Categories
sfwa silly

FAQ: What is SFWA in charge of?***

Things SFWA is in charge of:

  1. The Nebula Awards!
  2. Writer Beware!
  3. SFWA.org
  4. GriefCom!
  5. The SFWA Emergency Medical fund
  6. The SFWA Bulletin and other publications that say “SFWA” on it like that one awesome cookbook with the super alcoholic Irish coffee recipe in.

Things SFWA is not in charge of:

  1. Worldcon
  2. The Hugo Awards
  3. The success or failure of your book
  4. Bees! (OR ARE THEY  AREN’T THEY?  AREN’T? ENGLISH IS HARD HELP)
  5. This thing
  6. The Hugo Awards
  7. Any member’s personal website like this one oops
  8. George RR Martin’s beret
  9. People who pronounce nuclear like “nuke-YEW-ler.”
  10. The Hugo Awards
  11. The second law of thermodynamics
  12. The way Cat Rambo’s hair keeps changing color, as if there’s nothing dependable left in this world and we’ll all just go spinning off into the void at any moment
  13. The Permian extinction
  14. El chupacabra
  15. The way cilantro tastes soapy to some people and not to others
  16. The Hugo Awards
  17. Chemtrails
  18. The really shitty traffic on the local highway you have to use every day
  19. The Hugo Awards
  20. Quantum entanglement
  21. That mysterious glowing substance that you shouldn’t have licked but you did it anyway because you were a dumb teenager and in fifty years you’re probably going to die of eyeball spleen cancer
  22. March Madness
  23. The fact that we STILL do not have a Black Widow movie and yet Ant Man? Seriously?
  24. HAARP
  25. That garbage music kids these days listen to
  26. The Hugo Awards
  27. This guy
  28. The fact that chocolate is so fattening goddammit SFWA why
  29. Bacon, cats, or John Scalzi
  30. That you can never find a pen when you need one
  31. Or that you finally find a pen and IT IS ALWAYS OUT OF INK
  32. Rainbow suspenders (or “embarrassingly enthusiastic weather braces” for our British readers)
  33. That thing on Donald Trump’s head
  34. The Hugo Awards
  35. THE MOTHERFUCKING HUGO AWARDS

I hope this clears things up.

 

 

*** – I am not an officer in SFWA. I am not speaking in an official capacity for SFWA. This website is not sanctioned by SFWA. I keep trying to text SFWA and it won’t return my texts any more either, I don’t know, maybe it’s just busy? Call me, baby.

Categories
sfwa someone is wrong on the internet

The Flounce Continues: The Flouncening

Edited significantly on 4/30 at 1238 because I had my opinion forcibly modified downward and am feeling much less charitable now.

I’m not the only one on the “deets or GTFO” wagon. Apparently SFWA already requested evidence as well and Mr. Wright was too much of a “gentleman” to provide it. So again: Deet it or beat it.

Also, apparently Brad Torgersen is letting his SFWA membership lapse. I’m not planning to be the SFWA membership monitoring police (I have a real job and god, I do not even care), but I did want to mention it because of his stated reasons.

Instead of tackling (head on) the job of defending authors’ interests in a publishing industry enduring great change, SFWA contents itself by persecuting individual members for perceived sins of nonconformity, engaging in ideological purity tests (“Your papers . . . they are not in order!”) and impugning the reputations of men (and women) who have devoted their lives to enriching and growing the field.

(Brad, if you ever by chance stumble across this, I would like to say in all sincerity, thank you for acknowledging that whole women existing thing, if parenthetically. And using words like “members” and “officers.” I’m serious; the difference us stark when you put you’re words next to Mr. Wright’s. So thank you.)

And also:

I’ve seen a mentor slandered, attacked, and thrown out of the Bulletin, and I’ve seen my editor straw-manned and maligned by one of SFWA’s darlings and former top officers.

This is my issue. Actually, two of them. And since this was a comment on Mr. Wright’s blog and not a melodramatic letter created for public consumption, I think it’s fair for me to admit I may be overthinking things a little.

First: If you are accusing the organization itself of a campaign of persecution, same rules apply: deets or GTFO. And sorry, you don’t get to use Theodore Beale. History has yet to be rewritten to that extent. If you are accusing SFWA as an organization of impugning the reputations of others, then I sure hope you’ve got some newsletters or publications or official e-mails or something to back that one up.

Second: There is some inconsistency here that has gone beyond bugging me and into I cannot survive if I don’t say something territory.

Mr. Torgersen complains about “I’ve seen my editor straw-manned and maligned by one of SFWA’s darlings and former top officers.” Mr. Wright complained that, “Instead of men who treat each other with professionalism and respect, I find a mob of perpetually outraged gray-haired juveniles.” Which, stop me if I’m wrong, sure sounds like, “people are being mean on the internet.” And maybe I am reading too much into this, but considering it’s being cited as a reason to leave SFWA, there’s a hefty implication of “and SFWA should do something about it.”

Now, if you don’t want to be in an organization in which there are members who think you’re an asshole and don’t mind saying so out loud where other people can see, that’s clearly your right and I’m not going to say that you can’t/shouldn’t leave or mock you for it. There were plenty of people who dropped the org when Beale was a member because he either was after them or they just thought he was fucking disgusting and didn’t want to be associated with him even peripherally. And it can be very not fun to be in an organization when you feel people are hostile toward you, I get that too. Feels bad, man. But that’s kind of how it goes when you get a lot of people with wildly differing opinions who like writing a lot together and have no rules of engagement apart from “If you take a shit on our private property the ban hammer will descend.”

So here’s my problem. It’s the mentions of the bulletin on one hand–PC censorship!–and then on the other complaints that individual members are jackasses. The Bulletin is something SFWA can police, because it belongs to the organization. And not only that, it represents the organization and SFWA has every right to not want something, oh just pulling a totally random example out of thin air here, deeply disrespectful toward women written across its public face since holy shit it’s well past the year y2k and women are people.

SFWA doesn’t police its members when they’re on their own time and in their own spaces, however. That has always been very clear since when I joined at least, and every time there is a hint to the contrary the goddamn sky falls in. Now, I may be of the opinion that certain things should be beyond the pale, eg threats, racism, etc, but I also know there are people who would disagree with me even on that…and I’m not in charge of the org either. And this is the very reason Theodore Beale lasted as long as he did, until he took a warm, racist shit all over the SFWA Twitter feed.

Current SFWA officers have to be very careful and very clear about when they’re speaking in their capacity as officers, but they don’t sign away their right to have personal thoughts when they get elected. (Talk about making a thankless job even more thankless.) Former officers can say whatever the fuck they want. This should go without saying, but regular members can say what the fuck they want on their own time and in their own space. Because you know. Free speech. Remember that? I thought the crowd that’s self-identified as taking a stand against the evil SFWA liberal PC-police was really in to free such. Or is that only for speech they like, and only in the comments section of others?

I wonder if perhaps now Mr. Wright and Mr. Torgersen feel some empathy for the people who were driven from the org by that shit stain in the pants of humanity, Theodore Beale. Because where the fuck were they then, aiming their sad censure at How Unprofessional Some People Are Being?

Pretending to be the adult in the room is a damn sight less believable from someone who has actively tried to make things worse in the past. (Courtesy of Natalie, from this post.)

I’m really, really done with this bullshit.

ETA at 1314, 4/30: 2 things:
1) Brad had responded in the comments with the requested deets, fwiw.
2) To clarify, my mentions of Beale are not directly connected to Brad’s resignation reasoning; I’m aware there he’s talking about Resnick and Weisskopf specifically there. My opinion on Resnick and the Bulletin should already be abundantly clear, so I obviously do not agree with him on that one. I don’t have much of an opinion about the Weisskopf thing because tbh I found her essay kind of incoherent and couldn’t parse get point well enough to form a solid opinion. The Beale thing has more to do with other comments of Brad’s I have read elsewhere. And also I hope makes the point well that it’s not like SFWA members being assholes on the internet is a new thing, and as far as I’m concerned no current assholery even approaches that level.

Edited my above comment at 1457 because I erroneously kept saying Hoyt instead of Weisskopf. I have no excuse for that mistake, mea culpa.

Categories
science fiction sfwa someone is wrong on the internet

It’s okay, John C. Wright, you’re pretty too.

Remember this fucking guy? He has done a public flounce from SFWA now. It’s delightfully pompous as flounces go, and I highly recommend it if you need a dose of evil glee to round out your Monday. (Though I am forced to wonder why someone who seems so enamored of strict gender roles has decided to emulate a stereotypical teenaged girl, albeit one armed with a thesaurus and a King James Bible.) No idea why the flounce occurred today of all days, as SFWA has been nicely quiet for some time.

My best guess is

  1. Mr. Wright is jealous that the other super misogynistic embarrassment to science fiction (you know, Theodore Beale) is getting all the attention and desperately wants the cute girl whose parents gave her a mustang for Christmas the internet to pay attention to him and validate his outrage.
  2. Mr. Wright’s membership is up and he decided to not renew in the most flamboyant way he could find without shelling out the money for a sky writer.
  3. A confluence of luck that made both happen at the same time?

(Dear people who keep trying to blame the syphilitic outbreak on the Hugos on SFWA, get it straight. We give out the Nebulas. Address your complaints to WSFS, and then buy a supporting membership in Loncon 3 so you can vote. Because that’s how the Hugos work. SFWA has nothing to do with it. And I hope Mr. Wright knows that considering he was until today a member of the organization.)

There isn’t really that much to say other than the evil belly laugh for which hairy-legged feminists like myself are renowned, the sound of which causes agony to all good god-fearing men. Well, other than to point out a couple things in his florid love letter to his own ego that he really should be ashamed of typing. You know. If shame is a thing he does.

Instead of enhancing the prestige of the genre, the leadership seems bent on holding us up to the jeers of all fair-minded men by behaving as gossips, whiners, and petty totalitarians, and by supporting a political agenda irrelevant to science fiction.

Sorry dude, if you have a problem with gossips and whiners, you really shouldn’t have typed out that entire letter there and posted it on the internet.

Instead of men who treat each other with professionalism and respect, I find a mob of perpetually outraged gray-haired juveniles.

I really wish you guys would get your internet persecution complexes straight. I thought we were The Young. (DAH DAH DAAAAAAAAAH!) Now we’re gray-haired juveniles? Did we have a terribly dye job accident? Also, the fact that Wright again and again talks about men and completely ignores the fact that there are people of all genders in the org makes me INCREDIBLY glad the door isn’t hitting him on the ass on the way out.

But all of this is honestly just mockery on my part, and really has no meaning beyond me just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Mr. Wright can be upset that women are allowed to speak in public or whatever has his ass in a twist and it really does not matter in the long run. Except for this one right here, and this is where I draw the line:

Instead of receiving aid to my writing career, I find organized attempts to harass my readers and hurt my sales figures.

Does he provide any evidence for this? No. And I will flatly state as a member of SFWA who frequents the message boards, I have not heard word one of even a breath of an idea that could even begin to approach the hint of the shadow of  anything of this nature. Mr. Wright further states in an addendum to the letter that he will not be providing any evidence because he’s totally a professional, and professionals don’t kiss and tell provide evidence for their accusations.

This is bullshit. And is also commonly magical internet speak for “uh oh I don’t actually have any evidence oh shit just pretend to be taking the high road and hope no one notices!” And the more I think about it, the more it just flat fucking pisses me off. It’s all fun and casual taunting games until someone makes an accusation that can actually be supported with evidence.

If this is an actual real thing that has happened, it needs to be stopped. Because going after someone’s readers and harassment is never okay, whether you like the person involved or not. But considering the nature of the rest of the letter, unless he has evidence of this organized harassment of his readers with the intention of hurting his sales figures, Mr. Wright would be far worse than a man in love with his own persecution complex. He would be a liar. The rest of his complaints are the standard differences of opinion, and they are what they are, agree or not. This one is an actual accusation, and as such should be backed up with actual facts if he wants to have any hope of credibility.

Or as we say on the internet: Deets or GTFO.

ETA 4/29: Apparently SFWA requested evidence as well and Mr. Wright was too much of a “gentleman” to provide it.

And Steven Gould, president of SFWA, had a few things to say about these accusations, which includes both his personal opinions and notes on SFWA policy.

And the flounce continues!

Categories
sfwa

I’m glad I’m part of this hot mess.

So obviously, kerfuffle, asses being shown, not going to retread that. There’s so much bothering me about the situation I could rant about for days, which could really be summarized by me throwing my hands up in the air and shrieking, “You’re grown damn adults, so act like it!” Meh. I have a really rough core description that’s melting down most of my higher brain functions right now, so my capacity for continued melodramatic outrage is on hold.

But I do want to say something, because I think it’s actually important: Since the start of this, there’s been a sort of hoo boy there goes SFWA again attitude, with a helping of glad I’m not part of that hot mess, which I’ll admit is pretty standard when you’re enjoying a steaming cup of fresh schadenfreude on the internet.

Obvious fact: I’m a SFWA member. And I’m actually pretty proud to call myself that. I’ve been even more proud recently because we’re weathering a wankstorm that, from where I stand, got thrown our way for doing the right thing.

This is not going to be me going on and on about how much we’re trying. Because no one really gives a shit. Do or do not, there is no try. All nerds know that. What I want to tell you is why I joined SFWA to begin with and why I’m still a member despite occasional moments when I really just want to start chewing on my own office furniture.

I joined SFWA in 2010, literally the same day I signed by contract with Beneath Ceaseless Skies for The Book of Autumn. To a certain extent, this was actually John Scalzi’s fault, because I’d been reading his blog forever, and he mentioned SFWA from time to time. But it was more because I’d decided I wanted to start writing seriously. It didn’t take a whole lot of research at that point to figure out that the list of SFWA-approved publications generally paid better than others, and were far less likely to jerk writers around. By that time I was also very familiar with Writer Beware.

(You do regularly check Writer Beware, right? If not, you really should. That site has saved my ass a couple of times. There are some bad people out there who like feasting on the desperation and bank accounts of people who want to be published.)

I also, I’d like to note, owned my very own copy of Atlanta Nights before I joined SFWA, and maybe you can point to that as the main event that made me an actual fan of the organization. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, do yourself a favor and go read about it. It’s a hilarious story and something of a caper, and it actually happened.

In a way it was also my own experience as someone who started her professional life in a union that made me so eager to pony up my membership fee. I thought of SFWA (and still do) as a loose sort of writer’s union. Not something that had the power of collective bargaining, say, but an organization with enough heft that it could at least put a dent in the actions of abusive publishers and try to encourage better contract conditions and pay.

The nice thing is, from that angle everyone has the potential to benefit from the organization’s existence whether they belong to it or not. Anyone can get information from Writer Beware. Anyone can submit stories to markets that SFWA considers qualifying. I’d daresay anyone can tattle to SFWA (or probably any of the other professional writers’ associations out there) about the shitty behavior of a publisher and get their attention. In the less than four years since I joined SFWA, I’ve seen the organization go after multiple publishers who weren’t meeting their contractual obligations to their authors. I’ve seen the organization pressure publishers who were trying to trying to slide by shitty, predatory contracts (eg: the original Random House Hydra Imprint contract).

When I got my contracts sorted out for my third qualifying short story sale, I immediately upgraded my membership.

There are a lot of other things SFWA can do for members, most of which I haven’t needed to go near yet, and I honestly hope I never will. I’ve never had to use the Grievance Committee. I’ve never needed help from the Emergency Medical Fund. To be honest, any immediate material benefits I’ve received so far from the organization, I would still get without membership. But I’m there anyway. I want to support an organization that’s already done a lot to make my floundering attempts at a writing career easier, and I’m in a financial place where I can definitely afford to do that.

And don’t get me wrong, there are definitely things actually being in the organization has done for me, some of which are much more fuzzy in terms of immediate benefit, but I wouldn’t trade it for anything. I’ve gotten to meet and talk to some really amazing people I probably wouldn’t have gotten to meet otherwise. I’ve gotten to watch some really informative (and entertaining) arguments take place. I’ve heard about opportunities and been warned about pitfalls. I’ve got access to a group of people to whom I can ask silly questions without being worried I’ll get shit on for it. I’ve gotten to play door dragon at the last two Worldcons and you have no idea how much fun that is for me. I’ve made the current president of SFWA laugh so hard he spilled his drink (a nice whiskey) down the front of his shirt.

The first SFWA officer I ever met was Jim Fiscus, incidentally, during a regional meeting at Mile Hi Con. I told him I had just joined SFWA, and he shook my hand and welcomed me in. I walked away from that conversation with one of the biggest warm fuzzies of my young writer life. It makes me incredibly sad to think that not everyone has gotten to have even that simple, kind experience. I know that not everyone has had my good fortune, and I wish that wasn’t the case.

This shouldn’t be read as an attempt at recruitment, or a slap at people who could be members of SFWA and aren’t. Whoever you are reading this, you make your own decisions about what’s best for your own career and sanity, and I don’t make a habit of arguing about that kind of stuff. Like most all things on my blog, this is about me. Me, me, me. In light of the wank still circling on the internet and the muffled screams emanating from my own frustration, I wanted to lay it all out there.

When you love someone (or something, I suppose in this case) it can frustrate you like nothing else, probably because you do love it and expect great things. Sometimes you get disappointed. Sometimes (hopefully most of the time!) you don’t. And I have a lot of reasons to hang onto SFWA with the kind of ferocity normally reserved for terriers when you try to take their favorite toy.

Don’t be surprised if there’s growling.

Categories
rants sexism sfwa stoopid

You only hate boobs because you hate freedom.

Or: the most hilarisad thing I heard this weekend.

So, this ties back into the SFWA thing from last year. You know, the bulletin cover that made me sigh profoundly and roll my eyes? And then the wanksplosion that caused me to write a post to specifically say “Fuck you” to Malzberg and Resnick? It is the gift that keeps on giving. Only this time it’s just funny, in the same way watching a cat fall off a desk is funny.

There is apparently a petition circulating in regards to the SFWA bulletin because…censorship! And first amendment! And freedom! The petition is courtesy of David Truesdale. If you’ve never heard of him, read the review he did of Apex Magazine #55 and that’ll basically tell you what you need to know. He’s also, it’s important to note, not a member of SFWA, which makes the entire concept of this petition extra wtf-y.

The link to Radish Reviews really covers most of the mockery that immediately springs to mind. Holy double bonus fuck you asshole points to David Truesdale for his super gross allusions to slavery! Because not being able to belittle entire groups and enjoy scantily clad women courtesy of a professional organization is totally same as the injustices and crimes perpetrated upon countless people throughout history!

But three points.

One: While there is arguably a “female gaze” in operation in movies like, say, Twilight, “men get objectified too” is a bullshit argument. Particularly when the objectification being cited involves the big muscular manly man ideal. I’d argue most of the time, that stuff isn’t made for female consumption; it’s created as the manly ideal men are supposed to want to meet. (Another mention here, and a succinct summation here.) Which is, yes, still incredibly fucked up, but send your thank you note to the patriarchy and its ridiculous love of over-emphasized sexual dimorphism and gender roles.

Two: At this point, the moment I see the phrase “politically correct” I automatically roll my eyes. Because it is invariably a whiney, impotent asshole defending their supposed right to not only aggressively be an asshole, but to aggressively be an asshole in a sandbox over which they have no control. Here’s your “you tried” gold star.

Three, and by far the most important: SFWA is a professional organization. And it’s not the only professional organization of which I’m a member, so don’t even try to blow smoke up my ass on this one.

I’ve also been part of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) for years (far longer than I’ve been part of SFWA, actually). During those years, not once has AAPG sent me a bulletin that contained pictures of scantily clad women draped on rock formations or pretending to study seismic lines while sticking their pert bottoms in the air. Not once has AAPG sent me an official communication that included dismissive discussions of “lady geologists” and how hot the first wave of women in petroleum geoscience looked in bikinis. AAPG, I will also note, has an online moderation policy for its content that reserves the right to delete racist, sexist, and otherwise offensive comments.

(I suppose this must be because as much as they love oil and gas, they hate freedom. Or something.)

Now, this could be because I just haven’t been reading the bulletins carefully enough. And it’s not because geology as a science managed to completely avoid historical sexism. And it’s not that the G in AAPG actually stands for “gynocracy” because trust me, if you’ve ever been to the national meeting, you’d know that there are still way more men in the field than there are women.

So I’m just going to throw this out there: maybe there aren’t bikini babes in the AAPG bulletin because, I don’t know, AAPG is a fucking professional organization that has women in its membership and wants to maintain its credibility as an organization in the public eye.

How fucking hard is that to figure out?

I don’t give two shits if the historic legacy of an industry is one of bikini babes codified sexism. You know what? One way or another, that’s how it is in most industries! There is a difference between understanding the roots of one’s industry, and perpetuating and celebrating it. There’s a huge fucking difference. Particularly when those historic roots being perpetuated in a modern context are insulting to a big whack of your membership and the public.

The publications of an organization are its face to both the public and its membership. Effectively, what is in those pages is viewed as being in line with the organization’s values and vision because the organization fucking paid to put it there.

SFWA members don’t pay their $90 annual dues to be told what to think or how they should express themselves in the pages of the Bulletin, nor do they want their own thoughts (through their articles or columns) to be deemed “acceptable” or “right thinking,” or adhering to some jumped-up (always subject to change at whim) PC style manual by some hootenanny “advisory board”” of boot lickers. [from here, pdf from main post]

Yeah, you know what I don’t pay $90 for? Being belittled by the professional organization of which I’m a member.

Go fuck yourself.

Categories
feminism rants sfwa women in science writing

Lady [Insert Job Title Here]

This may come as a shock, but I am not a “Lady Geologist.” I do not examine women visually and use lab tests in order to understand their physical properties, provenance, and environment of deposition. I have never gone up to a female stranger, hammered a chunk off of her, and sent it to the lab so I could determine the abundance of her constituent minerals. That kind of thing would, I assume, land me in jail.

I’m a Sedimentary Geologist. I commit those sorts of friendly acts on sedimentary rocks, which are mineralogically more interesting and also don’t mind if you take a hammer to them. (Okay maybe they do mind, but they have no legal standing under current US law.)

I would likewise think that “Lady Lawyers” don’t limit themselves to female clients. And “Lady Engineers” don’t spend their time designing more durable women in AutoCAD. And “Lady Writers” (this I can speak to personally) don’t just write women or about women. And “Lady Editors” don’t leave trails of women in their wake, panting and covered with marks made in track changes.

Oh, right. The “Lady” is supposed to indicate that we’re a professional of some sort that happens to be a lady. And what’s wrong with that?

It’s simple. By feeling the need to point out that holy shit, that engineer is a woman, you are paying lip service to the idea that it’s only normal for men to be engineers. That women are the exception instead of just a normal part of the professional landscape. When you append or job titles with the unnecessary flag of gender, it effectively removes us from the work ecosystem and marks us as an invasive species, abnormal and not belonging.

Maybe I could have understood that more back when women were just starting to claw our way as a group out of the role of housewife, but our presence in the workforce hasn’t been a surprise in decades or far longer. (At my ripe old age of 32, I literally do not remember a time when women were not doctors, lawyers, and engineers, though admittedly not without struggle.) It isn’t shocking–SHOCKING!–that women write scifi. You have heard about this little book called Frankenstein, right?

And using the word Lady instead of Woman? Just makes it sound more cutesy and condescending because it’s a callback to all that chivalry bullshit. I’m not a lady, guys. I’m a woman. I’ve yet to hear someone referred to as a Lady Anything when her accomplishments or her gender weren’t then subsequently (if subtly) belittled. Wow, look what she did, and she’s a lady! Look what that lady did, unlike all those other women! Pretending to be amazed over and over again that we are here and working and doing just fine effectively erases our presence in the past.

Do you get what I’m saying? Do you get why I (and many of my fellow women, though please don’t think I am in any way claiming to speak for all women) are getting a little tired of that shit? Do you get why, even if it wasn’t meant to be patronizing or paternalistic, it might sound that way?

Good. Now kindly knock it off.

When I’m at work, I’m a goddamn Sedimentary Geologist. I’m a Writer. The presence or absence of tits does not change either of these facts.

Categories
rants sfwa

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

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.

Signed,

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?

Categories
sfwa

Also, Jim C. Hines is awesome in case you didn’t know

The BBC did a cool article about Jim C. Hines and his ongoing series where he tries to pose like ladies on fantasy/scifi covers. Kind of like live action Hawkeye Initiative, except instead of Hawkeye we have a real life SF author, which is infinitely cooler in my opinion.

This coming out in the same week as the sigh-worthy SFWA Bulletin cover is just a lovely juxtaposition, though, isn’t it.

Categories
sfwa sigh

Sigh.

Rescued my SFWA Bulletin from the mail today. And… sigh. We’re apparently celebrating the 200th issue with a muscular barbarian babe in a chainmail bikini with red poofy 80s hair.

I know we should celebrate our pulpy genre roots and take glee in them, and I try people, I really try. And the cover is always a fantasy/scifi thing, which I’ve always liked. But this? It doesn’t even bug me so much as… sigh. Yeah, that.

Can I not even escape getting punched in the face by the unattainable “idealized” female body in my nerdy writer space? It’s not like female writers are exotic specimens you only see on safaris or feminists (of any gender) in the organization have been shy about making their presence known. But it feels as if ‘Bonus: we remind you of the pervasiveness of the male gaze!’ should be in yellow under Bud Sparhawk’s name in the lineup.

Sigh.

Double bonus – the Resnick and Malzberg dialog at the back is to sing the praises of lady editors and publishers. With, “She was competent, unpretentious, and beauty pageant gorgeous… as photographs make quite clear. Tell succeeding generations all about her [Dorothy McIlwraith], please.” at the start.

Just… sigh.