The Latest SFWA Controversy

I was reasonably sure it wasn't on SFWA.org (as you say, would have been moderated, as it appears this has got much better lately) though I couldn't be certain. But the fact there's a whole collection of members talking like that (and some very obviously are members)...well.

I think it might be counterproductive for me to be in that kind of atmosphere/with those kinds of people. You know?

Do I want to be in amongst a load of people who feel like that about me/my gender (even if they aren't saying it right now)?

Nah.

Would I rather concern myself with talking to other authors who are interested in me as a person/author rather than what plumbing I've got? Yup. ETA some of those authors will be in the SFWA

Amadan said:

The six page screed was an overreaction to an overreaction. The ranting petition was an overreaction to a series of overreactions.

Click to expand...

amergina said:

So, if this: https://twitter.com/aliettedb/status/291264155586023424

and this: http://storify.com/tinytempest/sfwa-bulletin-200

and this: https://twitter.com/tlmorganfield/status/319537134358917120

(i.e., some chatter on twitter)

...are overreactions, how should people react when they're upset?

Or are people not allowed to be upset by sexism?

Click to expand...

It's difficult to remove emotion from something beyond one's control that has been a barrier to acceptance, recognition, and advancement throughout life, especially in the professional arena. So, yes, the persons so affected are upset. But it's not an overreaction to object--even to strenuously object--to having your gender or sex, neither of which has any bearing on your skill or achievements, added as a qualifier to a professional title. What purpose does such a qualifier serve when a corresponding qualifier is not applied to another segment of the population? The only purpose I can see is to make light of those abilities and refuse to view them in as serious a manner as those of other holders of a well-earned title.

One thing that has been pointed out over and over in this thread is that the two authors of the six-page screed should not have been given space in the organization's business journal in order to address criticism which took place on private blogs, on social media, and on forums such as this one. As I understand it, that is the issue the board and the task force took on, as was appropriate in my opinion. The purpose of a business journal in any industry is to provide information, organization news, and to promote training opportunities to those within that industry in order to help them succeed in their chosen work.

Should someday everything click, and I were to find myself indeed a writer, I'd be honored to belong to an organization such as SFWA which does so much good--as has also been pointed out repeatedly--for all of its members, for I truly believe that right now the organization is going through additional growing pains and will be the richer and stronger for the process.

I just want to add so that there is no mistake: The foregoing is only from my own perspective. You see I've been at this for the better part of half a century and it's too late for me to call it a day. But there is no way I'd ever advocate that someone else take this on, especially someone with better sense than I wrt tilting at windmills.

Mr Flibble said:

I was reasonably sure it wasn't on SFWA.org (as you say, would have been moderated, as it appears this has got much better lately) though I couldn't be certain. But the fact there's a whole collection of members talking like that (and some very obviously are members)...well.

I think it might be counterproductive for me to be in that kind of atmosphere/with those kinds of people. You know?

Do I want to be in amongst a load of people who feel like that about me/my gender (even if they aren't saying it right now)?

Nah.

Would I rather concern myself with talking to other authors who are interested in me as a person/author rather than what plumbing I've got? Yup. ETA some of those authors will be in the SFWA

Click to expand...

Y'know...I wish there was something brilliant and moving I could say here, but...no, you're absolutely right.

It's a helluva investment of time and energy and lots of it feels like beating my head against a brick wall and I don't know how long I'll be able to hack it before I scream "A POX ON ALL YOUR HOUSES!" and go off to do something that feels more productive, like teaching hermit crabs to Riverdance. And I absolutely positively respect that other people don't want to deal with that. Why would you?

I hope someday we'll be an organization where people can join in full confidence they'll be treated professionally and not poisonously. But we're definitely not there yet, and I suspect we won't be for some time.

Sigh.

*clacks pincers sadly*

RedWombat said:

I hope someday we'll be an organization where people can join in full confidence they'll be treated professionally and not poisonously. But we're definitely not there yet, and I suspect we won't be for some time.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I think you could replace the word "organization" with "genre" and it would still be accurate. The rattling coming from SFWA is symptomatic of the wider growing pains of SFF as a whole, I feel.

That's partly why I joined SFWA, despite the yearly controversies giving me the willies beforehand. I think as long as I'm writing SFF and intend to be a part of that community, these are issues I'm going to have to stare in the face from time to time, whether I'm a member or not.

J.W. Alden said:

Unfortunately, I think you could replace the word "organization" with "genre" and it would still be accurate. The rattling coming from SFWA is symptomatic of the wider growing pains of SFF as a whole, I feel.

That's partly why I joined SFWA, despite the yearly controversies giving me the willies beforehand. I think as long as I'm writing SFF and intend to be a part of that community, these are issues I'm going to have to stare in the face from time to time, whether I'm a member or not.

Click to expand...

You're not wrong, that's for sure. The problem is, as with so many things, 90% of what any of us can do is doing good work and calling out bad stuff when we see it (and have the energy to deal with it!)

Which isn't nearly as glamorous a solution as I'd like. I want to throw a magic ring in Mt. Sexism, have an eagle pick me up, and be DONE.

Incidentally, I would very much like to see hermit crabs Riverdancing.

Debeucci said:

I get the impression--correct me if I'm wrong--you think what Resnik and Malzberg said were pretty harmless and minor offenses that didn't warrant the reaction that they got. I don't know what your gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity is, but I assure you it wasn't an overreaction. If you have ever been the target of bigotry, casual or otherwise, you wouldn't have called it that.

Let me put it in context. What those guys said and their reaction afterward for me, is equivalent to them saying this:

"Back in my day, we had some chinks who owned drycleaners down the street. I tell you, no one cleaned shirts better than they did. Oh, I didn't mean to refer to yellow people in any derogatory way. It wasn't my intent. I was actually paying them a compliment. That's just what we called them back then."

Maybe in your world, it's a minor offense. In mine, we might end up having more than words.

Click to expand...

Wow.

Okay then. I am perfectly comfortable accepting that you and I see differently-colored skies.

Amadan said:

Wow.

Okay then. I am perfectly comfortable accepting that you and I see differently-colored skies.

Click to expand...

So, Amadan, I'm genuinely trying to understand your position but am unsure how to interpret this comment.

I've come up with 2 possible interpretations:
1. You think Debeucci is making a bad comparison and what happened with the SFWA isn't the same as/isn't as "bad" as his example, or

2. You think his reaction to the comment in his example was an "over reaction."

Or is it some other position that I'm missing? You are clearly implying that Debeucci is delusional and/or just seeing the world is a wildly different way and I'm wondering what exactly you think sounds so different from the way you would perceive the world.

Also, can't help but note the intense irony at your use of words...because yes I suspect color does in fact play a role in the difference of perception here.

Fizgig said:

This isn't some kind of "debate" where there are two equally valid sides. That is called false equivalency.

Being racist is not a valid position or opinion open to debate. Being sexist is not a valid position or opinion open to debate. Certainly not in a professional organization that states it is there to support all of its members.

If you think sexism is a "valid position" to be debated, then you are participating in the systematic exclusion of women. Full stop.

Click to expand...

This is what I was trying to get at upthread when I said I resented the implication that differential treatment of groups was a political issue that could be debated as if there were two equal sides to the argument. I did a terrible job of it, as it helped to cause a flounce You said it much more cleanly.

Alessandra Kelley said:

Where on earth did anyone here say that a person had to be wilfully malevolent in order to be sexist?

Some of the nastiest sexist behavior I have been subjected to has been from jolly, cheerful men who thought they were being complimentary.

Some was from self-satisfied men, content in their sense of their own decency, who seemed startled and resentful that I had any opinions about anything they were subjecting me to.

It is the behavior that matters here, not the motivation behind it. If the behavior is sexist, insulting, degrading and demeaning, it does not matter if the person doing it intended no harm.

In fact, one way to judge whether someone is honestly well-intentioned is whether they apologize when they are made aware that their behavior has hurt or upset someone.

An actually well-meaning person regrets causing harm.

Someone who, instead, doubles down and gets self-righteous and attacks the person who complains cannot be said to be well-intentioned.

No. The six-page screed was an overreaction to criticism. The ranting petition was an overreaction to being on the losing side of a reasoned debate.

Click to expand...

Good point. I honestly don't think the "two mature gentleman writers" intended their original words to be hurtful, any more than I've intended to be hurtful when I've stuck my foot in it at times. But angry, ranty defenses of one's words, followed by an attack on the people who were upset by one's words, are not a great strategy, and it seems really out of place in any publication. As for the Barbie doll column? That is harder to dismiss as innocent, imo. It sounded very much like the author was telling women to STFU and go back to acting like old-fashioned "ladies" who were grateful for whatever crumbs the patriarchy tossed them.

Amadan said:

Wow.

Okay then. I am perfectly comfortable accepting that you and I see differently-colored skies.

Click to expand...

Are racism and sexism false equivalencies then? Or aren't paternalistic, condescending comments about women sexist in the same way that paternalistic, condescending comments about people of color are racist? Just because one thinks one's words are a compliment, does not mean they're not insensitive. And the truth is, people who have historically been barred from full participation in and protection by society are going to be more sensitive to language that might seem complimentary or "just a little over the top" to someone who hasn't.






As for the candy bar thing, here's a completely unscientific comparison of equivalent US and UK candy bars

http://golondon.about.com/od/chocolateinlondon/ss/Uk-Chocolate-Bars-Vs-Us-Chocolate-Bars.htm

But this may be creating false candy equivalency?

RedWombat said:

teaching hermit crabs to Riverdance.

Click to expand...

Please post pics when you manage it because I would love to see that


The thing is, from where I'm sitting, the people doing all this aren't the face of the genre, they're the vocal minority in the genre. In the last couple of years, I've mingled with a lot of authors/editors etc. Not deep and abiding friendships or nothing, but still, not one of them has ever acted as though I was anything other than a fellow author.

Are there a few *cough* more old fashioned people about? Sure. I didn't mingle with them though, and their influence at, say, cons etc has been minimised to an extent. China Meiville did a lot when he refused to be on a panel that was all male, frex, several other big names are very vocal about this sort of stuff and the landscape has changed, pretty rapidly and with only a few squeaks. There's been a few kerfuffles (when aren't there?), but in general, it's easy for me to find authors who don't judge me on my gender or sex. So easy, I barely even notice those other guys. I don't have to notice them, because they are the minority. So intentionally joining a group where a very vocal minority act in this way...I just can't see why I would. *

And that is the real harm all this does to SFWA. It makes it look irrelevant.

*Waits impatiently for riverdancing hermit crabs*


*I'm not saying the BFS frex is a beacon of enlightenment. *pauses for small giggle* I am saying I don't need to go anywhere near that kind of atmosphere to further my career.(or the atmosphere is less overtly toxic -- people sometimes do stuff without thinking, but when asked about it generally say 'Oops, my bad' or something, or at least don't rail against womankind in general in public. There was that one weird speech... but frex the world fantasy con last year, there was some very odd programming, but when lots complained, no one had a rant about it/women in the journal. TL: DR -- I don't feel explicitly unwelcome. Old fashioned? Yes. Toxic? No)

Fizgig said:

Also, can't help but note the intense irony at your use of words...because yes I suspect color does in fact play a role in the difference of perception here.

Click to expand...

Really.

Expand on that. Do.

What I mean is that the vast majority of people calling the reaction to the original controversy an overreaction are people that do not belong to any of the marginalized groups having said reaction. To be blunt, it is mostly white men telling people of color and women to calm down.

There are exceptions, of course.

Fizgig said:

To be blunt, it is mostly white men telling people of color and women to calm down.

Click to expand...

Yeah.

That's what I thought you meant.

Somewhere in the Popehat lair a Papal mitre is flashing...

Whoops! There goes another publishing...
Whoops! There goes another publishing...
Whoops! There goes another publishing career!
Cos he's got--



At least, that's my assumption as to what happens when an employee allegedly starts threatening one of his own company's highest selling authors with a lawsuit, and posting grossly disrespectful comments about another.

Misogyny must be a physical addiction for some of these people. That's the only explanation I can see for the way they so gleefully trash their own careers and friendships over it.

Perhaps some people truly believe that we're living in a post-genderist society, where women "have it great," and now we can put all of that suffrage nonsense behind us. Or, that it's "as good as it's ever going to get." I don't know. I can't pretend to understand that sort of thinking. As a woman in academia (where "angry white man syndrome" is ever omnipresent) I'm still fighting the good fight. Did you know that every single semester I teach, I receive at least one student evaluation that makes reference to my breasts? My makeup? My clothing? My jewelry? My ass? It's 2014, right? One year, a male student drew a picture on his evaluation of me naked. Sucking his dick.

Other experiences are more subtle.

As a woman who is writing this now (blurred screen, eyes wet), I'm so disheartened that I have to defend my anger over some of these so-called "meaningless remarks," and that I have to be a good sport and "just go along with it." It's all in good fun, right?

Regardless of intention, there comes a time when you (as a gender, as a culture, as a society) have to take a step back and say, "You know what? Maybe things are changing. Maybe women have simply had enough. Maybe it's time to reevaluate."

It's a scab that heals over at times until someone comes along to pick at it. And make it bleed. And if you don't "get" the funny sexist joke, well, you're just towing the "PC Bullshit" line. It has nothing to do with being poked with a stick repeatedly by politicians, by the news, by parents who think their "sweet boys never rape any girl that didn't have it coming," by the media who tells us exactly what we should look like and how we should act. By offensive student evaluations.

I fell in love with science fiction. I was twelve. Ray Bradbury. I read it because it showed me a world that could be. A progressive world. A world that pushed up against limitations. How many writers of the genre--male or female--have had that same experience? Fantasy showed me that my dreams had no limits. These were writers who "got me," as a girl. As a woman. As a human being.

Where did some of these current writers stumble? Did they forget? Perhaps they never saw it at all?

The genre isn't perfect. Let's face it, those chainmail bikinis. Old Conan and Tarzan covers. Didn't age very well, did they?

But at the heart of it all, at its core, I always felt like sci-fi and fantasy gave me permission to dream of better than I had in the real world. I don't much like having that compromised. And I don't like being told to "calm down" when I decide that I've had enough of it.

People are going to continue to push back against what they feel is derogatory and disrespectful. And small minds will continue to defend that sort of behavior. My job as a genre writer is to bust my ass. To shove my way into organizations such as the SFWA and to add my weight to those who want to evolve. I may just be a small pebble on one side of a very big scale, but it's a start. And I know that many other women feel as I do. I know many men feel as I do. And I'd like for those men to grow in number--even if they were once part of the problem.

It takes some self-awareness, though, and the ability to admit that the way you were doing things might not have been the very best way.

The tempter tantrum being thrown over women refusing to accept sexism anymore is both depressing and infuriating. And it is happening everywhere you look. I'm glad it's being exposed, but I wish the death rattle would hurry up and end the old paradigm. I’m sick of having my gender be a limitation to my ambitions.

slhuang said:

So now this happened.

You can follow the links down the rabbit hole; there are far too many. The short version: toxic comments popping up on the public newsgroup sff.net again, including stomach-churningly objectifying comments about specific other professional authors. A tumblr starts gathering some of them, The Daily Dot reports on it, a bunch of people link the Daily Dot article, and one of the people who was publicly posting to the newsgroup threatens to sue everyone for libel.

Everyone. Including everyone who linked to the news post.

. . .

Didn't we have some chocolate in this thread? I need some, please.

Click to expand...

I am boggling. This appears to be a contracts exec at a Big Five firm trashing one of his own authors in public, under his own name.

It happens sometimes. People just explode. Natural causes.

Torgo said:

I am boggling. This appears to be a contracts exec at a Big Five firm trashing one of his own authors in public, under his own name.

Click to expand...

What depresses me is that this is the sort of behavior that OUGHT to get you fired--it is totally, professionally out of line. "Unperson" and that freaky sexualized thing about her appearance--no, no, a thousand times no. I am honestly surprised that someone in HR did not feel a great disturbance in the Force and TELEPORT to this guy's keyboard.

...and if it DOES cost him his job, the same group having conniptions now are going to start yelling that see, this is all what they said would happen, you offend the Politburo and they take your job away, who's being oppressed now, all we wanted was an open dialog where we could say whatever we wanted, blah blah blah.

For the record, though, this guy is no longer in SFWA and hasn't been for some time.

Very uncool. His opinion about her qualifications/credentials, eh, whatever - some people don't like or respect other people, fairly or unfairly. But "She dresses up and looks pretty, therefore an attention-seeking hypocrite" was a leap into troglodytism.