“It appears that gradually, over time, editors have begun the process of moving women, one by one, alphabetically, from the ‘American Novelists’ category to the ‘American Women Novelists’ subcategory.” –Amanda Filipacchi, “Wikipedia’s Sexism Toward Female Novelists,” The New York Times, April 24, 2013
“Around 90 percent of Wikipedia editors are men, and it shows.” —New Scientist
A lot of women people (as opposed to men people, or just “people”) are upset that Wikipedia editors have created a subcategory for “American Women Novelists.” But I’m not. I’m stoked! This could be the best thing that’s ever happened to women novelists like me.
First of all, I can stop competing with Jonathan Franzen. Franzen has been a real pain in my lady parts, and now that we’re not in the same category, I can stop feeling so awful about my writing. While I knew in my heart’s core we would never be in the same league, now we’re literally never going to be in the same league. Such a relief! I mean, for real.
B.) There’s also less competition within my segregated field. Because fewer books by women are published, I have a higher probability of success. (That’s how math works, correct?) Like my woman parent always says, “It’s easier to win when everyone else is losing. Now let’s go clean the toilet!”
Apparently the list of “American Novelists” is too long, so I see why subcategories are necessary. It’s like when my inbox is too full and I have to archive certain emails and forget about them forever. (I have email folders for “Etsy Sales,” “Sephora Sales,” “The Atlasphere: Ayn Rand News, Dating & Social Networking Newsletters,” and so on.) Organization and labeling are supreme virtues, above most other less supreme virtues like equality and fairness. I’d like to see Wikipedia continue this helpful sub-categorization. “American Women Comedians” is an obvious one.
I was immersing myself in women’s literature the other day—by that I mean I was reading a cookbook—and that’s when I knew what I should do. I will write the next Great American Woman’s Novel. It’ll be part romance fiction/journal/doodles/
One chapter will be an audio file of Taylor Swift songs.
One chapter will be just emojis.
One chapter will be my grocery list.
One chapter will be a link to my Pinterest page.
One chapter will be manufactured with drops of my blood, sweat, and tears.
One chapter will be me making a sandwich for all the “American Novelists.”
If I have any deep, universal, logical thoughts or opinions, I’ll write them down on Post-Its and then chew them up and swallow them to maintain the illusion women don’t write about those things.
Of course I’ll write TNGAWN with BIC for Her pens, designed to fit a woman’s hand. The XY pens I’d been using were heavy and obstructed my flow of words, but BIC for Her’s comfortable and innovative design makes writing a pure pleasure. The pink one is for writing thoughts I’m thinking and the purple one is for feelings I’m feeling. I’ve outsourced the typing to a man helper to whom I pay 30 percent more for the work than I would ask to be paid were I employed as an outsourced typist.
I’ll publish the novel via my self-publishing operation Books by Her, and some smart men in design and marketing will slap on a cover that my cervix can really identify with—like a canary yellow cover depicting high-heeled shoes atop a glistening martini glass made with bits of the glass ceiling we just totally cracked by letting it crash to the floor.
It’s true that books by women aren’t reviewed as often in thought-leader newspapers and magazines, and it’s a vicious cycle—women are systematically underrepresented in reviews, so they have fewer “credible source” citations on Wikipedia, so fewer wombyn are “notable,” so people who browse Wikipedia based on notability won’t readily see them—that I’d rather stay out of. And anyway, more women than men buy books; ergo, my novel will be a bestseller even if no one hears about it.
I could fight subcategorization—encourage writers of femininity to start editing Wikipedia, to create new entries and flood the system with new perspectives, maybe alter the way information is organized, possibly influence how a story gets told, just do tiny, fixable things that make it easier for women to gain equality—but that’d take me away from writing the next Great American Woman’s Novel—tentatively titled All the Single Ladies Just Wanna Have Fun!
***
[N.B. In “Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist — That’s Why It Needs You,” Deanna Zandt offers resources available for beginners to get started editing Wikipedia:
- Wikipedia has a welcome library of resources that includes handbooks and videos on principles of editing and how to use the editing tools.
- WikiWomen is a collective of people interested in supporting women’s activities in the community. It’s both a rallying cause and resource for women’s participation, as well as a supportive environment in which to learn.
- The Teahouse is a community gathering spot on Wikipedia for newcomers (of all genders) to ask questions and get help with problems they might be having.
- Of course, [Deanna’s] own work: I teach introductory webinars and workshops on Wikipedia principles, tools and resources, and have tailored those workshops to primarily women-centered groups.]
***
Please submit your own funny writing to our Rumpus submission manager powered by Submittable. See first: our Funny Women Submission Guidelines.
To read other Funny Women pieces and interviews, see the archives.
20 responses
I love this. I’m going to read it again now.
Ayn Rand still appears in the non-gendered lists “Paul Ryan Recommends” and “Hypocritical Horseshit From Russian Expatriates Who Went On The Dole While Urging Folks To Pick Themselves Up By Their Bootstraps.”
Hee hee hee.
By the way, one could also learn some of the skills that Wikipedia sorely needs by seeking academic or professional training in a number of fields, including editing, information sciences, ontology, terminology … all fields that women are quite well represented in, as it happens.
Because who thought an encyclopedia made up by everybody was better than having one edited by editors and written by experts?
“I was immersing myself in women’s literature the other day—and by that I mean I was reading a cookbook…”
I just can’t get enough of Elissa Bassist. More, please!
@fabulist: hahahahahahaaaa! even better.
I started to copy my favorite lines into the comment box so I could do this irritating thing: <— hahahahahahaha, but I had to stop, because it was fucking all of them.
Wait, if I have to pick just one:
One chapter will be me making a sandwich for all the “American Novelists.†<— hahahahahahahaha
Hi-Effing-larious.
Because this author and the NYT author decided to pick a fight instead of simply going to Wikipedia and making their case, now Wikipedia is in the rather interesting position of having to move entries from the too-large American Novelists category without touching the women. The result will be that the American Novelists category will only contain females, and still it will be too large. If they had simply gone to the category talk page and expressed their concern, something could have been worked out, such as moving entries into 20th century novelists, 19th century novelists, etc. But hey, why cooperate with the existing Wikipedia editors to settle the dispute with discussion and consensus when you can beat Wikipedia with a club instead?
If that’s your idea of a solution, then you’ve completely missed the problem.
Funny…for a woman.
Actually, Brian, that’s a perfectly reasonable suggestion. There is no gender barrier to entry into the Wikipedia sandbox. To prove this I’m going to create a Google account for Marka Folse, which is what Expedia and Wagonlit book me under and which could taken for an (Odd) woman’s name and create the Fat American Novelist list. Or the Underappreciated Middle Aged Poets list.
..that my cervix can identify with. Ha ha!! Love it.
Beaucoup de bruit pour rien.
The rules on gendered/ethnic/sexuality categories are clear – they are to be non-diffusing (which means, membership in the child should not preclude membership in the parent).
However, not all editors know this, nor do they always follow it even if they do know it, but it’s not sexism IMHO, it’s just more laziness.
In any case, the american novelists category is now being diffused by century. Within a few months time, there will be no-one left in the category at all.
However, other forms of ghettoization remain endemic. It can be fixed, but it just takes time and effort – and remember, these are all volunteers. So please come, and help de-ghettoize if this is important to you.
If you want to try your hand at categorization of one bio in a non-sexist, non-racist way, come take the sexism quiz – it’s much harder than it looks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Correct_categorization_quiz
cheers
That sounds like Lena Dunham’s upcoming novel.
Brilliant. No one could have said it better.
Oh, Elissa Bassist, I <3 you.
Thank you, Elissa.
To those who love Wikipedia: I don’t think the point of this satire is to bash Wikipedia. It is to express a deep fury at this kind of shit that happens again and again, not just in Wikipedia, for whatever reasons they happen (including the purported non-sexists reasons). Real good satires come from a deep sense of anger, injustice, and a pinch of hopelessness; though I believe Ms. Bassist is far from feeling hopeless about Wikipedia, since she indicated the ways in which one can go about “doing something about it”.
To summarize and reiterate, this article is about this kind of shit that happens in society at large and to female writers in liturature related circles in particular. We must laugh at it in order to live with our fury.
Elissa, I love you, your writing, your you- ness. Thank you for channeling so many of my thoughts ( or do I channel yours). You give me pleasure that is usually hard for me to access. I would like to think that your brilliance is shared by all my sisters but I fear you are one lonely whisper. I hear you. Thank you.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.