Editor of SFWA Bulletin resigns

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

"Offending people is a necessary and healthy act. Every time you say something that's offensive to another person, you just caused a discussion. You just forced them to have to think." Louis C.K.

I haven't read any Resnick or Malzberg lately, I may have to. I support anything which strikes a blow against language and thought policing.

Resnick and Malzberg aren't striking a blow against thought policing. They're trying to silence the people they've offended. They're using buzzwords to intimidate people who disagree with them. They're the ones trying to make the discussion stop.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Resnick and Malzberg aren't striking a blow against thought policing. They're trying to silence the people they've offended. They're using buzzwords to intimidate people who disagree with them. They're the ones trying to make the discussion stop.

The buzzword part has been my impression as well. Kind of a "let's shift the problem to buzz, buzz" rather than, 'let's examine what the article says, how it says it and how it might have been interpreted...and is that what I really meant to say.

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Trouble is, Becca, that once you start demanding a right not to be offended you're on a very slippery slope indeed.

on the whole, I agree that nobody has the right to not be offended. On the other hand, if a sizable portion of a minority says that a specific word, or way of addressing them, is offensive, it seems that it's only polite to not use that term or mode of address. On many of the blogs that I follow, it's considered Not The Done Thing to use gendered smears, of any gender.

Many women are sick and tired of being objectified as a default position. The Red Sonja cover illustration wasn't aimed at women saying "you could be like this in your fantasies" it was appealing to male fantasies. Semi-nude muscular men aren't necessarily there to appeal to female fantasies, they're there to appeal to male readers' power fantasies.

Women have been property, or seen as property, for centuries. Can you blame us if some of us get sick of that, and insist on being seen as *people*?

[DiapDealer]

I thought SFWA VP Rachel Swirsky's gender flip take on Resnick and Malzberg's "lady editor" was quite humorous (as well as poignant).

http://rachelswirsky.com/2013/06/a-b...s-and-editors/

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Just for references, a few links to posts from members of the SFWA:

A sigh about cover #200
Outrage abut the followup article by Resnick and Malzburg
Another complaint about the Resnick/Malzburg article, with links to more
A rebuttal to to accusation of anonymous criticism that was in the Malzburg/Resnick article, giving links to many non-anonymous complaints.

Thank you for posting this; I feel like HarryT has dragged this thread into a mostly pointless side alley about the cover when the real issue is with articles by Resnick and Malzburg rather than just the cover in isolation.

It's funny that there's more concern in this thread over someone finding the posted cover offensive, but seemingly unconcerned that an issue of the magazine had an article praising Barbie for maintaining "quiet dignity the way a woman should," in response to reader comments about that cover.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

"Offending people is a necessary and healthy act. Every time you say something that's offensive to another person, you just caused a discussion. You just forced them to have to think." Louis C.K.

I haven't read any Resnick or Malzberg lately, I may have to. I support anything which strikes a blow against language and thought policing.

Except no one was "thought policing" them. They said some stupid things, got called on it and then doubled-down on stupid by claiming (unironically) that they were being bullied and censored.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Except no one was "thought policing" them. They said some stupid things, got called on it and then doubled-down on stupid by claiming that they were being bullied and censored.

Exactly. They can think whateverthehell they want. They can publish whateverthehell they want in their own space. Members of SFWA, however, are objecting to their membership dues being used to pay them for and publish their dinosaurish, sexist views.

And let's not pretend that the anti-sexist folks in SFWA are some sort of tiny, loud minority. This is an organisation that currently has as president John Scalzi, a vocal feminist, and whose incoming president is Rachel Swirsky.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by meeera

And let's not pretend that the anti-sexist folks in SFWA are some sort of tiny, loud minority. This is an organisation that currently has as president John Scalzi, a vocal feminist, and whose incoming president is Rachel Swirsky.

Slight correction: Swirsky is the VP. Stephen Gould is the new incoming president.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Slight correction: Swirsky is the VP. Stephen Gould is the new incoming president.

'Scuse me, I should've double-checked that. I'm thinking my larger point stands.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Ughh . Please don't follow any links to Vox Day unless you really want to read troglodyte ravings. Need to go wash out my brain.

I know - I did that yesterday and was quite surprised.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by caleb72

I know - I did that yesterday and was quite surprised.

Anyone who calls himself "the voice of god" can perhaps be expected to have somewhat egotistical views.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BeccaPrice

Many women are sick and tired of being objectified as a default position. The Red Sonja cover illustration wasn't aimed at women saying "you could be like this in your fantasies" it was appealing to male fantasies. Semi-nude muscular men aren't necessarily there to appeal to female fantasies, they're there to appeal to male readers' power fantasies.

Women have been property, or seen as property, for centuries. Can you blame us if some of us get sick of that, and insist on being seen as *people*?

Not in the slightest. My point is simply that sexual exploitation is not confined to male authors, or male readers. In addition to the entire romance/erotica genre, which generations of female readers have enjoyed as harmless escapism, within the SF/Fantasy genre we have huge bestsellers such as the "Twilight" series, written by a woman and aimed squarely at satisfying the sexual fantasies of teenage girls. Can you not accept that it's possible to enjoy escapist fantasy without projecting the attitudes portrayed in such books onto the real world? Sex sells. That's a fact which is exploited by both male and female authors.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Thank you for posting this; I feel like HarryT has dragged this thread into a mostly pointless side alley about the cover when the real issue is with articles by Resnick and Malzburg rather than just the cover in isolation.

It's funny that there's more concern in this thread over someone finding the posted cover offensive, but seemingly unconcerned that an issue of the magazine had an article praising Barbie for maintaining "quiet dignity the way a woman should," in response to reader comments about that cover.

I think the distress started with the first article which had no reference to Barbie. This was a combination of the cover and what seems like a couple of reference to an editor's looks and the use of the word "lady". So that might have been the focus of many of the comments.

I'm not finding all the associated text of these articles, only the last one with all the censorship blah blah in it. I can only see choice quotes for the other two. The Barbie thing is a bit surreal - like something one would say as a kind of twisted joke, and I would have liked to have seen it in the context of the article itself. Is it just that I've missed the appropriate links for this stuff?

Of course the last article is all there in its intended glory. I confess that after a couple of pages I was tired of reading it. I don't think that's a column I would enjoy regardless of topic; the format is tedious.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Anyone who calls himself "the voice of god" can perhaps be expected to have somewhat egotistical views.

I hadn't actually made the connection before now. That's hilarious.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not in the slightest. My point is simply that sexual exploitation is not confined to male authors, or male readers. In addition to the entire romance/erotica genre, which generations of female readers have enjoyed as harmless escapism, within the SF/Fantasy genre we have huge bestsellers such as the "Twilight" series, written by a woman and aimed squarely at satisfying the sexual fantasies of teenage girls. Can you not accept that it's possible to enjoy escapist fantasy without projecting the attitudes portrayed in such books onto the real world? Sex sells. That's a fact which is exploited by both male and female authors.

A few points:

- I don't think anyone is saying that women authors or readers can't be sexist against men or women. The fact that there are sexist women doesn't mean that sexism by the other gender suddenly becomes okay.

-There is a double-standard between men and women when it comes to depictions of scantily clad people. However, that's a reasonable response to the fact that there has been a long history in the West of treating women as second class people. If I post a picture of a black person picking cotton while being whipped by a white person, I think people may be justified in being more upset by that then if I posted the same picture with the races swapped. There's no point in pretending that these concerns are happening in a history-vacuum.

Again though, this is all a sideshow. SFWA posted a cover that some readers found sexist and complained and then a couple of editors went out of their way to make comments that were clearly sexist. No one is claiming a right to not be offended, but they are claiming a right to complain vocally about something they don't like.