Editor of SFWA Bulletin resigns

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But WHY do you think it is? What's wrong with pictures of muscle-bound warriors, whether male or female? What is it about such pictures that offends you?

No one had said anything about muscle-bound warriors. Not sure how you got that out of people complaining about illogical nakedness?

[ApK]

From the link in the OP:

I am certain no condescension was intended with the use of “lady,”

Wait..what? "Lady" may be construed as condescending now? What did I miss?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

No one had said anything about muscle-bound warriors. Not sure how you got that out of people complaining about illogical nakedness?

OK, then, semi-naked warriors, if you prefer. You say that you believe the ERB cover I posted above is sexist. Why do you think that?

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, then, semi-naked warriors, if you prefer. What do you find offensive about pictures such as the ERB cover that I posted above?

1) Half-naked male guy, obvious attempt to appeal to male readers' egos and female readers' hormones
2) Sexualized comic book pose. It's basically the best possible pose to display muscles, and the worst pose if he's actually fighting or fleeing, he'd kill himself by tripping on his sword.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

There's nothing wrong with trying a little harder to do a nice cover with a more realistic image. There's also nothing wrong with stepping back and thinking a little harder about your entire audience before slapping a "typical" cover on a magazine or book.

QFT.

I don't like having naked/half-naked bodies shoved in my face. It's lazy and unrealistic. Honestly, the covers that depend on naked people are often less interesting than covers that don't. Take the earlier cover as an example - it tells nothing about the book, other than the fact that there is a dude who has a sword. Oh, and the dude is probably an idiot. Boring, what story are you trying to tell?

Also, there's a whole history of subjugation and oppression that ties in with half-naked people, armed or otherwise. Let's stop exploiting the lowest common denominator instincts to sell entertainment, OK?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

1) Covers like that have been a source of frustration for a long time. Just because something has happened doesn't mean everyone was OK with it. It just means that the people who weren't OK with it got ignored, which is also part of what's feeding this discussion - speaking against sexism is OK now where it wasn't in the past. Yes, it's similar to covers in the past. The point is some significant fraction of sci fi authors / fans want a change.

If books/magazines sell better with covers like this, they will continue to be printed with covers like this. That won't change until your significant fraction becomes large enough to affect profits.
Besides, if you really want to be offended, you should look at how female characters are drawn in comics. You wouldn't think there is a woman alive with smaller than a C cup. SciFi/Fantasy has nothing on Marvel and DC as far as pandering to adolescent male fantasies goes.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If books/magazines sell better with covers like this, they will continue to be printed with covers like this. That won't change until your significant fraction becomes large enough to affect profits.
Besides, if you really want to be offended, you should look at how female characters are drawn in comics. You wouldn't think there is a woman alive with smaller than a C cup. SciFi/Fantasy has nothing on Marvel and DC as far as pandering to adolescent male fantasies goes.

Yes, sadly. I think it is becoming large enough to impact profits though, since covers have been getting better over the years. And we're actually talking about this kind of thing now instead of one side shouting the other down.

LOL Western comics. There's a reason I don't read Marvel or DC anymore. Although with the rise in indie and webcomics, that's also getting some attention and criticism now, so maybe in the future I can get back into mainstream comic fandom.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

1) Half-naked male guy, obvious attempt to appeal to male readers' egos and female readers' hormones
2) Sexualized comic book pose. It's basically the best possible pose to display muscles, and the worst pose if he's actually fighting or fleeing, he'd kill himself by tripping on his sword.

<shrug> Sex sells. That's a fact, and you're not going to change it. That applies equally to books targeted at male and female readers - look at the cover of the typical Harlequin romance. I don't personally see anything offensive about it; there's nothing inherently "bad" about sexual desire. Isn't all fiction a form of fantasy fulfilment at the end of the day?

I understand where you're coming from, but you're not going to change anything by complaining about it.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

<shrug> Sex sells. That's a fact, and you're not going to change it. That applies equally to books targeted at male and female readers - look at the cover of the typical Harlequin romance. I don't personally see anything offensive about it; there's nothing inherently "bad" about sexual desire. Isn't all fiction a form of fantasy fulfilment at the end of the day?

I understand where you're coming from, but you're not going to change anything by complaining about it.

There's nothing wrong with sexual desire, or wish fulfillment. But there is something wrong with exploiting instincts for commercial gain (yes, I also complain about Skinner box video games and tasteless marketing campaigns ) and with not having a dialogue about why some people might want that to change.

If it floats your boat, that's fine. But we can at least all acknowledge that it's problematic for some people. The dismissive tone that Resnick et al took is really what got my goat.

Most of American history has been dominated by people complaining loudly enough and long enough about things that offend them. And those things have changed. Slowly, but definitely and undeniably. Shrugging and giving up is part of the problem. All that is required for bad taste to succeed is for the irritated to stay silent.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

<shrug> Sex sells. That's a fact, and you're not going to change it. That applies equally to books targeted at male and female readers - look at the cover of the typical Harlequin romance. I don't personally see anything offensive about it; there's nothing inherently "bad" about sexual desire. Isn't all fiction a form of fantasy fulfilment at the end of the day?

While I'm not particularly offended by it, I can certainly understand why some people are.
I do think there can be an underlying social harm when there is a relentless presentation that successful people all look like X, and that pressure weighs heavier on women than men.

[DiapDealer]

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live. And unselfishness is letting other people's lives alone, not interfering with them. Selfishness always aims at creating around it an absolute unity of type. Unselfishness recognizes infinite variety of type as a delightful thing, accepts it, aquiesces in it, enjoys it."

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I do think there can be an underlying social harm when there is a relentless presentation that successful people all look like X, and that pressure weighs heavier on women than men.

I agree when it comes to things like fashion advertising, where all the women models are like walking skeletons, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to assert that the "warrior" stereotype (both male and female) so beloved of the fantasy genre is damaging anyone. It's fantasy, for goodness sake. So what if it does represent a view of what the male or female reader fantasises about looking like - isn't that the whole point of the genre? When I was a teenager yes, I used to dream of being John Carter of Mars. Where's the harm in that? Is it really going to damage my self-esteem to look in the mirror and discover that no, I'm not John Carter, but a skinny kid?

[caleb72]

Wait..what? "Lady" may be construed as condescending now? What did I miss?

Hasn't this been a sore point for quite a long time now - maybe even as far back as the 70s?

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree when it comes to things like fashion advertising, where all the women models are like walking skeletons, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to assert that the "warrior" stereotype (both male and female) so beloved of the fantasy genre is damaging anyone. It's fantasy, for goodness sake. So what if it does represent a view of what the male or female reader fantasises about looking like - isn't that the whole point of the genre? When I was a teenager yes, I used to dream of being John Carter of Mars. Where's the harm in that? Is it really going to damage my self-esteem to look in the mirror and discover that no, I'm not John Carter, but a skinny kid?

It's not about your self-esteem. It's about cultural expectations.

The cultural expectation that women will always be 'womanly', attractive and happy to be a sexual object is very real, and very damaging.

The cultural expectation that men will always be 'manly', aggressive and not very interested in education is very real, and very damaging.

When your boss expects you to always be made up and be happy when he hits on you, when your coworkers pigeonhole you into administrative tasks and shut you out of interesting assignments, when you can't get people to listen to you, that is all very real and very damaging.

It's great that this hasn't impacted you heavily. We want that privilege for everyone. And sometimes that means uncomfortable conversations where we talk about how different people have different experiences and some habits invoke bad experiences for some people.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

It's not about your self-esteem. It's about cultural expectations.

The cultural expectation that women will always be 'womanly', attractive and happy to be a sexual object is very real, and very damaging.

The cultural expectation that men will always be 'manly', aggressive and not very interested in education is very real, and very damaging.

When your boss expects you to always be made up and be happy when he hits on you, when your coworkers pigeonhole you into administrative tasks and shut you out of interesting assignments, when you can't get people to listen to you, that is all very real and very damaging.

It's great that this hasn't impacted you heavily. We want that privilege for everyone. And sometimes that means uncomfortable conversations where we talk about how different people have different experiences and some habits invoke bad experiences for some people.

I'm sorry, but we're talking about fantasy novels here, not the "real world". I think it's rather insulting to peoples' intelligence to suggest that they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but we're talking about fantasy novels here, not the "real world". I think it's rather insulting to peoples' intelligence to suggest that they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality.

I agree, people *should* be able to separate wish fulfillment from reality. But surprisingly many people just don't take the time too. There are a lot of decent people who don't think about how their actions or words impact others, they just kind of absorb and reflect the attitudes they see around them. So if an attitude is prevalent in their environment, which includes entertainment, they start adopting it. There's a lot of fascinating psychological research done on how repetition influences belief.