I can’t be right.

The thing about the most recent kerfuffle (and yeah, I’m using that word on purpose) in the SFWA writing community is, there’s no good answer here. People on both sides have interesting points, I care about and respect people on both sides.

And if you haven’t heard about the kerfuffle, count your blessings. 

And I think they’ve both got some good points. Yes, this can be interpreted as some kind of lawyer-like cop-out. I get that. But here’s the thing.

1) If I say that the gentlemen involved were wrong in what they said, that’s a problem. First, it’s a problem because I haven’t seen the articles, haven’t read them, and frankly don’t trust the level of hand-wringing and cries of “Rampant sexism! Misogyny! Those old bastards!” It strikes me as coming perilously close to saying that “These men acted like sexist pigs. They were men. All men are therefore sexist pigs.” Or, to be a little more charitable, “Those people who are not sufficiently upset about it and fervently decrying it are just as guilty, and are therefore sexist pigs.”

2) If I say that the gentlemen involved were harmless in what they said, that’s also a problem. First, it’s a problem because I haven’t seen the articles, haven’t read them, and sometimes where there’s smoke, there’s legitimately fire. Sometimes people are jerks, sometimes people are sexist, and that’s unfortunate. Where sexism exists, we should address it and drag it into the sunlight.

I’ve been in situations, personally, where I was (falsely) accused of something, and so I hope to have developed a bit of caution in waving around accusations. Which automatically puts me in category one in some peoples’ minds. Insufficient concern, they will say, means that you are just as much a part of the problem as the people actually committing the sexism.

Never mind the fact that I’m LDS, which probably makes me ipso facto sexist, racist, and intolerant.

Here’s the thing. Some people are jerks. Most people, at some point in their lives, are going to do or say something jerk-like. When that happens, where that happens, it is entirely right to respond in an appropriate manner. Just war theory comes into play here. You engage for good and just cause. You engage in a commensurate level to the offense. You engage with an aim toward peace.

If someone talks over you at a panel, and you happen to be a woman, it may be that the person who talks over you is doing so because they are sexist. But it is probably more accurate to say that the person who talks over you is doing so because they are a jerk. Or at least acting in a jerk-like fashion. And it is appropriate to address it – “hey, I was talking here, and that was kind of a jerk-like thing to do”.

If someone hits on you at a con, and you happen to be a woman, and you politely decline the invitation – but the person doesn’t get the hint? It may be that the person is being sexist. But it’s probably more accurate to say that the person who keeps following you around and giving you puppy-dog eyes just doesn’t understand certain social conventions. And it is appropriate to address it – “hey, I’m really not interested, and you’re kind of creeping me out. Step away, please.” And if they don’t respond to plain language, then at that point a certain escalation may occur. (Our culture has really gotten away from slapping, and that may have been a mistake.)

It’s harder to tell, I suppose, in the publishing world that sexism is the reason your manuscript wasn’t accepted. Maybe it was. You often don’t get feedback on manuscripts.

I’m not saying that crimes against women don’t happen. I’m not saying that women aren’t often victims. I am saying that this doesn’t make me de facto sexist.

Which I guess in the eyes of some probably makes me… de facto sexist. (sigh)