Science fiction and fantasy novels routinely portray scantily clad woman on their covers - a device that draws the heterosexual male eye but may turn away women readers. Lynsea Garrison finds one fantasy author aiming to zap gender stereotypes.Turn away women readers? Let's look at the book that Hines is aiming to zap. It is called ALIEN DIPLOMACY and was written by Gini Koch, which appears to be the pen name of Jeanne Cook. It is described as follows:
Jim Hines straddles the remnants of a defeated alien species (a table), and clasps a pistol (a toy gun) as he triumphantly raises a cyborg's head (a toaster). Sometimes he fights battles alongside his romantic interest (a large teddy bear).
But no matter the mission, Hines shows some flesh. Just because he is waging a war, it does not mean he cannot be alluring at the same time, right?
Hines, a fantasy author, is posing like some of the female characters on science fiction and fantasy book covers he says objectify women.
Being newlyweds and new parents is challenging enough. But Jeff and Kitty Martini are also giving up their roles as super-being exterminators and Commanders in Centaurion Division while mastering the political landscape as the new heads of Centaurion's Diplomatic Corps. Enter a shadowy assassination plot and a new set of anti-alien conspirators, and nothing will ever be the same...
A "science fiction" novel about being newlyweds and new parents? Does this sound like something intended to appeal to men of any age in any way? ALIEN DIPLOMACY has 22 reviews; the reviewers' names include Shawna, Vicki, Dana, Kelly Books-n-Kisses, Miss Marion, Bvrly, Julie, Dana, Nikki, Kristin, Kitty, and Annie. There was not a single identifiably male name.
In other words, these idiot gamma males are nobly attempt to white knight for women and defend them from a female-produced product which is not only designed to appeal to women, but is successful in doing so! While the artists are men, they are knowingly creating these ridiculous covers to appeal to women. As the artist who designed the excellent cover for my own A THRONE OF BONES wrote, he enjoyed working on it because it is the sort of cover that is designed to appeal to men rather than women. And there isn't a sexy pose to be found on it.
It is women who most like to look at pictures of women, as anyone who has ever seen a woman's magazine or seen a woman scrolling through Pinterest will know. Given that this absurdly misguided activism combines science fiction, white knighting, and hapless socio-sexual cluelessness, it will probably surprise no one that SFWA President, Chief Rabbit of the Rabbit People, and proud gamma John Scalzi didn't hesitate to get involved.
The book whose objectification of women he is protesting is THE TASTE OF NIGHT, by Vicki Pettersson. It is described thusly:"Equal parts Light and Shadow, Joanna Archer must fulfill a destiny she never wanted. Once a photographer and heiress to a casino fortune, she is now dedicated to the cause of good . . . but susceptible to the seductions of evil."
Sounds like something aimed at men, doesn't it.... THE TASTE OF NIGHT has 47 reviews, by Jenna, Rita, Angela, Courtney, Phyllis, Jessica, Patience, Rhona, Kelley, Kelly, Shalonda, Chica, Karissa, Michelle, Debra, and Susan, among others. While 6 of the 47 reviews were by identifiably male names, they tended to be disproportionately represented among the lowest rankings given to the book.
This self-sabotage is what gammas doing what gammas always do. And their complete inability to understand female socio-sexuality is why their attempts to curry female favor through acts of service inevitably backfire. If you want women to be attracted to you, just watch what they do. Then do something, anything, else.
39 comments:
Gamma's are the worst because they don't listen. A beta will listen. An alpha will listen once he sees proof of concept and you crack his ego defenses. Gamma's are relegated to the dustbin in some ritual of self-flagellation that they seem to revel in.
I think its their damaged ego's defining themselves as "different". The true snowflakes.
Tilikum
I think you're right. Gammas seem to get some odd sort of pleasure out of self-abasement (something the Apostle Paul warned against, ironically).
The ignorance is on a spectrum. Even natural "alphas" don't "get" girls, as evidenced by their extreme ineptness at dealing with a oneitis whenever they stumble into one. Suddenly they turn beta. The difference is that they have a better understanding of, and ability to act out behaviors that are attractive and don't handicap themselves with most girls, which others do. It's the internet that's suddenly made everyone an expert on women, and that knowledge has been built on the experience of many and generalized. Now everyone is an internet alpha.
Yeah, facepalm, to bad the adjective modifies the noun.....
Not only do Gammas not understand girls, they don't seem to be terribly self-aware either.
They are mocking a supposedly 'sexist' cover. What they seem to forget is:
1. It's a book designed to appeal to women.
2. Women find women attractive.
3. Women like to imagine themselves as a dynamic character, especially the women that actually flock to books.
4. It's not even a terribly good book, and if it wasn't for those clowns I wouldn't have heard about it.
I recall learning a fascinating tidbit about women as a child...from an 'Archie' comic. Archie wonders why Veronica spends so much time dressing for him (and men in general), to which she replies: "we don't dress for boys silly. We dress for other girls"!
I was about 10 at the time. I've noted how 'women's magazines' always have 'sexy' women in them. If it was the other way around (good looking men in a men's magazine) it would be gay. Women don't want a magazine (or cover of a book) to have a 'realistic' woman on the cover. Who wants an overweight 'commander' on the cover? Preferably a young, super sexy 'warrior' - without a scratch on her of course.
These guys are complete twits. Still they are entertaining in their own way. Also, it means more women for the rest of us.
- Apollyon
"Women don't want a magazine (or cover of a book) to have a 'realistic' woman on the cover. Who wants an overweight 'commander' on the cover? Preferably a young, super sexy 'warrior' - without a scratch on her of course."
And fatty women never seem to put 2 and 2 together when they wonder why nobody is attracted to them.
If you want women to be attracted to you, just watch what they do. Then do something, anything, else.
This reminds me of the advice Lou Grant gave to Ted Baxter before his wedding:
Lou: Ted, you know the way you are?
Ted: Yes.
Lou: Don’t be like that.
HA! Small world. Solipsism warning- I didn't recognize his face or his name right away, but I used to work with the guy doing the posing (Jim Hines) about a decade ago. We both did IT support in the same building for a large government agency. In fact, he hired into the agency by accepting a position that I'd been offered but turned-down after being warned that the female supervisor had a history of being a tyrant (ironically enough, she later took a demotion to work in a city where her new husband lived, totally mellowed-out, and often asks me for assistance now). Jim was a "nice guy" (as are most IT guys) but he struck me as a definite "white knight" long before the manosphere taught me the term. Used to volunteer as a counselor on a crisis rape hotline, if I remember correctly.
Gamma's are the worst because they don't listen. A beta will listen...I think its their damaged ego's defining themselves as "different". The true snowflakes.
Spot on Tilikum, spot on.
I've had this exact same problem in a work context with one of our junior devs. I say "junior" but by all rights he shouldn't be. He's got 8 years experience, and is actually pretty damn bright. He could be a superstar developer, but he won't listen.
He's addicted to an overly "clever" coding style, writing complicated, baroque code because, I guess, he thinks it makes him look smarter, more special. All it does is cause bugs.
But he simply will not listen to me. But then why should he? I'm only a) a guy with thirty years experience as a professional dev (first job at 15), b) have architeted systems two orders a magnitude more complicated than anything he's ever even seen, and c) his boss.
Yeah, gamma all the way. In the sexual hierarchy he's married to an obese (but kind at least) woman in her twenties with medical issues that mean she can never have children. In the social hierarchy he can't figure out why ignoring his boss causes problems. He's able to do enough good that I don't fire him, but he's never going any farther in his career. Because his ego insists he's special and that means he can't listen to anybody.
The snowflake comment is true too. Another hint that gammas are men with partially female brains.
as you say, it's true that inexperienced and naive men (boys, actually) are front-line troops of the Mangina Militia
classing them as "gamma" or "beta" or whatever is where your Game Cult yabble goes awry
most men dont really grow into themselves unitl their thirties, or even forties, and it's not possible (even for Expert Theorists like the Gamers and PUAers) to know what is in the soul, and in the potential, of that young man
to fix him into an alphabetical rank/position, especially at such early ages (20s or 30s) is just nonsense . . . it's like telling a four year old boy that he's a lower-rank b/c he hasnt accomplished enough in his life lol
in my twenties, Gamers would have called me a beta shlub, or gamma, or whatever term is even lower!
but they'd have been wrong b/c of jumping to conclusions WAY too soon
Game and PUA thus erroneously attempt to fix young men into spiffy and facile categories, and then arrogate to themselves (and most of you are just kids anyway) the capacity to "help" and "teach" such a young man, based on his assigned rank
it's all just foolishness . . . and worse, b/c by interfering in such a way, and basing the young man's value/future on his temporary developed-stage in youth, you have precluded God from shaping that young man's life in his best interest (an interest which only God, and not Rossy, knows)
once infected with Game Principles, the young man artifices his own still-developing character to fit silly things like screwing many women . . . and having altered himself artificially to pretend to be "alpha," he then can't ever find out who he really is
it's so sad -- he ends up being this manufactured goofball whose life revolves not around his own authentic nature, but the artifiial nature and character peddled by the Gurus of Game
when he's forty, is Rossy going to then give him back his authentic self -- the one God wanted to develop in him gradually?
"Gamma's are the worst because they don't listen. A beta will listen. An alpha will listen once he sees proof of concept and you crack his ego defenses. Gamma's are relegated to the dustbin in some ritual of self-flagellation that they seem to revel in."
As a (recovering) Omega, I am curious where exactly I fit into this, because it's spot on.
This guy is so stupid it makes me want to bash my head against a wall. Does he even know the authors of the books he thinks he is mocking are female?
"Gamma's are the worst because they don't listen."
Wrong. Omegas are the worst because they don't listen and it wouldn't matter if they did. There is a small sliver of men - Omegas - that have absolutely no chance to ever attract a female that they, in turn, find attractive. No. Matter. What.
I love those Vicki Pettersson books. haha She totally appeals to women because she has a tough, sensitive, battered and confused lead character. It totally speaks to women's wishes to overcome adversity, even if it is solipistic. I read books and watch tv shows to get lost and not have to think. I think when I read news articles and I'm a junkie for the news but sometimes, I just gotta go frivolous.
Ray,
I used to think pretty much just like you do, but I don't believe that any more. I've seen too much evidence that your view, my former view, is usually wrong.
I'm not entirely sure I buy the complete specturm Vox has for men, and it's possible he has overspecified some things. For instance, I think the difference between Beta and Delta is learned rather than inherent - I think men can move between the two with an attitude change. Same maybe for Alpha and Sigma, though that behavioral difference is learned at a younger age and more difficult to change later.
But, Alpha - Beta - Gamma is very real, and I believe inherent in the physical structure of a man's brain, not in his personality or upbringing. Especially Gamma. There is something structurally different in how a gamma thinks. Something strucutally feminine.
I don't mean they are gay, they're not*. But just like the majority of women have an inherent tendency to certain thought patterns regardless of the environment they were raised in or the actual personality they developed, so do gammas. They are solipsistic, they take things personally, they prefer venting about a problem to solving it, and they have a very hard time believing anything that contradicts their world view.
I'm not sure what brings this about - doesn't seem to be genetic. Maybe it's too much soy-based formual when they're small, or not enough vitamin-something in their mom's diet while she was carrying. But whatever the reason, the social areas of their brain are wired like a womans, and that makes life hard for them because they are otherwise men, and so everyone else expects them to act like men. But they can't. It's just not in them. Wish it wasn't that way, but if wishes were horses...
* I wonder if life might actually be easier for them if they were.
As a (recovering) Omega, I am curious where exactly I fit into this, because it's spot on.
Are you asking where you currently are? If so, I'll ask you - what do you complain about when things are going wrong at work?
If you complain about the poor quality of help available or the general obstacles clueless bureaucrats put in your way, you’re Alpha.
If you complain about the short-sightedness and general incompetence of your bosses and/or co-workers, you’re Beta or Delta.
If you complain that all these problems really suck for you, and if the morons would just listen to you it would all be better, but of course you never actually speak up so it’s impossible for them to listen to you, you’re Gamma.
If you don’t complain about things sucking because you’re used to things sucking, and frankly this particular new type of suckage is an interesting change of pace from the usual suckage, you’re (still) Omega.
If you don’t complain about things but just snicker quietly to yourself and slip out the door unnoticed with a fat consultant's check and/or the cute receptionist, you’re Sigma.
"Are you asking where you currently are? If so, I'll ask you - what do you complain about when things are going wrong at work?"
No, I meant just in the context of the quoted passage.
I already know where I slot in, either Omega or low Delta with Omega characteristics.
Ah, well, I think the majority of Omegas listen, but I'm not sure most non-Omegas have very good advice for them. The smarter Omegas probably realize that and just smile, say thanks, and go back to what they were doing.
Jack Amok: "If you don’t complain about things but just snicker quietly to yourself and slip out the door unnoticed with a fat consultant's check and/or the cute receptionist, you’re Sigma."
*smirk*
So that's what I am - minus the cute receptionist bit. A recurring gig is more important than some tail.
~YB
Omegas have a real pull just to get to Beta socially, but it is possible. IF they show up to class, that's half the battle right there. The fact that you recognize the deficiency without rationalizing like a Gamma means....du dun dun...you can get better! Infinitely better.
Tilikum
Kind of sounds like something a Gamma would say to an Omega to make himself feel better/superior as opposed to dealing with reality (btw, that is the core of emotional pain, the inability to accept reality as it is presented)
Just sayin'
"jlw said...
"Gamma's are the worst because they don't listen."
Wrong. Omegas are the worst because they don't listen and it wouldn't matter if they did. There is a small sliver of men - Omegas - that have absolutely no chance to ever attract a female that they, in turn, find attractive. No. Matter. What."
Tilikum
A Godly man may be inclined to look away from Boris Vallejo / Frank Frazzetta style cover paintings. But I see someone who white knights about such paintings being an attention seeker and possibly unable to deal with whatever feelings of arousal they may get from that type of image. There is a certain radio psychiatrist who crusades against pornography, and while I agree with him on some of the negative results of exposure to porn at a young age, I think he doth protest too much. Combine that with his female centric marriage advice and books and I believe this doctor is a gamma. So to me, it's no surprise that Scalazi has picked up this issue too.
Too true about the novel covers that appeal to women. While men of course like to look at pictures of sexy women, they *rarely* conclude that a book with such a cover is worth reading, unless the sexy woman is a lesser part of a scene dominated by macho action or intrigue. This holds true for every genre.
I think there's a small subset of omegas that can improve. I think I was a full-fledged omega in grade school (extraordinarily passive, too shy to say "hi" back to strangers), and now I'm a high delta who can fake beta/sigma (Voxian beta, not Roissian beta) on early dates, though I still tend to regress to delta in relationships.
As an omega, I actually had a few things in my favor. I was so far out of the social hierarchy (e.g. I have no idea what the cliques were or who was friends with who in my high school) that I had nothing to lose. So when I discovered Game (which I found utterly counterintuitive in every way), I had no investment in my old way of doing things, because I had virtually no friends to put up resistance against my changing. In this sense, gammas have it worse because they're part of the social hierarchy. I was so socially oblivious, I wasn't even in the tribe.
If an omega is intelligent enough, the biggest barrier isn't learning social skills (which I did in my 20s) or Game (which I did in my 30s); it's making the transition from passive to aggressive. Working out is crucial, a low-carb diet helps a lot, some guys should consider testosterone replacement. But I also had to spend a lot of time looking for opportunities to be aggressive and force myself to go through with them. I've made lots of progress over two decades, but the results sure didn't come quickly. Some of the most useful resources for me were ones that taught me how to hold sexual tension and not break it, e.g. David DeAngelo's newsletters and 60 Years of Challenge's ebooks. There's a bunch of little exercises that teach you how to resist your inner loser.
I don't think most omegas could make this transition; I was lucky that I was able to recognize truth when I stumbled over it, and that I had nothing to lose.
Jack Amok --
"But, Alpha - Beta - Gamma is very real, and I believe inherent in the physical structure of a man's brain, not in his personality or upbringing. Especially Gamma.
There is something structurally different in how a gamma thinks. Something strucutally feminine"
ok well pretty theoretical . . . i do believe in a certain level of predestination when it comes to such things, but i also believe in the opportunity for men to improve themselves in diverse ways w/o reliance on set and artificial techniques, such as Game
i'm not a biological determinist what a depressing universe THAT would be) and the static-state of status that you propose just isnt confirmed by my observances over the past 4 decades
at 20, females wanted little/nothing to do with me, and Game wouldve countes me a hopeless beta, or delta or whatever, who was in need of Game Techniques and books and retreats etc to "teach me" how i can "be like an alpha"
by 35, all that changed (yes without Game! mostly by hard work) . . . now, whether i became an "alpha" who can say? and i dont give a shit.... guess i'll have to wait for rossy's verdict ;O)
what i'm saying JA is that waiting to become myself in my 30s proved infinitely better than if i'd re-structured myself at age 20 to mimic the alpha etc that Game teaches
i would have invalidated myself, essentially, and while i understand the shit deal that young men in the west now have, i've gotta speak up against going the Game route
fortunately when i was 20 nobody was going around telling me i was "only" a beta, or was an inveterate sigma, or whatever
it's better to trust in God to develop you into your full manhood, but i do get the desperation and suffering that young men are now experiencing, so the temptation to grasp at easy solutions is understandable
Ughh, its like another Sci-fi's Lost Girl in print. No thanks. The reviews are boring, emo and makes the book appear unreadable.
Not interested.
This irritates and annoys me on several levels, but particularly from a professional standpoint, as I write both sci-fi and fantasy (and erotica and non-fiction and children's books, but primarily sf-f) and what this dude says is just . . . wrong. Where to begin?
1) Sci-Fi and Fantasy novels rarely have a "hot girl" ala Franzetta or Vallejo on the cover, more's the pity, because human figures on the cover don't sell sci-fi and fantasy books do better with pictures of horses (see below).
2) The Cycle of Ice and Fire and Tolkien notwithstanding, the majority of Fantasy readers are women. The books with horses or other animals on the covers of fantasy books tend to do better with women. (Note: I'm excluding "vampire porn fantasy" from this genre for obvious reasons) Books with swords on the front ten to do better with men.
3)That plot he describes is . . . abysmal. Shameful. I'm not going to say it's not sci-fi, because it is; I'm not going to say it's going to suck, because there is the tiniest sliver of a possibility that he's a good enough writer to pull it off, but...I wouldn't bet on it. Otherwise, it should be shot at dawn with the sun in its eyes.
4) This is what happens when you don't have adequate strong father influences in your sons' lives, Gentlemen. Somewhere along the line this doofus never went from reading about adventures to actually having one. He's an emotional Walter Mitty with enough narcissism to write, but not enough to be good. He's a walking Gamma poster-child, living in a land where men only get to be men in the context of sci-fi or fantasy while living lives of quiet, frustrated servitude while their alter egos have fun adventures, and even then, apparently, when the limits of their imagination have been set free they're still Gamma enough to write crap about a new baby, and not a unique narrative perspective offering entertaining insight through speculation.
I weep for my genre. But if this is my competition in the marketplace, I got nothing to worry about.
Lokland
Vox, could you describe the difference between omega and gamma on your hierarchy?
Does everyone here forget that you can't truly judge your own social/sexual hierarchy?
This is judged by those around you.
Anonymous, for goodness sake, look at the links on the website before asking such silly questions!
Go here:
socio-sexual-hierarchy
"Kind of sounds like something a Gamma would say to an Omega to make himself feel better/superior as opposed to dealing with reality (btw, that is the core of emotional pain, the inability to accept reality as it is presented)
Just sayin'"
Maybe so. I'm an Omega myself. Thanks for playing. Drive home safely.
"Omegas are either totally indifferent to women or hate them with a borderline homicidal fury."
by 35, all that changed
So we see, Ray.
Women LOVE to be obejectified, this man is a fool. Why do you think we wear heels, because they feel good?
I think we should all write to the female author and let her know that she is being persecuted by a man who wants to control her freedome of choice.
Chicks dig jerks:
"He's not the cutest, but he's sweet." NS. "He's kind of an asshole, but he's hot." TSM.
From TotalFratMove
Those basterds are disgusting!!!
My eyes! They burn!!!
I'm a male and of course I like looking at pictures of women, but I noticed non of the books I've purchased have ever had a cover like the ones Hines and Scalzi are mocking. I like my scantily clad to unclothed females relegated to pin-up art books or internet searches. If I see a cover on a book with a chick in leather pants holding a crossbow I figure I'm not in the demographic and stay away.
Ok, this thing has been wondering me for quite a bit and this isn't necessary "relevant" to the topic, but I gotta give it a shot. Why on earth the social ladder goes; Alpha(the man's man), Beta(previous one's lackey who gets the scraps that are still at least 8's), Gamma(girly and narcistic male-bitch in his own rosy fantasy) and Delta(the average guy).
Why on earth Gamma, who is the potential stalker is "higher" on the ladder(Gamma is the third letter of the Greek alphabet) than Deltas, the average guys? Seems to me those guys are way closer to Omegas and/or restraining orders?
Or is that just a coincidence?
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.