"What do you consider an acceptable split?"

This assumes that there's no way to judge by story quality.

If you can treat all slush as a contest, and strip author information off before reading, then that would be one thing. If you are looking for market (necessary to remain in business, I'd think), then established names would factor in. If you are afraid of negative numbers from any current (or long running) controversy, then be sure to take the name implied sex into consideration.

There's too many factors to boil it to a simple "split". Fair is quality of work, not whether your name is Dick or Jane.

I'm ok with 60/40.

To be honest, it's not so much gender as type of story I notice: there's a difference between what I would consider a story pitched at a predominantly male audience (plot-driven; the hero goes and saves the world, or at any rate has a significant impact on it; the hero tends to be male), and a story pitched at a predominantly female audience (character-driven; the hero tends to be a heroine but not always; the problems to be solved are usually much smaller--the main focus tends to be about working out relationships).

To take relatively recent ROF examples, "Girl in Pieces" by Graham Edwards and "Blood and Oil" by Josh Rountree are male-type stories in my book, and "Gift from a Spring" by Delia Sherman and "Transformations" by David Barr Kirtley are female-type stories.

The reason I split things this way is that what I tend to notice is the split between both those categories, and I'm happier when they're roughly 60-40(with a couple of pieces that don't really fit into my very schematic system, of course).

75% women with 24% duck and 1% men.

now go make it so.

I personally don't give a rats ass how it is split up male vs. female. I just want the best stories to get published.

And yes, I am female, and yes, I'm sure some people will consider me to be a traitor to my half of the species but there you have it. Quality over equality in this case.

The only time I ever think about gender ratios in what I'm reading is when this is brought up, and I'm of the mind that so long as a magazine is providing content I enjoy reading, regardless of gender, I'll continue to subscribe. For me personally story is everything and if man writes a story that speaks to me on a deep level, then that's fantastic. That's not to say that I don't believe in the idea of "boys stories" and "girl stories", but I don't believe that they are exclusive to any particular gender of writer. I think male authors are just as capable of producing "girl stories" and women authors can produce "boy stories", so yes, I'm in the same boat with Aliette. My tastes dwell closer to "girl stories" than to "boy stories" and so I seek out magazines that publish stuff closer to the vein I like. Though I have to admit that there are magazines in the genre that I feel have a definite "boy/male" vibe to them and I don't read them because of it. They could have tons of female authors for all I know, but I don't read them because they're not publishing the kinds of fiction that I enjoy reading.

So in the end, splits really don't matter much to me as a reader. The fiction itself does.

It's a catch 22 no matter which way you argue the topic.

Peronsally, I think the goal should be to get the best stories possible. Who submitted it doesn't matter. Of course, there are caveats related to marketing for the latter. But if you exclude that exception to the rule (that you're going to buy a story from an author that will sell your magazine if it's a good enough story and not necessarily a superior story), I think good to superior stories should always be the goal.

The current wrinkle I'm seeing here on LJ and elsewhere is more a marketing question. X should buy stories from X and Y evenly, or buy more stories from Y than X so they can market magazine M or anthology A to the X and/or Y audience.

I can only imagine that magazines such as Asimov's, Analog, F&SF and RoF aren't approaching acquisitions from a gender-driven viewpoint as much as a marketing one. Namely ... what story can I buy that will move copies? With the best stories winning. 60/40 or 40/60 or whatever percentages don't come into play as the primary concern.

For example, say Shawna had a change to buy stories from Neil Gaiman, Gene Wolfe, and Michael Moorcock, all at reasonable prices and all available for issue #1234. Then there's a story from little know author W, whose gender is female rather than male, and they've subbed a good to superior story. You've only got space for three stories. Which do you choose? The "go down in history as the best issue ever" stories of Gaiman, Wolfe and Moorcock and keep the W story for the next issue? Or do you "balance" and make an issue that isn't a GDIH issue?

I'm sure it's always a balancing act, because of that darn marketing, but aren't you always trying to make an issue that people will enjoy reading? Rather than make an issue that promotes a particular agenda? If you publish good stories, won't people want them? It seems as if the other method, putting together an issue to sell to a particular market, would be non-productive from a strictly marketing perspective, whereas putting together the best issue always would make more sense. Money versus politics.

You can't make everyone happy all the time. And the people who are going to complain (as they did about F&SF a while back and it's alleged sexism) will find a reason to do so, no matter what. "I'm not included, so obviously you're being unfair." Where's the proof? There's a lot of logic failures in some of these arguments.

I'm a married man, with two daughters, and three female cats. So, I'm outnumbered on the gender front in my house, and I'm very conscious of disparities. I want fairness. I don't want favoritism.

If the goal is to put together a slanted TOC for a particular gender-related issue, then that's the goal. I'll applaud it.

I feel Jonathan did the best that he could do with what he was given. He says he solicited stories from female authors and they happened to be the ones who pulled out this time. That he's being called on the fact that only one woman provided a story and didn't cater to a particular agenda from people interested in putting together a different type of anthology, and focused on putting together a good anthology, especially in light of the debate over the last edition, shows some character.

In other words ... you're correct to say there isn't a right answer on a split. :-)

Honestly, I think that would depend entirely on submissions. If you only receive 2 "male" submissions and 58 "female" ones, then it's a bit difficult to do a 50/50 split. Also, quality level; gender doesn't really determine quality of writing, so it may not really be possible to say "half of each should be great," unless half of each are.

Heh, and I have not at all answered this question, so let me try to give an solid reply: I believe it has to be situationally determined. I don't want to read a female author just because she's female; only give her to me if she's good, gender be damned.

I agree with everyone who says "good" trumps gender. Perhaps the question that's really being asked is, do male editors think stories from male writers are more often "good" than stories from female writers? Do men just "get" each other on a different level?

And conversely, do female editors think stories from women are more often "good" than stories from men? Do women just "get" each other on a different level?

Frankly, I believe it all boils down to one person's taste--the editor's. And whether or not he/she is in touch with his/her readership's taste (male and female), I guess only sales can tell.

I'm not sure what the question was -- do you mean stories by authors of particular genders, stories with protagonists of specific gender, or stories aimed at/favored by particular genders?

It's about quality. I mean, in a perfect world where you had a plethora of perfect submissions... then sure, try to go 50/50 but definitely don't limit yourself by it.

Besides, alot of people write under pseudonyms, so you could be publishing a woman writing under a man's name! Or vice versa!

I can't see how it possibly matters. A good story is a good story, and gender doesn't have a thing to do with it. I don't ever look at my writing and think, "Well, I need to have a certain number of guys and a certain number of girls in this story." I just write the characters into the gender I think they belong in. And when I'm looking for something to read, I don't think, "Well, the last book I read was written by a man, so this time I'll read something by a woman." It just seems silly to me, personally.

I don't even notice stuff like this. That probably makes me a Traitor to the Sisterhood or something.

But it seems to me that it depends on a number of factors:
1. the ratio of male and female subs
2. the quality of those subs
3. whether the names on those subs will actually sell magazines
4. whether the plots of those subs will sell magazines

I think that "what's fair?" is the wrong question. It's not really an issue of "fairness." What's right is buying the best stories you can regardless of the sex of the submitters. If that means you have an all-male issue or an all-female issue every once in awhile, so be it.

I have found that the percentage split in my publications tends to align with the gender percentages of those who submit the stories. i.e., for one of my anthologies, around 33% of the stories submitted were by women, 67% by men. The ratio of stories that I accepted were within a percentage point I think.

My most recent anthology has the opposite percentages, 77% of the stories are by women, 23% are by men, which reflects the approximate percentage of all the submissions for that book.

Does it matter? A good story that fits the magazine is a goos story that fits the magazine. Period.

(As long as the editor doesn't refuse to look at stories by authors of a certain gender, that is.)

I agree for the most part with what folks are saying here. As I mentioned in my conversation with Cat, I pass along what I like/what I believe has merit and deserves a look.

For my part, I believe the 60/40 split is a good guideline (for ROF) because if I ever found I was favoring one sex or the other too heavily in how I pick stories, there could be an argument made that I may be completely missing out on a certain type of story. Just as writers shouldn't limit themselves, I don't think editors should either. That goes with the caveat of what you're editing. With ROF, I need to be receptive to ALL kinds of fantasy to excel at my job.

I can't speak for other editors, but I'd be shocked if itvaffected me. As I noted in my conversation with Cat, I'm quite content with how I'm doing things ...

I think the editor has the responsibility to at least examine the gender ratios at play and ot question their own biases. And if they are consistently producing material that accords with their own position (particularly if they are in a dominant group) then they might want to think about trying to find ways of expanding their taste.

That's at the broader level though. At the individual level of reading a story, I think the editor still owes the author and the readership of the magazine their intellectual honesty; that there is, at least to some degree, a compact between editor and reader that they will provide the material that they consider best, regardless of other factors like author names or demographics.

I consider an acceptable split to be that the editor buys the best stories that appeal to his or her editorial preference. If their editorial preference doesn't attract a wide enough audience, the magazine goes poof.

Authors who are genuinely afraid their work might not be fairly evaluated because their name is Bob or Sue should consider initials and pseudonyms.

Authors who don't think any current magazines fill their reading or writing preference should consider starting their own magazine.

Authors who think the world owes them attention should be shot.

I think what really matters is what kind of stories are the people in your magazine's target market looking for? I've been reading Analog for about thirty years now, and when I pick up a copy I'm looking for primarily plot-driven "boy" stories, not relationship-driven "girl" stories. I don't care about the writer's gender, but when it comes to that magazine I want something like an 80/20 split as far as the type of story goes.

If I want a different balance I'll read a different magazine or a book.

The right balance is always the balance your audience is looking for.

I tend not to notice gender distribution unless it is heavily skewed in a certain direction. If a magazine consistently has a very low percentage of women on its ToC, and publishes mostly white boy stories, I am unlikely to continue reading the magazine. Theoretically, I would prefer to see a 60/40 balance in either direction. In practice, I have been just fine with a 30/70 balance. I raise my eyebrows at a 20/80, become quite unhappy when I see a 10/90, and very unhappy when I see 0/100.

An example: there are issues of F&SF in which no fiction written by women is featured. There were none this year AFAIK, but last year the issues in question included Feb. 07, Apr. 07. The last one features a poem by a woman, not sure whether this was done in order to balance the ToC? F&SF usually does not publish poetry. They are pretty good about having one woman on the fiction ToC, though often the woman has a generic name, such as M. Rickert, so the ToC still looks overwhelmingly male(Dec 07).

I'm not sure that the people framing this as "quality over equality" or vice versa understand the issue, since that's not something anyone is saying, at least as far as I can tell.

I think you have an interesting point regarding editorial vision. Some further pondering:

What if a gender-skewed editorial vision (I like boys' own stories, for example) is being presented as a fair and balanced view of a genre? At that point, can one draw the line between editorial vision and editorial bias? Hypothetically speaking, if one puts out an anthology called "Best SF of the year", I'd think that implies that it's representative of the genre as a whole. So if it's all-male or all-white or all-middle-class, I'd see that as marginalizing the people I most like to read and read about. If it was or all-cyberpunk or all-dystopia or all-far-future, I'd see it as a biased vision. And if it was all-female, etc, I'm sure I'd hear the screams of outrage from out here.

So I think I'm trying to say that editorial vision can *be* bias, especially when it's presenting itself as neutral. The two bleed into one another. It's not just that they can be confused for one another.

Maybe. Thoughts?

Whatever the long-run proportion of submissions is.

It depends on the market. For example, Realms of Fantasy strikes me as as a publication that due to its advertising and content would want to appeal to a larger female audience. I don't know what your readership split is like or your marketing or business objectives, so I may be wrong.

But if, lets say, Realms of Fantasy strives for a large female readership, has advertising that targets a female readership, then it should contain product and authors that would attract that readership. Thus you'd be more likely to find and pursue stories by women, about women and of interest to women.

Now if Realms of Fantasy's main target was women and its readership was overwhelmingly female I might expect the magazine to look, feel and feature maybe even more female authors. Not saying men can't write for women but it's the same thing I would expect if reading a publication aimed at Indo-Canadians: a larger TOC of Indo-Canadians than say a regular, mainstream publication.

So to answer your question it depends very much on what kind of magazine you are handling. It also depends how you want to be perceived. Do you have an interest in attracting a female readership? If so are your covers attractive to females? Are the authors attractive? What if you're trying to attract Latin American readers? Would the covers, the names on the cover, the design and stories attract them or not?

Many times I see people caught up with intent: no, I did no intend to seem unappealing to women. However, if that's the way it comes across and you wanted a share of that market you should study to see what you're doing.

Also, markets are not static. It's a good idea to re-examine your assumptions. You might have been doing a great job 5 years ago and now you are shocked to discover your stuff is no longer relevant to the people you were trying to reach.

Anyway, I won't go on anymore but I think you get my drift. I think in your case consciously or unconsciously you may understand very well the needs of your magazine and this is reflected in your well-balanced slush choices. For others it might mean less or more conscious effort.

I suppose there are girl stories as opposed to boy stories. *shrug*

But it's pretty darn vague. Take a look at one of my favorite writers (and I do tend to prefer female writers): Elizabeth Moon. Is Deed of Paksenarrian a girl story? How about Vatta's War? They both have female protags, but beyond that I think I would be hard pressed to make that analysis.

The assumption that boys always write hard science fiction or epic fantasy and girls write nice cozy stories is erroneous and needs to be updated. In the '40s maybe -- even then I'm really not so sure.

You will find plenty of men who write cozy and women who write epic. So I still think that unless you're looking deciding by the apparent gender of the name on the submission, the way to go is to choose the best submission. Then if there are two that really don't have anything to choose between them (does that really happen?) sure I have no objection if you choose to try to balance gender.

I like to see female writers so it might encourage me to keep a subscription.

I don't give a rats ass about the gender. I want good stories.

I love the _work_ of writers of both genders.

I don't think a split should come into play in any way. I would think (or hope) that stories are judged by their quality and if they're a good fit for the pub in question. However the split works out is just how it works out.