Once again, I wasn't speaking exclusively of editors, just struck by a thought about women's participation by this particular list.

The participation of women does not seem to be self-evident to a great number of folks who think women had no interest until the late sixties--or who continually claim that science fiction was so much better before women came along and gave it girl cooties.

And you read Russ and LeGuin before you were 10? Gosh, that makes you an expert in women's participation in science fiction and the history of scholarship and debates on the topic! I bow before your omniscience on the topic of what women scholars are interested in! Certainly the fact that you haven't tripped over something means it doesn't exist. Absolutely.

What I was accusing you of not having read was, in fact, the vast majority of writings by women scholars on the history of women's participation in science fiction. Obviously having read Russ and LeGuin when you were a kid means you're utterly conversant on the issue, and I am mortified that I could have been so foolish as to believe otherwise.

Incidentally, the book I read "yesterday" was not either of the Larbalestiers, but Secret Cabal. I would recommend it, except I have a suspicion you'd find some sort of nitpicky detail to disqualify it from actually talking about the things it talks about.

I was speaking exclusively of magazine editors. Amazing, that, in a thread about such. :)

To your crack re: R/LG, no, it means that I am possibly more interested than most.

I have read a LOT of writing on the history of science fiction. As I said, possibly more than you have. This includes the usual suspects Russ, Le Guin, Sargent, Merrick, Merril, Williams, etc. Do you have Sussex's She's Fantastical? :)

It is also likely I have read more actual science fiction by women than you, as opposed to histories, bibliographies, criticism, journal articles, etc.

You are making assumptions again. Why would I have mentioned annoying lack of distribution if I didn't care? I've actually even added the odd thing to the feminist sf wiki in the past. Hardly likely to do that if I didn't give a rat's rear, or was 'refusing to read stuff because of trivialities'. A quite ludicrous statement, even. From vague memory I think I did a list of sword wielding women in SFF for Laura Quilter when she asked on librarything, speaking of nitpicky trivialities I shouldn't care about. I don't think there was anything there about the magazine editor topic either, or at feministsf.org, last time I looked, anyway. Which was a few months ago.

You read Catherine Helen Spence or Rosa Praed? I've put my own time and effort into making some early Australian sf by women available, too. Hardly the act of someone who is only going to indulge in dismissive sneering such as you suggest.

You are getting rather snarky, just because I brought up a perceived lack that probably is an actual lack. That is if the implication is that you have read huge amounts of writing by women about SF/are an expert in such and don't know of such work.