Posts Tagged gender roles

A Lesson Repeated at the Creatures, Crimes, and Creativity Conference

Sunday, October 27th, 2013 | Permalink

One thing the keynote speakers at this conference did that speakers at many other conferences don’t do is discuss the amount of labor involved. When writers discuss the “iceberg approach” to their writing, they could as easily refer to the amount of person hours involved as the technique that implies something deep lies beneath the surface of their narratives.

Jeffrey Deaver was quite upfront about the work aspect during his Saturday night keynote address when he pronounced writing “is a business.” When he started out he was like most novices “who like and write books as we all do.” But as he became more proficient at his craft, he realized that even though he enjoyed being “paid to make up things,” he also found particular aspects of his profession that he detested, particularly what he calls the “dreaded explanatory” chapter in which the author has to wrap up the loose threads and make sense of them for the reader. More and more he found himself “to hate, hate, HATE writing those chapters” and putting off the chore until he absolutely had to.

Allison Leotta equated her work day to that of juggler’s who wonders “which balls will be dropped.” This “female John Grisham,” as one reviewer called her, realized after publishing her first book that she needed to spend two hours a day just for marketing to “build an author platform.” And if she were to meet her ambition and reverse the simile, i.e., for Grisham to become regarded as the “male Allison Leottta,” she would need to work doubly hard and “really have to hone my talents.”

All too often, novice writers (me included), regard writing as a matter of a seamless process of inspiration, perspiration, production, and adulation. After a book or two, they figure they have reached the starry firmament where they can rely on the strength of their reputation to communicate with their readers. Celebrity authors aside, few professional writers have such luxury. Each novel builds upon the ones that precede it which ups the ante on the reception the current publication receives. For that novel or short story to be a success with the public and for the author, a writer must conclude sooner rather than later as Ms. Leotta and the attendees at this conference have, that the writing life is all “about working your ass off all the time.”

To view my photos of the C3 conference, check out my Facebook page at:

Gloria Steinem redux

Sunday, April 7th, 2013 | Permalink

IMG_1932 AGloria Steinem

An interesting comment occurred after Gloria Steinem‘s Koryne Horbal lecture when a female student in the audience asked Steinem how she could answer her friends who start their conversations with “I’m not a feminist, but ….” Though she responded with the flippant comment that “sometimes sending them to the dictionary works,” Steinem did not offer this young woman (who could have been her granddaughter) a practical answer.

Ms. Steinem has been on the world stage for over 40 years and for many people serves as the figurehead for feminism in this country. Yet, much like her response to this student’s query, she has not defined what feminism is or what it is supposed to accomplish. Such a laissez-faire stance may well be in keeping with her educational philosophy of tailoring the form of the pedagogy to the talents of the student, but it also serves as a clever way to evade responsibility for making the decision of defining what or who one is. One defining characteristic of leadership is making tough decisions and accepting responsibility for the outcome(s). If an individual cannot honestly define what he or she stands for, that person does his or her cause an injustice, even if that cause is freedom, the ostensible topic of her speech.

She alluded to this issue earlier in her speech in her dismissive mention of reporters asking her what a feminist society would look like. If such a society would tear down the remaining vestiges of the patriarchy as “an experiment that failed,” a fair question to ask would seem to be the nature of the society that would replace it. Though she identified three freedoms such a society would have–freedom to be connected, freedom to be unique, and freedom to be educated according to one’s interests, the power to accomplish such a transformation could never occur “until we solve the masculinization of wealth.”

This statement reflects a criticism leveled at the feminist movement since its inception–that its goals reflect the ambitions of the members of the social class that founded it. Many women and many men who support them emotionally and/or financially do not aspire to membership in the corporate boardroom and question how equal female representation in such institutions would improve the welfare of the general populace. Some would point to the corrupting influence of the corporation itself as the proper target for replacement or removal.

Almost all women and many men have neither the wealth, the influence, nor the aspiration to succeed to the boardroom, but they do seek the same freedoms Ms. Steinem identified in her speech. If she had been able to define feminism with a vision that reflected true equality of the sexes rather than replacing the tyranny of one gender with that of another, she could have alleviated the reservations of her student questioner and of the many who share a similar vision for American society.