Nathaniel Givens at Difficult Run has done some fascinating data analysis on the 2015 Hugo Awards/Sad Puppies controversy. Among other things, he writes:
Back in 2013 a Tor UK editor actually divulged the gender breakdown of the submissions they receive by genre.
So, over the history of the Hugo awards from 1960 – 2015, 79% of the nominees have been male. In 2013, 78% of the folks submitting sci-fi to Tor UK were male.
And:
If you have a situation where men and women are equally talented writers and where men outnumber women 4 to 1 and where the Hugo awards do a good job of reflecting talent, then 80% of the awards going to men is not evidence that the awards are biased or oppressive. It is evidence that they are fair. In that scenario, 80% male nominees is not an outrage. It’s the expected outcome.
I read the Tor UK article and drew the same conclusions. The data analysis is definitely worth a read.
Image labelled for reuse: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/7/11314489_a7c52be257_b.jpg
