The Latest SFWA Controversy

Mr Flibble said:

I tend not to check out an author re politics etc before I read (or after unless I'm all WTF???) But if I discover it on the offchance? And there's a good chance I'll want to spork my eyes out if I read.....?

Click to expand...

I don't either, but if it comes to my attention, then yeah, it's hard to not have that spoil things for me. A lot of the time, author with politics I find beyond the pale write the kind of stuff that doesn't appeal to me anyway, or their beliefs come into it to such an extent it's hard to ignore, or at least gives me a vaguely unsettled feeling which make more sense if the reason for it comes out.

There is one author in particular that I'm thinking of here, who was working very hard on behalf of an organization that came into my own home state and helped bankroll the anti marriage equality referendum that the supreme court just decided not to decide on (and thus it went down, as a lower court had already ruled it unconstitutional--US law is complex that way with our state courts and federal circuit courts).

I've had people I'm a closed-minded person, a bigot really, for holding his right to be involved in political causes he believes in against him, and for not wanting to read his books as a consequence.

But darn it, when people use that right to campaign on behalf of causes that keep rights differentially away from some segment of the population (or try to take them away), then it makes me especially angry. I'm not going to tell other folks, even folks who share my political passions, they shouldn't read these books, but I sure don't want to.

Roxxsmom said:

I'm not going to tell other folks, even folks who share my political passions, they shouldn't read these books, but I sure don't want to.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. I'm not proposing banning books, or that anyone else can't read/enjoy them (though I might give you a funny look and edge away from you if you tell me Slave Girl of Gor is a liberating story of feminine sexuality). Just that I don't want to read them

Mr Flibble said:

Yes, exactly. I'm not proposing banning books, or that anyone else can't read/enjoy them (though I might give you a funny look and edge away from you if you tell me Slave Girl of Gor is a liberating story of feminine sexuality). Just that I don't want to read them

Click to expand...

My high school boyfriend tried to tell me just that, more than thirty years ago. I should have backed away nervously sooner than I did instead of trying to read the things I do thank those books for one thing, though. They made it very clear to me that the conviction shared by many of my female friends and relatives back in the 80s--that feminism was no longer needed in our society--was patently untrue.

Houseplants of Gor, of course, is another matter entirely. I know now why my philodendron was failing to thrive. I thought it might be the lack of light in that corner, and the fact that I often forget to water it. But now that have I told it that I shall water it at my will, and made it clear that it must submit to whatever light conditions I deem fit, it has turned a lovely shade of brown.

NicoleJLeBoeuf said:

This is an item that's raised its head a few times in the thread, previously from (I think it was) Buffysquirrel insisting that you couldn't be truly said to be tolerant unless you tolerated intolerance.

Click to expand...

I thought I was being more pragmatic than that. If you set up intolerant structures, especially ones that are outside the stated rules, sooner or later they will be turned against you.

RichardGarfinkle said:

On the other hand, almost every serious piece of investigative journalism (and a lot of serious police investigation) requires that one find out what is happening inside a group of people who are trying to keep their activities private.

Click to expand...

The Tumblr account isn't really investigative journalism. I might be more tolerant if it was accompanied by a byline and an investigative analysis.

Likewise, if the authors in those conversations on the SFWA private spaces were reasonably suspected of conspiring to break the law, I applaud the police or the FBI invoking the Fourth Amendment and getting a warrant from the court to view those private conversations. I also don't have a problem with those private conversations becoming public in a trial. We have a legal process in place for that. (Which the NSA may or may not be violating; but that's for another thread.)

The Tumblr account isn't about that. Not even remotely.

The people behind and supporting that Tumblr account have access to the SFWA private space. They've signed on to the Terms of Service which say conversations may not be shared in public. They've violated those TOS. Regardless of how ugly the conversation is in that private space, I'm really not comfortable with it being shared in public. There's enough being said on the public parts of sff.net to shine a nice disinfecting light on most of those people.

I presume that when SFWA finds out who is behind the Tumblr account, their access to those private spaces will be cut off. I completely support that (not that I have any say since I'm not a member of SFWA).

"Tolerate: a. trans. To endure, sustain (pain or hardship)." - (OED)

I think in that sense, most people tolerate the intolerant. But tolerance doesn't equate to remaining silent about it. I fully support people speaking out about their racist/sexist/whatever-ist views; I believe in the freedom of speech, after all. I have the same freedom to argue against them. The intolerant seem to forget that freedom of speech ≠ no consequences/no disagreement.

Racism/sexism/whatever-ism flourishes in the dark and is fertilized by lazy thinking. Drag them into the light of day, make people think about what they're defending and, with any luck, we'll watch them shrivel up and blow away.

Yes, I do tend to be hopelessly optimistic. Why do you ask?

And no, I've never read a book by Mr. Pournelle. Not due to this, but due to reading his articles in Byte magazine back in the day. His "voice", at least the one he chose to use in his articles, was not one that interested me.

NicoleJLeBoeuf said:

In any case, the current Tumblr is causing a great deal of harm; even while it shines light on some members' deplorable regressive politics, it gives the false impression that the entirety of SFWA is like that, thus doing great injustice to people like Mary Robinette Kowal and Rachel Swirsky and Jim Hines and Steve Gould and [too many others to name] who are working to do good within that organization. Painting the whole of SFWA with the brush of bigotry in light of Bulletin content is not unreasonable, considering there was an editorial decision to put content in the public face of the organization; committing the same paint job in light of unrestrained comments on the part of rabid weasels in an unmoderated private NNTP is not nearly as reasonable.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the pop-eyed astonishment that an organization of several thousand people has a few cranks in it, and the implication that it's more endemic to the SFWA than a similarly-sized group, is baffling to me. All the people saying "I will never join this group until they get their house in order" - uh, are you a member of any large professional organizations? Do you really think they are fewer cranks and troglodytes in the IEEE or your teacher's union or in other writers' organizations?

The difference between the cranks in other professional organizations and the ones in SFWA--and this is the entire crux of the matter, so if you're still confused as to why people are upset, you haven't been paying attention--is that the ones in SFWA have used the organization's official mouthpieces to air their crankiness. And, apparently, they've been doing this for a long time to varying degrees. The only conclusion that can be drawn by an outsider is that SFWA doesn't just tolerate these views, but espouses them. When those responsible for the views were told (essentially), "Hey, tone it down, not everyone here believes the same things you do and you're insulting many of our members," instead of apologizing and being more careful about what they wrote, they pitched a royal fit and made things much, much worse.

That's what happened. It's still happening. At the time this all started to break last month, I had a few writer friends eligible for SFWA who were on the fence about joining. They've now said flat out that they won't. I won't either, for that matter, once I get my third pro sale. Would we have joined if the cranks hadn't been allowed to be the voice of SFWA, even knowing they were there? Yes.

Saanen said:

The difference between the cranks in other professional organizations and the ones in SFWA--and this is the entire crux of the matter, so if you're still confused as to why people are upset, you haven't been paying attention--is that the ones in SFWA have used the organization's official mouthpieces to air their crankiness. And, apparently, they've been doing this for a long time to varying degrees. The only conclusion that can be drawn by an outsider is that SFWA doesn't just tolerate these views, but espouses them. When those responsible for the views were told (essentially), "Hey, tone it down, not everyone here believes the same things you do and you're insulting many of our members," instead of apologizing and being more careful about what they wrote, they pitched a royal fit and made things much, much worse.

That's what happened. It's still happening. At the time this all started to break last month, I had a few writer friends eligible for SFWA who were on the fence about joining. They've now said flat out that they won't. I won't either, for that matter, once I get my third pro sale. Would we have joined if the cranks hadn't been allowed to be the voice of SFWA, even knowing they were there? Yes.

Click to expand...

No, that's not the only conclusion. That's one possible conclusion. The SFWA has been very clear that it does not espouse those views, and this has been expressed by trustworthy people who have long been supporters of equality.

It might be reasonable to conclude that the structure of the SFWA and some limited portion of its activities are still a bit behind the times, and that its policies for responding to issues like the Bulletin kerfluffle have not been used often enough to be taken seriously by the people whose views many disagree with.

Saanen said:

That's what happened. It's still happening. At the time this all started to break last month, I had a few writer friends eligible for SFWA who were on the fence about joining. They've now said flat out that they won't. I won't either, for that matter, once I get my third pro sale. Would we have joined if the cranks hadn't been allowed to be the voice of SFWA, even knowing they were there? Yes.

Click to expand...

That's how organizations get taken over by 'cranks'. Maybe if you and your friends join, and others too, a difference will be made.

Whole professions and political parties remain alive only by virtue of people deciding that the profession/party can be used for good, and join, and do their bit to keep them from becoming atavistic.

My understanding is that Resnick and Malzburg have been writing their dinosaur column for ages and it's been seen as pretty much that, dinosaurs reminiscing about the old days, with various degrees of appreciation, amusement, and eye-rolling by the younger members. It's not like for years they have been saying "Bitches ain't shit."

The problem came when some folks spoke up and said "Hey, is that really what you remember best about that editor, that she was hot? C'mon dude. And what's with that Dragon Magazine circa 1982 cover?"

And rather than saying "Okay, I'll keep that in mind" or even "I don't agree with you, but thanks for your feedback," they went off the rails with a rant about PC fascism.

It's hardly accurate that the SFWA has been for years condoning blatant misogyny. More like for years they've been putting up with a couple of slightly cranky old guys writing an obscure column in a trade magazine, until the old guys exploded in response to the suggestion that maybe they should get with the times.

Vox Day's more bombastic entry into the fray is hardly indicative, since VD has always been regarded as a wingnut and a fringe member of the scene. He's milking all the publicity he can out of the conflict right now, writing post after post about his epic battle with the SFWA, because hardly anyone had ever heard of him before this.

Amadan said:

Yeah, the pop-eyed astonishment that an organization of several thousand people has a few cranks in it, and the implication that it's more endemic to the SFWA than a similarly-sized group, is baffling to me. All the people saying "I will never join this group until they get their house in order" - uh, are you a member of any large professional organizations? Do you really think they are fewer cranks and troglodytes in the IEEE or your teacher's union or in other writers' organizations?

Click to expand...

I can't think of too many professional organisations I'm a member of where a white supremacist could garner 10% of the vote for leadership. That's what happened with the SFWA. Ignore everything else. Ignore the cranks and dinosaurs. Ignore the backwards gender relations. You still have this issue: 10% of voters -- professional writers -- voted for a vocal white supremacist. That's pretty upsetting. When I heard about that, I thought fuck it, forget aspiring to membership. I don't even want to write in this genre anymore.

My reaction's a little less visceral now. Fuck letting those shitters stop me from doing what I love. But still.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

No, that's not the only conclusion. That's one possible conclusion. The SFWA has been very clear that it does not espouse those views, and this has been expressed by trustworthy people who have long been supporters of equality.

Click to expand...

If I had the credentials I would probably join SFWA even now.

That said, I don't agree that SFWA has been very clear that it does not espouse those views. They've been clear the last board doesn't espouse Beal's views, yes. It appears that the current board doesn't either, given an e-mail from them Beal published on his blog.

But Henderson, Resnick and Maltzberg all published their Barbie is a good role model because she “maintained her quiet dignity the way a woman should”, "lady editors", looks good in a swimsuit, "liberal fascists", anonymous cowards and censorship comments in SFWA's official Bulletin. SFWA paid them professional rates to write those columns. SFWA published those views.

Rabe, SFWA's officially appointed editor, edited those columns and put the problematic Red Sonja cover on the Bulletin. Scalzi, SFWA's official President, approved and published it all. Scalzi and Rabe ignored, misunderstood, didn't pay sufficient attention to, or discounted the early grumbles from the Red Sonja cover and Barbie and Lady Editors columns. (Though Rabe did invite Jim C. Hines, famous for his cover pose photos, to write a column in response to the cover.)

Scalzi has apologized, and given all his other writings on related subjects I beleive it was horribly clumsy oversite. But that doesn't mean that intelligent thoughtful engaged people can't look at all of this (not to mention even the public side of sff.net and some members' blogs) and have doubts as to what SFWA does espouse as an organization.

And even more, it certainly raises legitimate distaste for having one's dues go to pay for such rabid weasel drivel.

Albedo said:

I can't think of too many professional organisations I'm a member of where a white supremacist could garner 10% of the vote for leadership.

Click to expand...

I'll bet they would. If there are only two candidates, the full extent of the white supremacist's views are not known (VD does not proclaim himself a white supremacist like David Duke), and voting for the crank is seen not as an endorsement of white supremacy but a FU to the "PC" contingent. I'd be surprised if there are any large professional organizations where you wouldn't see a fringe challenger get a small but not insignificant percentage of the vote.

Amadan, I'm hearing that some of the SFWA members who voted for Beal did so knowing all about his views. They evidently wanted to save the treasury from the current cabal and figired it was easier to wrest control of SFWA away from Beal than away from Gould. I'm not sure exactly what they have against they current "cabal". I haven't heard.

ULTRAGOTHA said:

Amadan, I'm hearing that some of the SFWA members who voted for Beal did so knowing all about his views. They evidently wanted to save the treasury from the current cabal and figired it was easier to wrest control of SFWA away from Beal than away from Gould. I'm not sure exactly what they have against they current "cabal". I haven't heard.

Click to expand...

Entirely possible. That might account for a few votes.

I think people underestimate how many cranks/fringe views there are in any large group. I would not be surprised if 10% of teachers, for example, a group that generally trends liberal, agree with VD's views on race and sex.

Someone may already have brought this up, but as I recall Beal's platform statement for SFWA president (as sent to voting members), he mainly talked about self-publishing and the "new" face of the industry or some such. If there was anything supremicist in there, I must have missed it. I might -- just might -- have been skimming.

Anyhow, letter to SFWA members today from Steven Gould about the Bulletin remaining on hiatus while members are surveyed re what they want to see in it. Me, I'd like more market information and more Jim Hines in bikinis, chain-mail or otherwise.

Amadan said:

Entirely possible. That might account for a few votes.

I think people underestimate how many cranks/fringe views there are in any large group. I would not be surprised if 10% of teachers, for example, a group that generally trends liberal, agree with VD's views on race and sex.

Click to expand...

Less than half the membership voted, too.

Medievalist said:

Less than half the membership voted, too.

Click to expand...

According to the SFWA's member directory they have 1808 members. That means Beale got at most 90 votes.

According to the directory, there is a John Lang still active, but there is no profile...

Since Dr Lang claims to be a libertarian, perhaps he voted for Beale?

Locus said:

There were 516 ballots cast by the April 26, 2013 deadline, up from 395 last year. Of those, 23 were discarded as invalid due to lack of the required cover sheets, down from 87 invalid ballots last year.

Click to expand...

from here.

516 - 23 = 493 tabulated votes.

James Nicoll said:

Reportedly, 46 of 493 people voting voted for Theodore "Vox Day" Beale.

Click to expand...

from here.

10% of 1800 (current membership is c. 1752 according to Mary Robinette Kowal) is 180. So the 46 votes for VD is less than 10% of the memberships, and just under 10% of those who voted.

ULTRAGOTHA said:

If I had the credentials I would probably join SFWA even now.

That said, I don't agree that SFWA has been very clear that it does not espouse those views. They've been clear the last board doesn't espouse Beal's views, yes. It appears that the current board doesn't either, given an e-mail from them Beal published on his blog.

But Henderson, Resnick and Maltzberg all published their Barbie is a good role model because she “maintained her quiet dignity the way a woman should”, "lady editors", looks good in a swimsuit, "liberal fascists", anonymous cowards and censorship comments in SFWA's official Bulletin. SFWA paid them professional rates to write those columns. SFWA published those views.

Rabe, SFWA's officially appointed editor, edited those columns and put the problematic Red Sonja cover on the Bulletin. Scalzi, SFWA's official President, approved and published it all. Scalzi and Rabe ignored, misunderstood, didn't pay sufficient attention to, or discounted the early grumbles from the Red Sonja cover and Barbie and Lady Editors columns. (Though Rabe did invite Jim C. Hines, famous for his cover pose photos, to write a column in response to the cover.)

Scalzi has apologized, and given all his other writings on related subjects I beleive it was horribly clumsy oversite. But that doesn't mean that intelligent thoughtful engaged people can't look at all of this (not to mention even the public side of sff.net and some members' blogs) and have doubts as to what SFWA does espouse as an organization.

And even more, it certainly raises legitimate distaste for having one's dues go to pay for such rabid weasel drivel.

Click to expand...

Magazines and tv networks publish stuff all the time that they don't endorse. It's generally understood that unless explicitly stated otherwise, those things aren't the official opinion of the organization.

Publishing the original columns may have been a foolish decision, but this whole mess was a storm in a teacup until the Bulletin published that ridiculous PC fascist censorship rant in the following issue. That was absolutely the wrong thing to do, and while I mostly found the original columns obnoxious and worthy of a few eyerolls, I was very disappointed that Rabe and apparently Scalzi allowed the defensive whiny bullshit in the follow-up to be published in the official Bulletin.

If I was currently in a position to apply for membership, I would have a very difficult time making that decision in light of the way this has been handled. I respect the board for trying to make things right after the explosion, but if the SFWA as an organization had been truly committed to supporting equality and diversity in the genre/industry, rather than merely against racist, sexist, etc philosophies, then they wouldn't have gotten themselves into this mess in the first place. And I did have a certain amount of rose-tinting stripped off my glasses after this was brought to light.