Oranges vs. Bananas, or, The One in Which Yr. Humble Correspondent Gets Himself into a Whole Heap o’ Trouble

Posted 24 March, 2008 in Awards |

The longlist for the Orange Prize has been announced, and, not for the first time, it has caused some controversy by provoking cries of sexism. That’s right: sexism. The Orange Prize, you see, is open only to women, which has prompted some critics to label it exclusionary and unnecessary.

These critics may not be the ones you assume they are. Knee-jerk antifeminists (you know who you are *cough* Christopher Hitchens *cough*) are easy targets, but when charges of sexism come from writers such as the prolific, award-winning, and (not incidentally) female A.S. Byatt and Anita Brookner, you know something interesting is going on.

Byatt told the Times that the Orange prize is “sexist,” and went on to say, “Such a prize was never needed.” She feels so strongly about the matter that she has refused to allow her books to stand for nomination. Brookner decries the prize’s positive discrimination, and the Times claims that she “is also believed” to have disallowed her novels to stand for nomination. The Orange Prize carries a cash award of £30,000; the decision not to let one’s work stand for nomination is a clear case of putting one’s money where one’s mouth is. At least it can never be said that these authors lack the courage of their convictions.

Panic Girl, for one, is not convinced. Calling the arguments against the Orange Prize “boring” and “rage-inducing,” she suggests that the award is needed “until women are equal players in the world.” This reads like the doctrinaire pro-feminist position, the same way that Byatt’s accusation of sexism reads like the doctrinaire anti-feminist position (the mere fact that someone is in possession of a double-X chromosome does not ipso facto render that person a feminist, at least not always).

On the one hand, it’s easy to agree with Panic Girl’s point of view. A quick scan of Western history will indicate that much of it has been devoted to campaigns among the empowered (read: white men) to keep the powerless (read: women and minorities) down. Still, it’s hard not to sympathize with Byatt and Brookner, although perhaps not for their stated reasons.

The arguments in favour of the Orange Prize inevitably point to the lack of representation of women among the large “unisex” prizes such as the Man Booker Prize or the Scotiabank Giller Prize — both of which, I hesitate to point out, were won last year by women: Anne Enright and Elizabeth Hay, respectively. The 2007 Costa award also went to a woman (A.L. Kennedy), as did the Books in Canada/Amazon.ca First Novel Award (Madeline Thien) and the Governor General’s Literary Awards for English Non-Fiction and English Drama (Karolyn Smardz Frost and Colleen Murphy, respectively).

It’s hard to tell whether a bias against women exists among prize juries. One could note that in the fourteen years of its existence, the Giller Prize has be won by men ten times (including the year 2000, when it was effectively won twice by men — David Adams Richards and Michael Ondaatje tied). But it’s unclear whether this points to a systemic attempt to prevent women from storming the barricades of CanLit, or whether the sample size is too small to get an accurate picture of the literary landscape.

But this perceived systemic bias against women — the idea that “the playing field is still not level” — is a red herring, in my opinion, when it comes to the Orange Prize. So too is the charge that the prize fosters a reverse bias against men. Although one can easily imagine the furor that would erupt should someone decide to launch a competing prize — let’s call it the Banana Prize — open exclusively to writers in possession of a Y-chromosome, this line of argument tends to obscure the real issue.

The compelling argument against the exclusionary nature of the Orange Prize, it seems to me, is that it implicitly insults women. This is a facet of the prize that the doctrinaire feminist line elides. The prize insults women by suggesting that they are not capable of playing in the big leagues, and need a special award all to themselves for validation.

Notwithstanding Panic’s assertion that one should avoid comparisons between sexism and racism, the argument here is really much the same as that which could be made against the Toronto District School Board’s recent decision to fund an Afro-centric school in Toronto. The implicit assumption on the part of the TDSB is that Afro-Canadians are incapable of getting ahead in the public system and so must be placed in an environment that gives them an edge, in which they don’t have to compete with people from other cultures or backgrounds. This, to me, flies in the face of everything that the Civil Rights protesters of the ’60s — not to mention the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark ruling Brown v. Board of Education — achieved. This mentality belittles Afro-Canadians by assuming that they are inherently less able to compete in a public school environment than is everybody else.

Similarly, by hiving off female writers and claiming that they need an award of their own, the proponents of the Orange Prize implicitly suggest that Heather O’Neill, Nancy Huston, and Deborah Moggoach aren’t capable of being measured against Martin Amis, Ian McEwan, and Kazuo Ishiguro. This, I submit, is a sexist assumption. O’Neill, Huston, and Moggoach have every claim to be counted not among the best female writers working today, but the best writers, period. This is where the Orange Prize comes up short.

Feminism, in my understanding, was always supposed to be about equality. One needn’t look too hard or too deep to realize that equality of the sexes is not something that we’ve achieved yet; women still face undeniable discrimination professionally, domestically, and socially. Still, it’s hard to see how a literary award that implicitly separates women writers from the front lines of literary distinction will help much in this regard.

14 comments to “Oranges vs. Bananas, or, The One in Which Yr. Humble Correspondent Gets Himself into a Whole Heap o’ Trouble”

Kerry, March 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm:

• Feminism *is* about equality, and the day that men and women achieve equal status in our society, I hope that the Orange prize is carted up and put away. But in the meantime, there is every reason to celebrate women’s writing in particular. Not because it can’t compete in the big leagues (because– as you’ve shown– it can, and it does) but because in terms of readership, women’s writing is still marginalized. The many men who DO read books by and about women men often strike me as exceptions to a rule. (If you could prove me wrong about this, I would not at all be displeased. I’d probably have sweet dreams.) And yes, it would be inappropriate to turn the argument around and stage the Prize for Male Writing, due to the lack of equality I already mentioned. To be a man or a women aren’t quite parallel experiences (yet).

  I do appreciate your thoughtful and non-boring, non-rage-inducing post.

Sarah, March 24th, 2008 at 8:52 pm:

• Why, oh why, in *1996* was there some kind of need for a female writing prize? No true need (isn’t the point of feminism that equality is such a given that my child’s generation won’t even know who Friedan is?). The prize is just another cash grab. But then again, I’m with Camille Paglia: “Feminism has become a catch-all vegetable drawer where bunches of clingy sob sisters can store their moldy neuroses.” Or, at least when it comes to that comatose-inducing female fiction with the safe book club covers that pervade the shelves these days.

August, March 25th, 2008 at 12:40 am:

• Similarly, by hiving off female writers and claiming that they need an award of their own, the proponents of the Orange Prize implicitly suggest that Heather O’Neill, Nancy Huston, and Deborah Moggoach aren’t capable of being measured against Martin Amis, Ian McEwan, and Kazuo Ishiguro. This, I submit, is a sexist assumption. O’Neill, Huston, and Moggoach have every claim to be counted not among the best female writers working today, but the best writers, period. This is where the Orange Prize comes up short.

  Feminism, in my understanding, was always supposed to be about equality. One needn’t look too hard or too deep to realize that equality of the sexes is not something that we’ve achieved yet; women still face undeniable discrimination professionally, domestically, and socially. Still, it’s hard to see how a literary award that implicitly separates women writers from the front lines of literary distinction will help much in this regard.

  I have been making this same argument (about my reading choices and about curricula choices in the various schools I’ve attended, not the Orange Prize) for years, and have never really been taken seriously in most forums–especially not in academic ones. I find the notion of fostering equality though segregation preposterous. Though ignoring the problem will not make it go away, I think that making the initial selection criteria something that is completely irrelevant to the quality of the work to be the absolute worst possible thing one can do, as far as any sort of art is concerned. What an author has between their legs has no bearing on the quality of their work, and as such should be of no concern to a jury (or in my view, should be of no concern to potential readers; there are dozens of authors on my bookshelf for whom I have neither gender or ethnic data, and it does not concern me in the slightest). Just as you say the Orange Prize should be insulting to women writers, I find such things insulting as a reader.

  I’m also glad that you point out that being a woman does not automatically make one a feminist. A.S. Byatt herself wrote, in The Biographer’s Tale:

  Feminism was one of the secondary reasons I had given up post-structuralist theory. There is an (almost) irresistible urge to distort or misrepresent or ignore or overemphasize facts and items of information, in feminist theory. It is also not really possible to say so.

  While she put those words into the mouth of her male narrator, having read nearly all of her work and many, many interviews and critical examinations of her work (that’s my fault for writing my thesis on The Biographer’s Tale, I suppose), it seems more than reasonable for me to attribute those views to Byatt herself. Despite being claimed quite often as a feminist author, she quite clearly has a deep dislike of third-wave feminist theory (perhaps one of the reasons I so identify with her work).

  I think I’ve said too much now; I’ve entirely lost track of what I wanted to express… So yeah, good on ya for this post.

Andre Singh, March 25th, 2008 at 9:57 am:

• Equality versus Equity - the debate continues. I wanted to point out the difference in reality versus spin. You referenced the TDSB’s recent vote to approve a PART (Program Area Review Team) to look at the logistics of creating an alternative Africentric School at the request of some 200 black families who (rightly or wrongly) feel that their children would be unable to finish school in the current system.

  You draw the following conclusion: “The implicit assumption on the part of the TDSB is that Afro-Canadians are incapable of getting ahead in the public system and so must be placed in an environment that gives them an edge, in which they don’t have to compete with people from other cultures or backgrounds”

  That’s a pretty big assumption. Especially since the TDSB didn’t come up with the idea. It was driven by members of the black community - folowing a process that sees the TDSB with 30-something odd alternative schools. It’s also looking at a 40% drop-out rate among black students. Following the logic of your conclusion above, I could assume that 40& of black kids drop out because they can’t compete with kids from other cultures or backgrounds. That doesn’t wash for me.

  It’s way too early to tell whether or not the Africentric school is a good idea. Senior Staff at the TDSB will come back to the trustees in May (I think) with the logistics of what such a school would look like in regards to curriculum, staffing, accountability, discipline, etc and then the Board will vote on whether to actually approve such a school. And they will have to figure out where the money to fund such a school will come from. And should they decide to fund such a school - and implement a proper curriculum with proper supports around it - I wonder what the drop out rate will be among attendees of that school. I wonder what the comittment and creativity of the staff of that school will be like. I wonder what approach to discipline the administrators of that school will take. The question we should be asking is what we can learn from a pilot project such as this - if it’s done right. What can we take from this and apply to all schools.

  And remember - everyone has their own definition of Africentic or black-focused (how many times have I heard it referred to as black-only) but the Board will define it their own way come May 2008. And they’ve already said it’s open to any student, of any colour, race, or creed, who wants to go. That decision of attendance, however, will be made by their parents - whatever colour or sex they might be.

Panic, March 25th, 2008 at 10:22 am:

• Oh dear. It’s never a great idea to hold me up as an example of anything, cogent feminist writer included.

  That said, yes, I’m both angered and bored by the op eds I read every year when the Orange Prize lists are released. I realise it sounds odd to put those two emotions together, but it’s exactly how I feel. To a smaller degree with the people who say “Well that’s odd, I don’t think we should have that anymore”; at least there’s a useful discussion we can have around that, and maybe everyone comes out learning something. Where my paradoxical-sounding emotions really come out, is reading the guy who used the opportunity to slag off women all the way through his piece (and the others like him). And the comments that followed that were fiercely misogynistic. To paraphrase: “fuck those bitches.”

  The prize insults women by suggesting that they are not capable of playing in the big leagues, and need a special award all to themselves for validation.
  This argument always makes me laugh. I doubt very much the authors nominated feel at all insulted. Further, maybe you should let women decide what insults women, hmmm?

  Also, I had some beer last night. A tiny amount. Like, a thimble! So, I’ll be amazed if this is actually in English.

  P.S. Coupland.

Steven W. Beattie, March 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm:

• Andre: Point taken, and it is too early to adequately judge whether the idea will fly or not. You’re right, a 40% drop-out rate among African-Canadian students is untenable, and clearly the current model isn’t working, so perhaps it’s time to try something new.

  Having said that, the idea that giving any specific group a leg up by segregating them, as August points out, appears somewhat backwards. Better to work within the public system to ensure that African-Canadian students have access to the resources and support they need in order to achieve, rather than summarily removing them and placing them in a school unto themselves, no?

  Panic: You had me until your P.S.

  Seriously, I hold you up as a cogent example of many things — feminist, literary critic, pain in the ass (sorry: Coupland again) — and I think you make some very good points. (I wouldn’t be interested in engaging in the argument otherwise.)

  You may be right that the nominees don’t feel insulted, but it sounds like Byatt and Brookner do. And, yes, I am speaking from a male perspective, which is the only one I have available to me. Still, I try to consider myself to be something resembling a feminist (in that I support equality for women and try to combat discrimination), and I hope that my argument springs from those impulses.

  Personally, I don’t think that “fuck those bitches” is a sentiment that allows for any kind of coherent or useful discussion, but I realize that this is what the argument devolves to in a distressing number of cases (especially online). I aspire to hold the discourse to a higher standard, without shutting down serious debate and discussion of an issue that is, after all, of signal importance to men and women alike.

August, March 25th, 2008 at 3:40 pm:

• To be perfectly honest, the idea of giving any specific group a leg up at all strikes me as counter to any reasonable notion of ‘equality’. Equality, as far as I am concerned, means that all folks are equal, and so you treat all folks equally. Period. If you treat some folks differently than others in order to redress past inequalities (or more accurately, to be seen to be ashamed about past inequalities, since the notion that such a thing as genuine recompense for so fluid and subjective a collection of wrongs is itself more than a little preposterous) than all you are not ‘leveling the playing field’. You are in fact treating some folks differently than others, which is not the same as equality. By giving women a leg up, you are by definition giving lesser treatment to men, the transgendered (or differently gendered; gender politics are too complicated right for me to enumerate all the current possible genders) and so on. Likewise with racially-based initiatives. Giving a leg up to African-Canadians by definition not only gives lesser treatment to white Canadians (who, like men, are not some homogenous group with the same advantages of class, education, wealth, and circumstance, no matter what folks might say), but also to Indian-Canadians, Native-Canadians, Chinese-Canadians, and anyone else who isn’t African-Canadian. You either treat people equally, or you don’t.

  Giving a leg up to any one group redresses nothing, levels nothing. Equality is not a sliding scale. You either treat people equally, or you don’t. It really is that simple. What we have to get past, as a society, is the notion that by somehow shifting social and legal dynamics to compensate for this past wrong, or that consequence we see down the road is neither viable nor effective. If we want people to think of each other as equals, then we must behave accordingly, and that means no exceptions. I hate borrowing phrases from the politicians to the south of us, but this truly is a battle of hearts and minds. Addressing economic injustices and specific social ills are band-aids at best. What is needed is a comprehensive attack (ugh) on our thought processes and our behaviours at fundamental levels.

  What am I doing to foster equality? I’m treating people equally. Period. It is the only thing that I think will be effective, and the only measure I will endorse.

  Of course, there is the equality versus equity argument, and while I hate to do it, all I can really do is to paraphrase Dave Sim, and say that I believe that a society should guarantee equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Zachariah Wells, March 26th, 2008 at 2:37 pm:

• Interesting discussion. I’m strongly inclined to agree with August’s views (and with those quoted from Byatt’s novel by him). I went to an exclusive private school in Ottawa. This school did not exclude people on the basis of sex (it used to be all-male, but went co-ed in the 80s) or ethnic background, but on the basis of a)ability to pay the tuition and b)academic skills. Occasionally, someone accepted would later be expelled for reasons of their behaviour. Besides children of recent immigrants, there were many foreign students enrolled.

  A little later in life, I had a job in a workplace that was almost exclusively white male. This wasn’t a hospital, or a law firm or a bank, it was loading aircraft in the high Arctic–for a company owned by the Nunavik Inuit Makivik Corporation. Any assertion that the white males I worked with (mostly from farming and fishing communities in Ontario and the Atlantic provinces) had intrinsically more opportunity and privilege than the urban, wealthy, non-white females I went to high school with, is ridiculous.

  It is just about as ridiculous to say that, in the world of contemporary fiction, women are at a disadvantage. All the instruments seem to agree that the economy of fiction publishing is driven by women and many of the most prominent figures in world literature (not to mention the most influential single person in buying patterns, Oprah Winfrey) are double XXers. Female enrollment in English Lit programmes is decidedly higher than male enrollment. Mercantile, and not political, considerations are far more likely motivators for the establishment of the Orange Prize. Just as they are for all the other major prizes.

  And in the world of literature, as in the world outside literature, class origin is a far more likely predictor of success (or at least of participation) than sex is. Kids who are read to and who read themselves, are more likely to write. Other kids are more likely, not only not to write, but to drop out of school.

Kerry, March 26th, 2008 at 3:22 pm:

• Though I’ve never attended private school or worked in the Arctic loading aircraft, I do know that the fiction I love best to read and write being dismissed as “that comatose-inducing female fiction with the safe book club covers that pervade the shelves these days” indicates some kind of problem with perception. You may disagree, but for me this seems depressingly certain. The very reason, in my opinion, that the Orange Prize continues to be relevant and important.

Zachariah Wells, March 26th, 2008 at 8:04 pm:

• Kerry, there may be a problem with perception, but it’s not an intrinsically masculinist problem, at least not in this discussion. I said nothing about the fiction, Sarah (who I assume is a woman) did. If there is a lot of abuse heaped on this sort of fiction, I’d say it’s likely because of just how commercially and critically successful it is, wouldn’t you?

Kerry, March 27th, 2008 at 10:44 am:

• I’d say it’s not a problem of masculine/feminine binary at all, which is why men getting defensive about the Orange Prize manages to miss and underline the point simultaneously.

Steven W. Beattie, March 27th, 2008 at 11:36 am:

• Kerry: I’m not sure whether the problem you isolate is one of perception, or merely a difference of sensibility. Not wanting to put words in Sarah’s mouth — as if I ever could — the way I read her comment, she’s complaining about one particular type of women’s writing: i.e. the domestic, carefully crafted, minor-note (in the Philip Marchand sense) fiction of people like Bonnie Burnard, Jane Urquhart, and Anne Tyler.

  This, of course, represents only one strand of fiction being written by women today. There is a whole pantheon of other types of female fiction out there: the postmodernism of Jeanette Winterson, Ali Smith, or Lydia Millet; the edgy, tough novels of Mary Gaitskill or Darcey Steinke; the suburban satire of A.M. Homes; the antiromanticism of Barbara Gowdy, etc. None of which falls under Paglia’s (admittedly provocative) rubric of “clingy sob sisters” and their “moldy neuroses.”

  Personally, I would take Winterson, Gaitskill, and Gowdy over Burnard, Urquhart, and Tyler any day of the week, but that just says something about what attracts me as a reader. Presumably the Orange Prize is meant to celebrate the pantheon of women’s writing, without restricting itself to a particular kind of domestic, interior fiction. If not, that would seem to me to be yet another strike against it.

Kerry, March 27th, 2008 at 12:20 pm:

• Sensibility isn’t a problem of course, but perception is. Women’s fiction finding itself fitted into confines so limited that distinctions, considerations such as your own are rare. So that generalizations like “that comatose-inducing female fiction…” come to encompass everything ever written by a woman’s pen. (I will breeze past the derision of books about women, about womenly things, as those well as institutions dominated by women [bookclubs], which happens all the time.)

  And so what the Orange Prize does is show that such comatose-inducing conformity is not the picture after all. That in a selection of books by women, we’ll find selections as diverse as those you mentioned in your comment, as diverse as the longlist itself. Which is something I appreciate.

Finn Harvor, March 27th, 2008 at 7:55 pm:

• “I’d say it’s not a problem of masculine/feminine binary at all, which is why men getting defensive about the Orange Prize manages to miss and underline the point simultaneously.”

  I’m afraid I don’t understand the point here.

Your comment:

Name (required)

Mail (requried)

Website

Security code (Required)*
To prove that you're not a bot, enter this code