ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, June 01, 2013

Women Ruin Everything: SFWA edition

A female writer quits the SFWA because she believes it isn't sufficiently feminized:
It began with issue #200 of the Bulletin—all right, #199 if we want to get technical. It began with the Resnick and Malzberg Dialogues, a long-time feature of the publication. It began when two men sat down to have a dialogue about editors and writers of the female gender. How fantastic, I thought, because I, being a writer and an editor and female, had a keen interest in such things. I love reading anthologies such as Women of Wonder (and its sequel) and seeing how women impacted and contributed to this forward-looking and -thinking genre I love. I hoped they might include the women who inspired me and introduce me to many I hadn’t yet discovered.

That’s not what I found. I found a dialogue that seemed more focused on how these “lady editors” and “lady writers” looked in bathing suits, and that they were “beauty pageant beautiful” or a “knock out.” I am certain no condescension was intended with the use of “lady,” but as the dialogues went on, I felt the word carried a certain tone—perhaps that was a fiction of my own making. As I listened to these two men talk about lady editors and writers they had known, I grew uneasy. Something wasn’t right.....

And now, apparently, we who voiced complaint are having another finger leveled toward us, saying how dare we? How dare we voice a contrary opinion—surely we want to silence all thoughts that are unlike our own! Surely we want to strike these men and their dated notions from all records!

Because we ask to be respected and have our point of view respected does not mean we wish to obliterate the point of view of another. Because we ask to be treated with the same thought you would give a person of your own gender, a person of a different gender, a person of a different religion, a person of your own religion, a person of your own race, a person of a different race, does not mean we seek to tear down anything you believe, follow, or espouse.
This woman isn't content with the ruination of both the organization and most of the science fiction publishing houses, now she wants to put limits on the opinions expressed by the old lions of the field, eliminate the very sort of artwork that helped make the old SF publications popular in the first place, and be held immune from criticism for her fascism.

She is, plain and simply, lying.  She clearly wants to silence all thoughts that she finds insufficiently respectful.  She does wish to obliterate a masculine point of view that she finds offensive. It is women like her, and their gamma male allies, who have devastated science fiction, who have driven most of its male readers away from books and toward games, and who are responsible for the genre's declining sales and inability to replace the classics of previous decades.  This is little more than an attempt to silence the remnants of the SFWA's old guard.

As we learned yesterday, I am unpublishable by the present standards in the publishing industry.  But I am far from the only one, very far from it.  I am no Heinlein or Herbert, perhaps more akin to a Resnick or Malzberg, but it should be abundantly clear that none of these four men could get break into publication today, that their perspectives are intrinsically offensive, and none of them would be able to successfully navigate the maze of scalzied manboobs and feminist fascists who have infiltrated the genre and now control the editorial gates at the professional magazines and publishing houses.

Neither should it be any surprise to observe that the genre is dying, just like every other male-dominated endeavor that permits, or is forced, to allow the "equal opportunity" that somehow always ends with women telling men what they are allowed to think, say, and do.  It is the same pattern we have seen play out again and again and again. But I think Ms Tobler is to be congratulated for leaving the SFWA and I think her action shows that she is an admirable role model for many SFWA members. 

Dear Ms Tobler,

Congratulations on quitting the SFWA.  I'm sure it was a real shock to learn that the old lions of the field are not inclined to immediately adjust their thinking to your liking upon demand and I'm sorry you had to experience such palpable horror.

Now, if you will please take the rest of the feminist fascists who believe romance novels in space, necrobestiality, and rehashed Regency romances are science fiction with you, thus permitting the real SF writers to get on with the business of writing actual science fiction for readers who enjoy it, you will do a great service to both SFWA and the field of science fiction.

Best regards,
Vox

Labels:

54 Comments:

Blogger GF Dad June 01, 2013 6:03 AM  

Instead of a mass exodus of females from SFWA, there will be gamma rabbit paw wringing and continued acts of appeasement. Malzberg and Resnick will be drawn and quartered in the public square and Ms. Tobler will be begged to return to the warren.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2013 6:27 AM  

Without a doubt. But even so, it underlines the points I have been making. All SFWA is doing is rendering itself less and less relevant as the rigor of its dogmatic internal discipline grows.

Blogger Francis W. Porretto June 01, 2013 6:39 AM  

Feminist incursions, PC censorship, hostility toward Christians and Christianity, sanctimonious deference to "victim" groups...these and other influences have made the traditional bastions of fiction publishing, which I collectively call "Pub World," a place no self-respecting writer should WANT to go.

The self-publishing wave of our day will either sweep Pub World into the inky depths or compel it to return to a sense of duty and responsibility. I'll take either outcome.

Anonymous Mavwreck June 01, 2013 6:55 AM  

Eh, I think she's doing exactly the right thing. A group she belonged to engaged in behavior she objected to. When that happens, you object and challenge the behavior. If your challenge fails, you either learn to live with the behavior, or leave the group. I have to respect her for sticking to her principles, whether or not I agree with them.

It's actually an interesting parallel to the current BSA situation - if you consider a belief important enough, you won't associate with people who don't hold that same belief.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2013 6:57 AM  

Eh, I think she's doing exactly the right thing. A group she belonged to engaged in behavior she objected to.

I do too. Except what you're failing to recognize is that what she is protesting is behavior in which the group has been engaging since its inception, long prior to her joining. She is upset that the group has not changed to suit her, which is why she never should have joined in the first place.

Anonymous Vidad June 01, 2013 7:02 AM  

"She is upset that the group has not changed to suit her, which is why she never should have joined in the first place."

Isn't that the truth.

Anonymous zen0 June 01, 2013 7:12 AM  

does not mean we seek to tear down anything you believe, follow, or espouse.

Here is the essential Leftist lie.

Anonymous Sigyn June 01, 2013 8:02 AM  

I bet they didn't mention her as looking good in a swimsuit, and that's what this is all about.

Blogger Markku June 01, 2013 8:12 AM  

Note, people, that the point is not to blame her for doing what woman do. Of course she'd take offense when an opportunity presents itself. The point is that Women Ruin Everything - that one should consider long and hard before making the decision to allow women to join any particular group.

Blogger Markku June 01, 2013 8:14 AM  

Dimwith Dan spotted, will delete.

Anonymous AmyJ June 01, 2013 9:07 AM  

Women even ruin things meant for women. I've noticed on Pinterest, if someone makes even the slightest negative comment, there are calls for not just banning the commenter, but negative comments all together. The mantra seems to be "I shall not be offended or you will pay"

Anonymous Oso June 01, 2013 9:12 AM  

All feminist/gamma male outrage can be boiled down to one line of thought:

"I'm offended, and that makes me right!"

Anonymous Charleton June 01, 2013 9:14 AM  

And not even games are safe from her kind anymore.

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/193326/Video_The_damsel_in_distresss_modern_gruesome_update.php

The fact that she's taken seriously by so many developers is a worrying sigh, but at least we still have Japanese games.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2013 9:26 AM  

The fact that she's taken seriously by so many developers is a worrying sigh, but at least we still have Japanese games.

Don't worry, she's not.

Blogger IM2L844 June 01, 2013 9:27 AM  

I bet they didn't mention her as looking good in a swimsuit, and that's what this is all about.

That's the impression I got too. A little subjacent self-loathing perhaps.

Anonymous DonReynolds June 01, 2013 9:58 AM  

Free Speech, supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution, is under direct attack and being undermined regularly in this country by certain people. These people are feminists, environmentalists, Liberals, socialists, communists, ethnics, would-be autocrats and dictators. They cannot achieve their agenda and purposes by reason and argument, so they insist on controlling the narrative and stopping any and all comments to the contrary. Any written or spoken word that does not support their campaign is HATE speech and the speaker must be stopped from speaking....even if that speech must be criminalized and punished.

These people have no affection for Free Speech because it does not create an obligation for the listener to agree (and obey) AND it does not protect the speaker from reply. The only way to abuse Free Speech is to tell lies. Propaganda is about lies, but the truth ultimately rises to the surface, often too late to counter the propaganda. Free Speech is not the problem. Liars controlling the narrative is the problem and that is where the blame belongs.

Anonymous Mr. Nightstick June 01, 2013 10:04 AM  

How come Vox never posts game reviews?

Anonymous Jill June 01, 2013 10:21 AM  

Oh, I get it. This is why one of VD's readers just came to my site and dumped a monkey tonne of bricks on my comedy by telling me "and this is why VD says that women ruin everything." Obviously, men do, too. Or at least one man ruined my joke. And thus it continues. Tattletales and busybodies ruin everything. Just because most of them happen to be women doesn't make it any less annoying when some of them are men.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2013 10:33 AM  

Just because most of them happen to be women doesn't make it any less annoying when some of them are men.

Fair enough. Actually, that post was pretty funny, especially the bit about the hand grenade.

Anonymous Godfrey June 01, 2013 10:51 AM  

People still write science fiction? I gave up on that years ago. PC in space is boring.

Blogger Bogey June 01, 2013 10:53 AM  

This is too entertaining. Gamma and Beta boys are taking shots in the dark here, they're so used to being low man on the totem pole of the sexual hierarchy that even when they attempt to voice an opinion against the grain, they fail.


"The reason for Barbie's unbelievable staying power, when every contemporary and wanna-be has fallen by the way-side is, she's a nice girl. Let the Bratz girls dress like tramps and whores. Barbie never had any of that. Sure, there was a quick buck to be made going that route but it wasn't for her. Barbie got her college degree, but she never acted as if it was something owed to her, or that Ken ever tried to deny her.

She has always been a role model for young girls, and has remained popular with millions of them throughout their entire lives, because she maintained her quiet dignity the way a woman should."

-- CJ Henderson


Holy crap, time to grab the popcorn and pull up a chair.

..and uh oh, there's a picture of Will Wheaton with a Henderson book.
Quick, someone, email Will about this deviation from the Gamma belief system.


"Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America's Bulletin has done it again: Let a man blurt out something stupidly sexist."
-- BETSY DORNBUSCH


Heaven forbid they should have such a thing called the freedom of speech.

but wait it gets better....

Blogger Bogey June 01, 2013 11:01 AM  

"It began when two men sat down to have a dialogue about editors and writers of the female gender. How fantastic, I thought, because I, being a writer and an editor and female, had a keen interest in such things. I love reading anthologies such as Women of Wonder (and its sequel) and seeing how women impacted and contributed to this forward-looking and -thinking genre I love. I hoped they might include the women who inspired me and introduce me to many I hadn’t yet discovered."
--Catherine Tobler


Fuck yeah, just like a lecture back in college at one of many of my Women's Studies classes.

That’s not what I found. I found a dialogue that seemed more focused on how these “lady editors” and “lady writers” looked in bathing suits, and that they were “beauty pageant beautiful” or a “knock out.” I am certain no condescension was intended with the use of “lady,” but as the dialogues went on,
--Catherine Tobler


Oh dear, being called "lady", how dare they!

But wait a minute, this isn't college, this isn't a carefully controlled environment, this wasn't women in the best light, you can't single us out like this.

"Because we ask to be called “editors” and “writers” and not be singled out, determined, judged, praised, looked down on, or slighted because of what sexual characteristics our bodies may display does not mean we hate what we are. We are writers. Period."
--Catherine Tobler


Well being singled out because you have a vagina is what all those Women's Studies classes were all about wasn't it?

Blogger Hector June 01, 2013 11:02 AM  

John Derbyshire made an astute obervation in We Are Doomed:

George Orwell, whose insights into these matters were very deep, also noticed this. He has Winston Smith, the protagonist of ‘1984,’ observe: ‘It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of orthodoxy.

Having lived in communist China “in the years just after Mao,” Derbyshire seconds Orwell. “If you wanted to hear … utterly unreflective parroting of the Party line, a woman was always your best bet.”

Blogger Bogey June 01, 2013 11:03 AM  

http://www.cjhenderson.com/images/100501brooklyn_night_ww.jpg

Anonymous Jill June 01, 2013 11:04 AM  

And I am mollified. Somebody found my hand grenade joke amusing. So I will concede. When a person uses the terms "forward-looking genre," you can't trust that person. Period. [They] will ruin everything. Gender neutral. I learned to do that in a college course entitled Logic and Reason, in which there was an entire chapter lesson on how to use gender neutral language when logicking and reasoning.

Anonymous VD June 01, 2013 11:10 AM  

When a person uses the terms "forward-looking genre," you can't trust that person.

I think you can extend that line of thinking to conclude you can't trust anyone who believes in "equality". If it is someone from a presumably less equal class, he is using the concept as a tool to manipulate others. If it is someone from a presumably more equal class, he is a fool.

Anonymous Daniel June 01, 2013 11:15 AM  

It just must be total coincidence that the actual people to use terms like "forward-looking genre" have been women and the men who dress like them.

And my favorite bit from Jill's thing was "the campaign for affordable hormone replacement for all families."

Anonymous Jill June 01, 2013 11:37 AM  

Anybody who believes in true equality is not honest. "Equality" and "forward-looking" and "a thousand points of light" and "fill in blank" are rhetorical devices used to mask true intentions. When we studied the D of I back in high school, I got a little caught up on the wording "all men are created equal" because it clearly isn't true. So what was the point of the rhetoric? And why were they using God to push the idea? I assumed it was to allow that all people should have the same rights under the law. But suitably ambiguous rhetoric with good intentions is still just rhetoric. Anyway, I'm a lot older now, but I still haven't resolved this issue because life has continued to teach me that equality is a lie.

Blogger IM2L844 June 01, 2013 11:45 AM  

life has continued to teach me that equality is a lie.

Ironic that this is the one life lesson that has the potential to fix everything if it were only accepted en masse.

Anonymous Leap of a Beta June 01, 2013 11:45 AM  

"Because we ask to be respected and have our point of view respected does not mean we wish to obliterate the point of view of another."

How is it that people don't realize that demanding respect of a viewpoint that judges you as unworthy of respect is essentially silencing that viewpoint? Not everyone is worthy of respect - so stop asking for it to be handed to you and earn it. Or at least stop crying and go home to your mother and cats if you need love and respect so badly.

Anonymous Jill June 01, 2013 11:57 AM  

The interesting thing is that the notion of equality is at odds with justice in this country. The rhetoric of equality has destroyed justice. And so why didn't our forefathers couch things in terms of justice? I don't know. Language is a political game. I just don't get it. Yes, I know this is only vaguely related to the subject. But it is related when equality destroys free speech. We end up with "forward-looking" rhetoric rather than honesty.

Anonymous Leap of a Beta June 01, 2013 12:05 PM  

Jill
The forefathers set things up so that men were making the direct decisions through only granting men the vote - and land owning men at that. How could they foresee the destruction of the family and the complete reversal of the voting population?

They did what they could with what they were able to foresee. And our grandfathers and grandmothers took a sledge hammer to the whole damn thing.

Blogger IM2L844 June 01, 2013 12:08 PM  

The rhetoric of equality has destroyed justice.

Ed Fesser had an interesting piece a while back (Cardinal virtues and counterfeit virtues) that differentiates between fairness and justice.

Anonymous Scintan June 01, 2013 12:28 PM  

The interesting thing is that the notion of equality is at odds with justice in this country. The rhetoric of equality has destroyed justice. And so why didn't our forefathers couch things in terms of justice? I don't know. Language is a political game. I just don't get it. Yes, I know this is only vaguely related to the subject. But it is related when equality destroys free speech. We end up with "forward-looking" rhetoric rather than honesty.

Jill, while I'm finding your posts interesting and helpful reads, I do feel a need to respond to this, because I think you've missed a small, but critical, distinction.

Language is not a political game. It's the other way around. Politics is a game of language. Even modern politics, as heavily visual as they are, end up coming down to the rhetoric. This is why political correctness and censorship are such powerful tools, as they immediately frame the debate in terms desired by the censors.

Perhaps this is what you meant by your line, and I'm posting this needlessly. If so, I apologize. Use of the language to frame a debate is just one of my main areas of focus in this area.

Anonymous Jill June 01, 2013 1:03 PM  

Scintan, I understand it both ways. I have to run off somewhere in a minute and won't have time to formulate my thoughts. In fact, my thoughts are already starting to run through my wheel of conundrum. Language is used by politicians and philosophers and teachers to direct thought processes. Webster did this, but he was also influenced by the political and philosophical climate of his day when he wrote his dictionary. I guess it comes down to human utility. Language doesn't use man; man uses language. But then we can get very deep about it and wonder if there is a "pure" idea of language, words that created the universe before the universe and men were formed. God spoke, and it WAS. ;)

Anonymous Razoraid June 01, 2013 1:19 PM  

Americans have a right to equal protection under the law, not equal outcomes. Attempts to implement the second must by definition violate the first.

Anonymous DonReynolds June 01, 2013 1:41 PM  

Jill...."When we studied the D of I back in high school, I got a little caught up on the wording "all men are created equal" because it clearly isn't true."

No, Jill. It is true. All men ARE created equal in that they are all born of a woman. No matter whether they are noble by blood or as common as the clay, all men begin life in the same way..... but that does not mean or imply that men REMAIN equal throughout their lives. Some have abilities that are genetically inherited, others have abilities they acquire through application, and some are advantaged by virtue of their location on this Earth. But nowhere is it implied that all men ARE equal except in the way they are created (sex). Perhaps there will come a time when all men are not created equal, specifically through eugenics or genetic engineering, we may live long enough to see a time when some men are by no means created equal to others.

I believe those who drafted the Declaration of Independence were simply belaboring the obvious, as they tend to do throughout the document, and if there is a statement here to take away, it was their revulsion of the British system based on aristocracy and monarchy. No matter whether a man is born into a blanket of privilege made of the finest linen or lands on a bed of straw, they were all created equal and equally, even if they do not remain so.

Anonymous Jill June 01, 2013 2:21 PM  

"I believe those who drafted the Declaration of Independence were simply belaboring the obvious, as they tend to do throughout the document, and if there is a statement here to take away, it was their revulsion of the British system based on aristocracy and monarchy. No matter whether a man is born into a blanket of privilege made of the finest linen or lands on a bed of straw, they were all created equal and equally, even if they do not remain so."

Good point. It's the lack of adverb that messes with my head: created equal vs equally created. But I'm grasping at the straws I was born on.

Blogger CorkyAgain June 01, 2013 3:17 PM  

"That all men are created equal" is only the first of several interrelated "self-evident truths".

The context of that sentence shows, in my opinion, that the equality consists in the fact that nobody has more (or less) of a right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.

In other words, I agree with Don: the point was to deny that King George and the British aristocracy had any kind of superior claim which permitted them to deny the colonists their God-given rights.

In the immediately following clause, the Declaration amplifies this point by stating its consent theory of government: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Note, btw, the recurrence of the word "That" at the beginning of the consent clause. It shows that this clause is also asserting one of the truths deemed to be self-evident. So is the next clause, asserting a right to revolution and reform.

All of these self-evident "Thats" needed to be taken together in order to understand the document. But what most people do is lift "All men are created equal" out of its original context and give it meanings which the original authors might not have intended.

Anonymous DonReynolds June 01, 2013 5:30 PM  

CorkyAgain..."All of these self-evident "Thats" needed to be taken together in order to understand the document. But what most people do is lift "All men are created equal" out of its original context and give it meanings which the original authors might not have intended."

I could not agree more, Corky. This is especially true when you look closely at the "committee of five" that wrote the Declaration: Robert Sherman had been a shoemaker and shopkeeper, John Adams had been a farmer/school teacher, Ben Franklin was an apprenticed printer, Robert Livingston was the son of a judge, and Jefferson (the only Southerner) was the son of a planter. Of the five, only the last two could be said to have been born with any advantages of birth. The committee of five submitted the draft to Congress who debated and changed the Declaration for three days, deleting a fourth of the text of the original draft. (If only Congress would actually read documents before voting on them these days!)

Anonymous Obvious June 01, 2013 5:43 PM  

It's okay when men tell women to do, but definitely not okay when women tell men what to do.

Blogger Markku June 01, 2013 5:50 PM  

It's okay when men tell women to do, but definitely not okay when women tell men what to do.

That's right. That's the way we're wired, and civilization can only survive for more than a few generations that way.

Blogger Some dude June 01, 2013 7:31 PM  

Did you ever consider starting a rival SF organization?

Anonymous VD June 01, 2013 7:35 PM  

Did you ever consider starting a rival SF organization?

I have neither the time nor the inclination.

Blogger Some dude June 01, 2013 7:43 PM  

You've successfully published books on Amazon. So it seems distribution is not as big of a problem as getting your customers to be aware of what exists. Even given that there are aspects of your beliefs that I'm not in love with and which I see in your writings, I like your stuff a lot better than pretty much anything else that is out there. I say this because I would love it if there were someplace I could go which would recommend similar stuff. And by similar I don't mean "Christian" I mean "just damn good".

Maybe that is what is really needed, some space, carefully vetted where only good authors are allowed in. Something that can tell the people "here, this is stuff you might like".

Anonymous bub June 01, 2013 8:05 PM  

Tangential to this and many other posts here:

Great definitions from The Progressive Glossary by Jim Goad

Excerpts:

I’ve recently been made aware of a strange new tribe who refer to themselves collectively—they do everything collectively—as “progressives.” I think they used to call themselves “liberals” until it became clear that they don’t care much for liberty. Males and females in this tribe both tend to wear beards and gather in urban coastal areas, where they pay too much for apartments, water, coffee, and bean sprouts.

They speak a strange and exotic tongue unfamiliar to my ears. But they repeat certain terms so frequently, I feel as if I’ve begun to get a handle on what they’re driving at. To the best of my ability, I will try to decipher what these buzzwords mean.

CHOICE—The act of forcing people to pay for a woman’s one-night stands.
CRITICAL THINKING—The act of swallowing the laughably implausible tenets of blank-slate equality without asking a single question.
EQUALITY—A concept that nearly everyone believes but no one has bothered to prove.
FLYOVER STATES—Where the bad people live.
GLOBAL VILLAGE—A concentration camp from which there is no escape.
GUN NUT—Anyone who owns a gun yet doesn’t belong to the group that actually commits the majority of American gun violence.
HATRED—Anything that we hate.
HETERONORMATIVE—Sexually normal.
HIERARCHICAL—Anything that posits there is true diversity among human individuals and groups when it comes to skills and intelligence.
HOMOPHOBE—Someone with a distaste for sex that involves feces and AIDS.
INDIGENOUS—Anyone too stupid to figure out how to defend one’s own land.
LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD—Severely tilting the playing field to achieve unnaturally equal results.
LOOKISM—A term used by ugly people to explain why beautiful people won’t fuck them.
MARRIAGE EQUALITY—The act of pretending that two people of the same sex who can’t produce children are equivalent to opposite-sex couples who can produce children.
MISOGYNIST—One who believes that women are human beings who are fully capable of intentionally harming others.
NEANDERTHAL—A term that became acceptable to apply to those of European ancestry shortly after it no longer became acceptable to refer to those of African ancestry as apes.
OBJECTIFICATION—The act of noticing that women possess an object called a vagina.
ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY—Someone who actually understands history and thus can see where all this is going.
OUT OF TOUCH—Unresponsive to our relentless propaganda.
PATRIARCHY—The group who invents everything, does most of the work, fights the wars, is at a legal disadvantage in gender disputes, and dies younger.
PSEUDOSCIENCE—Actual science that makes us pseudo-crazy.
RACISM—A derogatory scare word to describe a natural tribal instinct that is currently forbidden to only one tribe.
RAPE CULTURE—A fantasy society dreamed of by women who fantasize about being raped.
STARTING A DIALOGUE—Starting a monologue.
URBAN—Negroidal.
WHITE—The color of evil.
WHITE PRIVILEGE—The honor of being constantly blamed for everything bad throughout world history.
WHITE SUPREMACIST—Any white person who isn’t constantly apologizing for their skin color.

Anonymous Molon Rouge June 01, 2013 8:54 PM  


Let them start their own SFWA. (Science Fiction Women's Apostasy)

I am tired of all this emasculating crap. Write the good novels gentlemen and full speed ahead.

To riff off of Patton, "we will use their rabbities to grease the presses of our publications!!!

OpenID paulmurray June 01, 2013 11:43 PM  

Ahh, Americans, and their precious constitution.
#1 - your constitution does not apply everywhere
#2 - your first amendment protects the people from the government, not from each other
#3 - your country practised slavery for a century under that very constitution that you think protects you.

Oh, you fixed it up in 1865 - leaving a loophole you could drive a truck (or a chain gang) through.

The only way you could apply the first amendment to these situations would be to admit that incorporated companies are actually part of the government. But that would offend all the fans of so-called "private enterprise".

Blogger Lou Antonelli June 02, 2013 12:12 AM  

Some Dude -

There is another perfectly respectable group for genre fiction writers around, called SASS - Society for the Advancement of Speculative Storytelling. Visit the web site to learn more:

http://www.sasswritersgroup.blogspot.com/

Blogger Scott June 02, 2013 2:24 AM  

I'm not a sf writer, so pardon my ignorance, but why bother with the SFWA? They appear to be to SF what the Boy Scouts of America are becoming to male role modeling. What's preventing an alternatve organization from forming that reflects the attitude you and probably/hopefully many other authors share? You appear to be following the behavior of typical republican mentality where you think somehow playing their game is going eventually lead to a positive result. You obviously know better so what's the deal?

Blogger Markku June 02, 2013 8:45 AM  

I'm not a sf writer, so pardon my ignorance, but why bother with the SFWA?

Circumstances in which one should and shouldn't leave an organization (includes a church) are a bit different. If a reasonable person would view your presence in an organization as supporting or at least not caring about some evil it tolerates or engages in (BSA & homosexuality), you leave.

If, however, the problem is that the people hate you, you don't leave. You only leave by being thrown out. You see, when you know it's going to happen anyway, this gives you free pass to rock the boat as much as you like in the meanwhile. By leaving, you are only doing them service.

Blogger Markku June 02, 2013 9:09 AM  

As an added bonus, when one is planning a competing distribution channel, this is a good way to build a reputation among exactly the group you want as your business partners.

Anonymous dh June 02, 2013 9:54 AM  

If you follow through the article, and see who supports Ms. Tobler, it's pretty revealing. Author Ann Aquirre, another who has also quit the SFWA, has a nice selection of books published (http://www.annaguirre.com/books/).

Perdition:

"Of the newest convicts, only one is worth Dred’s attention. The mercenary Jael, with his deadly gaze and attitude, may be the most dangerous criminal onboard. His combat skill could give her the edge she needs, if he doesn’t betray her first. Unfortunately, that’s what he does best. Winning Jael’s allegiance will be a challenge, but failure could be worse than death..."

Wanderlust:

"Sirantha Jax is a “Jumper,” a woman who possesses the unique genetic makeup needed to navigate faster than light ships through grimspace."

"She’s also broke, due to being declared dead a little prematurely. So when the government asks her to head up a vital diplomatic mission, Jax takes it."

"Her mandate: journey to the planet Ithiss-Tor and convince them to join the Conglomerate. But Jax’s payday is light years away. First, she’ll have to contend with Syndicate criminals, a stormy relationship with her pilot, man-eating aliens, and her own grimspace-weakened body. "

There isn't an easy way to post a link directly to Ms. Aquirre's photo, but suffice it to say it appears that she ate the entire case of characters from her first steampunk noir books.

Anonymous cj henderson June 07, 2013 2:10 PM  

Hello---

As one of the named parties in this nonsense, I figure I have to say something. I have not read the original R/M article that started all this. So, I don't know if they said the things they did, in the manner in which they've being portrayed or not. The reason for this is, when my article (admittedly, a very minor part of this nutfest) has been quoted, it has been misquoted and taken extremely out of context everywhere but here. So, here I'll post.

This is sad, sad madness. I wrote the article in question for a highly intelligent woman, Jean Rabe, a nifty writer, an insightful editor and a good friend. She not only approved the article, she knew what it meant. She read with understanding, not a vendetta. Now, she has been forced to leave her job and SWFA because of this utter insanity.

Although I have had some 75 books published, I'm not a member of SWFA, or any other writers organization. This out of control political correctness is part of the reason. I would not waste my time on it, but in just a few days time I find myself being drawn into this because people are lying about me. They are either, through ill-intent, or stupidity, twisting my words, as well as my intentions, and naming me as some sexist monster, linking to my website, as if the right to free speech allows the right to free slander.

Honestly, I don't know what I expect from posting here except more grief. There's nothing anyone can do to help me. If I end up burning with Resnick and everyone else, burn I will. I suppose, having found the only voices of calm sanity in all of this anger, I just wanted to say "thank you."

Sorry I took such a long-winded approach to doing so. You'd think my books were those 800 page horse-chokers that are so popular. Of course, I'm still talking. Guess that's why we need editors--ones that look good in bikinis and ones that don't.

Thank you everyone, for letting me know that not everyone is filled with boiling anger. I will go silent now.




Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts