YA author Maureen Johnson asked for book covers to be flipped: manly books made over as girlie and vice versa.
Point was to show how the cover influences how we feel about the book. Books by male authors on 'serious' subjects get the heavy weight covers. Books by women on 'female' subject (for that read 'have a woman in them') get the pink stilettos and the glittery writing on the front.
She got a ton of responses. Here are the best.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/coverflip-maureen-johnson_n_3231935.html#slide=2421878
Check out 'Shutter Island' by 'Denise Lehane'. Perfect.
Don't think anyone did 'Lord of the Rings' as chicklit yet. What would that be like?
LOTR would have a Tiffany blue background with a big fat diamond ring on the cover, with the tag line "One ring..."
Hahahahahaha.
Am I the only one burnt out on gender bending pictures?
Dwayne is right...there is absolutely no gender inequality. Also, sarcasm was banished years ago...
For real...Barack Obama (BHO) became president...racism is over. Pat Buchanan ran for president with a female VP candidate...sexism is over. America is amazing!
Sean, maybe limit your reaction to my posts to things in the post instead of stuff you made up. Just a thought. I didn't bring up gender, BHO, politics, sexism, sarcasm, racism, America, or anything being over so you figure out whatever message you are trying to convey on all that without me. I suggested gender bending photos have been over done to the point they are no longer funny and/or impactful. They have become yet another overused internet meme.
@dwayne-which gender bender websites do you belong to? I guess I am not aware of the more popular ones.
i know nothing, sorry. You are right.
I think Sean is responding to the fact that being "over" gender bending implies that you don't see what the big deal is. The big deal, which has been documented over and over, is that female authors get the shaft when their book covers are designed (sometimes the publishers even change the titles) in order to make them more appealing to a "feminine" audience.
That may sound just fine and dandy until you realize it cuts off a large portion of readers, and, of course, implies that when a man writes something it's for everyone, but when a woman writes something it's not just "only for women", but its for a certain specific type of woman who will respond more to pastel colors, photos of diamond rings, stilletos, and faceless women on the covers of books.
Some of us here on LitReactor are pretty invested in showing that for what it is... you know... for reasons.
@Sean - You seem very mad. People have disagreements, nothing to get upset about.
@Renee
Short version - Wish it was different, but you might as well try to get people to rethink sexism with the cats that look like Hitler site.
Long version - Loss of control of your work sucks. I hope that improves. It doesn't mean these type of pictures haven't had exposure to the point folks who see them are desensitized. I'm one of them. So no I don't see the big deal when I look at these or fat hairy guys posing as like skinny female models or whatever. I see slightly awkward reimaginings. Exposure dulls impact. And that defeats the point. Someone creating visual media they want to cause people to stop and think have to do something different or it just all blurs together after a while.
Two responses:
You surely don't speak for everyone.
It must be nice to be in such a position where "exposure dulls impact" and makes it "less funny". Because when I see these covers, I laugh, sure, because they are ridiculous, but then I also consider that it means many women writers are stuck behind ridiculous book covers and it's a symptom of something bigger, something that I will have to go up against if I want to succeed, and you will not.
To add: "slightly awkward" is an odd way to phrase that. Some of these are pretty much piece by piece reconstruction of women's novels, down to the fonts used.
@Dwayne - You're right, I do get mad about this stuff. Did you look at the site? Did you look through the slideshow, seeing each cover as-is, then in it's other, gender-specific form? It's offensive. And as a writer yourself, does it not offend you that a fellow writer might get pigeon-holed like this?
Renee said it much more level-headed than I, and I agree with every word she wrote. I think the anger comes in at your blatant farting in the face of the issue. You are "so over it," and then compare a discussion on the issue to cats that look like Hitler? THAT is why people get upset.
"Exposure dulls impact?" I disagree 100% with you there. Issues need to be out there, because for every peerson who already agrees (myself & Renee and probably at least a few more) there are many more who have never heard of the issue or have never thought about it like that and, thanks to a link on LitReactor, have now become more informed. Just because you personally see it as a non-issue hardly means we shouldn't talk about it anymore. It just means people like Renee or myself or whoever need to try harder to sway your opinion :)
@Renee
You said,
You surely don't speak for everyone.
After I had already said,
Am I the only one burnt out on gender bending pictures?
So no, I don't speak for everyone. Since my original comment was in the form of a question I'm unsure what you are getting at.
It must be nice to be in such a position where "exposure dulls impact" and makes it "less funny".
Near as I can tell that is being alive. The research, as best as I'm aware of, shows anything eventually loses impact. I'd suggest looking at Mary Cover Jones and her research on desensitization as a starting point. It strongly supports my claim that seeing something has less impact over time. Your point might be farther down the road then mine, but not matter how passionate, concerned, or involved you are sooner or later you'll get tired of them. You have to change it up to keep people listening.
Because when I see these covers, I laugh, sure, because they are ridiculous, but then I also consider that it means many women writers are stuck behind ridiculous book covers and it's a symptom of something bigger, something that I will have to go up against if I want to succeed, and you will not.
And yeah, like I said that sucks. But in any conversation you have to say new things or people will stop listening.
To add: "slightly awkward" is an odd way to phrase that. Some of these are pretty much piece by piece reconstruction of women's novels, down to the fonts used.
Which are often slightly awkward too. Book covers, in general.
@Sean -
You're right, I do get mad about this stuff.
That doesn't help.
Did you look at the site? Did you look through the slideshow, seeing each cover as-is, then in it's other, gender-specific form?
Yes to all.
It's offensive. And as a writer yourself, does it not offend you that a fellow writer might get pigeon-holed like this?
It does seem it would be extremely annoying to lose control of your work, but getting upset seldom helps.
Renee said it much more level-headed than I, and I agree with every word she wrote.
Yeah, she did.
I think the anger comes in at your blatant farting in the face of the issue. You are "so over it,"
Again, you're on about stuff I never posted. I never claimed to be over anything, just burnt out on an internet meme.
and then compare a discussion on the issue to cats that look like Hitler? THAT is why people get upset.
I'd suggest you limited yourself to things I wrote instead of this mix and match thing, you might be less mad at me. Unless you think I'm some how responsible for things you made up.
"Exposure dulls impact?" I disagree 100% with you there.
Well that is your right, but the research is on my side. See above.
Issues need to be out there, because for every peerson who already agrees (myself & Renee and probably at least a few more) there are many more who have never heard of the issue or have never thought about it like that and, thanks to a link on LitReactor, have now become more informed.
I think we are way past that point, but maybe.
Just because you personally see it as a non-issue hardly means we shouldn't talk about it anymore.
Again, you're on about things I never wrote, or claimed.
It just means people like Renee or myself or whoever need to try harder to sway your opinion :)
I'm being literal, not mean, but you really need to reexamine how you debate things. I made one very narrow claim; namely one set of internet memes is losing effectiveness with me and possibly others, and that was a reasonable thing. You are addressing a large claim of pro sexism, pro loss of artiest control, and what not I never made. That might be a much easier argument to win, but you'll have to find someone else to have it with since I never made those claims. Because it is really hard to sway my opinion when you don't seem to know what it is.
You probably need to reexamine how YOU debate things, as at the same time you are accusing me of reading too much into what you said, you've managed to break every word I've said down into some argument that has very little to do with the point I was making.
You asked if you were the only one, I think my answer was a clear enough answer that, perhaps, you are (or at least you're in the minority), and yet you're arguing my answer by repeating your question.
And, just to be clear at HOW wrong I think you are, I am going to say, perhaps for the first time ever, I completely agree with everything Sean said in his last post. Every. Last. Thing.
And over exposure at this point is a joke. There obviously isn't enough exposure on this subject, if there were, a hell of a lot more people would be angry that female authors were getting screwed AND that a huge portion of readers were missing genuinely good books because they were marketed as "beach reads" and many readers have been conditioned to stay away from those "types" of books.
Okay, well I disagree with Sean on one point. I won't necessarily argue this any harder because you are coming across as being deliberately obtuse, and frankly, it's quite hard to smash the patriarchy, submit short stories, and work on my novel all the same time without inviting debates from people who have no interest in learning from one another, but just want to hear themselves "sound smart" by making the debate about anything and everything other than the actual topic.
I will, however, add this link for anyone who is genuinely interested in the various ways female writers are undermined.
I'm not being obtuse, I really don't think you are following.
Ideas don't matter when no one listens. I'm saying no one will pay attention because this comes across as repetitive because this technique has been over done. If you bring up sexism, racism, the writing industry, or anything else that doesn't address getting people listening it comes across like you don't get the point I'm trying to make.
Personally, I think they could have kept the Eugenides cover the same.
And, just to be clear at HOW wrong I think you are, I am going to say, perhaps for the first time ever, I completely agree with everything Sean said in his last post. Every. Last. Thing.
@Renee - I have been under the weather all day, but this has made me feel a little better. It is, indeed, the first time those words have EVER been together in that order by you. If you and I were in the same room, I think we'd high-five.
<--------- latecomer to the party
Just to be clear, on what points are you guys disagreeing with Dwayne?
I claim gender bending pictures have a diminishing impact because they are over done. They claim they are still relevant because they demonstrate the various unfair/immoral ways women are treated, both in general and as writers. I feel that shows a lack of understanding of the point I made, because quality of ideas do not always improve quality of medium.
I also believe your dismissal is indictive of an attitude that it is an unimportant issue.
Could be that he just doesn't feel a great deal of impact from the method of conversation Cath presented at the beginning of this thread. Humorous memes/photo-manipulation flooding the interwebs as they do.
Personally, I haven't seen where he said the issue was unimportant. Just that the method of presenting it was unimportant.
Dammit. You've got me arguing for Dwayne's side. This has ruined my day, and I blame you.
And worse Utah, you've got me saying, "Yeah, pretty much what he said."
@ Renee - I'll admit our priorities are probably very different, but you seem to have a bit of a 'agree with me 100% or you hate/don't care about women' view here. Which doesn't really seem fair for me not thinking you'll get much return on resources invested into overused internet memes.
Speaking of things that weren't said, or even implied...
You can make me an enemy because you were dismissive of something I am passionate about, that's your perogative. I think you want a fight here more than you want to discuss the original topic or the topics related to it, and I'm frankly not interested in that.
First, in the interest of full disclosure - I went back to look at the Eugenides cover after Utah brought it up. While doing that I realized that if Steven King ever put out that alternative Carrie cover on a new book I'd buy that in hardcover the moment it came out. Or any established horror author with a decades long record of 'spooky' covers, because a 180 degrees departure like that sounds like it would be super scary and/or too much of a trainwreck to not rubber neck.
@Renee - I wish knew a sad sigh emoticon.
I'm sorry this is upsetting since you seem like an extra nice person, and feel super bad since you had a shooting to post about. I hope no one you knew was involved.
I would say I've stuck only to my original point and refused to be sidetracked, but I'd rather ask two questions. Assuming you and Sean are completely right; women authors face horrible obstacles I don't realize, I'm a sexist/insensitive/whatever other terms you are comfortable with, I'm unfairly dismissive because I look at it as a non issue, I've brought up a bunch of stuff that didn't matter, all the stuff you brought up did matter, I've made you an enemy by implying things that aren't true, all my conclusions are bad, all yours are good, and I kick puppies* how are gendering bending pictures effective at this point instead of just getting lost in the shuffle? Seriously, what am I missing that makes them effective at conveying information/messages regarding sexism? Because that is what I first posted about, and what I still don't follow is why anyone thinks they accomplish anything now that the shock value is over. I'm not being mean, dismissive, confrontational, or anything except curious why anyone thinks they are effective. Perhaps curious to a fault.
*I don't think any of those is true, but I know I don't really kick puppies.
Dwayne, sometimes it's just about awareness. It's one thing to say that there is a gender inequality in this area, but remember that we show, not tell.
That's what this article did. If you found the methods boring, fine. But memes are popular because people enjoy them, not the other way around. If it's a way to get people to notice the issue, then mission accomplished. It really doesn't need to do more than that to be effective.
I will, however, add this link for anyone who is genuinely interested in the various ways female writers are undermined.
Good read, and it has succeeded at pissing me off before 8 in the morning. I'll confess I used to be of the opinion that gender inequality is something the west has grown out of, and that it's now primarily an issue in the developing world. I don't know if it's because I'm older, or if the universities gender policy force-reads have finally ingrained the issues to my understanding of the world, but my position has changed. Just the other day, I was out running when someone goes past on a bicycle and grabs my ass. WTF. But it's not just the ass grabbing that's the problem, it's fully legit to be pissed off at pink covers, soccer-mum stereotypes and the fact that apparently women photographers utilize their vagina for shooting pictures on the front line. It's cultural hegemony and it's unlikely to change unless we get to be pissed off about it, and yes, I think it helps when people make semi-funny slideshows to illustrate an issue.
What I liked about this is that Johnson didn't just get pissed off, she did something about it and the something was funny and cool and not in the least grumpy (apart from grumpy cat, I'm not a big fan of grumpy).
But it's also interesting to know that the reason she started the coverflip is that her male fans said they didn't like reading her books in public, because of the girlie covers. In other words, the guys were worried other people would think they were effeminate for reading a 'girls' book. Which is pretty sad really.
@Dwayne: when something is ridiculous, it's good to make that clear. This is what the coverflip achieves. It won't bring about world peace, but if it helps to wean us off a lazy, stupid assumption, then it is a Good Thing. But you are right to ask the question. There is nothing wrong with asking questions.
As a rejoinder to Dwayne now (because I play for both teams whenever possible--no, not that way--probably?) I will say this:
Had it not been for Cath's post I would never have realized this issue existed. I would have continued to think that books featuring a woman's pink high heeled shoe on a sandy beach was really about some woman who did stuff on a sandy beach in at least one pink high heeled shoe. Not that Renee hasn't posted about this stuff on Facebook before, but I am very intentionally closed to "causes", primarily because I am very intentionally closed to sales calls (my mind equates "causes I don't care about" and "crap I don't want to buy" as being the same thing).
However, this post at least engendered a conversation that interested me, at first because I felt your arguments were dealt with in an unfair and hostile manner--due to a lack of understanding, likely--and then later because I read the article Renee posted and it made me mad.
So, much as I hate the small-doses funny-info lifestyle we all seem to lead on the internet these days, this did at least have an effect on one person.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, CATH.
FTR-- I was not upset, I was just not interested in the argument you seemed to want to have. And I appreciate your concern, no one I knew personally was involved, but it was someone who is active in our art community, so many of my friends are suffering.
ETA-- And now we know Utah doesn't listen to Books and Booze! Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! We talked about an article that was right here on LitReactor about how female transgressive authors were getting "chick lit" covers and it hurt their sales significantly.
To answer Dwyane-- again, you are reading much into what I posted that I did not intend, and do not think I implied. I said I felt you were dismissive of THIS issue. Just this one. I haven't had enough discussions about feminism and misogyny with you to have any idea about the rest of that.
ETA-- I'm full of half posts tonight... Lisa-- Christ... I don't know how I would have reacted to that... like I think I might have actually spontaneously combusted from rage. But you're right. We can see examples of this in play. As someone who spent some time in the US military and saw/experienced first hand the culturally ingrained ideas about women in the military, I see the sexual assault stats and I am not surprised. Horrified and saddened, absolutely, but surprised? I would have to expect the military to have a standard respect for women to be surprised, and although I love many of the marines I served with like brothers, the culture of the military is not one that breeds respect of women in service.
*blows smoke from gun nozzle*
Thank you Utah ;)
And now we know Utah doesn't listen to Books and Booze!
Son of a...
Sorry.
I'm jsut fucking with you. Lots (and lots) of people don't listen! Hahaha, I just thought it was funny.
@Renee
I said I felt you were dismissive of THIS issue. Just this one.
Well at this point I must admit, no I don't follow you at all. Yes I'm dismissive of this issue. If you don't think that is a sign of an attitude towards some larger issue(s) regarding women, who cares? Do you think, "That Dwayne, the meanie, he doesn't take internet memes and the derivative works seriously!" It is an article based on an internet meme*, and I'll won't take any work based on those seriously.
If it makes you feel any better if I made a list of people who asked me to listen to their pod casts that I didn't you'd be in some really great company. More so if Facebook counts as asking.
@Everyone else - If you are right, and I'm not remotely convinced of that, what your are describing reads more like 'we are still having fun preaching to the choir'. I just can't see the impact here. Most evil sexist people (someone who fondle their underlings and use fear of job loss to get away with it or have three kidnap victims in their basement types) don't seem like they'd even bother to read it and/or see how it applies to them. Most ignorant/afraid to rock the boat sexist people (I'll force her to have the cover and title I want because this is a business and she's in contract types) will think some half true justification; like, "She, as a first time author, doesn't understand the complexities of publishing the way I the head marketing with 20 years experience do!" Even informing someone like Utah this way seems cool but pointless. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems the odds of Utah taking off as an author (or through any other means) to the point he can dictate to a publisher, "Hey, all these female authors/ones I'm friends with, don't be all crazy with them. Give them some in put and don't shove girly stuff down their throats, they are grown women not characters in a Barbie cartoon," between him reading the article and the time he would have been informed about this some other way seem pretty low.
*I almost cursed in that part, and I don't post curse much.
Dwayne-- still not interested in the discussion you seem to want to have. I can tell when someone is trying to bait me. And the comment about the podcast was a joke directed at Utah, it had nothing at all to do with you.
ETA-- I'm full of half posts tonight... Lisa-- Christ... I don't know how I would have reacted to that... like I think I might have actually spontaneously combusted from rage. But you're right. We can see examples of this in play. As someone who spent some time in the US military and saw/experienced first hand the culturally ingrained ideas about women in the military, I see the sexual assault stats and I am not surprised. Horrified and saddened, absolutely, but surprised? I would have to expect the military to have a standard respect for women to be surprised, and although I love many of the marines I served with like brothers, the culture of the military is not one that breeds respect of women in service.
I'm going to assume that I am Lisa. I wish I'd had some spontaneous rage reaction but I can honestly say that one took me completely by surprise. At nightclubs and such I half expect people to grab my ass but out jogging in the forest it's usually left alone.
I saw the 'Invisible War' documentary a while ago, and I don't even know what to say. I wouldn't expect a macho culture of that caliber to be at the forefront of the gender equality struggle, but that sort of treatment (and from the entire hierarchy) did surprise me. It's just so incredibly cruel and disrespectful.
it seems the odds of Utah taking off as an author (or through any other means) to the point he can dictate to a publisher, "Hey, all these female authors/ones I'm friends with, don't be all crazy with them. Give them some in put and don't shove girly stuff down their throats, they are grown women not characters in a Barbie cartoon," between him reading the article and the time he would have been informed about this some other way seem pretty low.
Hey man, that hurts!
I'm a fucking Titan.
@Renee - Valuing discourse, in the general or the specific, is of course your call. However when someone like yourself who I generally find to be coherent uses words in a way that don't make sense to me, in the literal I have no idea what you are getting at fashion, I will ask what they mean.
@Utah - Your love life is not my circus, not my monkey; but I'm not familiar with anyone you are seeing in that fashion being able to influence the publishing industry. Did I miss something? Or did you mean, "I'm a writing Titan."
Also, the following are serious questions. When you end a question with a like that should it be in quotes? Question mark in there someplace? What is a good site for checking odd questions like that, I couldn't find it on ones I normally use.
I'm going to assume that I am Lisa.
Whoops! So sorry. I don't have a good excuse for getting your name wrong when it was right in front of my face.
As for the "preaching to the choir thing", that's kind of false, in that you have a lot of people who didn't realize it/recognize it before saying "wow, that's pretty terrible." You have to have a base of people who are against something to change it-- and when the appearance of a book is one of the major factors in an issue, using visual means of communications gets the idea across pretty damn well. I don't think the idea has ever been to change the dyed in the wool misogynist's mind.
The odds of Utah or any of us becoming so powerful that we can, individually, change the publishing industry ARE pretty low-- but I don't think anyone here said "The goal is to get to that one person who has enough weight to throw around to make a difference", the idea is to make a LARGE number of people aware of what is happening and how it affects female writers. If they don't think it's that big of a deal, that's fine, but there are enough people, who when faced with the facts and comparisons that go "wait, that's bullshit!" that it really does stand a chance of making a difference.
If one, or a few, people are burnt out on genderbending, I guess that's fine-- but there are a lot of people who care about equality, especially in art, that see these book covers, or blogs like The Hawkeye Initiative, that go "wow, I never realized how sexist this stuff was before!" -- And that's fine. When something is an ingrained part of your culture, you DON'T always notice it until it's illustrated for you.
To add-- it's funny that we are even having a conversation about "gender bending books", as books are just books. They usually have a lot of different characters of different sexes and attitudes, but the book itself is just an object. Books don't HAVE a gender. So the fact that you can "genderbend" one is pretty telling in itself.
it seems the odds of Utah taking off as an author (or through any other means) to the point he can dictate to a publisher, "Hey, all these female authors/ones I'm friends with, don't be all crazy with them. Give them some in put and don't shove girly stuff down their throats, they are grown women not characters in a Barbie cartoon," between him reading the article and the time he would have been informed about this some other way seem pretty low.
The odds of Utah or any of us becoming so powerful that we can, individually, change the publishing industry ARE pretty low...
Faithless.
I take this shit as a thrown gauntlet. I am depressed by the lack of faith in your ex-Defender. And now I am on a quest to attain this power. When I get it, you know what I'm going to do about this gender bias issue?
Nothing.
Know why?
BECAUSE YOU DON'T HELP PEOPLE WHO THROW GAUNTLETS AT YOU!
They're heavier than regular gloves, and they hurt.
I'm a big fan of that Hawkeye Initiative page. A while back, Jessica and I sat and laughed for a good while at all of those drawings. Good stuff.
Along the same lines, I posted a similar link on my facebook to an article by Emily Asher-Perrin,a blogger over at Tor.com. Deals more with film than literature, but the same idea.
Is THIS already here? Because yeah, it should be.
Those are good, but I favor the ones that are comaparitive, like the cover flips or The Hawkeye initiative, because it's easy to look at the poses/covers and say "yeah, but that looks good/okay/whatever", until you see how ridiculous it looks when it's done by a male, or in the case of the books, on books that are decidedly NOT "chick lit"... the whole "chick lit" thing is really bothersome in a different way, because at least comic book people hide behind the idea that "well, we make stuff for dudes, that's our demographic" (even though that's bullshit) but the books being shelved as "chick lit" when they aren't are saying "I don't care what you think your demo is, you're a woman, it's chick lit."
I recently bought a book of Black Widow comics and the whole thing is like soft porn. She's fighting another, scantilier clad, female spy and the poses they end up in after throwing a kick or landing a punch are just ridiculous. Like... it would take a concentrated effort to pose like that, and it would hurt.
I'd have to say that I appreciate both examples though. Sometimes, it's more helpful to show you two pictures next to each other, like the Haweye Initiative, to show you the glaring truth. And sometimes, it's good to have as proof a long list of offending examples, like the brokebackpose tumblr. I think it should all be out there and get shared as often as possible. You're going to have a whole bunch of people come out and say stupid shit, make jokes about how sexy the women are, or whatever. You'll have a handful who will already be in agreemant with you (i.e. "the choir" you're preaching to). And there might be one or two people who look at something that has before been just an everyday, normal "thing" to them and now see it in a whole new way.
So I say preach on. It's not like LitReactor (or any other website I can think of besides specifically feminist ones) is notorious for it's outspoken feminists. And if it became more so, it's not like that is going to hurt anyone.
It'd be better than that old topic that came up, where a bunch of dudes were complaining about the taking away of the rights of white males (if I can find the link, I'll edit this post and include it EDIT: this nonsense is pretty amazing). THAT is something that I am burnt out on.
Oh yeah, I'm not arguing their value, just saying I favor the other examples.
@Sean: Whatevs! That nonsense was a fantastic exchange of ideas!
Then when my uncles sit around in Iowa and drink a case of PBR each and fart and burp and laugh and say the same things over and over, what is THAT called? A MENSA meeting?
Fight Club should be the new bible.
Oh wait, there's the fantastic coming through...hahaha
Then when my uncles sit around in Iowa and drink a case of PBR each and fart and burp and laugh and say the same things over and over, what is THAT called? A MENSA meeting?
First, are they drinking the PBR to be ironic? Because, if yes, then no.
Second, I guess that would depend on the awesome level of the things they are saying over and over. If it's pretty awesome, then maybe.
Third, they're in Iowa, so probably not.
They drink PBR because it's cheap and easily accessible and they are by no means well-off. That is what always drove me crazy about the "hipster" label on PBR, it made no sense to me. I'd think all those fancy micro-brews and beers that cost like $5 a bottle would be considered more pretentious, but that is not an argument I want to get into because it's lame and, frankly, I am burnt out on it.
