The Latest SFWA Controversy

slhuang · May 31, 2013

The short version: After several issues of the SFWA Bulletin that showed a certain lack of respect for female writers and editors . . . and after quite a murmuring of complaints from the membership about said lack of respect . . . the response is apparently to throw a fit and say that criticism of sexist statements equals censorship and suppression.

Because, y'know, telling someone what he said is problematic and requesting he respect his fellow professionals is "thought control." (Seriously. I'm quoting when I say that.) Because people speaking out about sexism is equivalent to a looming dystopia (what?!). Because women asking for respect in the professional publication of a professional organization is equivalent to the policies of Stalin and Mao. (I am not making this up.)

Linky links:

http://ecatherine.com/dear-sfwa/

http://radishreviews.com/2013/05/31/linkspam-53113-edition/

(scroll down to read excerpts at the second link, and the whole article if you want to . . .)

(Mods, I wasn't sure if this belonged here or in Roundtable, please move if appropriate.)

Weirdmage · May 31, 2013

SFWA president John Scalzi has taken responsibility for the publication, and welcomes any criticism: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/05/31/in-case-you-missed-it-on-twitter/

Deleted member 42 · May 31, 2013

Since his presidency ends at midnight tonight, I'm underwhelmed.

He could have hired a competent editor, he could have invited other members besides Resnick and Malzberg to contribute to the column, he could have done all manner of things to end a problem that is more than a year old. The SF Bulletin is not a fanzine, though it's been edited like it is.

Instead, Resnick and Malzberg have a platform to sneer at their fellow members, especially the women.

Never mind the weirdness of a print only glossy magazine that's mailed to members of an SF professional organization.

amergina · May 31, 2013

I started to write Scalzi a letter, but it pretty much boiled down to "God damn it, SFWA! Stop it!"

They do a lot of good. A lot of good. But then this kind of crap comes up.

They need to stop giving an official platform to sexist bullshit. Those folks can blog about it in their journals if they want. It has no place in an official publication.

Huh. Maybe that's what I ought to write to Scalzi.

I'm not a SFWA member, as I'm not currently eligible, but it's a career goal I have.

amergina · May 31, 2013

Medievalist said:
Since his presidency ends at midnight tonight, I'm underwhelmed.

I thought the switch over was July 1?

Cathy C · May 31, 2013

My membership expired a few months ago and I've been planning to renew.

Now, I'm not so sure. I'm going to be attending WorldCon in San Antonio in August. I'll be interested to see how this issue plays out there, in a wider forum.

I have met a number of male SF writers who don't use "lady" as a negative term. It's more a term of respect than "female" or "woman." Why not just "author?" I'd imagine it came from a time when there weren't many women writers in the SF/F field. That's changed. Especially if you count Urban Fantasy, Steampunk, Dystopian and other sub-genres (and keep in mind that there are any number of purists who don't think those genres should even qualify for SFWA membership!)

Will I renew my membership? I'm frankly torn. I was SOOOO proud (!!) to get the qualifications to become a member. (And yes, it wasn't a slam dunk to qualify a decade ago with a paranormal romance. Thankfully, it was pubbed by Tor---a longstanding member.) Am I still proud to be a member? Yes, some days, when Victoria is saving another aspiring author with the Writer Beware site. Yes, on days when volunteer task forces are working hard to help authors find money due them, by auditing royalty statements for free. And on days when I realize what amazing people are members.

But today isn't one of those days. Today I'm sad...

Weirdmage · May 31, 2013

Medievalist said:
Since his presidency ends at midnight tonight, I'm underwhelmed.

He could have hired a competent editor, he could have invited other members besides Resnick and Malzberg to contribute to the column, he could have done all manner of things to end a problem that is more than a year old. The SF Bulletin is not a fanzine, though it's been edited like it is.

Instead, Resnick and Malzberg have a platform to sneer at their fellow members, especially the women.

Never mind the weirdness of a print only glossy magazine that's mailed to members of an SF professional organization.

There seems to be a bit of a discrepancy between the words of John Scalzi the blogger and the actions of SFWA president John Scalzi...

Alessandra Kelley · May 31, 2013

Whoops. I stopped reading most of the contents of the Bulletins a while ago, which in retrospect was an error.

I remember the notorious issue #200 of a few months back. When it arrived I looked at its cover of a busty barely clad heavily made-up chick with every muscle clenched standing over a dead frost giant in snow covered mountains, rolled my eyes, and tossed it in the magazine basket. It struck me at the time as a throwback cover to celebrate a 200th issue, definitely catering to the boys' club aspects of fsf. I didn't read the contents and was unaware until recently of Resnick and Malzberg's jaw-dropping comments on "lady" authors and editors.

I pulled that issue out again when issue #202 arrived this week with a big plea for reason from Jim C. Hines in it. Hines is one of my heroes, so I read his column which seemed a clear, reasonable laying out of the necessity for sensible open discussion of sexism and gender.

As for the rest of it, I am dismayed.

BethS · May 31, 2013

What was in the original column that started all this? Does someone have a scan of it somewhere?

amergina · May 31, 2013

BethS said:
What was in the original column that started all this? Does someone have a scan of it somewhere?

The second link in the original post has a scan of the latest article at the bottom.

Deleted member 42 · May 31, 2013

BethS said:
What was in the original column that started all this? Does someone have a scan of it somewhere?

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage1.jpg

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage2.jpg

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage3.jpg

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage4.jpg

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage5.jpg

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage6.jpg

Deleted member 42 · May 31, 2013

amergina said:
I thought the switch over was July 1?

Yeah, sorry, July 1.

Still underwhelmed.

amergina · May 31, 2013

Medievalist said:
Yeah, sorry, July 1.

Still underwhelmed.

Yeah, I really expected better.

thothguard51 · May 31, 2013

Andre Norton would not be happy about this...

Roxxsmom · May 31, 2013

This makes me very sad, as I (naively it seemed) thought that spec fic writers were forward thinking and that the field had become increasingly welcoming to and accepting of female authors in recent years. I am also ineligible for membership, but always assumed that if I ever made the requisite pro sales, I'd join in a heartbeat, both for the benefits of membership and for the chance to associate with some of my favorite writers.

The argument that expecting a certain level of maturity and respect in a professional publication's discourse amounts to censorship is specious at best. First of all, a professional organization has the right to establish guidelines and standards for its own publications and forums and editorials. Second of all, when you use your right to free speech, you do not waive your right to be criticized for what you say. Free speech cuts both ways, and if you say something that makes you sound like you're the worst kind of drunken 18 year old college freshman, someone else is entitled to use their right to free speech to say so. Criticism is not censorship, nor is someone commenting that people who say things that are bigoted should perhaps consider the effects their words have on others and that the owner of said publication should consider whether or not providing a platform for such views is making the right impression and creating the environment they want to within their organization.

zanzjan · May 31, 2013

Underwhelmed here as well, but I'm not willing at this point to throw in the towel. It was such an incredible feeling of accomplishment when I got my SFWA membership, because I never really thought I'd get there, not at all sure how I did. I'm not good with the self-confidence thing. I still feel mildly astonished whenever I see something in print with my name on it.

I have never really paid much attention to the bulletin, to be honest; Locus has better industry information and author interviews, and AW has better writing craft resources. What I'd like to see out of the bulletin is a professional-level publication that gives me useful information I can't get elsewhere -- interviews with editors and agents talking about the market both overall and in specific, their needs/wants/hates, and news about what's going on that directly affects the business of writing. These nostalgic trips down memory lane into the old days of fandom/SFWA have a place, when done with appropriate mindfulness that the old days were only the "golden age" for a small handful, and that the many excluded then are just now starting to imagine the possibility of a new, inclusive golden age ahead. It's not unreasonable to hope that, as people who are in some ways dedicated to envisioning the future, we aren't incapable of all working towards it together. It is in that spirit, having thought of myself as joining in the company of thinkers and dreamers and artists, that I find myself both so deeply disappointed, and also still wholly optimistic. We are better than this.

I have come to know so many amazing people since taking up writing as a brief procrastination twelve years ago. Some of them are people with whom I may otherwise have little in common, but what unites us and makes all of us a community is not so much that we're writers -- because, even with AW, writing is such a solo, lonely thing -- but because each and every one of you opens my world just a little wider, gives me more than I had, gives me a voice in return. When it's challenging, or uncomfortable, when I have to step back and think and try to see things from a perspective and experience unlike my own -- dammit, hard as that sometimes is, that's why I love science fiction, right there in a nutshell, because it takes me outside my usual frame, and it never quite puts me back the same way.

So. SFWA is, and only is, its membership and its history. The membership is always changing -- the membership *is* us, or will be, or can be. The history of SFWA need not only be what has gone before, but where we're going, where we want to go. And I want to go with all of *you*. And I had a wonderful analogy here about detours and potholes and people who fart in the van and keep changing the radio over to oldies stations, but it just got too silly to wrap up in a way that made sense. But yes, still all that.

Pretty sure there's enough of us to get the van out of this ditch, even if not everybody is willing to push.

JChandlerOates · May 31, 2013

zanzjan said:
Pretty sure there's enough of us to get the van out of this ditch, even if not everybody is willing to push.

lol. What if it's buried up to the hubs?

zanzjan · May 31, 2013

JChandlerOates said:
lol. What if it's buried up to the hubs?

I have no answer for this that doesn't involve wedging certain people under the tires for extra traction, and I can't see that being a productive line of commentary, so, um. We push harder? Hand around lots of red bull first?

Polenth · May 31, 2013

Weirdmage said:
SFWA president John Scalzi has taken responsibility for the publication, and welcomes any criticism: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/05/31/in-case-you-missed-it-on-twitter/

There's a point in complaining publicly, because public pressure may lead to things changing. But the private stuff has been tried and it failed. All complaining privately has done is allow the complaints to be swept under the carpet. Or as happened this time, for the complainers to be accused of staying anonymous and not making their complaints sufficiently clear, when it was open for all SFWA members to read on the forums (with people's real names attached - the opposite of anonymous).

So if you do send a letter to Scalzi, post it on your blog too. The time for being private is long past. If they wanted to sort things quietly, they should have sorted them, rather than using private complaints as a way to ignore those complaints.

zanzjan said:
Pretty sure there's enough of us to get the van out of this ditch, even if not everybody is willing to push.

It's not necessarily about willingness, but about what people can manage. I have a fair number of friends who've left SFWA or are thinking about it, and they're not to blame for not being able to keep fighting. It's like trying to shave a tiger when you're a five-year-old child. You likely won't succeed and you'll get mauled trying. Not everyone has the time and energy to put towards that, especially if they have health issues and other things that need their attention first.

From my perspective, I like voting in the awards, but it's clear I'm not welcome in SFWA. There isn't room for someone like me. I hoped things might change, but they didn't, and it's not down to me to fix it. It's down to the people causing the issues, but they don't see it as an issue, and they're the ones with all the power.

Deleted member 42 · May 31, 2013

zanzjan said:
I have never really paid much attention to the bulletin, to be honest; Locus has better industry information and author interviews, and AW has better writing craft resources. What I'd like to see out of the bulletin is a professional-level publication that gives me useful information I can't get elsewhere -- interviews with editors and agents talking about the market both overall and in specific, their needs/wants/hates, and news about what's going on that directly affects the business of writing..

That would be sensible, and eminently practical and quite doable.

There are a lot of knowledgeable members—writers, editors, publishers, and agents are, of one sort or another—members and could contribute.

I love SF/F, and I value a lot that SFWA does, like the amazing work with Bewares, the emergency fund, and other things that go on back channel.

But the bulletin needs to be a professional publication; not a zine.

And it needs to stop making the same faux pas every ten years or so.

Deleted member 42 · May 31, 2013

Polenth said:
So if you do send a letter to Scalzi, post it on your blog too. The time for being private is long past. If they wanted to sort things quietly, they should have sorted them, rather than using private complaints as a way to ignore those complaints.

Post it, send it to Scalzi, and to Mary Robinette Kowal and Steve Gould

They are all people of good intention. With help, they can do a lot. But they will have to be able to demonstrate a majority of constituents are in accord.

BethS · Jun 1, 2013

Medievalist said:
http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage1.jpg

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage2.jpg

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage3.jpg

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage4.jpg

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage5.jpg

http://radishreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/SFWAPage6.jpg

Thank you!

ETA: Although...this is Resnick's response to the controversy. I was wondering if there's a scan of the original article he wrote, that one that people complained about.

Filigree · Jun 1, 2013

I read up on this, since it hit me out of left field. I'm not a SFWA member and I may never be. I get my industry news from Locus and other sources.

Yes, Resnick & Co are Old White Men holding on to a history that is just history now, and have said some fairly boneheaded things. SF&F is still a nerdboys' territory, with all the deep-seated issues that entails. I had to leave SF&F to write the kinds of things I wanted to.

On the other hand, I am reminded of the word 'offensensitivity' from Bloom County.

Do I enjoy having my skills as a writer and artist doubted by the Old White Men who used to run the world? Sure. But I also deeply resent the implications that I am nothing but a helpless victim, part of a culture of victimization, and that I must be protected from All Bad Things by never having to see them in the first place. I can decide what offends me, and how to respond to it.

I agree that the Bulletin needs to be guided by rational grownups.

Ari Meermans · Jun 1, 2013

Some good news this morning: A call for editorial consultants and an opportunity to be heard. Take the opportunity to let them know how The Bulletin can best serve the entire membership.

zanzjan · Jun 1, 2013

zanzjan said:
Pretty sure there's enough of us to get the van out of this ditch, even if not everybody is willing to push.

Polenth said:
It's not necessarily about willingness, but about what people can manage. I have a fair number of friends who've left SFWA or are thinking about it, and they're not to blame for not being able to keep fighting.

I apologize for being unclear; I didn't mean the people who can't get out and push because they just don't have the spoons, I meant the folks who'd like us to stay in the ditch.

I hoped things might change, but they didn't, and it's not down to me to fix it. It's down to the people causing the issues, but they don't see it as an issue, and they're the ones with all the power.

I lack any sort of nuanced understanding about how the internal politics of SFWA's structure actually work, and to what extend the president can drive the direction of the organization, but with change about to happen at that level, I'm still optimistic. Steven Gould is a good guy, and I definitely think he gets this stuff; it remains to be seen what he can do, and how much he needs from the membership to make it happen.

The Latest SFWA Controversy

Inappropriately math-oriented.

Deleted member 42

Pittsburgh Strong

Pittsburgh Strong

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

Sophipygian

Pittsburgh Strong

Deleted member 42

Deleted member 42

Pittsburgh Strong

A Gentleman of a refined age...

Beastly Fido

killin' all teh werds

killin' all teh werds

Mushroom

Deleted member 42

Deleted member 42

Mildly Disturbing

MacAllister's Official Minion & Greeter

killin' all teh werds