Mary Gentle is pretty damn awesome
I hesitate to try unfamiliar male sf/f authors, because there’s just so much of a higher chance of their female characters being few and poorly drawn within those genres.
Which is a fair call. But sometimes all I want from a book is an idea to play with, sure the book would be better with characters and good female characters, but sometime a simple plot is enough for me. Same is true of a rollicking space opera, usually written with paper thin characters regardless of gender. And sometimes I want the characters to be something other - the ships in Iain M Banks' novels as well as few really good explorations of true aliens.
Sheri S Tepper, Octavia Butler, Andre Norton, Anne McCaffery, James Tiptree Jr, CJ Cherryh or Mercedes Lackey (amongst many others) ... Julian May, Elizabeth Bear, Martha Wells, Connie Willis, Tanya Huff, Elizabeth Moon ...
Also Ursula Le Guin, Vonda McIntyre and Ann Leckie (being read right now) ...
Hell yeah. The genre's history is not great but the list of women in SF&F now is awesome.
I kinda think it would be hard to be an SF&F fan now and not read women it would seriously limit the authors you picked.
That said the recent debacle with the Hugo awards reminds us that there are dicks everywhere
Nope I was thinking at the time of Susan R Matthews. I'm pretty sure I've read Nicola Griffith's Ammonite but it appears to have gone from my memory. Which is cool because I can read it again :).
a Bogan sees a politician as having no redeeming value to society
They are not alone
I'm mostly a SF and Fantasy reader. A genre with a long and storied history of sexism.
But also genres with some amazing authors who don't have penises. I rarely think about the gender of the author although I have to say I've been bemused that some of my favourite female authors are gay. I have no idea why or even if it has any relevance at all.
Just 2 minutes too slow.
Pretty sure the comment about Zadie Smith is referring to the practice of giving cigars as fairground prizes.
But data and method are not the same thing, and I was discussing method alone.
So despite the fact that several experts (Dr Black et. al., are experts) have called your data rubbish* you are still happy that you applied the analytical method correctly.
We have a bunch students here learning how to do science. None of them would be so utterly stupid as to persist with your line of reasoning. If any did we would consider it a failure of our teaching.
Honestly I understand your reluctance to admit you were wrong. It is entirely human and normal. But by continuing to insist that what you did was just fine you are convincing me (and I'm guessing others) that you should have no role in managing this country. That opinion carries over those for whom you work, The Labour Party.
I'm guessing you (and/or your employers) believe that any damage you do now will be forgotten by the next election and that the votes you lose are balanced by votes you gain. If that is true, again it convinces me that you should have no role in managing this country.
You have hurt a large group of New Zealanders and continue to do so and you don't seem to care.
*My word, they simply highlighted the multiple flaws in your data collection
You harmed people with this.
Your response is that the ends justify the means.
And you didn't mean to harm them so it's OK.