Women Dominating YA Part 2! Now with a conversation from Twitter!

So part 2 of the 'Are Women Dominating YA" conversation is up on the Stacked Books blog. 

There was also a great twitter conversation between authors E. Lockhart, Maureen Johnson, John Green, Maggie Stiefvater, and librarian 'Teen Librarian Toolbox' about what this blog post means and what the bigger picture of gender on the NYT list means.

It should be known that I follow E. MJ and John Green on twitter so I was sort of reading this as it unfolded but the link provides an inclusive view of the whole conversation. I adore these authors and I think that they are so smart, and MJ in particular has taken on gender in YA before with her cover flip article.  Also, here's the awesome slideshow of cover flipped books. 

The twitter conversation brings up some great points. First of all, is the biggest problem here with the NYT best seller list? Or is it with gender in YA (and the idea of females dominating YA). MJ clearly believes gender is the problem, although agrees that the NYT best seller is rife with issues as well.

I think that perhaps the NYT issue is a big deal, but as MJ points out it is more concerning for writers themselves, not the public as a whole. I mean I can see the issues with judging ALL of the YA books out there by placing them on one list that only has 15 spots, but the issue of gender in YA is so much bigger than one problematic list.

John Green also makes a good point by saying that the NYT bestseller list probably shows more clearly which YA books adults are buying. Rather than what YA books teenagers are buying. Although, full disclaimer I am an adult buying lots of YA books and I certainly don't think that there is anything wrong with adults reading YA. But it is interesting, where is the list that tells us which YA books teens are really reading?

John also states that he believes that list of which YA books teens are buying would be largely by female authors and perhaps this is true. I don't know where such a list exists, and yes there are a lot of female YA authors so this could be very possible. But I don't think that is the main point in this blog post and discussion. I think that the main point is that regardless of the fact that there are MANY female YA authors who write lots of amazing books, the NYT YA bestseller list is disproportionately full of books written by male authors. So, male YA authors are still the ones getting the 'acclaim' for their books, even if male YA authors are technically in the minority.

Kelly over at Stacked Books also brings up some problematic tweets from the twitter conversation between the authors and a librarian:

"1. Green's comment that we need to accept this is happening and "begin a conversation about why."

There is no "beginning" this conversation. It has been on going for a long, long time. But it's interesting that the moment a male steps in to the gender conversation, it's a beginning. Just because someone decides to enter a conversation, doesn't mean it's the beginning of a conversation."

Also:

"And so I revert to the question I keep wondering about: how much does a revered male's voice help a female's career? When a man who is seen as someone with power and authority within a field -- be it the YA world, the librarianship world, the teaching world, the publishing world, the corporate world, and so on and so on -- why is it his word is what can make (or break) a woman's chances in that same field? What is it that allows him continued authority and respect? And hell, he doesn't necessarily even need to be revered. It's likely having a male voice is enough to help a lady out in many, many places."

As Kelly states, this is not about John Green specifically. I adore John Green. This is about a sexist marketplace and a sexist world, where because a critically acclaimed male author writes a review or blurb for a female author the book may be better received or sell more copies. This just happens to be a good example of what the widespread sexism in our world means in the YA lit world.

I'll leave you with this quote from the second stacked books article,

"It is clear there is an issue to discuss here, and I am so glad it's bring discussed.

But it should also be clear that in discussing this issue, there are even messier, sometimes more problematic, knots to untangle." 

On Women "Dominating" YA literature

There is an interesting blog post over at Stacked Books that discusses the idea that women writers are "dominating" YA literature by looking at the data for the New York Times Bestseller List.

From the blog post:

"As should be absolutely clear, there has never been a time women have outnumbered men on the NYT List in the top ten. Never.
It gets more interesting if you look at how few spots individual women have had on the top ten list. There have been nine weeks when only one woman has had a spot on the top ten. That woman is, of course, Veronica Roth."

"Books written by women have never once -- never once -- had at least half of the spaces on the top ten list. They've had a few weeks occupying four spaces but never have they had five books in the top ten slots in the 47 weeks that the YA List has existed.

A couple of other factoids to include at this juncture: there have only been five weeks where a woman held the number one spot on the New York Times List for YA. Five. They were held by Veronica Roth (for four weeks -- three of which were in mid-July, on the 14th, 21st and 28th, which would reflect a bump in sales immediately following the release of the first stills of the movie and the fourth week, September 15, likely reflects sales following the release of the film's trailer) and Kiera Cass for The Elite, which stayed for one week only. Cass's novel debuted at #1 on the May 12 list, which reflects the sales for the week her book was available for purchase.

Again, in 47 weeks, there have only been two women to see the top spot. They only held it for a combined five weeks."

Click on over to the article here to see all sorts of nifty graphs and tables explaining the gender breakdown of YA authors on the NYT bestseller list. 

This is a great and necessary blog post because so often we hear that YA is all female writers or that female authors dominate YA. While this may be true in sheer numbers of YA authors out there, it is not true in the critical acclaim or public representation of YA authors. 

I'm not trying to say that there should be more female authors on the YA list than men, that's not my point. My point is that anytime women participate in something in large numbers, they are suddenly seen as "DOMINATING" it. Regardless of whether they actually are, in fact, dominating it. 

I think all of this goes back to the idea that books and writing by female authors are not seen as prestigious or "serious" work. Men are the "great American authors" and their stories are serious, profound works of art. Whereas women's work is perhaps less likely to be regarded as serious and more likely to be seen as fluffy, chick lit. 

There's a second part of this article coming tomorrow from Stacked Books. Check it out and let me know what you think. 

Does the representation of female authors on the NYT bestseller list mean anything? Does the list impact what readers are reading?? 

The Purity Myth

I recently finished the book The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti (She also wrote full frontal feminism).

On the whole I really liked this book. It presents the idea of the purity myth in easy to understand language. Sometimes I think Valenti's books are a bit too simplistic, but I think of them as almost "primers" for people who are just getting their feet wet in the topic. I also think that this is a positive because sometimes I just don't have the attention span for some of the more academic or scholarly articles/books.

So what is the purity myth? 

According to Valenti, "The Purity Myth is for women who are suffering every day because of the lie that virginity exists, and that it has some bearing on who we are and how good we are." (p 11).  The idea that whether or not a person remains a "virgin" has the biggest impact on whether this person is moral, just baffles and infuriates me. Not to mention the fact that we don't have a working definition for virginity.

Hanne Blank, author of the book Virgin: The untouched history, had a bit of a problem when she went to define "virginity". She decided that she would head to the Harvard medical school library to find a medical definition. She searched through all kinds of books, and found that there was no standard definition. She says, "Then it dawned on me - I'm in arguable one of the best medical libraries in the world, scouring their stacks, and I'm not finding anything close to a medical definition for virginity." (p. 20). Blank said she found it strange because "People have been talking authoritatively about virginity for thousands of years, yet we don't even have a working medical definition for it!"

This whole idea of an intact hymen being an indicator of virginity is crap too. Hymen's break without sexual contact and some people may have sex and still have a partially intact hymen. It's not just a piece of skin/tissue stretched across an opening... The definition that Blank came up with was "the state of having not had partnered sex" But what qualifies as sex? What about in gay couples? Valenti asked many people their opinion on what "counts" as sex. My favorite answer that she got, from a lesbian, was "It isn't sex unless you've had an orgasm". Of course that means many people may have never actually "had sex" according to this definition.

But now thanks to the Virginity Movement (or the Abstinence Movement) it seems like the focus is always on virginity. This movement tells women that in order to be "good" they must be chaste, virginal and not have sex. This tells women that in order to be "good" all they have to do is not have sex. It doesn't matter what else they do in their life, as long as they keep their legs closed they're still "good"! Not to mention the fact that you are judging women's worth purely on their "virginity". Good girls don't have sex and any woman that has had or is thinking about having sex is an inherently bad, dirty person.

This brings in abstinence only education

Abstinence only education is based on the message that teens should not have sex until marriage (of course this assumes that you are heterosexual and able to get married legally). They also love to provide false statistics and plain old lies about sex, contraception, and STI's.
A quote that Valenti includes in the beginning of chapter 2 from Darren Washington, an abstinence educator:

"Your body is a wrapped lollipop. When you have sex with a man, he unwraps your lollipop and sucks on it. It may feel great at the time, but, unfortunately, when he's done with you, all you have left for your next partner is a poorly wrapped, saliva fouled sucker."

First of all, I felt like vomiting when I read that quote. I think that this quote sums up the virginity/abstinence movement pretty well. Sex makes you dirty and useless. But only if you're a woman! I might add. Because women are keepers of their sexualities (or worse the idea that father's are the keepers of their daughter's virginity which is even more vomit inducing to me) they are the ones that  are made dirty, used, or worthless by having sex. Another great aspect of the abstinence movement (which provides sex "education" in middle schools and high schools the country over) is that it received over $178 million dollars a year in 2007. Luckily, according to SIECUS this federal funding fell to only $50 million in a year starting in 2010. But really, in my mind even one tax dollar is too many.

Some outcomes of abstinence only education:
- middle school students who received this type of sex ed were found to be just as likely to have sex as teens who had not received this type of education.
- teens who had taken abstinence classes were more likely to say that condoms were ineffective in protecting against STI's.
- teens who took abstinence only education and pledged their virginity were not only less likely to use condoms but also more likely to engage in oral or anal sex.

(Valenti, p. 119-120)

Time and time again, it has been proven that abstinence until marriage education doesn't work, and yet... few people seem to fight its use in our public schools.


Other topics that I found interesting in the book:
- Emergency contraception and legislation surrounding its availability.
- Legislating women, relating to abortion, birth control, miscarriages, etc.
- Purity balls
- Rape and women "deserving it"
- Women and teen girls sexuality and pleasure

All in all, I enjoyed the book. Check it out if you're looking for a fairly quick read.

Female Chauvinist Pigs

I previously posted this on my other blog but I'm reposting here because it fits much better.

I picked up Female Chauvinist Pigs at the library shortly after I got out of school for winter break. This is one of those books I've seen multiple times at the library/the bookstore/amazon etc. I've just never picked it up for some reason. Man am I glad I finally did. I devoured this book in two days and had to find my little sharpie page flags so that I could remember specific parts I loved (normally I just highlight them... but it was a library book).

Apparently some secret part of me misses writing papers about books that I read (for my undergrad women's studies degree) so I've decided just to write a blog post about some of my favorite parts of this book, and observations related to them.

Feminism as a whole loves to use "choice". Women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies, whether for reproductive uses or in the way they dress. I wrote an entire 10 page paper about the right to choose natural childbirth methods and if women can really "choose" when society is set up to tell them how to think. I think this can similarly be seen in Female Chauvinist Pigs.

But what of choice? In the first chapter Levy describes following the Girls Gone Wild crew around and how women were just throwing themselves at them, flashing the cameras with wild abandon. Of course the fact that these women had most likely consumed copious amounts of alcohol provides one possible reason. These woman are enlightened, they are owning their bodies and have the right to show off how sexy they look and feel. Right? So what's wrong with Girls Gone Wild? If it truly includes consenting adults (although I realize there have been cases of underage girls appearing), whats the problem with it? I guess maybe the better question is why do these girls want to flash the camera, get naked and make out with other girls?

Because society has told them that this is sexy, beautiful, alluring? That a woman's only value is her sexuality? I guess my point isn't that I think what these women are doing is wrong, in fact I fully support their choice to do what they want with their bodies... I'm more interested in the why. Why they think that flashing camera crews and making out with women is fun/good/exciting what have you. Is it our society? I'm inclined to think so.

I loved this quote from Erica Jong. She said,

"Let's not kid ourselves that this is liberation. The women who buy the idea that flaunting your breasts in sequins is power - I mean, I'm all for that stuff - but let's not get so into the tits and ass that we don't notice how far we haven't come. Let's not confuse that with real power. I don't like to see women fooled."

This new brand of "feminism" or enlightened sexism (as I've been reading about in the book Englightened Sexism), tells woman that feminism isn't necessary. All of the battles have been won, so go out, wear short skirts and flash your boobs for Girls Gone Wild. After all, we've earned it! The problem that I see with this is that we're not past feminism, feminism is still very necessary and when it is implied that it isn't necessary... there is a big problem.

One chapter that particularly interested me was the one describing teenaged and pre-teen girls and their response to sex. I thought it was interesting how she describes talk of "rainbow parties" where many girls give oral sex to guys, receiving nothing in return. I'm pretty sure there was just a recent revival of these "rainbow parties" in the news recently with parents organizations clutching their metaphorical pearls exclaiming, "Not the children!" I thought it was amusing that these rainbow parties, or the rumors of such parties were not a new phenomenon considering Levy wrote this book in 2005. The media seems to just recycle stories every few years.

There was also a lot of good information from interviews with pre-teen and teenage girls about why they have sex. So many girls seemed to have no idea why other than that it was "what all girls did". They weren't doing it because it was fun or perhaps enjoyable for them, but because everyone else was and there was a lot of peer pressure to be like everyone else.

This seems to be another conundrum.. we tell girls every day through the media that they have to be sexy and "hot", they need to buy this makeup or this brand to be desirable. But then through abstinence only education we tell them that they MUST NOT HAVE SEX. They should save that for marriage. There's no discussion about hormones or legitimate reasons to want to have sex... JUST DON'T DO IT. And we wonder why this type of sex ed isn't effective?

I specifically remember the sex ed I had in 8th grade. They split the boys and girls up and discussed STDs, showing horrifying pictures of them (it just doesn't get any easier to look at those). They was a sort of strange analogy about girls being like ovens, they take a while to heat up and boys being like a flame, they're hot instantly. (I'm paraphrasing but it was very similar to this.) I still have no idea what they were trying to get across with that analogy... considering the overall message I got was "Don't have sex". There was no talk about condoms for protection against STDs or pregnancy nor any discussion about the Pill.

And yet... the number of girls I knew that were having sex in high school was pretty high. Did someone else teach them about condoms and the Pill? I can only hope so. (Although some of them obviously didn't given the fact that a handful of them got pregnant and had babies in high school).

So what happens when women are the ones perpetuating this idea of "raunch" culture stated in the book? Is it worse than when men perpetuate it? In my opinion, sort of. But it comes back to the overall need for education (regardless of one's gender).

When I decided to get my undergrad degree in Women's Studies I basically had to explain what feminism was to one of my friends. (The definition I gave her was something along the lines of believing in equal rights for women, equal pay, etc. I can't say I'm very proud of it. It wasn't very complete or well rounded). She also happened to be several years older than me. I shouldn't have to explain feminism to her should I??

The answer seems to be yes. And to everyone else out there who seems to have forgotten the feminist movement of the 60's and 70's or never cared what it was about to begin with.

Sometimes I'm truly frightened by the world we live in. But then I read awesome thought provoking books and I think maybe I have the strength to struggle against the tide.

Welcome!

Hello all!

I decided to start this blog because I wanted a place to collect all my thoughts about feminist related things. The content will probably be pretty diverse and perhaps not what you would generally think of as “feminist” but things that I am looking at or see in a feminist light.

I have a Bachelor’s Degree in Women’s Studies and ever since I’ve been out of school I have the urge to write long paper-esque reviews of books or just about things I’ve been thinking about. I guess that’s what happens when the majority of your classes are seriously paper driven. So, in lieu of writing papers… because that would be sort of pointless since I’m not in class right now, I’m going to write blog posts! Honestly I’ll try not to be pretentious… because I don’t think that’s how I really am.

I don’t think that just because I have a Women’s Studies degree I know everything there is to know about women or feminism or whatever. I definitely do not. The vast expanse of my ignorance is probably shocking. I took a lot of great classes that I loved but there is just no way you can study a movement that’s been around for 100 years in 4 semesters.

So, a little bit about myself:

Age: 21.

Current Occupation: Student (going back to school for nursing)

The moment feminism clicked for me: I really wish I could remember this. I took a Philosophy of Feminism class before I went to Florida State and I’d like to think it was during this class. I wanted to major in French but I couldn’t because of some stupid requirements so my advisor told me to pick another major. I went back and forth between criminology and women’s studies for a while reading about both before finally deciding to do women’s studies. I got to school and started taking my classes and loved every one of them!

Favorite classes I took: I loved my Women’s Health Issues class that I took with a nursing instructor. This is actually the class that made me think about becoming a midwife, pairing my love of feminism and love of medicine.

I also liked my Contemporary Muslim Women class and my Voices of Oppression class I took my final semester.

Favorite topics to read about/research/think about: Feminism (duh!), sexism, pop culture, women in the media, feminist childbirth and parenting, reproductive rights, and so many more.

Future occupation: Currently I’m taking pre-reqs to get an accelerated Bachelor’s of Science in Nursing so I can be a nurse for a while. Right now my areas of interest are Labor and Delivery and Emergency Medicine. I would also like to eventually return to school and get a Master’s so I can become a Certified Nurse-Midwife. I would really like to be in a practice with other Midwives and provide home births.

Well there’s a bit of the basics. Have you got any more questions for me? I’d love to answer them.

Coming up I’m working on a starter list of my favorite feminist minded books!