Hotties of Publishing
Apparently, it’s always appropriate to subject women, be they convicts or bluestockings, to beauty contests. Via John Scalzi (who didn’t seem to notice that this might be a little, well, offensive) I found out that Galleycat is hosting an online hottie contest involving women in publishing.
Lest I be accused of unfairness, Galleycat has done the same with men as well. So it’s all fair, right? It’s all appropriate. Right?
Sigh. Aside from the questionable taste of having beauty contests at all, much less in an industry that traditionally had nothing to do with participants’ looks (and no, folks, self-consciousness and “irony” don’t excuse sexually objectifying women or men) … I say aside from pointing out pretty where it’s not relevant, women and men are, last I checked, still not equal in the public arena, or in culture, or in commerce, or in society. So having a men’s hottie contest doesn’t excuse having a women’s hottie contest. You know, at all.
And since this hasn’t sunk in yet, here we go again: women in publishing, business, high stakes high culture, et al, are widely ignored, underpaid, passively and actively discouraged from leadership positions, harrassed (sexually and gender-relatedly), and in general invalidated professionally. This is done because we live in a patriarchy. One item of our patriarchy holds that a woman’s value lies more in her looks than her qualities of mind. Because our patriarchal society still operates on the idea that a woman’s looks are more important than her thoughts, every time you draw public attention to a woman’s looks over her qualities of mind, you are underlining this principle, you are agreeing with it. No, treating men this way too is not the solution. No, using a celebratory tone (rather than a snarky one) doesn’t make it okay. (cf. “positive vs. negative stereotypes”.)
Yes, I’m speaking slowly because I think some of you are dumb. Which ones? The ones who thought up, promoted, and participated in this stupid beauty contest. If you want shock value, do something really shocking. If you want irony, you’ll need to dress up your language in quirky infantile obfuscticationses and your graphics in old fashioned shit. Like this . If you want to draw attention to the publishing industry, don’t. The only people who are interested are the five million MFA candidates currently in rotation. They’re interested anyway, and if they want porn, they’ll go to www.blacksonblondes.com.
This contest is stupid, mundane, ordinary, boring … oh yeah, and sexist. Can we stop now? Please?
Actually, most of us who are participating in this think it’s kind of funny. It started out as a joke, because Ron and Sarah had done a story about how good-looks get certain authors far.
I think everyone is really sort of looking at this whole thing with tongue in cheek. All the folks who were nominated were asked their permission before they got plastered across the internet.
It’s just silly fun, and if the men and women participating aren’t offended, it seems silly for you or me to be.
Oh, and just to clarify – in publishing at least, women are more than fairly represented. It is indeed the one industry where more women are in power than men. And ALL publishing folk are paid crap wages, whether they are men, women or goats. Publishing just doesn’t make any money.
so, let me see if i’ve got this straight: it’s okay if the already dumb people participating in it think it’s funny. it’s okay if everyone involved looks at it “with tongue in cheek”. it’s okay if the contestants aren’t offended. it’s okay to pay women crap wages if everyone gets crap wages. (’cause that’s what all this “equality” is about!)
did you miss the part about how irony doesn’t excuse perpetuating a viewpoint that hurts women? did i mention that just because this time it’s you doing it, instead of some faceless evil male sexist automaton that doesn’t exist anyway, that still doesn’t make it okay?
Well…yeah! :-)
Except that I didn’t say it was okay that men and women in publishing got paid crap – just that it was a fact of life.
Just for you, Claire.
http://www.tshirtoutlet.com/lh42.html
(wink)
You are indeed retarded. Reach into the clue bag and grab one: It’s people like you (not just women, there are some men too,) that create disharmony and destroy morale in the workplace. Incidentally, by doing so you also encourage the wagon-circling in the workplace, and encourage stereotypes and preconceptions about women.
Clearmoon, to whom are you directing this comment?
[...] Mideabistro’s Galleycat asks you to vote for the male and female hotties of publishing. And get taken to task for reinforcing the patriarchy. Here and Here [...]
i’m confused too, but before clearmoon answers, let me just say that we’re riding a fine line on name-calling here. i started it myself, by calling the folks involved in this contest “dumb”. that was childish and i shouldn’t have done it. let’s continue this discussion less childishly than i started it, okay?
martin: did you just cop to that fact? you haven’t been reading this blog very long, have you? i’m sooo buying that shirt.
la gringa: i know this one isn’t as cut and dried as the “hoosegow honeys” contest. contestants letting themselves in for this treatment is definitely grey area, reminiscent of the debate over woman-centered porn. i’ve had this discussion before in nonprofits i’ve been involved in, where someone suggested a date auction as a fundraiser and justified it by saying that we would be selling men as well as women.
i can see the other point of view, i just can’t feel it. i can’t believe that anyone who’s had to listen to their boss tell them how good (or bad) looking they are would think that one’s professional sphere is an appropriate place to celebrate their looks.
i do understand that authors’ looks are now being exploited to sell books, and that it was a commentary on this that started the contest in the first place. i understand that the publishing world is changing and we all have to adapt. but i don’t see the necessity for furthering ugly realities where there is no demand for it.
regarding the crap wages in publishing: it’s not at all surprising that the female population is increasing in poorly paid industries. that’s been the case since women entered the workforce. this is another discussion for another time, but let me just ask, unrhetorically, in all ignorance: are women in charge of the publishing industry or are they just involved in it? it does make a difference and i genuinely don’t know the answer.
be the answer what it may, women’s representation in an increasingly vulnerable industry has less relevance to whether or not women in that industry should be celebrated for their looks than it would seem at first glance. completely unrelated people will flock to any wet t-shirt, hoosegow honeys, or hotties of publishing contest … any event where attractive women are on display. so what such a contest is doing is inviting random people to take these women out of their context and judge them on their looks.
But we aren’t furthering ugly realities–we’re furthering HOT realities!
By the way, there’s no “grey area” about rational adults making the conscious and consensual choice to participate in a hotties of publishing contest or in “woman-centered porn.” I know McKinnonites and their ilk like to argue that people could only possibly make such choices out of false consciousness, if not outright self-hatred, but that doesn’t make it so. I also know the unlikelihood of convincing McKinnonites of this, because they can never believe what they can never feel, so further this deponent sayeth not.
It’s hard to even respond to such muddy thinking as is displayed here, but I’ll give it a shot.
To begin with, anyone who needs to see some sexism in action need look no further than Claire’s very own comment above. I mean, “i can see the other point of view, i just can’t feel it”? Jesus whirling christ, give me a break. Nothing like feeding right into the notion that women are flighty emotional creatures to whom nothing matters if if they can’t feel it. Barf. That right there is a hell of a lot more sexist than anything galleycat has ever dreamed up.
In any event, this entry comes off as not much more than a parody of feminism. You’re advancing the argument that by definition, women can’t be equal to men, even when men are being treated in precisely the same way as the women. Why? Well, that’s not really clear: apparently it’s because we live in a patriarchy, which in turn assures that women will always need to be treated as delicate flowers. Recursion, anyone? As a feminist myself, I find that insulting as all get out. I if you want to call galleycat’s feature “shallow,” fine. I don’t even necessarily disagree with that assessment. But your attempts to label it “sexist,” complete with apparently unironic references to patriarchy (”patriarchy”! used unironically!) are tortured, to put it as kindly as I can.
Oh, and btw: calling obviously intelligent people “dumb” when they do something with which you disagree makes you look, well, pretty dumb. Just saying.
Wait – I just noticed your reference to “hoosegow honeys” contest – what the HELL is that? Is that a real contest? What’s a hoosegow honey? That just sounds so Dukes of Hazzard-ish…
[...] Well, I have now, and I have to say her response pisses me off hugely. She has at least backed down (in the comments) on the “dumb” statement, which is a damn good thing, because I, at least–and probably every one of those women on the ballot–am sick to hell of people of people assuming an inverse correlation between intelligence and attractiveness. I have fought against it my whole professional life; I spent my entire twenties in the most unattractive clothes imaginable simply because I knew I was good at what I did, and I didn’t want anyone assuming I was getting ahead because of my looks and the other less-savory things that implies. (And they will. I still deal with it; I just have the confidence not to give a shit anymore.) [...]
la gringa, go to the “snarky” link in my original post, or just do a search for “hoosegow honeys” in this blog. that’s the last beauty contest i objected to on this blog.
ron, who is this mckinnon of whom you speak? please address my opinions directly. it’s a silly way to show contempt for someone’s opinions: by associating them with someone else whose opinions you despise.
laura: sorry, when exactly did we stop living in a patriarchy? or was “patriarchy” replaced at some point by a more appropriate term, and they forgot to tell me? if so, no one here has been using the new term. i’m really sorry if “patriarchy” embarrasses you, and i’m really glad that you’ve gotten over your embarrassment about “feminist”. maybe when you stop apologizing for terms that were made unfashionable by backlash, you can start making a coherent argument for what you’re trying to say, instead of merely against what i’m saying.
but you’re right, i’ve expressed myself badly if you can make out of what i’ve said an argument that “women are flighty emotional creatures to whom nothing matters if if they can’t feel it” or that “women will always need to be treated as delicate flowers”. let me make myself clear: people (women and men) need to stop treating women as if their looks are the most important thing about them. was that clear enough? i hope so, because i don’t think i have the writing chops to state my thesis more baldly than that.
and about the men? i don’t want people starting to treat them like their looks are the most important thing either. treating men and women equally badly does not make that treatment of women any less sexist. does the rape of men make the rape of women any less of a gender issue? no? then lesser problems like sexually objectifying men don’t make lesser problems like sexually objectifying women any less of a gender issue. capiche?
“who is this mckinnon of whom you speak?”
You’re either disingenuous or massively underinformed about the very issue on which you choose to pontificate. Neither option suggests a fruitful outcome to protracted engagement on the subject. I’ll just keep running the contest while you go read a book, and we’ll both be better off.
And since the hotties of publishing contest does NOT act as if the MOST IMPORTANT thing about women and men is how they look, your thesis isn’t even relevant to my work. Thanks for directing the traffic GalleyCat’s way, though!
Uh, where did you ever get the idea that I was embarrassed over “feminist”? (Hint: the voices in your head don’t count as a source.) As it happens, I was advancing the cause of feminism before your pubes started to grow in. Careful with that straw man, hon — it’s so big you’re going to start a forest fire.
As for the second point in the third paragraph of your post (i.e. that I’m merely arguing against what you said): Um. You’re joking, right? I’m here in the comments section of your blog, responding to one of your posts, so it’s hardly unreasonable of me to stick to refuting your rather laughable statements instead of advancing my own theories. I mean, this really isn’t obvious to you?
And what’s that I see in the fourth paragraph of your response? My word, it’s another straw man, this time even bigger than the first! Goodness. I think I’ll just repost what Ron said, since he says it better than I could and I want to make sure you don’t manage to miss it:
“And since the hotties of publishing contest does NOT act as if the MOST IMPORTANT thing about women and men is how they look, your thesis isn’t even relevant to my work.”
Anyway, you really should go read a book, preferably after looking up “Catharine MacKinnon” on Wikipedia. You’re embarrassing yourself here.
well, this is really devolving into a “yes it is, no it isn’t” argument.
firstly, the sarcastic “who is this mckinnon of whom you speak” comment was indicative of my attitude about catherine mckinnon … obviously. if i hadn’t known who she was, i would certainly have looked her up before replying, and would certainly not have asked you guys (obviously) since i (obviously) don’t have much respect for your opinions or ideas, or intelligence. i have even less now. (btw, laura, you have no idea how old i am, and my comment about the term “feminist” was a sarcastic one, intended to be an underhanded insult to you. if you need me to break this down further, just ask, hon.)
so let’s get away from this silly nitpicking at each other’s increasingly small arguments and get back to the meat of the matter: i think this contest is bad and sexist. i have outlined my reasons for thinking so. you (ron, laura and la gringa) have attacked my assessment, but haven’t presented one of your own. so now’s your chance.
why do you think this contest is necessary, or good, or even neither necessary nor good but not, you know, bad? hmmm? why did you do this or why do you support it? what does it offer to humanity, to women, to publishing, or merely to the readers of galleycat?
Tell me, Claire — do you have any friends at all?
You’re right, I have no idea how old you are, but your unironic use of the word “patriarchy” (hahahaha, patriarchy! I still can’t get over that. Patriarchy. Amazing) gives me some idea that you’re either 1) a superannuated hippie who’s never got over being bitter that she never got married; or 2) one of those hilariously self-involved Gen-Y’ers who thinks she invented feminism. I don’t have much use for either group.
Oh, and another hot tip for you: if you have to explain your jokes, or insults, or whatever you’re now labelling them, they’re probably not worth much. Sort of like this blog, actually.
As for taking your offer to present an argument, I don’t really see why I should waste my time with someone who’s said outright she has no respect for my opinions, ideas, or intelligence.
Really clever use of “hon,” btw. Where did I read that recently? Oh, I remember: in MY OWN POST IMMEDIATELY ABOVE. For someone who has no respect for my intelligence, you don’t seem to be above recycling my words. Dumbass.
i think this contest is bad and sexist. i have outlined my reasons for thinking so.
And they’re silly.
I have a great idea! Let’s just pass a law requiring all women, upon turning 18, to disfigure their faces and bodies with hydrochloric acid. That will rid the world of this unspeakable, pernicious evil called “beauty” that, evidently, leads people to think looks are the most important thing about a woman. No longer will our culture be poisoned by such things as website beauty contests, which may very well seem cute and harmless, but are in fact, bwahahahaaa, all part of the evil patriarchist conspiracy to subjugate and demean all women everywhere. Finally (and this is the best part for feminists), there will no longer be pretty women walking around making unpretty women feel envious and insecure. And overnight, as if by magic, all wages everywhere will achieve parity! Awesome, huh?
Nice pileup, boys and girls. This really, really made me change my mind about the intelligence, political savvy, and general respect for humanity of you people involved in this ah-ah-ha so funny bit of high-school beauty peageant. anna.fdd@gmail.com
Alison Janssen of Bleak House Books is an
incredible women. You’re just jealous.
http://www.madrollindolls.com/
This contest does not need to be good or worthwhile or necessary to be just plain fun. And I agree with Ron that you cannot force your opinion that a person is being exploited upon that person if that person DOES NOT FEEL EXPLOITED. Period.
If you are speaking French, and I say you are speaking Spanish, it simply doesn’t make it so, no matter how much I want it to be true.
Many women feel absolutely comfortable and secure in expressing their sexual being openly. Consensual participation in anything openly sexual does not automatically equate to exploitation.
Women-centered porn is a truly wonderful thing and yes – it is a feminist breakthrough. Women should absolutely feel comfortable expressing their sexuality in any way that makes them feel empowered. (If you want to see some truly breathtaking women-centered porn, rent a copy of Crash Pad.)
I consider myself a feminist. I also revel in the beauty of the female body and certainly am not going to apologize for it.
I am not going to resort to name-calling. I am merely stating my opinion, which is a valid one. It just happens to be an opinion that differs from yours.
These are five obviously bright women with great self-esteem. Their friends and colleagues obviously think a great deal of them. Why not celebrate that fact?
Laura -
Just a note – I understand what you’re trying to say, but I think your arguments are devolving into a personal attack, which isn’t necessary. It’s just a debate, ya know?
It also occurs to me that I’m much more inclined right now to feel anger at Marion Jones for setting a terrible example to young female athletes by feeling the need to dope up before a match.
Now THAT’S a true betrayal of feminism.
first of all, i started the name-calling so i’m not going to point fingers. but enough is enough. any more ad hominem attacks will be deleted from comments.
secondly, i’ve issued a challenge regarding defending the contest. i won’t be responding to any comments that don’t address that challenge.
la gringa: why assume that i disagree with you about woman-centered porn? there’s a place and time for everything, including celebrating beauty and sexuality … and expressing these pubicly. if you’re making porn, then everyone knows its porn. if you’re having a beauty contest, then everyone knows it’s a beauty contest. there are issues involved with both of these, but they declare themselves and their purpose clearly. neither one is taking advantage of a situation that has nothing to do with beauty, sexuality, or gender, to exploit all of these.
discussing how looks are helping authors sell books on a lit blog is an appropriate topic of discussion, and even of mockery. taking that topic of discussion and further extending the discussion by turning it into a farce through creating a facetious beauty contest might be clever. it might even have a point. but that’s not what happened here.
what happened is that the bloggers took this discussion and turned it into a “fun” and “funny” but not facetious or farcical contest. the contest itself is in earnest. galleycat is genuinely inviting strangers to judge the appearance and sexual appeal of people in the publishing industry in the context of a discourse on the publishing industry. whoever wins, wins in earnest, even though it’s “all in good fun”. that’s not appropriate.
okay, i think i’ve repeated this opinion enough. if you don’t hear it, then you don’t hear it. let me just address what you said about a contest not needing to be good or necessary or worthwhile to be just plain fun. of course it doesn’t have to be good or necessary.
but it does have to be worthwhile, otherwise why would anyone expend any energy on it? and no one here has addressed why the organizers or participants find it worthwhile. might i suggest that it is worthwhile because it offers the contestants validation regarding their looks? i most certainly do not argue with that: i like to be told i’m beautiful, too. but a discourse on the publishing industry is not the place or time to validate these women’s looks.
“you cannot force your opinion that a person is being exploited upon that person if that person DOES NOT FEEL EXPLOITED. Period.”
i completely agree. you can’t force your opinion on someone, no matter what the truth may be. but, la gringa, i don’t think i ever said that i worried about these poor, poor women being exploited. i’m not here to defend the victimized participants. that’s why i called them “dumb”.
the contestants are clearly getting two benefits from this contest: the aforementioned validation regarding their looks, and free publicity for themselves (which may not help, but cannot hurt their careers) and their companies among people interested in the publishing industry. so they’re deliberately dumbing themselves down about the small but distinct overall effect yet another instance of privileging women’s looks will have on their industry. they have a stake in this contest and will, of course, not see it as disadvantageous to them.
it’s not what this does to the contestants that pisses me off. the fact that they’ve been singled out for their looks means that they will come out on top of the sexual attractiveness shakedown happening in the industry right now. but what about everyone else? what about the vast majority of authors and publishing professionals, who are just ordinary people and may not be most people’s ideal of attractiveness? and, what about all the people, regardless of their attractiveness, who want to go about their daily work gettting books out to the public without being scrutinized for their sexual appeal?
even twenty years ago, even ten, you could be an avid reader and not know what some of your favorite authors looked like. now, you have to go out of your way to not see their faces and bodies plastered everywhere. it’s happening and no one can change that, but why would you want to help it along by subjecting the behind-the-scenes people to the same kind of scrutiny?
Actually – they weren’t singled out soley for their looks. I was one of several folks who nominated Liz Scheier, and here is what I said about her, BEFORE Ron ever saw a photo:
“Why do I think she’s hot? Because part of a younger generation of editors who are making huge strides in getting science fiction and fantasy the respect it deserves. She has an amazing cadre of established writers (Elizabeth Bear, EE Knight, among others) and has a real eye for new talent (like Justine Musk and her awesome first novel BLOOD ANGEL).
Because she also takes the time to share her experience with writers at conferences all over the country, and her talks are like stand up comedy – she’s hilarious but manages to get across really great advice at the same time. Because she believes in giving back to the community – she’s been a regular weekly volunteer at Coalition for the Homeless for more than five years, and before that she was volunteer at New York City’s Gay & Lesbian Center. Because she’s got a big heart, and is a tremendous friend to those lucky enough to know her
Because she looks way hot in a skirt and three inch heels.”
Yes, I think my friend is a knockout. But it’s not the only reason I;d consider a hottie. And if you look at the other entries – men and women – you’ll see that the comments are all from friends and colleagues who love and value these people.
And THAT’S why people are having a good time with this – it’s a chance for them to shine the light on a friend or colleague that they respect, and do it in a way where everyone can have fun with it.
Why would you want to subject the behind-the scenes people in publishing to this? Because, frankly, publishing has too many chiefes and not enough Indians. (And yes, we could go into a whole aside about how racist that coment was, but let’s just agree that it’s a figure of speech, okay?) Aside form those few men and women at the very top of the food chain in publishing, nobody ever really SEES the under-appreciated folks who do all the real work. The agents, the editors, the publicists, the book designers, the assistants, etc. Why NOT celebrate them?
I am one of those industry folks whom the rest of the world would consider avergae, ordinary, even downright unattractive. I look like a fireplug with frizzy hair, muscles and a perpetual shit-eating grin. Not a hottie by any standard. But do I begrudge my friend – whom I consider truly physically attractive – the facts of her genes at birth? No. Would I rather look like that hottie rollerball girl? Probably, cos I think she’s also gorgeous. But I don’t hate myselk because I DO NOT resemble either of these women.
A person cannot be exploited if they have choices about the situation that may be said to exploit them. These men and women absolutely had a choice as to whether they wished to be a participant in this contest. Therefore there cannot be exploitation.
I would even go so far to say that Playboy Centerfolds and pin-up models of any sex CAN NEVER be said to have been exploited, since they are always partcipating by choice.
PS: Apologies for the incredible amount of typos in that post. I didn’t have my glasses on, and this keyboard is wee tiny. (Contrary to evidence, I actually do know how to spell.)
la gringa, that was very nice, and i’m not being sarcastic. wouldn’t it have been so much nicer if these women (and men) had been competing for “niftiest all around person in publishing” or “coolest behind-the-scenes person in publishing” rather than best looking? and wouldn’t it have been so much nicer if they had thrown the men and the women in together, since the only reason to seperate them out would be to compare their looks with the like-gendered?
i believe in the sincerity of your nomination, and i believe that liz scheier deserves what you said about her. i just don’t believe that putting her in a beauty contest is the best way to celebrate all the things you wrote about.
YOU put her appearance last, and in only one brief sentence. but the contest in which she appears is about looks. sure, they have no problem also praising the contestants’ accomplishments, with genuine admiration. but the contest is about looks.
while you and others were thinking over their roster of beloved colleagues to nominate for this award, did you, or anyone else, run your mind over a female colleague whom you love and admire but who just wasn’t (in your opinion) good looking enough for this contest? if you, in your mind, dismissed even a single worthy person from inclusion in this contest on the basis of their looks, then the contest has already contributed a teeny tiny little bit of negativity to your professional sphere.
i appreciate your loyalty to your friend, and i appreciate that you think she deserves public recognition for her accomplishments. undoubtedly you are right about that. but she’s not receiving public recognition for her accomplishments. she’s receiving public recognition for her looks … in the context of a discourse about such accomplishments.
you apparently disagree. fine. i agree to disagree and will leave it at that.
actually, now that i think about it, why have a contest at all? why not just do brief profiles on ten behind-the-scenes women and men in the industry who are nominated by galleycat readers? you’d have all the things that you gave as reasons for the “hotties of publishing” contest, and none of the things that i was objecting to.
i’d support this with a link, and make a few nominations of my own. but i sincerely doubt anyone’s gonna do this. judging people on their looks is much more “fun”.
Ha ha – except that if you go look at the site, Liz is the only one whose face YOU ACTUALLY CANNOT SEE. She has her hand in front of her face (which is a typical Liz pose.)
Why not a hotties of the service-class industry? Hotties of fastfood janitors? Hotties of underpaid busboys who live 12 in a room on 165 street? Hotties of Jamaican nannies to Upper West Side publishing hotties who are paying their hotties of the publicist industry to get them more exposure and thus more negotiating power (”I should really make a move over to BigHead Publishing because I was a publishing hottie last year.”)
The whole thing smells of high school Us vs. Them and it’s being choreographed by hotties who have forgotten it’s about the written word, stoopit.
I’d like to see a Mullet Hotties contest, personally.
[...] Have a look at the competition as well as the outrage generated by another blogger, Claire Light, who rightly took issue with the issues behind the competition. [...]