are also circling the lot...

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

cristalia was proposing that editors do exactly that. I don't think it's one of her better ideas.

And yah, I think that if the editor says, "We want more SF stories," part of what he means is, "We may be willing to accept SF at lower quality than fantasy," although it may turn out that they're not and that they just keep sitting there wanting it and not buying it. If there's a quota for number of SF stories per issue and number of fantasy stories per issue, I wouldn't blame the readers a bit if they started to examine whether there was a difference in quality between the two types.

Same if it was subgenres or any other way of dividing with requirements built in.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

What readers? The ones who want more SF, or the ones who think there is some magic line of story quality which they can perceive with 100% accuracy (and from there determine editorial motivation despite an utter lack of knowledge about the editorial process)?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Actually I think it's reasonable for any reader, at any time, to look up from their reading and say, "Huh, the SF in this magazine kind of sucks, wonder why that is." I don't think it's reasonable for them to say, "Probably because the editor has a bias towards men/women and is buying their crappy stuff instead of better stories by the other group!" unless they have actual evidence of that. Actual evidence might include an editor saying, "We have set aside X spots for stories by Y group this year," as cristalia suggested that they do.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Except that even set-asides aren't evidence of reduced quality. It's just the baggage that comes with even the slightest hint that white dudes aren't the be-all and end-all of every human endeavor. That is, the perception is these stories are worse because of the set-asides (whether the set-asides are real or not); I've yet to see someone actually point to a lesser story (or for that matter, job performance) in the first instance and then come to the conclusion that a set-aside is to blame. Invariably, in my experience a set-aside itself is all the proof one needs.

Whether it is Toni Morrison winning a Nobel or Octavia Butler winning a MacArthur, those who critiqued those prizes as "PC" (a variation on the quota argument) didn't bother to sit down and read the books and explain why they didn't deserve a prize, they just saw tits and brown skin and worked backwards.

Same with your physics program; they didn't have evidence that you were so far inferior to the seventh pick that you couldn't have possibly been a "natural" eigth, they just saw titties and long hair and imagined a quota. A generation before quotas, they would have imagined a surreptitious blowjob under a desk to get in, or a kindly Dr. Lingen in some university somewhere, making sure his neice got special treatment so she could meet a nice man to marry.

Pegging the bizarre sexist and racist assumptions of whining mediocritans on quotas seems to me to be holding the universe entirely upside down. The quotas, even on those rare occasions when they do exist (in the US, generally only court order when there's clear evidence that management was conspiring to keep out blacks), have never been shown to lead to a reduction in quality in work, firefighting ability, or writing. It's not evidence, it's ego-defense for the mediocre.

[nojojojo.livejournal.com]

Thank you. ::deep, calming breath:: Always such a relief to see someone else make the argument that I might've made, if I weren't so busy trying to fan the steam away from my ears. =)

[timprov.livejournal.com]

They see a woman (or a black person, or whomever) in a job and say "That job should have been mine!"

Let's not leave out the ones who see a white man in a job and say "Racism/sexism is preventing that job from being mine!" It's not like this is a one-sided sort of asshattery.

[mkille.livejournal.com]

Let's not leave those out, but let's also not forget that studies such as these (http://drcenter.org/employment.htm) suggest that people of color and women still have reason to be, shall we say, suspicious as a general frame of mind.* (I didn't pick those California ones as sweeping authoritative statements, but as the first legitimate-looking examples I came across). I haven't seen any similar studies or widespread anecdotal reports showing bias against white males in the general workplace, though I admit I could have missed them.

*Laying claim to specific positions, in the absence of memos from decision-makers saying, "Love to hire them, too bad they're a person of color / a woman," is indeed a foolish thing to do.

[grndexter.livejournal.com]

My new sig quote:

"Stereotypes only exist in people's heads and in literature. They do not
exist in the real world."

[cissa.livejournal.com]

I chose a women's college for my degree, since I was just totally sick of dealing with sex-role expectations, be they "positive" or "negative." It helped that my particular "girly school" had a rockin' chem department.

But all the sex-role crap... I know that had a lot of impact on my decision not to pursue science on a graduate level. I just was sick to death of all the bullshit.

Now- I DO think that a 90+% male awards list says something unpleasant about those who picked it. I don't think quotas are the answer, though; I think public shaming for bigotry- with examples of ignored worthy works- would be preferable. Or alternative lists that are unbigoted.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I'm going to say more on this in a longer post when I have a bit more time, but I think it's rarely as simple as straight-up bigotry. This is not a field that lends itself to straight-up comparison.

Or to put it another way, I am pretty dubious of the value of most total orderings, awards even more so than most.

[cissa.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree in principle... and yet, I've seen stuff put up for awards that I think is not particularly good (but was written by a man), and stuff that is amazing ignored. Now, the sex of the author isn't the only criterion... but it's significant, both as a first- and as a second-order criterion of choice.

I don't have much faith in or admiration of things that have gotten awards per se. Again, I've seen too much crap.

I don't think it's straight-up bigotry. I think it's a lot of issues- of which the end result is often indistinguishable from bigotry, which does raise the question, at least for me.

[timprov.livejournal.com]

I've seen stuff put up for awards that I think is not particularly good, and stuff that is amazing ignored.

This is the nature of awards (and of taste). If you could somehow psycho-magically create an award process with no taint of bias, it would still be true.

The belief in some sort of universal taste-level, where any other sort is labeled as evidence of bigotry, is at the heart of the problem here.

[ellarien]

I think the REU students at our place have been running about 50/50 lately, but that's beside the point.

I had a colleague who was not only the only female lecturer (US: professor) in the Physics department, but had been appointed the year after the previous only one retired. It was very hard for her to escape the impression of tokenism, and it caused a fair amount of grief, but she's still there and now a UK-style professor and head of group.

I was once quite explicitly invited to become a token female. That wasn't the only reason I passed on the opportunity, but it certainly didn't help. (Aforementioned colleague actually encouraged me to take it, but I wasn't convinced.)

[lydy.livejournal.com]

"Tokenism" and "quotas" are often, but not always, code for "affirmative action." I don't like the first two, but I'm strongly in favor of the last. When you start with an extremely uneven playing field, then in order to smooth it out, institutions have to bend. I see nothing wrong with hiring a black man in preference to a white man based on color, provided their qualifications are equal. I don't see that F&SF is necessarily saying that it will take poorer quality sf than fantasy. I'm guessing they have more sf than they can use and they'll simply print more of the good stuff.

Affirmative action should be carefully thought out and progressive; quotas and tokens are cheap ways to pretend that you're grappling with a complicated issue. But a lot has changed because the Supreme Court ruled that the work place had to become integrated. A lot of good has come about because of integrated schools. We lost a lot when the Supreme Court ruled that statistics could not be used to show discrimination, that each case had to be proved with specific details.

Leveling the playing field required some draconian measures. It created a way for women to become doctors and lawyers without having to be three times better than everyone else. It integrated work places. It leveled the playing field. It made a huge difference. It opened doors. Go, affirmative action.

Accusations of tokenism and quotas give whiners the chance to whine, and bigots an argument as to why it's ok for them to be bigots. "She only got in because she was a girl." Etc. Screw them. I'm told that screaming at such assholes doesn't help one bit. Too bad, I got a lot of anger on the topic, and I have a loud voice. But getting rid of affirmative action won't help. Enforcing affirmative action sensibly and flexibly is what I want. Quotas are stupid. Tokens are stupid. They’re the lazy man’s version of affirmative action. They’re better than nothing.

So, I'd like to come down firmly on the side of affirmative action, firmly against discrimination, and wanting to kick the butts of assholes who assume they know what the story of the person next to them is.

[grndexter.livejournal.com]

A poor person is a poor person, a job seeker is a job seeker. It is just as wrong to discriminate against a white person or a male in the name of "affirmative action" as it is/was wrong to discriminate against the black/female person because they are black/female.

The problem with "affirmative action" is that it is logically flawed. The concept is to correct the wrongs of the past by "leveling the playing field - but you cannot correct a wrong done in the past unless you involve both the original wronged and the original wrong doer. Affirmative action involves neither, but rather creates a NEW wrong against people who, individually, had no part in, and in most cases no benefit from, the wrongs of the past.

Above, I commented about the times I was discriminated against in hiring because I am white and male & etc. Because the courts ordered that the companies hire blacks, did my kids lose their appetites so that I didn't have to feed them any more? (yeah - I had kids when I went to college). Did my family not need to pay rent or wear clothes?

Affirmative action is discrimination, and it is just as evil as the discrimination that spawned it.

[tacithydra.livejournal.com]

Hm, I wouldn't say affirmative action is there to correct the wrongs of the past. I'd say it's there to keep the wrongs of the past from being recommitted on a daily basis.

How to deal with the results of bigotry and prejudice is a messy issue - there is no clear and easy solution. But of all the potential ways to address the mess, it seems like affirmative action is a better hack than others.

[mkille.livejournal.com]

Affirmative action involves neither, but rather creates a NEW wrong against people who, individually, had no part in, and in most cases no benefit from, the wrongs of the past.

The part about "in most cases no benefit from" is arguable. Anyone benefiting from intergenerational wealth transfer--within families as inheritances or within communities as institutional endowments, infrastructure investments, etc., that can be traced back to at least the era of the GI Bill--well, the statistics allow for a plausible interpretation that most white individuals still to this day are benefiting from past acts of discrimination.

Affirmative action is discrimination, and it is just as evil as the discrimination that spawned it.

Um, no. Some affirmative action programs are in fact discriminatory, and deserve to be challenged as such. But as a blanket statement? Just not true.

When the Folks What Can Choose look at who to choose as an employee or a student or whatever, it is a flat-out myth to say that each individual can be objectively measured on a single set of criteria, and so can be objectively compared to (and ranked against) all other applicants. There are a bazillion different skill sets and experiences and attitudes out there--so the FWCC, when sensible, make decisions that boil down to two considerations: 1. What subset of the applicants could competently do the job or complete the course of study or whatever? 2. Which one (or more, as the case may be) of that subset brings the most desirable value-added at this point in time?

I think if we accept things like "can play football well" or "is especially good at science" as a value-added for college students, then we can accept things like "comes from a particular cultural or ethnic background." (I do think it is dumb to automatically conflate that with "has skin of a particular color" or "speaks a certain language," just as it is dumb to pick someone who happens to *own* a football on the assumption that they'll contribute great football-playing skills to the community, or someone who *owns* a microscope etc.). And I think if we accept that educational institutions have a broader mission than simply to produce students who create the highest-achieving academic work product--such as, I dunno, "helping make the world a better place"--then we can accept that one strategy for helping to make the world a better place is to offer opportunities specifically to people who come from disadvantaged communities. (Yes, I *am* hoping for the Appalachian Cracker scholarship fund to take off).

Analagous conditions apply in the workplace.

As a hiring manager, I have hired people who don't have the "best" resume or experience for a specific position, because they brought something else I valued to improve my staff *as a whole*. I've hired someone because they brought youth; I've hired someone because they brought age; I've hired someone because he brought maleness (libraries: female-dominated except for management); I've hired someone because they brought queerness; and yes, I've hired someone because they brought color. In each of these cases, I was choosing between competent applicants, and yes, sometimes an individual's race or gender was a disadvantage for them *during that search process*. But in another search process, their race or gender would have been an advantage. And on more than one occasion, I've actively recruited an individual from a previous search process when another vacancy opened up. So a person that I may have "discriminated" against, I ended up chasing after. *That*, in a nutshell, is the difference between affirmative action and prejudice: affirmative action may choose not to hire someone because they're "not right now," while prejudice refuses to hire someone they're "not right."

I'm very sorry you were treated poorly, though as I think someone mentioned above, court-ordered HR practices these days are a rare response to very bad situations. And I don't know enough about SF/Fantasy publishing to have an opinion on either alleged diversity problems or appropriate approaches to mitigating those alleged problems. But there is a difference between being denied a *specific* opportunity and being denied opportunity *in general*.

[nojojojo.livejournal.com]

A quota system means that your work always has to be twice as good as anybody else's to demonstrate that it was good enough to begin with.

Actually, no. Being female means that your work has to be twice as good. A quota system (which, as nihilistic_kid points out, rarely actually involves quotas) simply means your twice-as-good work might actually get accepted with something approaching fairness.