Declare yourselves openly

So a couple of dinosaurs acted liked dinosaurs, which caused a big reaction, which caused a bigger backlash that is now spiralling out of control.

I thought the blog article was a bit whiny too. But I have trouble taking a blog seriously that is so politically correct that it won't use the terms 'lunacy' or 'idiocy' because they are apparently ableist (I had to look that up).
 
Verse said:
But I have trouble taking a blog seriously that is so politically correct that it won't use the terms 'lunacy' or 'idiocy' because they are apparently ableist (I had to look that up).
Click to expand...

I think that may have been a joke.

But if it was not, if the other points were cogent, how would that make them any less so?
 
Teresa Edgerton said:
I think that may have been a joke.

But if it was not, if the other points were cogent, how would that make them any less so?
Click to expand...

I read the blog post and while I didn't care for the snarky tone, I didn't take any issue with her points. Society evolves. It seems Resnick isn't keeping up with that evolution.

But! This response isn't helping anything: in the same way the author claims Resnick is talking about her and her piers but only doing so to his own piers, that is, his communication is not meant for her, but for other like-minded old white men, she is also talking about these old white men, but doing so solely to her own piers. It'd be nice to have a discourse on the issues at hand between both groups, but that would have to be handled with more civility than what is on display here.

As to the ableist bit, she kept throwing Poe's Law about, but I would think that if the ableist edits were a joke, then that joke would be a pretty good example of Poe's Law in itself. Also, the bits about sandworms, and more so, about the deathstar, that has to be in itself an example of Poe's Law, right? I would hope? (I can't tell, because I've heard odder takes on symbology in film, listening to fellow students post-modern feminist readings, way back in grad school.)
 
Garggh, I just came here to link to a thread I just put up on the Anna Guire blog - mods, do you want to combine them? Oops.


For what it's worth, I am a tiny aspiring writer miles from being anywhere and I already find these arguments - about sf being one thing and women not getting it - a massive erosion of confidence. I get feedback about the genre and wonder where on Earth I fit into it. I just close my eyes, tightly, and say I can't be the only person who wants sci fi to have real people, real relationships and not be all about the setting. If the blogs have done nothing else, they've convinced me I'm not. So that's a good thing, maybe?
 
Sad and odd to think participants at SFF conferences and workshops still have to deal with this kind of sexism.

If I look across at my bookshelf of newish SFF, I can see as many if not more women writers as men, from Lauren Beukes, Jo Walton, Elizabeth Bear, Kelly Link, Margaret Atwood to Karen Joy Fowler. And most male SFF writers I read aren't sexist and create women characters that I can identify with --
 
After reading the Ann Aguirre piece, a thought popped into my mind (it happens, occasionally): if one dismisses work because of who (and what) its author is, it should come as no surprise if, later, one's own work is dismissed because of who wrote it.

This more than implies something else: this is a matter of power (or of Privilege, to use that sometimes unhelpful word). Those appallingly behaved male SF writers at those cons could only act and speak the way they did because they had the power. But they only have that power because they were not called out on their behaviour, at least not in public.

So, for once, I think the current furore (if that's what it is) is a very good thing. So let them think and say what they like, but don't let them hold sway without criticism.
 
Thank you Springs and Brian: I think that's an extremely sensible comment. But to convince, the setting has to be full of realistic people - not necessarily to exactly reflect real life, but not to offend the reader with crassness or incredibility.

To my mind, this isn't about making some sort of decision as a writer to be on one side or another of some kind of feminism debate. To be honest, the details of feminist thinking are pretty much lost on me, and that doesn't make me a bad person. (Is pornography empowering? I have no idea*.) But - if you are to depict a setting realistically, its inhabitants have to ring true. And if your female characters are going into battle in high heels, you're not doing that. You're failing in the duty to write credible fiction.

On the broader issue of bad behaviour among readers and fans, some of it seems so extreme that my automatic reaction is to suspect that it's exaggerated. Surely intelligent people who think about the future don't act like that? But then I realise that there is no real evidence to think that. It seems pretty clear that there is a real problem, and quite a substantial one. And again, the more I think about it, it seems less like an issue of choosing feminism or somesuch, but basic decency. And it's clear that this isn't being displayed in some quarters. The real issue should always be "Is this book good?". Questions that come down to whether X should be allowed to write this sort of book just don't matter, and shouldn't be allowed to.

So there you go. Behave decently and write credible fiction. Next time, I'll be solving the problem of global inequality and making all religions calm down and be friends.

*Depends.
 
I'd agree with a lot of Toby's comments. Its very difficult to know where I'm straying into offensive territory, or a book I read is. Entering the debate can be quite intimidating as well! Obviously being sidelined and ridiculed at conventions is hideous...but a picture of a warrior woman scantily clad? I don't understand why it's wrong to have that on a website and not, say, Conan the barbarian in a loin cloth.
 
Ursa major said:
After reading the Ann Aguirre piece, a thought popped into my mind (it happens, occasionally): if one dismisses work because of who (and what) its author is, it should come as no surprise if, later, one's own work is dismissed because of who wrote it.

This more than implies something else: this is a matter of power (or of Privilege, to use that sometimes unhelpful word). Those appallingly behaved male SF writers at those cons could only act and speak the way they did because they had the power. But they only have that power because they were not called out on their behaviour, at least not in public.

So, for once, I think the current furore (if that's what it is) is a very good thing. So let them think and say what they like, but don't let them hold sway without criticism.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
Rolynd said:
I'd agree with a lot of Toby's comments. Its very difficult to know where I'm straying into offensive territory, or a book I read is. Entering the debate can be quite intimidating as well! Obviously being sidelined and ridiculed at conventions is hideous...but a picture of a warrior woman scantily clad? I don't understand why it's wrong to have that on a website and not, say, Conan the barbarian in a loin cloth.
Click to expand...

It's not an easy answer, but where I think the difference lies with eg Conan in a loin cloth is that a. the sexual bits of him tend to be well covered, and also, it tends to be portrayed to show off his prowess and strength. Whereas, a woman in a skimpy bikini or -- was it chain mail bikini? -- tends to be done to show off their feminity and to make them look sexy. Often the outfits are distinctly, shall we say... revealing.

Where there's more of a problem is the consideration of how often images appear. The number of sexy female soldiers wearing distinctly unpractical, half clothed, uniforms outnumbers the male soldiers running through a battlefield in their loincloths.
 
Also important to note that the furore over the SFWA bulletin has as much to do with their reaction to criticism (i.e. calling women--and men--who voiced objections "fascists" who want "censorship," while peppering the dialogue with patronizing references to "lady" writers and "lady" editors) as it does the criticism itself. Never would have blown up like this if that hadn't happened.

Goes without saying that free speech doesn't entail freedom from criticism.
 
The original blogger linked in the original article addresses the Conan question, and her logic holds up well. Half naked Conan images are meant to gratify a male fantasy more so than a woman's. They are about muscles and strength and power and whatever else. That's not to say that they may not also coincide with the fantasies of some women, but the prevalence of that archetype is due to a male fantasy.

My issue is with how she communicated this (interesting)point. She had an observation that, if communicated with a bit of civility instead of scorn, might have actually got through to folks who, for whatever reason, hadn't come round to that way of thinking. Instead, most of those old white men she's talking about would have either quit reading by then, or been all incredulous and miss the point.
 
Verse said:
It wouldn't make the points any less cogent but it makes me doubt the intent of the person delivering them. Hence, can't take it (the blog post) seriously.
Click to expand...

It isn't a joke, and it shouldn't be. "Ableism" is the assumption that people who have developmental or learning difficulties, handicaps, mental illnesses, or facial disfigurements are lesser people.

Using the word "lunacy" or "idiocy" in that post could have been interpreted as an ableist action because those words are only insulting if you assume that being mentally ill or possessing a learning difficulty is something that merits insult.

In normal contexts "lunacy" and "idiocy" are probably more okay than in this particular context, because the entire post is about privilege and sexism.

Your comments gave me an uncomfortable shiver up the spine, for context.
 
Glisterspeck said:
She had an observation that, if communicated with a bit of civility instead of scorn, might have actually got through to folks who, for whatever reason, hadn't come round to that way of thinking.
Click to expand...

But who would have read it if she wrote it with civility -- would it have attracted the same attention?

One point in the debate is that some people think that women should be quiet and polite -- like the perfect young ladies that charm schools turned out in the 1950s and 60s, I presume -- and not express themselves as forcefully as men when they feel very strongly about a subject (in this case because it impacts them). If a man wrote an article about ... well, anything ... with the same amount of anger and sarcasm, would people be complaining that it should be more polite?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
RJM Corbet NASA declares OPPORTUNITY rover dead after 15years on Mars Science & Nature 0
S Sci-fi writers declare war in Amazon Book Discussion 0
Harpo Western black rhino declared extinct Science & Nature 5
clovis-man Declare Tim Powers 8
J Rare white dolphin declared extinct Science & Nature 8

Similar threads


Back
Top