Dear Barry Malzberg and Mike Resnick: Fuck you. Signed, Rachael Acks 44

I still haven’t gotten my SFWA Bulletin 201 and 202, I’m guessing because I moved recently. However, thanks to lovely people who have scanned the newest mailbox-delivered turd shat from the pale, sagging rumps of Malzberg and Resnick, I know about that at least, and have read it.

Gentlemen (and I use that in the same condescending asshole way with which you have again and again applied the word “lady”): fuck you.

The fact that you cheerfully used a right wing radio host epithet (“liberal fascists”) to describe those who disagreed with you on the simple fact that women deserve to be spoken of with the same respect shown to men speaks volumes about your character. We didn’t have to equate you with Rush Limbaugh. You just did it yourselves.

And a word about anonymous criticism. When we bitched about your condescending old white guy bullshit on the SFWA forums, that was not anonymous because each and every one of us was logged in. When we bitched about your condescending old white guy bullshit elsewhere on the internet, it was likewise not anonymous. It was on our blogs and our websites, each of which comes with a name or at least an internet handle attached, which you can figure out easily using a single click of your mouse. You know, if you can stir yourself from your fetid kettle of nostalgia (for the days when women weren’t so uppity, I guess) to put out such a Herculean effort.

We are not censoring you, you poor precious babies who have had your fee-fees hurt by the nasty feminists. We are calling you assholes. There is a subtle but important difference between the two, and one you really ought to figure out if you don’t want to come across sounding like grown men who should know better having a temper tantrum.

Whoops, too late.

No, I’m not going to threaten to resign my SFWA membership; I know the organization carries a hell of a lot of water for writers in my chosen genre. But it’s sure making me wonder at the wisdom of whoever the hell thought giving these two moldering assclowns a platform with the organization’s name on it was a good idea. 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.

But for fuck’s sake, we’ve gone from fool me once to fool me three times territory in the Bulletin. Enough is enough.


Rachael Acks <— which is not pronounced “anonymous”

PS: For the record, my original, non-anonymous complaint about Bulletin 200. Jim Hines has an excellent list of likewise non-anonymous complaints. Ball is in your court, gentlemen. Are you going to Rush Limbaugh it again, or are you going to put on your grown-up pants and stop embarrassing yourselves in public?

44 thoughts on “Dear Barry Malzberg and Mike Resnick: Fuck you. Signed, Rachael Acks

  1. Pingback: Jim C. Hines » Roundup of Some “Anonymous Protesters” (#SFWA Bulletin Links)

  2. Reply slhuang Jun 2,2013 16:06

    This was awesome. Especially: “We are not censoring you, you poor precious babies who have had your fee-fees hurt by the nasty feminists. We are calling you assholes. There is a subtle but important difference between the two.” Very well said!

  3. Reply Mary Ellen Jun 2,2013 17:12

    Boy, remind me never to get on your bad side love….you certainly do a woman proud!

  4. Reply ericatkinson Jun 2,2013 23:37

    Dear Racheal Acks: Fuck you with an fire hose.

    • Reply Rachael Jun 3,2013 08:35

      You spelled my name wrong.

      • Reply Keeley Pollock Jun 4,2013 11:44

        And now you’ve received the required ‘idiot who is offended when a woman dares to speak her mind and has to respond in a juvenile and threatening way’ comment- it means you’re moving up in the world! For the record, Rach- you’re my hero. Again.

        • Reply Rachael Jun 15,2013 22:52

          I also now have a patronizing asshole troll with an aol e-mail address. If I keep trying maybe I’ll get a bingo! :)

  5. Pingback: The SFWA forms a committee » Pharyngula

  6. Reply Janice Clanfield Jun 3,2013 08:29

    Oh my. I don’t think ericatkinson is going to be on your Christmas card list any more!

  7. Reply Howard Bannister Jun 3,2013 08:33

    Rachael Acks: although I consider myself a purveyor of science fiction, I had never heard of you prior to today.

    Your very well composed response to the gentlemen in question has ensured that I will be checking out your other works in the near future.

    Thank you very much for saying what needed to be said.

    And, seriously, fuck those guys.

    • Reply Rachael Jun 3,2013 08:41

      Oh gosh, thanks. I’m still really a newb when it comes to being published, so I wouldn’t expect anyone to have heard of me. ;) But please do read my stuff and I hope you like it.

      And: *high five*.

  8. Reply Michael Mornard Jun 4,2013 11:31

    I echo Mr. Bannister completely.

    Also… train robbing pirates? AWESOME!

  9. Reply Terry Swan Jun 7,2013 16:00

    Just wanted to send you a high five, from a long time sci-fi fan. Felt good to see someone spell it out for them since they are obviously too challenged to get it on their own. I will be checking out your work as well.

  10. Reply attenuasis Jun 11,2013 10:43

    Lovely. Now I don’t have to write my own rant!

  11. Pingback: Science fiction, gaming, and men who need to grow up « Jeffrey Ricker

  12. Reply Jack Dann Jun 15,2013 21:52

    Is anyone here over the age of fifteen? I think it’s called get a life. They didn’t say cunt or slut; they said ladies. They didn’t demean the editors in question; and even if you believe they did, you can certainly see that was not their intention. Or can you? Seems that you’re aching for a fight. Good. But there are real things to fight about. This isn’t one of them. Might as well go after romance writers for objectivising men. Or Strunk & White for suggesting the serial comma. You know who Strunk & White are. Of course you do…

    • Reply Rachael Jun 15,2013 21:59

      In reference to you not liking the fights I pick: Don’t Use This Argument Because OMG Children Are Starving in Africa
      Don’t you have something better to do with your time?

      In reference to why I am not impressed with your defense of the term “ladies”: Lady [Insert Job Title Here]

      Feel free to complain about romance writers on your own blog if you like, or about Strunk & White. (Would you like to use the ‘it was not my intention’ defense in response to sounding like a patronizing asshole, by the way?) I even promise I won’t come over into your space and comment lecture you about what you should and should not discuss.

  13. Reply Jack Dann Jun 15,2013 22:37

    Calm down, kiddo. I’m just giving you my impression, just as you gave yours. Being angry is fine, but a little modulation might raise the level of your discourse. =Now= you can get all red in the face and do an ad hominum (oops) schtick. But I promise not to bother you anymore. This isn’t a personal attack. Just my reaction to what I see as an immature, impolite, and misguided response to the Malzberg/Resnick dialog.

    • Reply Rachael Jun 15,2013 22:46

      You are really not helping your “I’m not a patronizing asshole” argument here, Mr. Dann.

  14. Reply Jack Dann Jun 16,2013 00:09

    Ah, you couldn’t help yourself. You couldn’t resist inviting me back. Alas, the “patronizing” argument wasn’t mine, but yours, remember? And if indeed I sound patronizing, it has nothing to do with your gender, but with the immaturity of argument and affect.

    Now, I’m really gone from your sights, and won’t return even if misguidedly invited. Cheers! –JACK

    • Reply attenuasis Jun 16,2013 18:12

      I’m sure everyone will weep tears of blood at Jack Dann’s departure. Golly, he opened with calling us all children! I am humbled and chastened, despite being born before laptops and cell phones were even a commercial concept! The fact that my mother wasn’t allowed to wear pants in her public school is obviously a random anecdote that in no way reflects how poorly women were treated a scant half-century or so ago!

      Let us all sit in a circle, tearfully kumbaya, and think of all the wisdom he could’ve bestowed upon us. Such as: It’s okay to talk about professionals’ tits and faces and bodies, as long as you make it clear you’re talking about LADY TITS. It’s okay to grade lady tits. As long as it’s, you know, LADY authors and editors. It’s only wrong if they call you ~cunt/slut authors and editors.~ (“They didn’t call you cunts/sluts!” = Congratulations, you flailed into the ERA equivalent of Godwins with your first post.)

      Jack Dann… sooner or later, I’m going to get my hands on a Rachel Acks book out of sheer principle. You’ve done a wonderful job of promoting her, albeit unintentionally.

      Go ahead and keep sniping at anyone who isn’t sexist beyond all rational belief; I hear it totally tanked Scalzi’s career! Thomas Beale says so, so it must be true. =0

      P.S. — I think we need a suitablely patronizing term for Male-Lady Editors and Writers for when we whip out a scoreboard and rate you not on your literary skills, but on the tautness of your ass and the diameter of you biceps. Please wax beforehand; you WILL be graded on how you look in a swimsuit. Don’t bother if you’re balding or don’t have rock-hard abs; this is just what you have to deal with as Gentlemen member of the SF/F community.

      • Reply Rachael Jun 16,2013 20:41

        I definitely like the idea of you getting your hands on one of my books. ;) And I’d be happy to help.

        I’ll even send Mr. Dann a nice thank-you note if you do it just to piss him off.

  15. Reply Rose Beetem Jun 16,2013 21:42

    I suppose it would be pointless and immature to begin referring to dude writers and including a quick appraisal of their appearance in reviews…

  16. Pingback: F | File 770

  17. Pingback: In which I am interviewed ←

  18. Pingback: Фантастичният англоезичен интернет с Александър Косулиев (Юли 2013) | Сборище на трубадури

  19. Reply Bob Aug 13,2013 21:48

    Jack Dann is a writer. I don’t have a clue what you people are pretending to be. I do know that I can’t imagine any of you having the empathy and open-mindedness to create a well-rounded, believable character. I can already hear the preachy, politically correct dialogue…

    • Reply Rachael Aug 13,2013 22:11

      Funny enough, I do that thing where I put words down on the page, and sometimes people pay me for them. Feel free to read some of my work and judge for yourself; quite a bit of it is free to read online.

  20. Reply Bob Aug 14,2013 23:11

    I’m not sure why sexism justifies such blatant ageism towards Malzberg and Resnick. Two wrongs, etc. And, realistically, the target of all this politically correct ire should be employers who pay women less than men, publishers who pay less for a book by a woman than one written by a man (if they publish that book at all), etc. Malzberg and Resnick are engaging in some common male banter, which doesn’t justify or excuse it. But it does reflect an everyday reality — guys do sometimes talk that way, especially guys of a certain generation. Wouldn’t you rather know about it than have it remain hidden? How else do you know what you’re dealing with? But neither of those gentleman is behind the fact that women earn so much less than men for doing the same work. So what’s a more useful target for anger — and hopefully reform? Two dudes inappropriately bullshitting or the powers that keep women repressed? (And, yes, it’s all part of the same discriminatory picture — language and perceptions matter. But one part is way more dangerous and destructive than the other part.)

    • Reply Rachael Aug 14,2013 23:24

      If men talk like that amongst themselves, it certainly reflects poorly on them. That they’d do so in public and not expect a lot of anger (though it seems perhaps they *did* expect anger and one wonders if they did it just to be jerks) directed their way also reflects poorly on them.

      Trust me. We know what we’re dealing with. And we’re really sick up being expected to put up with it with grace. A willingness to put up with casual sexism and microaggressions is just one more symptom of systemic and pervasive sexism–and if we’re willing to take it from the older guys, what message does that send to younger men and women?

      Being angry about that does not, for example, preclude efforts to try to protect choice or voting rights. (please see also:

  21. Reply Bob Aug 15,2013 21:15

    Hey, women talk about guys in inappropriate ways, too. And you didn’t address the ageism and reverse sexism going on here. If everyone is supposed to play nice, that includes not mocking people for being older or male. Old white guys are not exactly a beleaguered minority, God knows, but still.

    Who asked you to put up with sexism with grace? I don’t know your age but if I had a buck for every 20- or 30-something woman who has said, “I’m not a feminist…” I’d be a wealthy guy today. Really? Why not? Is feminism such a crime? They’re sure willing to take advantage of what the 60’s and 70’s feminist movement helped produce, i.e., much better choices and opportunities for women. It’s like people slamming unions and then going off to their 9-5 jobs and 40-hour work weeks — neither of which would exist if some poor bastard didn’t get his head bashed in during a strike in the 1930’s (while his wife struggled to keep the family fed). (And yes I know that’s a gender stereotype — but it’s also historically accurate, although some women did participate more directly in union actions and activities via what was called the Ladies Auxiliaries).

    Here’s the thing: Malzberg and Resnick said stupid stuff in an inappropriate forum (and no there is not an appropriate forum — but an industry publication is a particularly dumb place to have that exchange). But they have every right to say it, just as you have every right to decry it. Or do you think they should be censored? I sure hope not.

    Meanwhile, the bigger issue is how women are treated these days in all kinds of literary worlds. It’s interesting that the SF world is seeing the same issues as the so-called mainstream one. (What’s just as interesting is why so many young female writers are surprised by it. Or did they really think sexism was driven out of an imagined politically correct world?) Check out Meg Wolitzer’s article in the NY Times Book Review:

  22. Reply Rachael Aug 15,2013 21:38

    You pointed it out yourself. Old white guys are not a beleaguered minority. The power dynamic is not there, and I’m not going to respond to tone policing. (I would also point out that calling it “old white guy bullshit” is not in fact a slur so much as a factual statement, as it was bullshit being put forth by two old white guys. That “old” can be read is prejudicial is very much because of the antiquated attitude being displayed by the people I’m criticizing.)

    Not sure what you’re trying to say here. You’ll notice, I’m a feminist. I’m also a supporter of labor rights as a matter of fact. I have no idea what the point of that entire paragraph was related to anything else.

    I support their right to be idiots. I don’t think the government should censor them. HOWEVER. That does not mean I am obligated in any way to GIVE THEM A PLATFORM. Considering the bulletin is a publication funded by SFWA and thus in some small part my membership dues, I have every right to demand that embarrassing bullshit like that column not be given space in what is a privately-owned forum. I am well within my rights to expect an organization of which I am part should have standards.

    If you think young female writers are surprised by this, you haven’t talked to enough of us. We’re just fucking tired of it.

  23. Reply Rob Aug 27,2013 22:03

    You make some valid points here and there but it’s all a tempest in a teapot. And ageism sucks whether the victims are old white guys or old purple women. Old is being used here by you and others as a pejorative term whether you choose to disingenuously deny that fact or not. Trust me, you’d be offended if I used the term “old lady bullshit.”

    You may call yourself a feminist but many young women do not — that was my obvious point. Not directly related to all of this but just an observation about contemporary hypocrisy.

    Nobody is policing your tone. In fact, you are behaving like the tone (i.e., politically correct) police. And the plain truth is that Barry Malzberg and Jack Dann are better writers than you can ever dream of being. No need to take my word for it. Here’s a recent review of Malzberg’s work that appeared in Locus:

    So how about some respect for a writer who tried to elevate your genre beyond the sort of amateurish, derivative junk people like you are publishing these days?

  24. Reply Lou Berger May 7,2014 14:44

    Science Fiction in the 1950’s was an undeniable male venue, and Mike Resnick was talking about a woman who was an anomaly in the field: an editor. She was one of the first editors WHO HAPPENED TO BE ALSO FEMALE and, actually, the story of her hiring is rather interesting.

    Back in the dim ages of the 1950’s, men ran the SF world. That’s just the truth of it. It wasn’t because women were excluded, it was because the field itself was tainted with the tar-brush of polite dismissal at “kiddie” stuff. SF was written, mostly, for 14 year old boys. Sex was absent from the stories, since young boys have no interest in that sort of thing. Read anything from Asimov and search in vain for the sex. It isn’t there. SF was mostly consumed by boys and young men for whom “girls” weren’t a priority. They wanted adventure and problem-solving and rockets!

    Bea Mahaffey, a huge SF fan and 21 years old at the time, was hired by Raymond Palmer to, literally, pretty up the office. Ray was an ugly man, everybody knew it, and his physical appearance, he believed, was injuring Amazing Stories. The fact was that it was his editing that was destroying the magazine, but he didn’t realize it at the time. Enter in Ms. Mahaffey, hired to improve the office through her looks, and he hoped things would improve.

    What happened, however, surprised Ray Palmer. Bea turned out to be a VERY good editor! Yes! This woman, this gorgeous young 21 year old SF fan, had a keen eye and a razor wit. She made the field better. And her presence inspired quite a few other women to step into the field, changing the diversity almost overnight.

    As Mike indicates later in the column, the Cincinnati Fantasy Group was, until Bea’s arrival, almost exclusively male. Bea’s swimsuit photos from the 1950 Midwestcon were enough to draw interest from many people, including women, and opened the door that maybe, just maybe, SF wasn’t a male-only venue anymore.

    If Malzberg and Resnick seem to linger just a tad too long on her looks, it may not be, as assumed, that it is because they only value women for how attractive they may be. Rather, she was amazingly beautiful AND in Science Fiction, which was oxymoronic for that time. I happen to be good friends with Mike Resnick AND good friends with Rachael, which puts me in an uncomfortable position, replying to a posting that very rudely attacks one friend by another.

    I’m a huge fan of your work, Rachael, and I appreciate and laud the passion you bring to fights where fighting is needed. I don’t agree that this fight is well-thought out, because Mike has done quite a bit for the up-and-coming authors in this field, many of them women and, for FULL DISCLOSURE, he has helped ME personally as well. We share authorship on a story that came out last year in Fiction River’s TIME STREAMS anthology. He is, in my studied opinion, NOT sexist. Not even a little bit. And I get why people think he is, but he really isn’t.

    The world today is not the same world as it was back in the 1950’s, for almost all good reasons. One of those reasons is how much BETTER we treat our fellow humans who are also female, and I am not excusing ingrained cultural biases learned in a different era. But I do, personally, give such biases some leeway today. You make a good point, and I agree, that we should not forgive old-school behavior as a means to nod in favor of the contributions of mentors. That, if sexist things were said and not intended, they should be apologized for and a hefty sprinkling of “mea culpa”s should commence.

    I don’t think that the reply in issue #202 was as carefully worded as it should have been, and I see how it inflamed things. But I also have to point out that, yes, in the romance section of book stores, there’s a lot of naked, sculpted male torsos without male heads. Pure objectification of male bodies.

    It exists in plenitude in our society, going both ways. It is good to address where it is prevalent, and it is good to decry it when it occurs. I don’t like lynch mobs, especially when not enough time was taken to truly understand both sides of the story, and the intentions of each side. It reeks of shallow, knee-jerk inflammations.

    Sexism is bad. Rendering women as inferior to men for any reason is wrong. Valuing a woman because of how she looks is shallow and petty. Both men and women make up the readership of the SFWA Bulletin and, even better, the organization itself.

    I am a newly-coined Active member of SFWA and I’m proud of my organization. I read the comments in the #200 issue and I was fine with what they were saying about Bea. I read the original quote about Barbie and didn’t come away with the intent that she should be quiet, but that she has a quiet dignity. A dignity that is not over-hyped.

    I am, maybe because of white, male privilege, really okay with what Resnick said.

    I know that you weren’t, and I respect your judgment call.

    I just don’t agree with your condemnation, nor with the way you have chosen to express it.

    I hope that you will take another look at what happened in a more understanding way.

    And, please understand, I’m not asking you to change your point of view one whit. Rather, because I have SO MUCH respect for you, I wanted to share my own point of view with you. Merely to share. Because of the adorbs.

    And because I don’t agree with what you’ve said.

    • Reply Rachael May 7,2014 15:14

      Just going to throw this on here since Lou kind of responded to some of my points in it and I’d like to put it all down.

      * *

      Considering this particular post specifically addresses their incredibly ill-considered and deliberately trolling remarks about “liberal fascists” (etc, etc) I do not have much sympathy for your dislike of my wording. Mr. Resnick had the chance to be the grown up in the room after the first round of complaints, and decided instead to nurse his feeling of being aggrieved and take a giant shit on everyone who had criticized him, Mr. Malzberg, and the Bulletin over the last two issues. For the record, this was my original unhappy post:

      Which you’ll note completely lacks the word “fuck” and ends only with a resounding, disappointed sigh.

      Because this is the thing, and I admit it’s a weird one to wrap your head around: it’s very possible to say sexist things (or racist things, or homophobic things) without being straight up John C. Wright. Internalized sexism, man, it’s a real thing. Which is why, if you’re not actually a sexist jerk, when someone says, “Hey dude, that thing you said was sexist and gross” you take a step back and think whoa, they might have a point.

      You have done this before, Lou. I have literally *seen* you do it, because you’re a good guy. You didn’t react by calling me a liberal fascist. At worst, we’ve had the occasional agree to disagree and left it all on polite terms. So frankly, I find it totally believable that Mr. Resnick isn’t sexist. I don’t think I’ve actually personally accused him of being sexist or a misogynist. But that said, I sure do think he’s an asshole thanks to his in-print reaction to the lady people not being all sunshine and puppies about his column.

      I’m glad that Mr. Resnick has helped a lot of people out. I’m glad that he’s helped you out. But that in no way obligates me or anyone else who was offended by his words and then angered by his shared trolling to give him a pass. If the guy wrote an essay tomorrow where he sincerely apologized for being a massive fucking troll, I’d accept the apology and move the fuck on because I firmly believe that it’s my obligation to let mistakes go when they’ve been understood, learned from, and paid for. (Which is, in my opinion, something not enough people are willing to do. Human beings make mistakes. We all do it. We should be able to change our minds, fix our mistakes, and be allowed to move on with life.) But that said, if an apology of some sort has happened already, I sure missed it.

      And I’m going to say this too, because I smell ghosts of it in your reply and this has been bothering the fuck out of me for a long time so I’m going to try to articulate it.

      I used to buy into the idea that one should politely ignore granny when she says racist things because she grew up in a different time and her long life and years of sacrifice to keep our parents alive entitles her to a certain amount of respect. (That respect apparently equates with mute acceptance is its own kettle of fish.) But as I’ve grown older and I’ve watched my own parents grow older and discussed the topic with them over and over again, I’ve frankly changed my mind. I think it’s incredibly disrespectful to the older generation to imply that they cannot be expected to understand that the world isn’t the same as it was when they were my age. I think it’s incredibly disrespectful to the older generation to act as if they are no longer adult human beings capable of modifying their long-held beliefs and changing with the times. And I frankly don’t believe they deserve to be treated any differently when it comes to having those beliefs challenged, nor expected to be any less reasonable. And at the risk of putting words in the mouth of my mom and dad (who is only ten years younger than Mr. Resnick and sure as shit knows how to apologize when he’s been called out for something) I would daresay they agree.

      Reading over that entry, the only thing I would change even today would be perhaps my emphasis on the age of Messrs Resnick and Malzberg. Their age should have been immaterial to my reaction and I’ve since been taken to task for that by people of their same generation who have managed to grasp the concept that many women find ogling offensive these days. (In fact, many of those people were women who find ogling offensive and are now pleased to be able to say so much more freely!) It’s neither a reason or an excuse.

      When someone has done amazing things and helped other people out, that should be recognized. But that is not a free pass to then say anything without expectation of consequence or criticism. And frankly, I find the expectation from a person or his (or her) fans that their achievements should be treated as a get out of jail free card distasteful in the extreme. It’s very possible to acknowledge someone as an elder statesman for what they’ve done while still feeling free to say they are full of shit when they say something that is offensive or wrong or just plain full of shit. (Eg: Linus Pauling.) And frankly, just as I’m not required to delineate all the dumb stuff someone has ever said when I’m praising them, I’m also not in any way required to preface my distaste and anger with a disclaimer that someone has done a lot of really awesome stuff. It’s a fucking blog post, not a hagiography.

      * *

      And to add on, since you brought up the whole “but men get objectified too!” thing (really?):
      First off, not all “objectification” of men is aimed at women. Arguably, most of it *isn’t*. EG: Male objectification in superhero comics:–the-myth-of-male-objectification-in-superhero-comics/

      Second off, and god I cannot begin to tell you how tired I am of “but romance covers!” getting brought up. Considering the entire point of that genre is basically to sell a story in which sex and romance in the main component, I think we’ve finally hit on a place where one could argue objectification is somehow…appropriate. That’s not the word I want, but you get what I mean. So basically, bitching about bare-chested dudes on romance covers would be more like me complaining that there are tits on the cover of that porn that me bitching about bikinis on fantasy novels. Unless we’re saying that fantasy and scifi are just supposed to be romance for men? (I sure hope not.) All you have to do is look at the occurrence of scantily clad female characters on covers for books that completely lack sex/romance as a main theme to get that there is something really hinky going on. It’s also, funny enough, not at all hard to find romance readers and writers who either loathe the beefcake covers or think they’re basically a giant joke.

      If I actually even *read* romance to begin with I’d feel more inclined to care–but I don’t. (I do, however, read comics and science fiction!) And let’s not pretend that this “objectification goes both ways” claim has anywhere close to equivalent frequency on the two sides. And you know what? Ultimately, I wouldn’t want a beefcake pinup on the cover of the bulletin either. It’s horrifically unprofessional.


      <3 Lou. You're good people. Sorry you feel stuck between an Acks and a Resnick. XD

  25. Reply Neville Ross Mar 2,2018 23:11

    A bit late, but here goes:

    What’s wrong with having female or male beefcake on the cover of a sci-fi literary magazine? You could have a Conan-type on the cover, and it wouldn’t be a problem, except that people like you have become (and IMHO are nothing but) uptight prudes who think that any body shown slightly nude is bad.

    Okay, perhaps Malzberg and Resnick should have had the lady in full chain mail with no fleshy parts showing, but having a lady warrior on the cover of this particular issue of this magazine should have not blown up into such a big deal (or even make the page of The Guardian.) I though that you and others like you wanted to see more female representation in the medium anyway, so, what was the big deal?

    • Reply Alex Mar 2,2018 23:18

      1) It wasn’t their literary cheescake stroke-one-off fantasy magazine. The SFWA Bulletin is the trade magazine of a professional organization, one which has a lot of female members who were made uncomfortable by the organization they paid their dues to tacitly promoting the objectification of women.

      2) There’s a major difference between actual representation and shitty, stereotyped “representation” that is there for the pleasure of the majority viewpoint.

      3) “You and others like you.” Wow, really?

      • Reply Neville Ross Mar 2,2018 23:43

        Madame, give me a break; a warrior (female or male) on the cover of a publication for science fiction writers shouldn’t be a problem, especially for the mature adults reading said magazine. Yours and other’s destruction of two prominent writers only shows that you all are not interested in any kind of progressivism other than being some kind of neo-prudes and neo prudery. The ones that were offended could have asked for similar artwork of a male in the next issue, as I said, and it would not have been a problem as it would have been a matter of equal balance.

        But, I guess that this is par for the course of the Perpetually Poutraged™ in North America.

        • Reply Alex Mar 2,2018 23:53

          I don’t know, you seem pretty outraged that members of a professional organization dared to have opinions about the incredibly unprofessional front of a publication that was representing them to the world.

          Spare me your sanctimonious bullshit. Please. I’ll be trashing further comments unless you say something interesting. I have heard this exact same inane crap (including “fine, objectify some guys so it’s equal, whiners!”–you ever think maybe, just maybe, let’s try not objectifying anyone on the cover of a trade mag?) out of every dude outraged that something no longer caters to his tastes.

  26. Reply Steven Johnson Jan 14,2021 09:07

    Nice article!

Leave a Reply