I am eligible to join SFWA, but haven't done so - partly because I don't consider myself a SF writer, other than the occasional short. Incidents like this don't exactly make me eager to join and see what I've been missing all this time.
The Latest SFWA Controversy
- Thread starter slhuang
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,926
- Reaction score
- 5,295
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
Please bear with me, because this will take a moment.
This is one of those simple, and thus often overlooked, human interaction matters.
Just because you didn't intend to hurt someone is no reason to deny that you hurt them.
An unintentional sock in the eye is apologized for, instantly and vehemently, even though it was unintended. Because it was unintended.
If it is not immediately apologized for, the accidental puncher is saying they meant to do it and don't care, even if that isn't the case.
If the accidental puncher then attacks the injured person for getting upset, if they yell about how good a person they are and that the person they accidentally punched is violating their rights and attacking them, they are behaving abominably.
By jovially telling hilarious old anecdotes about "lady" editors' beauty in the midst of an ostensibly professional publication, Malzberg and Resnick showed a lack of consideration for SFWA as a professional organization that cares about professionalism. They showed a lack of consideration for every person who cares about gender equality, or is bothered by the ceaseless unending grinding insistence that no matter what else, a woman's life is always defined by her looks.
The initial offense was a small one, true, a single sour note in a long discussion of the field. It could have been treated as a minor slip up, something to laugh about and correct. "Dude, that's so not cool." "Oh yes, you're right, sorry."
However, it appears that even minor attempts to bring up the issue were promptly crushed each time they came up on the SFWA forums.
And then came the latest column.
Malzberg and Resnick's rebuttal in issue 202 is breathtaking in its arrogance and its sense of entitlement and victimhood and its brutal attempts to marginalize and dehumanize critics of the earlier column.
Medievalist earlier provided links to online scans of the pages where the article can be read in full. I would recommend it.
There is far too much to quote. From the very first lines Mike Resnick brings in the issue of censorship (which was, as far as I know, not called for) and superciliously refers to "even Marion Zimmer Bradley (a woman)," a piece of sarcastic rhetoric which sets the tone for the entire six page rant.
I really do recommend reading the whole article. This is honestly how Malzberg and Resnick are reasoning:
You asked "how did Resnick and Malzberg violate this? Whom did they not consider a full human being in either the original anecdote or the rebuttal? To whom did they not show consideration?"
The answer is every person who objected to their lack of professionalism. Everyone they (falsely) accused of demanding censorship. Everyone whom they belittled as an anonymous complainer (so far as I know none of the complaints were anonymous -- they were made in person to John Scalzi and in nonanonymous forums online) or as a hypocrite (even if true -- and that is very open to debate -- how does that make what they did not wrong?) or intolerant (I am speechless), every person whom they compared to Stalin, Hitler, and Mao for daring to question what a beauty pageant and bathing suits had to do with professional editing.
Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg are ignoring, demeaning, brushing aside, and belittling every person who protested their actions. They are claiming that they, two award-winning authors of hundreds of published books with their own magazine column in which they have said whatever they liked for a decade and a half, are being victimized and censored by people who protest the casual treating of any woman, no matter how accomplished, intelligent, or capable, as an object for the male gaze.
Amadan
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 8,649
- Reaction score
- 1,623
I think it's really hard to read the crack about the swimsuit and infer anything other than "The other ladies joined 'cause they were afraid of Ms. Swimsuit Model seducing their husbands."
I get what you are saying about providing a glimpse of "how things were," but the whole tone of the article was not just a historical look at the way things were and how they've changed, but an unironic, uncritical paen to the glory days of White Dudes in Charge. And sure, Resnick and Malzberg are entitled to pine for those days and wax nostalgic about them, but the problem is that when people responded with eye-rolling and then "Hey, dude, really?" they went on an all-out offensive, calling their critics fascists. At that point, you've pretty much spent any assumption of good faith.
Bea wouldn't appreciate it. She especially wouldn't appreciate being remembered for her appearance instead of her skill as an editor and writer of SF. She was more than just "competent."
Heck even the title is wonky; "Literary Ladies"? "Literary Ladies" is the name of a church social club for writers, or maybe a book club. It is not how you refer to professionals and peers.
This is also inaccurate. They're talking about the 1980s, (I know, they say 60s and 70s, but if you look at the people, they're really covering late 1960s to early 1990s) not the 1920s. And, by the way, women were involved right from the start, front and center. SF publishing and fandom never were "a man's world," even from the very first con and the first pulp. Even the 1970s and 1960s had women writing and editing and in fandom; C. L. Moore, Joanna Russ, Judith Merrill, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Andre Norton, Leigh Brackett, Judy Lynn Del Rey, Ursula Le Guin, Kate Wilhelm.
The 1980s—when McCaffrey, McIntyre, Vinge, Cherryh were winning the Hugo award for best novel and when Shawna McCarthy and Betsy Wolheim and Betty Ballantine were editors.
The women are only discussed in terms of their appearance. That is sexist, and offensive. Moreover, it isn't just "an anecdote" it was a series of offensive remarks and assumptions throughout the entire column, which they then took up again in the current issue to whinge about censorship.
No one censored them. Telling them they are offensive is not censoring them. Nor are their critics "anonymous," as Resnick and Malzberg put it. Criticism isn't censorship.
Note that they followed the "Literary Ladies" column with a column about Barbie as a role model for women. And then the current column about censorship and liberal fascists.
Really? If you see demonizing on AW in any thread, it's your obligation to report the post, I urge you to do that; just click the
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 15,599
- Reaction score
- 2,471
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Website
- www.annazabo.com
I used to believe the script that said there were hardly any women in SF/F fandom "back in the day" and that it was a man's world.
Then I read this article about the first Star Trek convention. And looked at the photos.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...apshots-from-early-star-trek-conventions.html
That women don't like and don't play a role in SFF is the lie they keep repeating over and over and over again. Kind of like every other lie about women.
Then I read this article about the first Star Trek convention. And looked at the photos.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...apshots-from-early-star-trek-conventions.html
That women don't like and don't play a role in SFF is the lie they keep repeating over and over and over again. Kind of like every other lie about women.
I don't really know what to make of this. I'm not a member and probably never will be, so I have no horse in this race.
In my opinion, the initial outrage, if it could even be called that, was a little overblown. Chainmail bikinis are a part of scifi/fantasy history, and they deserve to exist in the context of history, or a retro homage. Such things become a problem when they're the norm, rather than the exception.
However, the way Resnick and Malzberg handled this was like how grandpa deals with political correctness. They didn't understand the nature of the problem and just dug themselves deeper.
In my opinion, the initial outrage, if it could even be called that, was a little overblown. Chainmail bikinis are a part of scifi/fantasy history, and they deserve to exist in the context of history, or a retro homage. Such things become a problem when they're the norm, rather than the exception.
However, the way Resnick and Malzberg handled this was like how grandpa deals with political correctness. They didn't understand the nature of the problem and just dug themselves deeper.
Precisely
The initial problem wasn't game changing. It might have been thoughtless, or unintentional (though that opens another can of worms)
All they needed to do was say 'You're right, we got it wrong. Will try to do better next time'. Plenty of people would have thought that was fine.
On the forums, if people had said, yeah, actually it's probably not that good to diminish an editor to what she looks like in a swimsuit as opposed to say, you know, her editing skills, this whole thing wouldn't have blown up.
The real problem started when the opposite of that happened. When The Dudes refused to listen and instead tried to pretend nothing was wrong, lalalala I can't hear you! and anyone who though there was a problem> Oversensitive, overreacting, stupid etc etc. Telling people they are wrong for feeling as they do...rarely goes down well (How often do you see that unaddressed on this forum?)
It wasn't the initial thing that caused this (mostly). It was the reaction to it. An extremely telling reaction, it has to be said. And one that isn't going to win the SFWA many female fans.
QFT.
What they said two issues ago made me roll my eyes (same with the chainmail bikini). The Barbie thing was a facepalm moment. And most people I saw discussing it online felt the same -- I think it's a mischaracterization to say the overall reaction to those incidents was overblown.
And then we find out that Resnick and Malzberg's response to criticism is this . . .
And Polenth's description of what happened on the forums makes it even worse. Especially when SFWA has a sexual harassment policy that specifically lists the forums as a protected space. Like Ari said upthread, I can't imagine that sort of bullying being tolerated at AW (one reason I love the community here ::sends love to mods:: ).
Anyway, Alessandra and Mr. Flibble are absolutely right; this whole thing would have blown over if they had just said, "Hey, our bad, we'll watch out a bit more in the future." Or even if they had said nothing -- there still would have been some discontent about the prior sexist comments, but everyone would've moved on eventually, and looked back at the incident with a sigh and a grumble.
This . . . this . . .
I can't even.
For those following along online, here's an excellent link roundup by Jim Hines: http://jimhines.livejournal.com/682063.html
The other thing that "you kids on my lawn" might not realize—the same basic screw up has been happening in the SFWA Bulletin and related SFWA arenas since the 1970s.
zanzjan
killin' all teh werds
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
VPXI
Super Member
Registered
I find a certain guilty relief in having not received my copy of the Bulletin yet, and being at home for the weekend with only dialup access to the internet. That said, this post by Ann Aquirre was worth the wait to read.
I'll note that she posts some of the responses she's gotten at the bottom, and some of them are definitely triggery.
I'll note that she posts some of the responses she's gotten at the bottom, and some of them are definitely triggery.
Those hate mail messages Ann got are disturbing. Like really frickin' creepily disturbing. Seriously. Who knew?!?!? WTF? Who thinks it's okay to write such vitriol?
So what's the answer? Do you pull out of the organization? Because staying gives money and a form of legitimacy.
Do you leave? Because then all that's left is the misogynist and the organization will never change.
Do you protest and boycott any function where these asshats are in attendance? Do you write letters to the editors of all the major newspapers? Do we show up at conventions and burn our bras? Or maybe make penis jokes that take the focus off t&a?
I just don't know the response. I do know that if I had ever considered being a part of swfa, that desire is gone now.
And that's sad because they do good things.
You can't say an organization is good and beneficial when the core is rotten. That's like saying education is good but a core value of separate but equal is okay. Or the justice system is good but it's okay if the judges are women haters or minority haters or non-hetero haters. You just can't. When the core is rotten and the leadership does nothing or only does the "token" actions to make it appear as if they are doing something, it legitimizes the hate, the rot, and that is the way bad shit gets institutionalized. It's systemic. Not an anomaly.
Guess we what had to do to try and fix education. And it isn't fixed completely. Guess what we had to do to fix hater judges. And that isn't fixed completely. I use these two institutional examples because it parallels sfwas impact on ALL sff writers, editors and publishers. This type of bias goes to education of members and dispensing of justice for wronged members.
There truly is only one answer- you have to purge the rot. You have to have the fortitude to excise the hate where it is lodged. And I have a sinking fear in the pit of my stomach that swfa will not ever do that. They want to let the haters die off. The only problem with that is new haters join so as the old haters die, new rot takes root; e.g., the mail to Ann Aquirre at the end of her blog post. I can't see swfa kicking members who are rotten out. Revoking membership for persons found to perpetuate hate would be akin to sending in the national guard to enforce integration. But I don't see it happening. Not ever.
So where does that leave people? Both in the organization and out of it? It's totally disheartening.
So what's the answer? Do you pull out of the organization? Because staying gives money and a form of legitimacy.
Do you leave? Because then all that's left is the misogynist and the organization will never change.
Do you protest and boycott any function where these asshats are in attendance? Do you write letters to the editors of all the major newspapers? Do we show up at conventions and burn our bras? Or maybe make penis jokes that take the focus off t&a?
I just don't know the response. I do know that if I had ever considered being a part of swfa, that desire is gone now.
And that's sad because they do good things.
You can't say an organization is good and beneficial when the core is rotten. That's like saying education is good but a core value of separate but equal is okay. Or the justice system is good but it's okay if the judges are women haters or minority haters or non-hetero haters. You just can't. When the core is rotten and the leadership does nothing or only does the "token" actions to make it appear as if they are doing something, it legitimizes the hate, the rot, and that is the way bad shit gets institutionalized. It's systemic. Not an anomaly.
Guess we what had to do to try and fix education. And it isn't fixed completely. Guess what we had to do to fix hater judges. And that isn't fixed completely. I use these two institutional examples because it parallels sfwas impact on ALL sff writers, editors and publishers. This type of bias goes to education of members and dispensing of justice for wronged members.
There truly is only one answer- you have to purge the rot. You have to have the fortitude to excise the hate where it is lodged. And I have a sinking fear in the pit of my stomach that swfa will not ever do that. They want to let the haters die off. The only problem with that is new haters join so as the old haters die, new rot takes root; e.g., the mail to Ann Aquirre at the end of her blog post. I can't see swfa kicking members who are rotten out. Revoking membership for persons found to perpetuate hate would be akin to sending in the national guard to enforce integration. But I don't see it happening. Not ever.
So where does that leave people? Both in the organization and out of it? It's totally disheartening.
zanzjan
killin' all teh werds
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
VPXI
Super Member
Registered
I really hate to say it, but those are fairly common responses whenever women stand up for themselves, particularly online when people can hide behind anonymity, as these did. Rape threats, death threats, you name it, it's par for the course. It's part of the problem.
Well, the most important answer is you do what you have to for yourself and your own well-being. I have no intention of leaving SFWA, at least at the current time, but I won't blame people who feel they can't stay.
SFWA represents me as an SF writer, whether I am a member or not; this the professional organization which, like it or not, sets the tone and example by which people outside the industry look at us all. I don't see it as productive to publicly torch the entire organization, because it harms us as writers, and because I don't think the whole organization -- or even most of it -- is represented by the views unfortunately allowed to fester in the pages of the Bulletin. And it seems to me that mocking men for their gender is absolutely counterproductive to trying to make the point that gender shouldn't matter.
They do do good things, and there are good people involved. I hope that, looking back a year or two from now, this whole episode is going to sound farcically uncharacteristic for SFWA. I think what shakes out from this conflict and the conversations surrounding it will be very telling as to whether SFWA can be an effective voice for us as writers going forward.
I'm not convinced the core is rotten. There's a lot of really good, thoughtful people in SFWA. The leadership is elected, and certainly the most recent election was very telling on how small the percentage of the membership vested in sexist rhetoric and policies was. (Small, but not non-existent, alas.) It just appears that that minority has an unfettered voice in the form of the Bulletin.
Absolutely. We should be better than this.
ETA: Apropos to the conversation, a statement from SFWA's president.
Last edited:
A new message posted by Scalzi.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/06/02/presidential-statement-on-the-sfwa-bulletin-june-2-2013/
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/06/02/presidential-statement-on-the-sfwa-bulletin-june-2-2013/
Who knew? Seriously?
Do you think these types of things are uncommon when women stand up for themselves on the internet?
You should see some of the stuff that gets hurled at women who complain about sexism in the atheist movement. Death threats, rape threats, stalking, public posting of addresses and phone numbers... it makes Goodreads look like afternoon tea with the Queen. It happens everywhere. In science fiction. In writing. In freethought. In religion. Everywhere. All the time.
It's not remotely okay, but if you have any interest in standing up for women's rights then it's coming to a keyboard near you. So either brace yourself or be good and silent like Barbie.
Sorry. I'm ranting. This shit makes me furiously angry.
Last edited:
zanzjan
killin' all teh werds
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
VPXI
Super Member
Registered
To be fair, I think we all had the same reaction articshark had the first time we encountered that phenomenon.
Yeah, true. I guess it's become so much a phenomenon I expect that I forget what it was like to not expect it.
And you know the worst part of it, the very worst? Now, when I see men on a blog entry like Aguirre's, supporting her and sticking up for her rights, I actually feel a little spark of surprise. Which is extraordinarily, disgracefully unfair of me, I know. It's terribly sexist, and an insult to the decent men out there. Yet I still feel it - and I never did before seeing, far too often, the anonymous internet reaction to women's rights.
And you know the worst part of it, the very worst? Now, when I see men on a blog entry like Aguirre's, supporting her and sticking up for her rights, I actually feel a little spark of surprise. Which is extraordinarily, disgracefully unfair of me, I know. It's terribly sexist, and an insult to the decent men out there. Yet I still feel it - and I never did before seeing, far too often, the anonymous internet reaction to women's rights.
MacAllister
'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 22,010
- Reaction score
- 10,707
- Location
- Out on a limb
- Website
- macallisterstone.com
I know I was pretty shocked the first time I banned someone from AW who emailed to tell me he was gonna rape me to death and burn my house down around my corpse. And said email was accompanied by a link to the Google map to my house, btw...
And yeah. It sucks.
But the way it changes is when we -- men and women alike, shoulder to shoulder -- stare 'em down and demand that it's just not how we talk to each other any more. It's not acceptable. It's not okay. No more "bros before hos" no more "Barbie knew her place, why don't you, bitch?" in professional trade zines.
That stuff doesn't happen overnight, though. Or even over a decade, sometimes. And it's not a task that's ever actually finished.
And it requires the constant, ongoing energy and work of good people who care. This isn't like growing a garden for a season -- it's like tending the dikes that keep the ocean from swallowing you. It's not a job that you ever get to just plow under and say to yourself, "Well then! That was rewarding! Maybe next year I'll take a pottery class, instead, though..." and it's all over with. If we start thinking the job's all done, then before we know it, the sea is spilling in through cracks in the earthworks, threatening to sweep away everything we've ever worked to build.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2007
- Messages
- 15,599
- Reaction score
- 2,471
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
- Website
- www.annazabo.com
I'm not yet SFWA eligable.
There's a part of me that thinks when I am, maybe I shouldn't become a member.
But the larger part of me says f- that noise. When I can, I'm going to join. I've loved SF/F since I could read. If some guys don't like that I've been here all along, they can go take a piss in the woods. That's their issue, not mine.
There's a part of me that thinks when I am, maybe I shouldn't become a member.
But the larger part of me says f- that noise. When I can, I'm going to join. I've loved SF/F since I could read. If some guys don't like that I've been here all along, they can go take a piss in the woods. That's their issue, not mine.
I was going to use the "old man yells at cloud" meme (which was used by one blogger), when I realized it might be as insensitive as what Resnick and Malzberg said.
What needs to be criticized is them and what they said, not their age or generation they come from (lots of writers from their generation don't share their regressive and distasteful views).
What needs to be criticized is them and what they said, not their age or generation they come from (lots of writers from their generation don't share their regressive and distasteful views).
MacAllister
'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 22,010
- Reaction score
- 10,707
- Location
- Out on a limb
- Website
- macallisterstone.com
To be fair, Malzberg and Resnick are hardly The Official Voice of SFWA, either -- in some ways, that's one of the most unfortunate parts of this whole thing. I know a lot of these SFWA folks and so do a lot of you: they're people like the president-elect, Steven Gould, who is a hella good guy who I've shared more than one meal with; and a number of AWers who are members or striving to be members; they're folks I've bought stories from; and people like our own Victoria Strauss and Ann Crispin who do the yeomen's work they do year after year. THOSE people are the real face of SFWA.
And, for me? Those folks are why it shouldn't just be abandoned because a couple of jackass blowhards didn't know enough to stop digging and their editor was too distracted or busy doing other stuff to save 'em from themselves.
That's NOT to say it's okay that the official trade zine representing SFWA keeps falling on it's face on the same curb -- just to say let's be the change we wanna see.
And, for me? Those folks are why it shouldn't just be abandoned because a couple of jackass blowhards didn't know enough to stop digging and their editor was too distracted or busy doing other stuff to save 'em from themselves.
That's NOT to say it's okay that the official trade zine representing SFWA keeps falling on it's face on the same curb -- just to say let's be the change we wanna see.
zanzjan
killin' all teh werds
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
VPXI
Super Member
Registered
Damn but that makes me want to go break people.
Still, that's why I have a 120lb dog. Because I've gotten those emails too, for once calling a guy lame. Biggest insult in the history of the entire internet, apparently.
It's also not just the constant direct effort to make things better, it's the effort to try to ensure that, when you just can't stand there plugging some stupid crack in the wall with your heart and soul any longer, there's another person to come along and take a turn.
It's hard to call it a positive, per se, but at least one thing that is coming out of this discussion is a lot of women realizing that they are not alone in their experiences.
Y'all would have a coronary over the stuff MacAllister gets regularly in emails or PMs.
Yes, this is not unusual on the 'net.
But SFWA can say "We don't accept that here. You can't do that here."
There are a lot of really super people on the SFWA board. I have enormous respect for the incoming President, Steve Gould too. He's a good followup to Scalzi.
Write [email protected] and ask that your email be forwarded to Steve Gould. Tell them that you want to be able to be proud of being a member of SWFA.
Suggest what you think would help. What would you expect from a professional support organization (almost a union; certainly a guild).
Be clear, be honest, and be kind.
Last edited by a moderator:
MacAllister
'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 22,010
- Reaction score
- 10,707
- Location
- Out on a limb
- Website
- macallisterstone.com
Yep. Definitely.
Another good thing that I'm seeing is the number of terrific men I know who are just as appalled and offended, and are doing whatever they can to support and educate, and also let women know we're not gendered and alone in our objections to this sort of crap.