In my world of children's and middle grade books (which I think you should absolutely continue to write in, as per your recent note ;) ) 30% of main characters published in 2024 were male, and only 20% of authors were male. https://www.samsubity.com/mg-landscape-2024/
Every kid deserves to see themselves seen and represented in the books they read and in the authors who write them.
I’m curious what the breakdown is over the last ten years or so. Readers are choosing from a much broader pool than the last year, and I’d bet that pool skews make or at least equal. My guess is we’re still in a necessary correction period.
I read your piece with interest, especially the framing around "gender flight" in publishing. But as I sat with your words, a different undercurrent emerged—one that feels deeper, older, and more pressing than whether men are leaving literature.
You speak of shifts in gender representation as though they destabilize the value of the work itself. But what if the devaluation you’re noticing isn’t about gender at all, and instead is about power—how it resists change, especially when those historically excluded begin to speak?
In the past 5–10 years, we’ve seen a rise in trans and non-binary writers who are not only contributing to literature but expanding its very boundaries—stylistically, thematically, and politically. And yet they’re largely left out of conversations like this. Why? Could it be that publishing’s supposed “feminization” isn’t the problem—but rather the visibility of voices that have never been centered?
What you call gender flight might be better understood as a response to the erosion of a status quo that has long privileged white, cis, male, straight, Christian voices. When that dominance is questioned, the cultural reflex often isn’t curiosity—it’s recoil. That’s the context in which DEI is suddenly labeled “woke,” in which inclusion becomes a threat rather than a step toward justice.
Literature, as you said, helps us shape how we see ourselves. So I ask: Who do we become when we act as though the presence of women, trans people, queer people, people of color diminishes the intellectual value of writing? What does it say about our cultural barometer when the democratization of authorship is met not with celebration, but with skepticism and fear?
The conversation should not be how to bring men “back” to literature, as if their presence defines its worth. It should be how to honor the fullness of human expression and dismantle the systems that have told so many for so long: your voice doesn’t matter.
Because voices do matter—especially those that have been told, again and again, that they shouldn’t.
And if that’s discomforting? Maybe that’s what transformation feels like.
I’m non-binary myself, and I’m deeply aware of how often non-binary and trans identities are missing from these conversations. And yes, because of my own past, I’m quick to notice when something else is spotlighted as the problem—when it’s not.
This is a very thought provoking article. First, I agree that there needs to be male perspective in literature. A balance. When I think of young males who love to read, I think they need to see reflected back at them perspective that would guide them or challenge them to form their own male narrative.
The literary world needs multiple voices. That is what makes literature so exciting and a never ending journey open to vast exploration.
Second, I am a nurse practitioner and have said many times myself that because nursing is a female dominated profession, certain things continue to be the unaddressed norm( ie violence enacted upon a nurse, administrations looking the other way or discouraging the nurse take action on being assaulted by a patient). Thinking on your words written here provokes more thought into the devaluation of an occupation with a gender shift.
Your point about the literary world needing multiple voices is spot on, because, to your point again, that's what makes literature so exciting. And yeah, I think I will dive deeper into the devaluing aspect. There's a story there that needs to be articulated.
My question is: is this a writer problem or a reader problem? I doubt men and boys as readers are “feeling excluded from publishing.” They probably do not think about “publishing” as a concept at all, and if 50% of new hardback releases are by men (I’m curious about the breakdown in paperbacks), then they would be seeing about equal representation. The 70-80% number of women in publishing jobs seems to be where the concern is centered, along with the assumption (and it is an assumption) that gender is destiny, and all those female publishing professionals are going to “center” female “perspectives”. So much to interrogate here. Thank you for doing a thoughtful job on it with this essay.
Yes, I do agree readers aren't thinking about publishing as a concept but they are thinking about books. And if they aren't connecting to those books, then the outcome would be very much the same (or close enough) to have the same outcome (which is the feeling of exclusion). And yeah, that 70-80% does seem to be a thing. I don't think it's wrong to assume the high percentage of female editors, etc. have prioritized female voices. I think it's been necessary and the change in percentage of female titles is one stat the shows that, meaning I believe they needed to be doing that. I think what this discussion might be trying to bring out is this: are we still in the mode where we need this correction to be taking place?
Also readers are not paying attention to what’s “new” with the obsessiveness that writers are. I think in general readers are having no trouble finding books from a male perspective, unless they are looking in a very slim niche of recent “literary” releases.
If gender flight exists in mainstream publication, it is because mainstream publishers, through active and discriminatory practices in hiring, editing positions and mandates, are discouraging men to submit to them just this side of illegal discrimination. Genre fiction (e.g. science fiction, fantasy, mystery) were once dominated by men but a more equitable gender balance has been developed within the representative organizations.
And it is has never been truly the case that one genre has completely dominated one genre entirely, even if it some lean towards favoring others. (Nor even in the pursuits you note here, as some men are still involved). No one of any background should actively be excluded from the process of submitting material to any publisher; acceptance as well should be based only on merit.
Maybe the other perspectives males can read can be women’s. Women have historically read fiction by men; less so the reverse (because women’s perspectives, like their work, = less valid).
There’s plenty for boys to read in the world - if they ever decide women’s perspectives are equally interesting, educational, adventurous, and insightful.
As for Cooke’s men-only press, it’s as good an idea as any other imprint brand. I don’t know if it’ll get boys more interested in reading, but why not try? I wonder if boys will start a male-fiction focused booktok.
Yup, this is so confounding to me and I've tried to research why. Still can't figure it out, especially since women/girls have no issue reading men's books.
Amazing when you think about women having to adopt male pen names in order to be published not that many years ago.
It's hard for me to grasp, when even 10-15 years ago studies showed that female names were far less likely to be picked by publishers. (ie. test marketing the same manuscript under a female name and under a male name, the manuscript marketed under the male name was far more likely to be chosen.) It's hard to believe that the industry has flipped that much.
I don’t disagree with David. (It’s usually unwise to disagree with him!) But I do have additional thoughts.
I like the idea of people like Kern writing for boys, because the publishing company is trying to get more out of that market. And I would guess that there are other examples of companies thinking that way, because it’s capitalism and they’re trying to make money.
Even as I hear that publishing is foregrounding marginalized voices generally, and women writers over men— I hear that the industry isn’t making as much money as they used to. If these excluding policies don’t pay off, will publishing houses keep them up? If they do pay off, will people that are happy to see themselves represented eventually get bored and stop reading? I know that when I hear that a book is written by a straight white guy, I don’t assume that means I will like it. Will historically marginalized readers get to that point?
Maybe the indie presses that seem to have popped up to publish such stuff will remain the principle outlets for pandering fiction, and the big houses will turn away from it.
In recent years, we’ve seen social/political trends crest and then lead to a backlash. Because everybody seems to grab the steering wheel and immediately steer into the ditch. Neglect is followed by overreach, and that cycle happens over and over.
I don’t question the data, but I do question the conclusions sometimes. Is it really reasonable to see a malicious conspiracy in the industry, rather than a long-deserved sea change that could well burn itself out, perhaps leading to a healthier balance?
Then there’s a chicken-or-egg question about males and reading. Did men really stop reading because women pushed them away, or is it because in a society where reading has been replaced by a host of other recreations, isn’t it possible that some of those (video games) were pitched more at males, and not at women, thus goosing a landscape where women read more than men because they weren’t courted away from reading the way men were?
I have only anecdotal knowledge of this, but I’ve heard that when high-art industries like classical music and opera go out of their way to pander to black customers, it doesn’t always lead to profit because maybe black audiences don’t crave classical music written by dead black composers?
I don’t argue that any of this means it’s good that the industry isn’t looking for male writers, assuming that is basically true. But I think the things I’m bringing up should be considered part of the context. If this trend continues for a long time, I don’t think that will be good. But should we assume that it will continue, the way cheerleaders have continued to be mostly women? Obviously in that case sexism is driving the trend. But the publishing industry gender shift is more complex, especially when you consider that women are far more likely to read male authors than vice versa.
Also: I’m not convinced (though a lot more data might convince me) that writers can always be meaningfully seen through the lens of gender. I don’t want to read Sally Rooney, but many women critics don’t either. And several of my favorite writers today are women, but it’s not clear to me that these writers are pandering to women readers. Perhaps Rooney is— a debatable point— and perhaps some others are. But Diane Williams and Lydia Davis are writers whose prose I find inventive and thrilling, and Kelly Link is one of the best genre writers I know from any era, and there are many other terrific women writers around whose names escape me. There are a bunch of women writing fine weird fiction and I won’t list them here. It’s a long list.
I’m not convinced that framing it as a grievance is the best way to shift the ground, but I feel that way generally, whether the grievance-framing is being used by historically powerful groups or historically oppressed groups. I think grievance-framing leads to pandering, and I don’t think pandering is good for anybody.
So interesting! Thank you for making me think about this. Couple of thoughts:
1. We have two writers in our house, a female and a male. We're both struggling in terms of getting trad publishing to look at our work. What do we have in common? Age. We're in our sixties. Publishing is trending markedly toward younger writers and readers. Our perspective may be skewed, I admit, but I feel there's ageism going on.
2. Jude Cook and Conduit Press is interesting. Maybe we're headed toward a publishing industry that will be segmented into "niche" houses, each with their own specialty or target audience. In many ways, we're already there (or well along that path) and I'm stating the obvious?
Your point about ageism is interesting. I wonder if part of that is because authors today are being placed more in the foreground and that placement requires physical appeal, which lends itself to ageism?
Yes, I'd agree. And I hadn't even thought of that part. Good point! Building on this ... our culture has always been prejudiced against anything that doesn't hew to current standards of "beauty." Social media, being such a visual platform, amplifies that 100%. And when authors are expected/required to have a robust online presence, that's going to favor those who would be considered visually appealing.
-- love the facts in this, kern, and your take on it. i'd be interested to see, however, the earnings of male --versus-- female writers. i'd bet they're still out-earning us. which might make part of your point about men leaving an industry and salaries plummeting.
Now I'm interested in this, also. I think this would be interesting because we'd be comparing it from two different perspectives: advances and earnings.
In my world of children's and middle grade books (which I think you should absolutely continue to write in, as per your recent note ;) ) 30% of main characters published in 2024 were male, and only 20% of authors were male. https://www.samsubity.com/mg-landscape-2024/
Every kid deserves to see themselves seen and represented in the books they read and in the authors who write them.
Agreed. It makes a real difference. And yes, I think it's might keep writing. At least one more.
As many as you'll write well take! The kids like your 11 year old self need it.
I’m curious what the breakdown is over the last ten years or so. Readers are choosing from a much broader pool than the last year, and I’d bet that pool skews make or at least equal. My guess is we’re still in a necessary correction period.
That's a really good point and question! I'd be curious to see that data.
Kern Carter,
I read your piece with interest, especially the framing around "gender flight" in publishing. But as I sat with your words, a different undercurrent emerged—one that feels deeper, older, and more pressing than whether men are leaving literature.
You speak of shifts in gender representation as though they destabilize the value of the work itself. But what if the devaluation you’re noticing isn’t about gender at all, and instead is about power—how it resists change, especially when those historically excluded begin to speak?
In the past 5–10 years, we’ve seen a rise in trans and non-binary writers who are not only contributing to literature but expanding its very boundaries—stylistically, thematically, and politically. And yet they’re largely left out of conversations like this. Why? Could it be that publishing’s supposed “feminization” isn’t the problem—but rather the visibility of voices that have never been centered?
What you call gender flight might be better understood as a response to the erosion of a status quo that has long privileged white, cis, male, straight, Christian voices. When that dominance is questioned, the cultural reflex often isn’t curiosity—it’s recoil. That’s the context in which DEI is suddenly labeled “woke,” in which inclusion becomes a threat rather than a step toward justice.
Literature, as you said, helps us shape how we see ourselves. So I ask: Who do we become when we act as though the presence of women, trans people, queer people, people of color diminishes the intellectual value of writing? What does it say about our cultural barometer when the democratization of authorship is met not with celebration, but with skepticism and fear?
The conversation should not be how to bring men “back” to literature, as if their presence defines its worth. It should be how to honor the fullness of human expression and dismantle the systems that have told so many for so long: your voice doesn’t matter.
Because voices do matter—especially those that have been told, again and again, that they shouldn’t.
And if that’s discomforting? Maybe that’s what transformation feels like.
Thank you. I was waiting for someone to notice the elephant.
I’m non-binary myself, and I’m deeply aware of how often non-binary and trans identities are missing from these conversations. And yes, because of my own past, I’m quick to notice when something else is spotlighted as the problem—when it’s not.
This is a very thought provoking article. First, I agree that there needs to be male perspective in literature. A balance. When I think of young males who love to read, I think they need to see reflected back at them perspective that would guide them or challenge them to form their own male narrative.
The literary world needs multiple voices. That is what makes literature so exciting and a never ending journey open to vast exploration.
Second, I am a nurse practitioner and have said many times myself that because nursing is a female dominated profession, certain things continue to be the unaddressed norm( ie violence enacted upon a nurse, administrations looking the other way or discouraging the nurse take action on being assaulted by a patient). Thinking on your words written here provokes more thought into the devaluation of an occupation with a gender shift.
Well written Kern.
Your point about the literary world needing multiple voices is spot on, because, to your point again, that's what makes literature so exciting. And yeah, I think I will dive deeper into the devaluing aspect. There's a story there that needs to be articulated.
My question is: is this a writer problem or a reader problem? I doubt men and boys as readers are “feeling excluded from publishing.” They probably do not think about “publishing” as a concept at all, and if 50% of new hardback releases are by men (I’m curious about the breakdown in paperbacks), then they would be seeing about equal representation. The 70-80% number of women in publishing jobs seems to be where the concern is centered, along with the assumption (and it is an assumption) that gender is destiny, and all those female publishing professionals are going to “center” female “perspectives”. So much to interrogate here. Thank you for doing a thoughtful job on it with this essay.
Yes, I do agree readers aren't thinking about publishing as a concept but they are thinking about books. And if they aren't connecting to those books, then the outcome would be very much the same (or close enough) to have the same outcome (which is the feeling of exclusion). And yeah, that 70-80% does seem to be a thing. I don't think it's wrong to assume the high percentage of female editors, etc. have prioritized female voices. I think it's been necessary and the change in percentage of female titles is one stat the shows that, meaning I believe they needed to be doing that. I think what this discussion might be trying to bring out is this: are we still in the mode where we need this correction to be taking place?
Also readers are not paying attention to what’s “new” with the obsessiveness that writers are. I think in general readers are having no trouble finding books from a male perspective, unless they are looking in a very slim niche of recent “literary” releases.
This is very true. One of the magic of books is its endurance. We love older stories often more than newer ones. Such a good point!
If gender flight exists in mainstream publication, it is because mainstream publishers, through active and discriminatory practices in hiring, editing positions and mandates, are discouraging men to submit to them just this side of illegal discrimination. Genre fiction (e.g. science fiction, fantasy, mystery) were once dominated by men but a more equitable gender balance has been developed within the representative organizations.
And it is has never been truly the case that one genre has completely dominated one genre entirely, even if it some lean towards favoring others. (Nor even in the pursuits you note here, as some men are still involved). No one of any background should actively be excluded from the process of submitting material to any publisher; acceptance as well should be based only on merit.
So you would disagree with the premise of the Conduit Press I mention in this piece?
Probably so. I don’t think authors should be considered based on anything but the quality of their work.
Maybe the other perspectives males can read can be women’s. Women have historically read fiction by men; less so the reverse (because women’s perspectives, like their work, = less valid).
There’s plenty for boys to read in the world - if they ever decide women’s perspectives are equally interesting, educational, adventurous, and insightful.
As for Cooke’s men-only press, it’s as good an idea as any other imprint brand. I don’t know if it’ll get boys more interested in reading, but why not try? I wonder if boys will start a male-fiction focused booktok.
Yup, this is so confounding to me and I've tried to research why. Still can't figure it out, especially since women/girls have no issue reading men's books.
Amazing when you think about women having to adopt male pen names in order to be published not that many years ago.
It's hard for me to grasp, when even 10-15 years ago studies showed that female names were far less likely to be picked by publishers. (ie. test marketing the same manuscript under a female name and under a male name, the manuscript marketed under the male name was far more likely to be chosen.) It's hard to believe that the industry has flipped that much.
Yeah, kinda cool to see hapoen with a lifetime! (Meaning I've seen it happen within my lifetime. I know it has taken longer than that.)
I don’t disagree with David. (It’s usually unwise to disagree with him!) But I do have additional thoughts.
I like the idea of people like Kern writing for boys, because the publishing company is trying to get more out of that market. And I would guess that there are other examples of companies thinking that way, because it’s capitalism and they’re trying to make money.
Even as I hear that publishing is foregrounding marginalized voices generally, and women writers over men— I hear that the industry isn’t making as much money as they used to. If these excluding policies don’t pay off, will publishing houses keep them up? If they do pay off, will people that are happy to see themselves represented eventually get bored and stop reading? I know that when I hear that a book is written by a straight white guy, I don’t assume that means I will like it. Will historically marginalized readers get to that point?
Maybe the indie presses that seem to have popped up to publish such stuff will remain the principle outlets for pandering fiction, and the big houses will turn away from it.
In recent years, we’ve seen social/political trends crest and then lead to a backlash. Because everybody seems to grab the steering wheel and immediately steer into the ditch. Neglect is followed by overreach, and that cycle happens over and over.
I don’t question the data, but I do question the conclusions sometimes. Is it really reasonable to see a malicious conspiracy in the industry, rather than a long-deserved sea change that could well burn itself out, perhaps leading to a healthier balance?
Then there’s a chicken-or-egg question about males and reading. Did men really stop reading because women pushed them away, or is it because in a society where reading has been replaced by a host of other recreations, isn’t it possible that some of those (video games) were pitched more at males, and not at women, thus goosing a landscape where women read more than men because they weren’t courted away from reading the way men were?
I have only anecdotal knowledge of this, but I’ve heard that when high-art industries like classical music and opera go out of their way to pander to black customers, it doesn’t always lead to profit because maybe black audiences don’t crave classical music written by dead black composers?
I don’t argue that any of this means it’s good that the industry isn’t looking for male writers, assuming that is basically true. But I think the things I’m bringing up should be considered part of the context. If this trend continues for a long time, I don’t think that will be good. But should we assume that it will continue, the way cheerleaders have continued to be mostly women? Obviously in that case sexism is driving the trend. But the publishing industry gender shift is more complex, especially when you consider that women are far more likely to read male authors than vice versa.
Also: I’m not convinced (though a lot more data might convince me) that writers can always be meaningfully seen through the lens of gender. I don’t want to read Sally Rooney, but many women critics don’t either. And several of my favorite writers today are women, but it’s not clear to me that these writers are pandering to women readers. Perhaps Rooney is— a debatable point— and perhaps some others are. But Diane Williams and Lydia Davis are writers whose prose I find inventive and thrilling, and Kelly Link is one of the best genre writers I know from any era, and there are many other terrific women writers around whose names escape me. There are a bunch of women writing fine weird fiction and I won’t list them here. It’s a long list.
I’m not convinced that framing it as a grievance is the best way to shift the ground, but I feel that way generally, whether the grievance-framing is being used by historically powerful groups or historically oppressed groups. I think grievance-framing leads to pandering, and I don’t think pandering is good for anybody.
So interesting! Thank you for making me think about this. Couple of thoughts:
1. We have two writers in our house, a female and a male. We're both struggling in terms of getting trad publishing to look at our work. What do we have in common? Age. We're in our sixties. Publishing is trending markedly toward younger writers and readers. Our perspective may be skewed, I admit, but I feel there's ageism going on.
2. Jude Cook and Conduit Press is interesting. Maybe we're headed toward a publishing industry that will be segmented into "niche" houses, each with their own specialty or target audience. In many ways, we're already there (or well along that path) and I'm stating the obvious?
Your point about ageism is interesting. I wonder if part of that is because authors today are being placed more in the foreground and that placement requires physical appeal, which lends itself to ageism?
Yes, I'd agree. And I hadn't even thought of that part. Good point! Building on this ... our culture has always been prejudiced against anything that doesn't hew to current standards of "beauty." Social media, being such a visual platform, amplifies that 100%. And when authors are expected/required to have a robust online presence, that's going to favor those who would be considered visually appealing.
And now another elephant appears. Thank you.
-- love the facts in this, kern, and your take on it. i'd be interested to see, however, the earnings of male --versus-- female writers. i'd bet they're still out-earning us. which might make part of your point about men leaving an industry and salaries plummeting.
Now I'm interested in this, also. I think this would be interesting because we'd be comparing it from two different perspectives: advances and earnings.
Moving from the library to the study, I would like to see more women in political offices.