[identity profile] neowolf2.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 03:02 am (UTC)(link)
"It's the book of stories by women, not cover art by women," he mansplained.
Edited 2014-04-26 03:03 (UTC)

[identity profile] icecreamempress.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 03:21 am (UTC)(link)
That does rather seem like a missed opportunity, though.

[identity profile] marfisa.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 03:21 am (UTC)(link)
Not to mention the fact that if the pictured woman's deliberately bared camera-facing back with a slightly glowing brand(? tattoo?) is supposed to be some kind of satirical commentary on the cliched "back to the camera and showing off a tramp stamp" pose that was so popular on paranormal romance book covers up until quite recently, I don't think it really works. For one thing, the basic composition of the picture as a whole is too complicated and involves too many cryptically mysterious elements. Unless the cover artist got to read all or most of the stories from the collection and managed to incorporate elements from a bunch of different ones into a single image, which will only really make sense once the person looking at the book has read those stories too.

[identity profile] harvey-rrit.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 03:22 am (UTC)(link)
Is there some reason why "womansplained" is not a disgustingly bigoted term?

If not, is there some reason why any sort of double standard is not a disgustingly bigoted act?

[identity profile] kalmn.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 03:28 am (UTC)(link)
This should help answer your question. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Reverse_sexism

[identity profile] harvey-rrit.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 04:56 am (UTC)(link)
No, not really. The very act of calling it "reverse sexism" denies the reality that sexism is sexism no matter who does it.

That being said, whoever chose a man to do that cover, for that book, was too stupid to be allowed out of the house, let alone into a publishing job.

[identity profile] harvey-rrit.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 05:47 am (UTC)(link)
What you said saved me ever so much time composing a rant.
ext_3718: (Default)

[identity profile] agent-mimi.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 08:37 am (UTC)(link)
I'm positive that's not supposed to be satirical. It appears to be based heavily on Japanese warrior imagery in film and anime, and my guess is the symbol is a fantasy-type of mark and not a tattoo. I grant you, the bared back looks very awkward, and can only hope it's a specific reference to a story or stories.
ext_3718: (Default)

[identity profile] agent-mimi.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 08:41 am (UTC)(link)
At the risk of being called names and accused of being a bad feminist again, the entire idea of a female-only compendium as an answer to complaints of a lack of gender diversity in prior compendiums is beyond offensive to me. Knowing the artist was male doesn't improve my opinion of this any; in fact, it makes it sound even more like an attempt to retain the status quo except for the bare minimum of female names necessary to achieve the desired public appearance.

[identity profile] seth ellis (from livejournal.com) 2014-04-26 09:20 am (UTC)(link)
The entire enterprise does have a certain kept-safely-in-the-Other-drawer feel to it, especially with the tag "The Mammoth Book of..." I realize that's a publishing line, but it gives the sense that it's not just a mammoth book of ladyfiction, it's the only one you need.

But, on the other hand, it's a great TOC, the most interesting one I've seen in some time. MacFarlane has good taste. I'd vastly prefer to read this than the current Hugo nominations.
ext_3718: (Default)

[identity profile] agent-mimi.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 09:30 am (UTC)(link)
Absolutely, I don't question ADM's editorial or curating abilities one bit. It's the antiquated idea of having a separate women's compendium that bugs, because I think it actually solidifies the notion that "all-male TOC equals normal, all-female TOC is different and niche."
Edited 2014-04-26 09:31 (UTC)

[identity profile] seth ellis (from livejournal.com) 2014-04-26 09:37 am (UTC)(link)
Agreed. I imagine one takes the opportunities the publishing industry affords you.

[identity profile] sinboy.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 10:25 am (UTC)(link)
It really would not surprise me at all if the publisher used that book as a shield to tell critics "look, I did this one book, so I care about feminism and you can't criticize me ever again".

Or maybe he's learned something and will try for more diversity.

[identity profile] rwpikul.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 02:01 pm (UTC)(link)
The difference is that men are the privileged group, not women.

[identity profile] harvey-rrit.livejournal.com 2014-04-26 04:28 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm pretty sure you're not seeing my point. This just maintains the hostilities. It tends to be difficult to pay attention to the legitimate grievances of someone who is shooting indiscriminately at everyone on your side of the table.

[identity profile] scott-sanford.livejournal.com 2014-04-28 01:42 am (UTC)(link)
I'm still disappointed that it's not a book of stories about mammoths written by women. I suppose it's better than a collection of stories by mammoth women...

[identity profile] oldcharliebrown.livejournal.com 2014-04-28 01:49 pm (UTC)(link)
It's extremely rare for a commercial editor to establish themselves, in this field, and I suspect that if Alex hadn't taken on this particular project that was given to her, that she wouldn't be afforded further opportunities. It sucks, but it's better to do it, and then kick ass later down the road.

[identity profile] oldcharliebrown.livejournal.com 2014-04-28 01:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Possibly, though I'm sure that this fact was behind some of their thoughts: that one of the bestselling Mammoths in recent history was The Mammoth Book of Vampire Stories by Women. So there is that, though this path is certainly problematic, but it's the project she was handed. My hope is that it succeeds and that she's allowed to edit more, as there aren't that many female commercial editors. I can count them on one hand, essentially.

[identity profile] seth ellis (from livejournal.com) 2014-04-28 04:09 pm (UTC)(link)
That's pretty much what I was assuming.

[identity profile] oldcharliebrown.livejournal.com 2014-04-28 04:16 pm (UTC)(link)
Now I can only hope that it sells sufficiently that the publisher will pick up further proposals.