The Orange Prize for Fiction

What a load of crap. The prize, the sentiment, all of it.

The immediate thing to note is its title, which is as accurate as the American 'World Series'. The prize isn't for "fiction" at all. It's more specific than that. It's for women fiction-writers. That's right - not fiction-writers as a whole, but ones written by a group chosen arbitrarily at best (chauvinistically at worst). It's as if they withheld the "for women" bit to avoid people trivialising the prize - which would surely allude to a guilty self-consciousness of the award's trivial, pretentious and ultimately meaningless nature.

And as the prize's title might subtly suggest, it's is biased against men. Not only this - it's also biased against women; the worst of both worlds (despite, ironically, treating both sexes equally, in a way).

Kindly allow me to explain by starting with a question: Why should there be a literary prize specifically for women, particularly when there is no equivalent one for men? One way of looking at it is this:

Of course, in phsyical events such as the Olympics, there are separate competitions for men and women. This makes sense - the most physically-adept men are stronger than the most physically-adept women. This is biological.

But literature is (primarily) a mental endeavour and ability, and there are unisex prizes and women's prizes for fiction. I cannot find an equivalent men's prize. By singling out women in this way, everyone responsible for and supportive of the award is therefore stating that women's fiction isn't good enough to compete directly with men's fiction. This argument would be consistent with the fact that an overwhelming number of prizes for literature - open to both men and women - are won by men. One might argue that more literature is written by men, so proportionally the prizes might average out between the sexes. But I have seen no evidence of this. The reason why most published literature is by men might simply be because men's literature is indeed better than women's - and, given the evidence (as opposed to emotive viewpoints, which are irrelevant), that is most likely.

But there is a second way of looking at it. Consider this telling quote from Wikipedia:

The prize was established to recognise the contributions of female writers who Mosse believed were often overlooked in other major literary awards, and in reaction to the all-male shortlist for the 1991 Man Booker Prize.

Oh, what a surprise, "Mosse" is a woman. I am not being chauvinist for thinking that, being a woman, she would be seeking more power to women, because there is a rationale to my belief - it is simply the way of the world. (I've covered this in more detail previously. For example, see So-called Feminism.) Anyway, the second point, made clear here, is the idea that the Man Booker Prize is unfairly biased towards men - that is, simply because they are men. Who is she to make such an erroneous accusation? How dare she, and why has she not been put in her place for such a travesty of free speech?

Women like this might be chauvinist, but why assume that everyone is capable of the same evil? To tar others with their own brush? Particularly established, respected judges of established, respected awards, who are passionate experts in the subject matter beyond who might or might not have written what. Perhaps it's the EastEnders effect. One reason why people watch it is because the characters are so bitchy that it makes them feel better about their own menial lives. For similar reasons, female chauvinists would try to demonise men so as not to seem so bad by comparison. That seems to be the going trend for the 'Modern Feminist.'

So if women are "often overlooked," then where's the evidence? Why can't it simply be that the judges genuinely thought, in their wisdom and experience on the subject, that the authors they chose - who happened to be men - were simply better authors?

It seems to me that the very existence of the award is unnecessary, gratuitous, sick, ignorant, female-chauvinist and counter-productive to society, and that the assertions that it makes are defamatory. It is tragic that these glaring blotches of diseased puke on our supposedly-advanced societal canvas are deliberately overlooked, and for what - for the sake of political correctness and the fashionable fad mistakenly known as 'feminism.' The disparity it creates goes against what we have to hope is the core feminist agenda, namely, equality. Or is it alleging that feminism is merely a misguided, uninformed, romantic and fantastical ideal? Surely not...

- - - - -

[27.09.10]

Over June and July, I was fortunate enough to engage in a series of debates and discussions surround what I've written above. My main contact was Lisa Gee, who runs the Prize's Web site. My main questions to Lisa, and her answers, were as follows:

1. Why are the titles for "Prize for Fiction" and the "Award for New Writers" misleading in their focus, rather than stating explicitly, "for women"?
   
   There are no prizes (to our knowledge) that include their eligibility criteria in their titles. The Orange Prize for Fiction and Award for New Writers conform to one of the norms for literary Prize titles: ie - include the name of the sponsor and give a ballpark idea of the prize's remit.
   
   
2. What evidence is there that women have been "passed over" for illigitimate reasons, rather than for ligitimate ones?
   
   The founders of the Prize did lots of research into how prizes were awarded and who they were awarded to in the process of setting up the Prize. Much of this information can be found in the article – http://www.belletrista.com/2010/issue4/features_2.php – and video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHelFLucl9Y.
   
   
3. How does a women-only prize help promote the highest standards of fiction literature, given that literature is not gender-specific?
   
   The research conducted by the Prize has demonstrated that although writing isn't gender-specific, reading choices are informed by the gender of the reader - at least they are when the reader is male. While women and girls read work by both men and women, men and boys tend to read only writing by other men; this is why, for instance, JK Rowling's publisher encouraged her to write as JK rather than Joanne Rowling.
   
   And the Orange Prize brings great books by women from all round the world to the attention of both male and female readers, promoting fiction of the highest standard.
   
   
4. How can segregating female fiction-writers from male fiction-writers give the former the confidence to compete in the same arena as the latter?
   
   Celebrating writing by women - which is what both the Orange Prize for Fiction and the award for New Writers do - is not the same as segregating female writers from male writers . Every Prize has eligibility criteria: the Man Booker excludes writers from America, (amongst other places); the Somerset Maugham Award excludes writers over the age of 35; the McKitterick Prize excludes writers under the age of 40.
   
   The Orange Prize is awarded for a novel, written in English by a woman and published in the UK. It is not an isolated, isolating entity, but one amongst a constellation of literary prizes, all of which celebrate different aspects of writing, different writers from different parts of the world. Which is as it should be.
   

To be fair, my questions were pretty demanding difficult to answer, - mostly because the Prize is on the losing side due to its fundamentally- and fatally-flawed logic. (I will explain why later.) In light of this, Lisa did a good job of defending the Prize, and went so far as to convince me that she, the panel and the founders are not the spiteful, man-hating female chauvinists that might appear to be apparent.

She was also honest enough to admit that some of my points had merit and have been argued successfully by both men and women over the last 15 years of the Prize's existence. (Quite how she can give the Prize her full confidence in light of this, however, is beyond me.) As a consequence of our exchanges, a few changes were also made to the site's Q&A sections to make the answers more clear and less evasive.

However, there are one or two of Lisa's answers that are questionable, and a few points I made that have not been answered. For example, the "lots of research" mentioned as a reply to Question 2 is not available. Unless they produced a comprehensive paper on the subject compiled by the world's most forefront minds on the subjects of humanity, and unless they themselves are masters of the subjects of human psychology (and - dare I say it - sociology), which is doubtful, then I don't consider this 'research' to have much credence. Additionally, regarding Question 4, the fact that there are multiple segregations doesn't automatically justify any of them. I don't consider the question to be answered. "Because everyone else does it" is not, to me, a valid answer.

The last point I'd like to make is perhaps the most profound. It exposes the fundamental flaw of the Prize, and suggests a solution that would be much worthier than either the Orange Prize or any other Prize for Fiction, as they stand at the moment. It is for this reason most unfortunate that it was never replied to by anyone related to the Orange Prize.

If supposedly-unisex prizes such as the Booker prize are (whether intentionally or not) male-orientated, then surely the goal should be to correct this unfair advantage within that prize, rather than create a new prize to counteract it. The Prize is only adding to the problem by compounding it with more arbitrarily-segregated (and thus meaningless) entry criteria.

Here is my suggestion:

1. The judging rules should be sufficiently strict and pre-defined that the possibility of unfair bias is minimised. (Frankly, I am amazed in the "professional" world of prize-giving that this isn't in place already. Must I spell out all the obvious necessities for them?)
   
2. The exact reasons for the nominations should be recorded and traceable, so that they can be checked independently for signs of unfair bias.
3. The shortlist manuscripts should be presented to a panel of judges who have no knowledge of the works' authors or content.
4. The manuscripts should only contain the text of the work, and no details that might give away the gender of the author (or any other biases that are irrelevant to the quality of the works).
5. The judges should be locked in separate hotel rooms, with no access to the outside world (e.g. internet), until they have made their nominations. This would cut out the possibility for the judges conducting research that may instil unfair bias in their judgements.

There. Problem solved. Surely. Unfortunately, of course, there would be people out of a job - albeit people with a limited view of the big wide world that they're trying to navigate (badly). But that's for the best, surely: Bring someone in to do the job who's worthy. Someone who doesn't care about arbitrary groupings, who is more interested in the worth of literature in itself. Only then can we have prizes that are founded on good reasoning, and thus worth winning. It that really too much to ask?

Sheilas' Wheels Revolve Again

You might remember, in my last post, that I made an open letter to Sheilas' Wheels regarding the sexist and unfounded "fact" that women are better drivers. I sent this letter both to Sheilas' Wheels and the Advertising Standards Agency, hoping that the former would make a U-turn, or at least put the brakes on the spreading of such lies.

No such luck (or sense). Here is the Advertising Standards Agency's response (edited for brevity, without omitting or altering relevant content):

Thank you for contacting the Advertising Standards Authority. I’m sorry to hear that this ad has caused you concern.

We’ve carefully considered your complaint and the ad in question, but I should tell you that there doesn’t seem to be a case to answer under the Code on this occasion. Section 45 of the Sex Discrimination Act permits preferential treatment in relation to certain types of insurance, and we note that the broadcasters and publishers received substantiation to show that female drivers have a better claims record on their motor insurance policies than male drivers. This doesn’t, of course, mean that there are no good male drivers or that women drivers don’t have accidents. Whilst I do appreciate your concern regarding the claim “It’s official- women are better drivers” we note that the leaflet immediately explains the advertisers basis for this claim, and taken as a whole we don’t consider the ad likely to mislead consumers. I also understand that you find it offensive, however, we consider that the ad is merely playing against the generalisation that women are bad drivers, and given this we believe it unlikely to cause serious and widespread offence on the basis you suggest.

Although we don’t propose further action, I’d like to thank you for taking the trouble to raise this matter with us.

So there you are. It seems that you get nowhere as an individual writing letters of complaint. If this sort of response is typical for my type of complaint, then it is obvious why organisations like Fathers for Justice have resorted to using physical stunts coordinated by groups. It might seem immature behaviour on the face of it, but then the system they're battling against is immature in its views: the only way they listen is by being shouted at, put in the media and coerced into doing the right thing.

Sadly, rather than realise the errors of its ways on moral grounds, Sheilas' Wheels chose to expend its energies developing a defense of its claims. It was equally dismissive, and refused to answer the specific and clear points that I made. Their response (edited similarly):

Thank you for your letter [...] We are always interested to hear our customer's [sic] views [...]

We apologise if you found the Sheilas' Wheels literature insulting as this was not the aim of the leaflet. Sheilas' Wheels marketing materials, such as this leaflet, is intended to make women aware of a brand that recognises the lower insurance risk that women represent, whilst providing great benefits at competitive prices.

All our marketing materials go through a stringent approval process and are not released into the public domain without careful consideration of content, including messages and any substantiation used.

I hope this alleviates your concerns and thank you again for taking the time to write to us.

Interestingly, they 'apologised' for the insult. Now let's examine that more closely. If I tell someone to go stick their head in a pig, then just saying "sorry" is not a real apology. The only way to apologise is to admit its inappropriateness and withdraw the insult. An insult is done deliberately, to someone else, without regard for their feelings or well-being. It is a callous and thoughtless act that does not take into account the damage it might do to an innocent party.

The "apology" is thus irrelevant. The only two valid points the letter makes are that they wanted to flatter women, and that the material was approved by an internal body. The problem is, of course, that they aimed to flatter women with flagrant disregard to men. Their response, then, simply says that they knowingly approved a leaflet that demeans men.

Well, at least they're honest, I suppose.

But even if its assault on men is technically within the law, it isn't necessarily within the spirit of the law. Section 45 of the Sex Discrimination Act (as quoted by the Advertising Standards Agency) allows the use of statistics by insurers to show facts that provide gender bias. However, surely this does not extend to making an absurd claim that one sex is "better" than the other, nor of abusing the word "fact."

The next stage would be to campaign. But why should it come to this, when it's merely common sense and decency? The answer, of course, is that companies are not there to be decent. They're there to make money in whatever way they can get away with. And the law needs to be changed to stop them. Not that this is likely until more enlightened times: men-bashing is fashionable.

As I've said before, the message is clear: it's OK to be sexist, as long as it's against men.

- - - - -

Update (13.03.11) - It seems that this saga has taken a funny turn. As from the end of next year, it will be illegal for car (and other) insurers to discriminate on grounds of gender. While the sentiment makes sense (at least in the case of car insurance), I can't help but be suspicious. No doubt, it'll be used as an excuse for the insurers to make more money by putting insurance premiums up per person on average. I also have no doubt that that's exactly why the legislation was passed. Secret/golden handshakes? Corporations controlling the European Court? Surely not...