Anyone else in the audience a big fan of Pharyngula? I am, but then, PZ Myers is an irreverent atheist with a serious cephalopod fetish who hates creationism and Intelligent Design even more than I do, so my fangirl love is probably no surprise.
Anyway, there was a recent discussion regarding the presumptive fugliness of female SF readers on assorted Scienceblogs (kerfuffle started on Gene Expression with this observation), which I’ve been following with interest—I am, after all, a female SF reader who, while not exactly the last of the red-hot mamas, isn’t a hideous hosebeast either. And then somebody asked a question about male romance novel readers: why isn’t there a cultural assumption about their appearance? And in the course of discussing this, Myers asks:
There is an interesting idea there about the genre ghetto. I’ve read a few [romance novels], years ago, and didn’t care for them much…and now I judge the whole genre by a fuzzy memory of a non-representative sample. Are there great authors I’m missing because I can’t get past the pink covers with bare-chested men on them?
I’m running late for work, or I’d give him a long list of recommendations. I figure the Bitchery might have some ideas.
Also, thoughts on fugly SF female readers and what it says about the culture? I have some musings about that, too, but have I mentioned I’m late for work? I’m hella late for work. Fuck.
May I be the first to say: fuck this noise.
Girly scfi readers (myself included, OF COURSE) are some of the hottest people I’ve had the pleasure to meet. My theory? Science geeks are way less likely to have peaked in High School, and thus are less prone to the “Trying to Recapture My Lost Days of Glory” look (not hot) and more prone to the “Discovering I’m Actually Quite Hot, Despite What the Cheerleaders Told Me” look, which is hot.
Or possibly I just find brains hot, and science fiction readers are more likely to have ‘em.
I can see where the “fugly female SF reader” stereotype comes from. If you’re in junior high and high school with glasses and braces, you’re less likely to be accepted as a cheerleader/other member of the in crowd, which raises the odds that you’ll end up some manner of geek instead. And if you drift toward SF geekery, then odds are you aren’t spending your time putting on makeup every morning and reading Seventeen; you have different priorities than making yourself pretty. This isn’t ABSOLUTELY going to happen, but it’s common enough to give rise to the stereotype.
Adulthood’s better, though. The braces are probably gone, and you can get contact lenses, and the adult world is more likely to have priorities that look like yours, though that isn’t guaranteed either. So knowledge and the ability to think may become valued, which raises your self-esteem, which does loads right there to make you not fugly, even if you’re still not doing the makeup and fashion thing. (Amazing, what a little confidence can do for your appearance.)
And the rise of geek culture in general means that I see an increasing number of young women who wear makeup and hot clothes AND can quote geekery to your face. The girls of the stereotype are still there, because one of the overriding features of SF/F fandom is a tendency to accept those outcast by mainstream society, but they’re not the ONLY girls there anymore (if, indeed, they ever were).
Oh, that link was hysterical. Thanks so much.
Yeah, SF readers tend to be disproportionately hot to me, males AND females, and part of it’s because SF readers tend to be science geeks, and science geeks are hot.
And to be honest, Razib’s description of the OMGHOT woman (Reese Witherspoon’s brown-haired sister) doesn’t sound particularly hot to me, but then my standards of hotness are probably not representative. Therein lies the crux of our problem, I think. Razib seems to be subscribing to a certain version of hotness—the more polished variety that we’d see in magazines the like. And I think it’s fair to say that those polished types are less likely to end up being science geeks or interested in SF. Not impossible, just less likely.
Why that is, is up for speculation. Part of it’s because keeping up that polished appearance takes time and mental energy—a lot of both, seriously. Many geeks couldn’t be arsed because they find other things more interesting than figuring out how to get their hair to behave. There’s only so much brainspace, and geeks seem more likely to prioritize the space for Battlestar Galactica trivia rather than contemplating the virtues of Pradas vs. Manolos. And the geeks who do cultivate a specific look seem to opt for less conventional appearances—some of them seem to take a whole lot of pride in tweaking with conventional standards of appearance in ways both big and small, probably because they’ve embraced this as another way to identify them as Not Part of the Evil And Boring Mainstream.
Shit, I’ve wandered all over the place. Where am I? How’d I get here?
I’ve got one name for these geeks: Catherine Asaro. Physicist (doctorate from Harvard), ballerina, award winning SF author.
OK, I’ve got another name: Hedy Lamarr. Scientist, inventor, engineer (w/out degree), Hollywood bombshell.
Why yes, Poindexter, you can have brains and beauty in one package! And Marilyn Vos Savant isn’t bad looking either.
Here are my recommendations, I guess. The one guy mentioned reading Bertice Small. Eek.
These are authors oft mentioned by readers in the romance genre as “cross overs”:
Anne Bishop
Sharon Shinn
Lois McMaster Bujold
Patricia Briggs (her new series is interesting, but I loved the Hurog series).
Linnea Sinclair’s Gabriel’s Ghost won the RITA for best paranormal even though her book is a sci fi romance.
I liked the first book in Maria Snyder’s Magic series published by Luna, a division of Harlequin.
Shana Abe has recently gained a huge readership with her dragon series: Smoke Thief and Dream Thief.
For romantic suspense: Karen Rose, Mariah Stewart, JD Robb
For straight contemporary romance: Deidre Martin’s Body Check (hockey).
For historical romance: Elizabeth Vaughan’s WarPrize series published by Tor (this is a fantasy but reads more like a historical, imo). Elizabeth Hoyt’s The Raven Prince (very romancey, I mean, if you like this one . . .well, you’ve gone over to the dark side or the pink side. it’s even an ebook at ereader.com so you won’t be embarrassed to buy it at the store.).
For paranormal romance: Meljean Brook’s upcoming book Demon Angel. It’s got excellent worldbuilding. Neat story behind this woman’s career path. She wrote fan fic re: Wonder Woman and Batman and her fan fic was read by a NY editor and got offered a K. Her first book is out in January and has great world building based upon angels and demons. It has a bit of a comic book feel to it, without the pictures of course. Marjorie Liu, who I have not read, is known for her Dirk & Steele paranormals which has a comic book underpinning. Emma Holly is an erotica writer who has translated that into some pretty steamy romances. Prince of Ice is a very good read until the end.
I agree with all of the above but have a few more thoughts. Due to the geeky stereotype, there are probably many closeted and hot sci-fi readers who don’t (to borrow a phrase) fly their geek flag really high.
Also there’s the whole question of how much do you have to read/watch to be a sci-fi geek. One of the Television Without Pity recappers caught some crap for saying he isn’t a big sci-fi fan even though he recaps BSG and Dr. Who. But to him, BSG, in particular is not sci-fi – or atypical sci-fi. So, it’s similar to the people who think they don’t like romance but read Nora Roberts.
All that and I never answered the question. I think the Crusie/Mayer collaboration Don’t Look Down is a good toe dipper – it doesn’t have a super floofy cover and look there’s a guy’s name and military stuff.
I know I wandered off topic, but I’m a female SF reader and I have it on good authority I’m not going to be cracking any mirrors with my looks. This whole stereotype just gripes my ass.
Here’s another brains & beauty package for you: Ada Lovelace, Lord Byron’s daughter. Known as the founder of scientific computing.
A lot of them think that women only “need” to be intelligent if they’re too ugly to catch a man (who naturally will support them forever and ever). If they can catch a man, why would they bother exercising their mind on “smart” SF?
You also run into the idea among some male SF fans that women’s sole reason for existence is to be looked at by them. This is why you often see average-looking guys whining that women won’t pay attention to them because “all women are shallow/greedy/whores”, but they themselves won’t even consider a girl who’s below a 9 out of 10 on their personal scale. And their personal scale is often way out of whack. Porn actresses with fried hair, ribs sticking out, and fake boobs.
Isn’t it more funny than anything? I mean, these guys who would like to hook up with some girl, are making these generalizations about the very women that they may be compatible with. It just seems so irrational to me to take this seriously.
Hotness is pretty subjective, and everyone has their off days or the paparazzi wouldn’t take such glee in catching celebrities in their skanking out moments. However, if I had to choose between a ripped, handsome guy who was dumber than a box of rocks or a funny, smart guy who was an ugly geek (choose your stereotype, scrawny and small, rotund like Comic Book Guy), I’d pick the geek everytime.
Ana: I’m with you. Well, except for the rotund part. I’m rotund enough for two, baby. Scrawny geek boys: It’s What’s for Breakfast! (Or what I wish was for breakfast. Le sigh.)
When I read the orginal blog the first time, I got the impression that he was thinking more along the lines of “whoa hot chick, woohoo she likes stuff I like, maybe I’ve got a chance”.
But then paying attention to the title and re-reading the blog, I got the impression that he is young and hasn’t spent a great deal of time around women.
When I was in high school, I was labeled the “art weirdo”—I was an artist, I read stuff no one else read outside of class (Shelley—Percy and Mary, Verne, Wells, Ellison, Vonnegut, Asimov—his mysteries as well as his scifi, Oates, in addition to romances and other popular pulp fiction). Even the drama crowd, the geeks and gamers thought I was a geek! What a misfit! I’m an attractive woman now and looking back at myself then, I wasn’t any more unattractive than the cheerleaders the boys drooled over then. But because of my interests and my label, I was socially risky and therefore unattractive. (I think someone on one of the other blogs linked to this one made a comment along similar lines—that is, your attractiveness loses points if you are involved in a geeky or nerdy past time)
And I think that is where the orginal blogger is coming from. He is still in this high school/undergrad social mentality/cliqueishness mindset and hasn’t been exposed to the wide variety of people who do have interests similar to his own.
Me too, Candy. But I don’t mind it in my guys either. That’d be kinda like saying, well, it’s okay for me, but not you, boyo!
I must add, however, that being a geek-lover doesn’t extend to poor hygiene. I could never do a stinky dude, no matter what he looked like.
I tend to think that a nontrivial portion of female geeks at some point make the decision that they’d rather pursue other interests than to blow a lot of time and money on trying to be decorative to please random guys.
I see many male geeks who surely don’t bother to shave or get haircuts on a regular basis and wear clothes until they’re full of holes and they would scoff at you if you suggested they should wax their back hair because anyone worthwhile should accept them as they are … yet a lot of these same guys bemoan the lack of “hot” female geeks. Double-standard, anyone?
I do wonder if Razib puts the same kind of effort and money into his appearance that he expects intelligent women to put into theirs. Would he pass the fug test he’s putting the ladies to?
Isn’t it more funny than anything? I mean, these guys who would like to hook up with some girl, are making these generalizations about the very women that they may be compatible with. It just seems so irrational to me to take this seriously.
I think there’s something universally true about it all, though. How many movies have made fun of the boy science geek (Sixteen Candles or Weird Science being classics) or about his revenge against popular society (Revenge of the Nerds and its horrible sequels)? That they’re not above such judgmental exclusivity shows, IMO, how universal that sense of self-delusion is in the exercise of the ego and the creation of any romantic fantasy. Of course the irony comes through loud and clear in a case like this (sort of the inverse of the Brangelina effect), but there’s something weirdly comforting for me in watching the geek ego defend itself, too.
The Hern cover, is there a large confection stuck to her hand or did a monster bug, maybe a wolf spider, crawled out of the grass to perch there.
Or maybe it’s a knuckle duster in case the Earl of Mullet gets a little too frisky.
Sorry, how did that happen? That comment of course if meant for the cover snark.
I think a portion of geekdom is either getting hip to the benefits of paying a little attention to your appearance, or more of the folks who pay attention to appearance are moving into geekdom.
This applies to both men and women. At World Fantasy Con this year, I was astounded—astounded, I say!—by the parade of hotliness.
Heh—word verification is “bed13”. An injunction, perhaps?
Wow. “Random biological ejaculations of a godless liberal”? That person has bigger and steelier balls than the guy who started the “No More Sprogs” group on Yahoo!
As for female sci-fi geeks…don’t have a clue. Although I’m still in love with both Rod Serling and Carl Sagan and know for a fact neither is really dead.
Isn’t it also a stereotype that MALE readers of SF are ugly? I figured fugliness stereotypically applied to SF readers of both (or all) genders. (As a not-ugly female SF reader, I’ve always found the stereotype amusing.)
I second Lois McMaster Bujold, but would put a hold on the JD Robbs. I love the IN DEATH books, but Nora’s science is… ify… in places, and some things might have a true science geek throwing the book across the room.
Becca, I don’t think the science in JD Robb is all that “iffy,” and her social science seems to me to be coming true. Like gay marriage etc. Also cancer vaccines—we have our first one. I’ve seen but don’t totally believe in a proposal for rapid travel that is only a bit slower than travel in the In Death series. But I agree, love all 20+ of them !!
Oops, forgot to add I adore Lois McMaster Bujold too. However, I do fit the fugly female sci fi reader stereotype. Very few people look great at fifty, so I stand out less now I think than I did when I was younger.
Isn’t it also a stereotype that MALE readers of SF are ugly?
That was my first thought, too. The non-geek population just doesn’t think of geeks as being hot.
And I thought the reason that there wasn’t a cultural assumption about the appearance of male Romance readers was that the cultural assumption is that there aren’t any.
Yes, but isn’t there a stereotype among male geeks that their own looks don’t matter, but women’s looks are all that matters? In other words, women have to look under the fugly, but they sure as hell don’t have to?
Yes, but isn’t there a stereotype among male geeks that their own looks don’t matter, but women’s looks are all that matters? In other words, women have to look under the fugly, but they sure as hell don’t have to?
I think that statement is equally true whether or not the word “geek” is involved. That geeks are fugly, and that men shouldn’t have to look at anything past appearance, are just two common assumptions that happen to intersect sometimes.
On the other hand, aren’t males taught that vanity is distinctly unmasculine? Not that I’m saying “poor males!” but it must be difficult at times to tread the line between trying hard to be good looking for the gals and being tough and masculine, just as it is difficult it is for women to tread the line between beautiful and powerful. Powerful as in being smart/in a leadership position/being a breadwinner etc etc.
razib might pass the “fug” test, judging by his blurry photo, but he kind of radiates “arrogant asshole,” which I find tends to put intelligent women off (regardless of how well they conform to typical beauty standards).