Jim C. Hines's Blog, page 126

What is Rape Culture?

Last night, I posted the following on Facebook and Tumblr:

It’s not that Ken Hoinsky ran a Kickstarter campaign to fund his book, “A Guide to Getting Awesome with Women,” filled with advice for aspiring rapists, like “Physically pick her up and sit her on your lap. Don’t ask for permission. Be dominant.”

It’s that 732 people backed his project on Kickstarter. That they donated more than eight times what Hoinsky was asking for.

Think about that the next time someone belittles the idea of rape culture.

This led to a side discussion about what “rape culture” meant. The suggestion came up that the phrase is a dog whistle that prevents honest discussion and implies all men are rapists and rape-enablers.

Okay, given the seven billion people in this world, I’m sure you can find one who believes all men are rapists, but that isn’t what that phrase has meant in any conversation I can remember having. (It is what I’ve seen some “Men’s Rights” advocates try to claim it means, because it gives them a way to derail discussion.)

I use “rape culture” to describe a society in which sexual violence is common, underreported, and underprosecuted, where rape victims are blamed or even prosecuted for trying to report the crime. A society that turns its back on rape survivors, or blames them for wearing the wrong clothes, drinking the wrong things, sending the wrong signals, putting themselves in the wrong situation, and so on. A society that treats women as objects and encourages men to be sexually aggressive, to see sex as a game to be won.

Does this mean all men believe women who are raped deserve it? That’s as silly as saying “The U.S. has a strong gun culture” = “All Americans are gun owners” or “Tumblr is full of fandom culture” = “All Tumblr posts are about fandom.”

Okay, fine, the argument goes. But that doesn’t prove this so-called “rape culture” actually exists. You worked as a rape counselor and spend a lot of time talking about this. Doesn’t that give you a distorted, overblown sense of the problem?

My sense has always been that my experience has helped open my eyes to a problem most people tend to ignore or minimize. That experience has included a fair amount of time reading research and articles about rape in our world.

Prevalence:

Back in 1995, the AMA described rape as the most underreported crime in America. It’s difficult to get exact numbers, but here’s some of the research and statistics discussing just how common rape really is.

According to the U. S. Department of Justice, there were a total of 52,470 rapes in 2008. Women are victimized approximately four times as frequently as men. Even if you disregard issues of underreporting, that’s about 10,000 men and 40,000 women raped in a single year in this country.
A National Institute of Justice study found that 18% of women — almost 1 in 5 — experienced a completed or attempted rape at some point in their lives.
According to a 2007 study by the Medical University of South Carolina, roughly 1 in 20 of college women were raped in a single year. You can extrapolate that to a 1 in 5 chance of being raped over the course of a four-year college career.

The same study notes that only about 12% of these rapes were reported to police.


From the World Health Organization report on Violence Against Women: “In a random sample of 420 women in Toronto, Canada, 40% reported at least one episode of forced sexual intercourse since the age of 16.”

Men as Perpetrators:

It’s true that not all rapists are men, nor are all victims women. However, the vast majority of rapists are indeed male, and women are raped at a significantly greater rate than men. Looking specifically at men as rapists…

A study from 1981, which is admittedly out of date, found that 35% of college men said they would commit rape under certain circumstances if they thought they could get away with it.
A 1991 study found that 56% of high school girls and 76% of the boys “believed forced sex was acceptable under some circumstances.” (White, Jacqueline W. and John A. Humphrey)
In this article from 2010, psychologist David Lisak found that 1 in 16 men admitted to committing rape, though few men labelled it as such.
Another article by Lisak and Miller looked at the research and found that between 6% and 14.9% of men admitted to committing rape.

How Our Culture Facilitates Rape:

Once again, these are just a handful of examples that illustrate our culture’s attitudes toward rape and rape victims, and the impact of those attitudes.

In a 2002 study of athletes, Sawyer found that “both male and female respondents, though predominately males, felt that about half of all reported rapes were invented by women. In other words, it was believed that women lied about being raped 50% of the time.” (Source)
Most rapes are not reported to the police. (Source) Reasons for not reporting include:

Shame/embarrassment
Fear of reprisal
Fear of police bias


A review of 37 studies found that “men displayed a significantly higher endorsement of rape myth acceptance (RMA) than women. RMA was also strongly associated with hostile attitudes and behaviors toward women.” (Source)
Men who have peer support for behaving in an emotionally violent manner toward women and for being physically and sexually violent toward women are 10 times more likely to commit sexual aggression toward women. (Source)

You also see these things, if you look, in our daily lives. In reporting that sympathizes with the rapists or emphasizes the victim’s looks, in rape prevention efforts that put the responsibility for stopping rape on women, in the way we conflate rape and sex, in jokes that minimize or belittle rape, in the way we expect rape to be a normal part of our fiction, in stories of police hostility to rape victims, in legal battles where the popular defense is victim-blaming, and so much more.

When I use the phrase rape culture, I’m not saying, “Hey buddy, did you know that you are personally an evil rapist and responsible for all the rape?” I’m saying we have a culture in which rape is widespread, and the reasons are many and multilayered.

When women talk about men as potential rapists, they’re not saying all men are animals who will commit rape at the slightest opportunity; they’re pointing out that because rape is so widespread, and because the perpetrators are so often “normal-looking” men, frequently friends and family, it creates an atmosphere of distrust and fear. Heck, doesn’t the fact that we focus prevention efforts almost exclusively on women essentially require women to treat all men as potential rapists?

And when men respond to these conversations by trying to reframe them as a personal attack or accusation, it takes the focus off of the problem of rape and derails the conversation.

LEGO Movie Trailer

For anyone who’s interested, I updated yesterday’s blog post with information on Mr. Dark’s clients and their work.

#

And now on to something more important:  the trailer for next year’s LEGO movie, at http://youtu.be/lPnY2NjSjrg

To be honest, I’m not sure what to think yet. It’s nice to finally see Superman and Batman in the same movie, and there are a few jokes in the trailer that made me grin. There’s some good voice talent and potential here.I don’t think this first trailer gives us enough information to really judge. I hope they don’t go too silly or cheesy with it, but we’ll see…

Bizarre Email of the Week from “Agent” Tom Dark

I was sitting there with a plate of french toast and checking email when a message popped up from Tom Dark of the Heacock Hill Literary Agency.

“Greetings and Salutations,” he proclaimed!

Well, no. Actually he opened his email by saying, “I see you’re a snide supporter of the ‘Absolute Write’ gang.” He then proceeded to spend approximately 900 words explaining that Heacock Hill has been the victim of a vicious hoax “purposely instigated by ‘Absolute Write’ and/or ‘Writer Beware.’” He described Absolute Write as a cult, informed me that he was not Jewish, and added that he was also not Miriam Silverstein.

All of which left me with three questions.

Who was this guy?
Why was he emailing me?
Where the hell did this french toast come from?

Question three was easiest to answer, and once I made my way back to the right table, I sat down to examine this email in more detail. As near as I can make out, someone wrote some nasty comments about this guy, including things like, “You want to go around and write your little PEE BOY SQUIRT OINKER BULLSHIT all over my stuff, go ahead.”

This may or may not have been on the Absolute Write site; if it was, the moderators at AW have removed it as inappropriate.

Therefore Absolute Write is a cult. Or something. I’m not sure. I was still disoriented by the french toast mishap.

Absolute Write does have a thread about this agency. Please note: this is the link that Dark himself sent me in his email. Following that link reveals … folks talking about how Tom Dark sends weird/creepy-aggressive emails to people.

Despite the fact that Mr. Dark has a pretty cool superhero name, I was starting to get a little weirded out by this point. I skimmed another nasty comment someone apparently sent, and jumped to the end, where he states:

This little cult that pretends to “protect writers from fraud” have been pulling this sick game for years.  Years ago they also attacked our founder, in her eighties, with lies about fees charged.  We see how these lies have spread unchecked to sites that also refuse to check up on the malicious libels they’re serving to perpetrate.  We see how some sites have falsely characterized this as “a controversy.”

A lawsuit is time- taking and expensive. If we must get around to it eventually, we certainly will, and with the intent to simply get rid of these vicious, hypocritical phonies, very loudly….

Maybe we won’t have to.  A little insider info for you: a good many editors are getting sick and tired of this gang of hacks, finally.

He then wished me a fun career, turned into a puff of dandelion fuzz, and floated away in a maple syrup-scented breeze.

Being the inquisitive fellow I am, I headed over to the Heacock Hill Literary Agency where I found, just as Dark had claimed, that they “do not charge up front fees.” I also found zero information about who their clients were or what books they might have sold. So I emailed Mr. Dark asking if he’d be willing to share.

Dark was quick to reply, letting me know that:

We, I, represent a bunch of people, some, real mighty.  I don’t care if you know who they are.  Couple up and comers are on my personal blog. We do care that those concerned know who they are.  We do care that we, and they, don’t have to put up with the rancid lying shit your buddies  smear around.

Huh. Okay, I’ll happily admit that one of the comments he sent me included some nasty antisemitic name-calling, apparently directed at Dark. But why did he feel the need to tell me all about all of this? As I explained to him, I didn’t even know who Tom Dark was, nor the Heacock Hill Literary Agency.

To which he explained:

Wasn’t that you who wrote the snide “apology” about some “Write Agenda” thing on your blog?  When I looked into  these cronies of yours are, what I found from these so-called “sock puppets”  independently pretty much matched.

He’s referring to this blog post, which was indeed rather snide in its disdain for the homophobic twits of The Write Agenda.

Oh wait, I see the connection. Mister Dark had a guest post for TWA, wherein he spends 2900 words (yes, I did a word count) to explain that everything Absolute Write said about him was a lie by lying liars who lie, he has lots of important and brilliant clients that he won’t name, and he really was popular, so there! Also, something about flying monkeys.

By now, I was having fun, so I did a little more digging and found a blog post wherein he talks (anonymously) about a few of his clients, including one who sadly didn’t work out.

Now, the crazy lady instead left such a loud-mouthed message on my machine I thought it better we wrote quietly. She wrote back loudly, officiously declaring how to do my business and how this certain last-minute thing I happened to be doing was totally impossible.

Is “stupid c**t” politically correct English? It’s scientific.

So that’s what’s been wafting through my inbox. I’m sad to say that the only things I made up here were that bit about the french toast and Dark’s ability to vanish in a poof of dandelion fluff.

Short version: Classy “agent” is classy.

PS, When Mr. Dark discovers this post, he is more than welcome to share any details he wishes that might help establish his credentials as a successful agent and counter the scammerish red flag of refusing to list any clients or sales. But trolling and name-calling will be deleted and/or kittened, depending on my mood.

Man of Steel (Spoilers Ahoy)

For Father’s Day, we went out to see Man of Steel. I had been seeing mixed reactions over this one, and been (willingly) spoiled for one of the things that happens at the end, so my expectations weren’t tremendous. Memories of Superman Returns probably helped keep my hopes from getting overly high. But going in with that mindset, I mostly enjoyed the movie. I liked Amy Adams as Lois Lane a lot, and thought Henry Cavill made a pretty good Superman. Laurence Fishburne was sadly wasted in his role as Perry White. I liked a lot of what Russell Crowe did as Jor-El, though.

I think Christopher Reeve will always be my Superman, just like David Tennant will always be my Doctor. Reeve brought a bit more fun and heart, and a less angst. But unlike Superman Returned, which tried and failed to duplicate what had been done before, Man of Steel tried to do something new, and I give them points for that.

Storywise, the last thing I’ll say before moving into spoiler territory is when they do Man of Steel II, I’d like More Character Development and Less Destroying ALL THE THINGS, please.

Spoiler time…

Okay, let’s get the big one out of the way first. Superman kills Zod. Comics writer Mark Waid has a write-up of all the reasons that scene broke his heart, and I can’t argue with him. I was warned going in that Superman kills Zod in cold blood, and that could have broken the movie for me, too.

But it wasn’t cold blood, at least in my opinion. The writers set up a no-win scenario. The only way this Superman could stop Zod from incinerating innocent victims was to break Zod’s neck. And then Superman fell apart. Having to kill someone — having to kill the last surviving Kryptonian — broke him.

I don’t see this as a betrayal of Superman’s character, though I’m not about to argue with those who do. If anything, it was a betrayal of the Superman story. But while it definitely felt wrong, it didn’t trigger the same sense of betrayal Waid talks about.

What felt more out of character was all of the gratuitous destruction at the end. My wife leaned over toward the end and remarked that this movie had topped The Avengers in terms of death and damage. She’s right. Tens of thousands of people died in that final battle, and Superman…never seems to notice.

Christopher Reeve’s “No, don’t do it, the people!” always struck me as a slightly cheesy line, but this incarnation of Superman doesn’t even try.

The movie also needed more of was a sense of fun. I think my favorite part, in that respect, was the hologhost of Jor-El escorting Lois through Zod’s spaceship, casually telling her when to duck and where to shoot. Jor-El pwned that whole ship, and it was beautiful. There’s a split-second scene where Superman crashes into a “106 days since the last accident” sign, but that goes by so fast you barely see it. I’ve got Batman for relentless grim; with Superman, I want more light.

I like the fact that Lois Lane figures out Superman’s secret identity, and doesn’t get that knowledge smooched away at the end. It breaks with tradition, and while I wasn’t expecting that, I think it added both to Lois’ role and to the story as a whole. It also set up her “Welcome to the Planet” line at the end rather nicely.

I thought the Kryptonian technology and backstory was a mixed bag. The fact that their computers looked like those pin-art toys where you press your hand or face or whatever to the tiny metal rods (or plastic, these days) just seemed silly, as did the tentacle defenses of the terraforming machine. The ships and armor worked pretty well, though.

And then there’s the genetic predetermination storyline. For hundreds of years, Kryptonians have been bred for specific societal roles, which is nicely dystopian. Superman was the first “natural born” Kryptonian in all that time. He’s the one who has a choice, unlike Zod. Unlike Jor-El, for that matter. It was an interesting twist on Krypton, but it didn’t feel like they knew what to do with it. At least not until the end.

That’s where Zod’s death becomes tragic, and I wish they had done more with it. Zod didn’t try to kill those people because he hated them. He did it because it was the only way to make Superman kill him. Zod had already lost everything. He wanted to die. No, not even that. He simply couldn’t see any other path. As Zod says earlier, this is what he is, every cell in his body programmed to fight for a planet and a people that no longer existed.

Zod was a general, but if we read a little deeper, he was also a slave to his programming. And I think, at the very end, he realized it. When he tells Superman that this is what he is, it’s with the knowledge that Kal-El is free in a way Zod will never be. I think that realization, combined with the loss of everything he’s fought for, is what broke Zod. That’s when he lost.

Now, I’m probably reading more into the movie than was actually there. But isn’t that part of the fun?

ETA: On a related note, I loved seeing the villains’ reactions to the destruction of Krypton. I thought that was one of the most emotionally powerful moments in the whole film.

What did you think?

Racist Takes Dump in SFWA Twitter Stream: News at 11

The background: former SFWA presidential candidate Theodore Beale is known for rather over-the-top screeds. To this day, I can’t figure out if he actually believes the stuff he writes, or if he’s doing some sort of whiny white male supremacist performance art.

Normally, I wouldn’t waste my energy on this. Free speech is a thing, and he has the right to take a dump in his own little corner of the internet. The rest of us can carry on and leave him to play in his filth.

But Beale is also a member of SFWA. We’re already struggling with a few black eyes over sexist content in the Bulletin, among other issues. The last thing we need is for the smell of Beale-droppings to taint the whole organization.

Today he not only wrote a racist attack against author N. K. Jemisin, he then had it automatically tweeted to the SFWAauthors Twitter feed, which is used to promote relevant and appropriate content for SFWA members, as spelled out in the Twitter feed guidelines.

SFWA reacted exactly as they should have. When they became aware of the Tweet, they removed it, and Beale no longer has the ability to submit content to that feed. But once again, his actions have stained an organization I’m a part of.

Amal El-Mohtar has screenshots of Beale’s post “A Black Female Fantasist Calls for Reconciliation” here.

Trigger warning for racism, sexism, and general fuckmuppetry…

Now, Jemisin did refer to Beale’s candidacy in her Guest of Honor speech at Continuum, so I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable for him to respond.

He begins with his usual routine of accusing John Scalzi of being a rapist. Because man-crush, I guess. He describes Theresa Nielsen Hayden as a “fat frog” for good measure. Not sure what this has to do with Jemisin’s speech, but maybe he was warming up for the main act, wherein he explains:

…it is not that I, and others, do not view [Jemisin] as human, (although genetic science presently suggests that we are not equally homo sapiens sapiens), it is that we simply do not view her as being fully civilized for the obvious historical reason that she is not.

Jemisin mentioned “Stand your ground” laws in Texas and Florida. Beale responds:

The laws are not there to let whites “just shoot people like me, without consequence, as long as they feel threatened by my presence”, those self-defense laws have been put in place to let whites defend their lives and their property from people, like her, who are half-savages engaged in attacking them.

The awkward sentence structure here offers two interpretations.

When “half-savage” people like Jemisin (i.e., Black people) attack you, you should be able to shoot them.
Jemisin is a half-savage engaged in attacking Beale (via a speech), so Beale should be able to shoot her.

I’m guessing he meant the former, but either way it seems to come down to describing “Stand your ground” laws as legal protection for white folks who shoot scary dark-skinned people.

Beale goes on with more gems like this:

Unlike the white males she excoriates, there is no evidence to be found anywhere on the planet that a society of NK Jemisins is capable of building an advanced civilization, or even successfully maintaining one without significant external support from those white males.

You can read the whole thing if you’re feeling masochistic, or want to see other bits, like his comparing Jemisin to an “illiterate Igbotu tribesman.”

Beale is a member of SFWA. He has been held up as the reason people refuse to join, and I have a hard time arguing with that decision. Why would I want to join a group where I know there’s at least one person who will take a steaming dump of hate, play around in it, and start throwing it at anyone he doesn’t like.

Ten percent of SFWA’s voters supported this man for president. Given typical voter behavior, I have to assume a good chunk of voters didn’t read anything beyond the presidential platforms, and weren’t aware of Beale’s history. But even so — and even with Beale getting so thoroughly trounced in the election — I agree with Jemisin that it’s disturbing he got even that many votes.

Beale hurts the organization. I’m assuming this is a deliberate effort on his part, a mix of a fun game and a plea for attention.

I don’t believe he should be kicked out for his views. I’m not sure whether his comments and behavior in the discussion forums or toward other members violate SFWA policies. (See update below.)

I do know that SFWA should not be an official platform for anyone’s foaming diatribes. And I know that while Theodore Beale is indeed part of SFWA, so are many, many people actively working against racism and sexism and discrimination.

Yeah. This sort of ignorance, bigotry, and hate still exists. Often it’s more subtle. Sometimes it’s even worse.

I also believe it’s fighting a losing battle. For every sexist rant in the Bulletin, we see hundreds of people speaking out in protest, demanding that women be treated not as “beauty queen lady editors,” but as equals. For every racist screed, far more people speak out to denounce that bigotry.

It’s a long battle, and like Jemisin, I don’t expect to see it won in my lifetime. But I also see rants like Beale’s as an increasingly desperate cry of protest as he and others who share his hatred slide further and further into irrelevancy.

ETA: Thank you to those who pointed out Article 4, Section 10 of the SFWA By-laws, which state, “The officers of the Corporation may, by unanimous vote, expel any member for good and sufficient cause.” While the by-laws don’t specify what “good and sufficient cause” means, I personally think we’ve cleared that bar with Beale actively using a SFWA resource as part of his personal attacks on members, as well as the reputational damage he’s done to the organization as a whole.

Signal Boosting

Sexism:

Slut Shaming and Concern Trolling in Geek Culture – “The discomfort came from a constant stream of microaggressions. A constant flow of women leaning in and stage whispering in mock-concern about how short my skirt was. A constant flow of men grilling me about whether I had watched the series, and trying to trip me up on trivia.”

Rape Survivor Sues over “False” Accusation – One more example of our society’s eagerness to see women as liars, making up false accusations of rape. The police refused to believe D.M. had been raped, despite physical evidence, and instead ended up charging her with filing a false claim. Her rapist was arrested three years later.

Kickstarting/Fundraising:

Launch Pad Astronomy Workshop for Science Fiction Authors – I’ve wanted to attend this for a while, and haven’t gotten to it. Sadly, Launch Pad has lost their NASA and NSF funding, so they’re looking to raise the money to continue the program.

A Knight in the Silk Purse: Tales of the Emerald Serpent 2 – Volume two of a shared-world anthology that includes folks like Julie Czerneda, Howard Tayler, Lynn Flewelling, Martha Wells, and many more.

Clarion Write-a-thon: The Clarion SF/F writing workshop is looking for authors to join their write-a-thon.

Miscellaneous Awesomeness:

N. K. Jemisin’s Continuum Guest of Honor Speech – As next year’s GoH, I have one year to prepare a speech that lives up to the one Jemisin gave this year. I…don’t think that’s going to be enough time.

Delia’s Shadow ARC Contest – Author Jaime Lee Moyer is giving away ARCs of her book Delia’s Shadow [Amazon | B&N | Mysterious Galaxy]. I gave a blurb for this one: “Moyer creates a hauntingly real San Francisco, full of characters you can’t wait to get to know better. Except for the killer, of course. He’s just disturbing as heck. Delia’s Shadow is an engaging debut novel, one that cost me a good night’s sleep.”

Video for Continuum 10

My son helped me make this video announcement for Continuum in Melbourne: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvq0IEO7iAU

First Review of Codex Born

I added one last link to the roundup (from Laura Resnick), but at this point I think that post has made its point pretty well.

#

[image error]In totally unrelated but very happy news, the first review of Codex Born [Amazon | B&N | Mysterious Galaxy] has been spotted in the wild!

Publishers Weekly says:

Nonstop action and laughter power Hines’s riveting second journey into the “peculiar life” of Isaac Vainio … Hines supplies everything a reader needs—werewolves, ghosts, robot insects, a fire spider that eats candy, and homages to classic SF—for a very good time.

Like many authors, I tend to be rather neurotic about how people will respond to a new book or story. It doesn’t matter how many times I’ve done this before, I’m always afraid that this will be the time I crash and burn. This will be the book where everyone discovers I’m a total fraud.

(I’m now waiting for someone to respond, “Don’t worry, Jim! We figured that out four books ago!”)

Anyway, given the strong response to Libriomancer, I’ve been even more worried about whether or not the sequel would live up to expectations. And while I’m sure there will be disagreement and a range of reactions among readers — which is both normal and healthy — seeing that first positive review has been a tremendous relief.

Two months and counting!

Miscellaneous Thoughts on the Sexism Mess

Jim has a comprehensive roundup of links relating to the SFWA thing/Jim is only linking to people who agree with him.

I never claimed to be doing a comprehensive list of links. As I stated up front, I was responding to the claim that protests and complaints were being done anonymously. There are posts I agree with that I didn’t link to, and posts I’m less comfortable with that I did include.

I have no objection to people linking to that post, but please don’t describe it as a full or comprehensive list of responses to this mess.

Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg are good people who have helped a tremendous number of people.

I don’t think I’ve seen anyone claim that Resnick and Malzberg are evil, or that they’ve never done anything positive. Nobody’s one-dimensional. So yes, I’m sure they’ve both done many good things in their lives. But I also think they messed up this time.

I believe I’ve done good things in my life, but I don’t expect people to give me a pass when I screw up. (And believe me, I still screw up a lot.)

Scalzi’s apology was weak!

I’ve seen a range of opinions on John Scalzi’s statement. Personally, I thought it was pretty good. Sure it wasn’t perfect, and there are certainly valid criticisms to be made.

That said, based on the statement as well as 1) knowing John personally and 2) his history of working against sexism and discrimination, I’m taking it at face value as a genuine apology and promise to do better. And maybe that’s where the history of positive work comes into play. Not that I think we should ignore it when Scalzi messes up. But when he offers an apology and says he’s going to work to try to fix this, I’m inclined to believe him.

All this attention is just making SFWA look bad.

You’re right. In the short term, SFWA has definitely taken a black eye. In the long term, I’m hopeful that the result will be a better organization. And I have trouble buying the idea that the real problem isn’t the sexism, but people pointing out and criticizing the sexism.

What about all of the good work SFWA does?

As Mary Robinette Kowal said:

“I still feel like some asshole spilled something on my prom dress. It doesn’t matter if it’s just a little spot, that’s all anyone will see. It doesn’t matter how great the dress is, the stain still ruins it.”

I was at BEA last week, where Jaym Gates and Laura Anne Gilman worked incredibly hard to set up and the SFWA booth where I and other members were able to sign and meet folks. It was awesome, and it’s one of a thousand things SFWA does that I’m grateful for.

I don’t think those things should be used to derail the current conversation. I do think they’re part of a conversation that should happen, and as a member of SFWA, I’m making a note to try to have that conversation in the future, to post more about why I stay with and believe in the work the organization does.

All those age-related insults flying around? Not cool, man!

I agree. While I think some of the “dinosaur” comments are meant to refer to old/outdated attitudes, there have also been some direct shots at old people. There are plenty of older people speaking out quite strongly against sexism, just as there are young folks being sexist asshats.

It’s a witch hunt! It’s a liberal-fascist crusade! It’s a lynch mob!

It’s over-the-top hyperbole!

One of the people you linked to used the phrase “right-thinking.” Doesn’t that prove it’s not hyperbole, and liberals really are the thought police?

One of the people — out of sixty-plus that I’ve linked to so far — used that phrase.  And you know what? I’m not comfortable with that word choice either. I do agree with a lot of the other things said in that post.

I also find it interesting when people latch on to one phrase in one post, generalize it to an entire group, and then use that as an excuse to dismiss or stop listening to that group as a whole. That’s some weak and lazy-ass thinking, regardless of which “side” you believe you’re on.

Shouldn’t you be writing instead of wasting your energy on this?

I’ve been doing both. 17K words on Unbound so far. Poor Isaac is having a rough time of it. And you know what? Since it’s my energy, I figure I can spend it on things I believe are important.

Why is everyone making such a big deal out of a silly cover or a bad Barbie analogy or a couple of writers describing women as attractive? Aren’t there real problems to worry about?

Interesting how often I see men trying to proclaim what is and isn’t a real problem when it comes to sexism…

Anyway, I can’t speak for everyone. For myself, I see these incidents as things that could perhaps be brushed off if they happened in isolation. But as many of the responses have pointed out, they aren’t isolated incidents. They’re part of a larger pattern of sexist behavior, and that pattern needs to stop.

It’s the death of a thousand paper cuts.

Have you gotten any hate mail about this?

I know some women have received truly nasty hate mail for expressing their comments and opinions, but the worst I’ve experienced so far is someone blocking me on Facebook. Weird. I wonder what the difference could be…

Don’t you get tired of this?

Yes.

Roundup of Some “Anonymous Protesters” (#SFWA Bulletin Links)

“Our Warrior Woman protesters and enemies of the adjective (who unlike Ms. Dworkin will not identify themselves) fall into the category of what Right Wing radio talkers call “liberal fascists,” and I cannot disagree…” -Barry Malzberg

The latest issue of the SFWA Bulletin went out last week while I was at BEA, including both my article about cover art and treating women as people, and the Resnick/Malzberg Dialogues, arguing against censorship and suppression. I’m not going to rehash the points I made in my own piece, but one of the many fascinating things I found in the Dialogues was the idea that the people complaining were somehow anonymous cowards sniping from the shadows.

“Anonymous.” You keep using that word…

I’ve rounded up some of the people talking about the problematic aspects of the last few issues of the Bulletin. I won’t talk about the pages and pages of discussion from the SFWA Discussion Forums, but there have been a significant number of complaints there–all of which have people’s names attached. And then you have posts and commentary like these:

Foz Meadows: Old Men Yelling at Clouds. “I could make a drinking game about this article: take a shot every time the author deliberately highlights the femaleness of the women he mentions, the better to explain how these ladies never said I was sexist…”
Peter Brett: Why I’m Renewing my SFWA Membership. “ I won’t get into the details of their remarks here, save to say that having read them for myself, I agree they were unprofessional, inappropriate, and not representative of the SF industry as a whole.”
Amal El-Mohtar: Responses to Sexism in SFWA’s Bulletin. “VP, Regional Directors, hosts of volunteers in @sfwa, all working hard, are made invisible by the effort it took Resnick/Malzberg to wank.”
Kameron Hurley: Dear SFWA Writers: Let’s Chat About Censorship and Bullying. “Nobody has to agree with you anymore. Nobody is afraid of you anymore. I know this may come as a massive shock to folks used to a position of power, insulated by groups of people who are happy to stroke their egos and soothe their souls.”
E. Catherine Tobler: Dear SFWA. “In all the complaints that were voiced, there was never a call for censorship. There was never a call for suppression. There was a call for respect.”
Jess Haines: SFWA, Sexism, Misogyny, and a Call For Change. “Mr. Resnick, Mr. Malzberg, I am not an anonymous voice. I am telling you now: what you wrote was not okay.”
Katherine Kerr: “Since when is good taste censorship?“
Jamie Wyman: An Open Letter to John Scalzi. “It’s not okay. And the reactions–these men saying that they are being bullied or censored because they are being called out as sexist bigots–is not okay.”
Natalie Luhrs: Linkspam, 5/31/13 Edition. “NOPE, NO SEXISM HERE. Also, a lady totally told them it was okay to write this stuff and as everyone knows, one lady speaks for all ladies.”
Chris Gerwel: The SFWA Bulletin, Censorship, Anonymity, and Representation. “I have a huge problem with Resnick/Malzberg’s attitude. I consider it regressive, out-dated, and condescending.”
SL Huang: More on SFWA and the Bulletin. “The people you really should be angry with are Resnick, Malzberg, and whatever editor(s) let their article through.  They’re the people who let down SFWA.  They’re the people who made your public face into sexist douchebaggery.”
Trisha Lynn: How Jean Rabe screwed the pooch for the SFWA Bulletin and how the SFWA can make things better going forward. “I’m going to instead talk about how the entire mess could have been avoided in the first place. And to do that, I have to throw Bulletin writer/editor Jean Rabe under a bus.”
Samantha Henderson: Re: SFWA Bulletin #202. “I am not sure if I’m done with SFWA, which is more than its Bulletin and members with 1960s sensibilities.”
Michael Capobianco: “As a further indication that the R/M dialog doesn’t represent #SFWA, Barry Malzberg isn’t even a member.”
Silvia Moreno-Garcia: Oh, Bulletin. “In their latest Bulletin rant, Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg insist, among other things, that they appeared on an issue with a Warrior Woman on the cover. They lie … They appeared in an issue with Sexy Cheesecake Lady. If they can’t tell the difference, maybe that explains a LOT.”
Catherine Lundoff: “Ongoing egregious sexism in the Bulletin, which is @sfwa’s official membership magazine.”
Dean Gilbert: “Finally found out what the SFWA controversy is. Wow. Will not be buying any Resnick or Maltzburg books again for sure.”
Patrick Hume: “As far as Resnick and Malzberg go, well, I imagine it must be very frightening being dinosaurs. Misogynistic, irrelevant dinosaurs.”
Alisa Krasnostein: “What I see is several issues that have caused offense, incl a ridiculous cover, and no stand from the SFWA in light of complaints.“
Jenny Thurman: “Why, @sfwa, do you need a task force to determine if your own members should be given professional respect within your own publication?“
Ross E. Lockhart: To SFWA or not to SFWA? That is the question. “Recently, when it comes to respecting female authors and editors, SFWA has chosen a counterproductive path, giving a platform in the official SFWA Bulletin to a handful of male authors who have decided to wear their sexism outrageously…”
Ursula Vernon: SFWA — Housebreaking a Puppy or Abusive Relationship? “…let me just say that it’s sad when you finally get to interact with some of the Big Names of science fiction and they turn out to be old men yelling at clouds.”
A. J. Fitzwater: “I don’t want to join a union that majority men in power think women have no place amongst them. So sad to have a dream destroyed.”
Ann Kopchik: “I really have no words about the whole #sfwa thing. Except that I’m tired of needing a dick to be respected.”
Rick Novy: “Those who don’t get the uproar over the SFWA bulletin article, read it replacing words meaning ‘female’ with words meaning ‘black.’“
Jenn Reese: “SFWA is the most backwards-looking organization I belong to. We can write the future, but we can’t even live in the present.“
Damien Walter: “The issues with the bulletin are not acceptable, but don’t change my sense of the SFWA as a whole as very hardworking and useful.”
Kay Holt: “Not saying SFWA is bad. Just that we shouldn’t put up with embedded misogyny just because we otherwise benefit from an organization.”
Kyle Weems: “Shame on you @sfwa. That’s hideous, backwards, and strangely atavistic for an org that writes about the future.”
Patrick Nielsen Hayden: “An underreported aspect of being around for a long time: the horror of watching your once-admired elders turn into blithering nincompoops.”
Ann Aguirre: “I’m sad SFWA published antiquated dogma, then a defense of it. I’m tired of being made to feel like I’m so cute for thinking I can write SF.”
Rachael Acks: Dear Barry Malzberg and Mike Resnick: F*** You. “If I hadn’t already had a lot of positive experiences with the older male membership of the organization, I would honestly be really wondering about that as well, since the attitude Malzberg and Resnick display with such pride belongs in an era that thankfully ended before I was born.”

This is just a sampling, and includes SFWA members, a past SFWA president, at least one two Hugo award winners, editors, aspiring writers, experienced writers, bestselling writers, and more. There’s a lot more out there, too. I only stopped because this is already more than 1000 words, and I need to get lunch.

I don’t know if Malzberg and Resnick are trying to label folks as anonymous because they’re technologically clueless or just lazy. Either way, I hope this begins to address that particular complaint of theirs…