FSF website column: Sexism and Respon...

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

	HOME | CATALOG | DOWNLOADS | LINKS | EDITORIALS | DISCUSSION | CONTACT

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post Sexism and Gordon Van Gelder John Joseph Adams 552  3  06-12-07  08:32 pm   Start New Thread

Author Message   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 05:00 pm:    New F&SF website column has just been posted. This time it deals with Sexism and Responsible Journalism, commentary at bookslut.com dealing with the Hugo nominees, and Don Imus.   PM Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 06:08 pm:    If she burned the dog. Then you burned the cat. Both of you are flamethrowers who make vile comments. The difference between bookslut.com and F&SF is one of reputation. F&SF has a longstanding reputation. Your columns (when you go political) continue to damage that reputation. I don't think that Locus Online in linking to the bookslut.com column was supporting that viewpoint. They were just pointing to its existence. In all likelihood, Locus Online will link to your column as well. I believe that Locus Online just links to all sorts of genre stuff --- good/bad/indifferent. Responsible Journalism would be to denounce the bookslut.com column without further inflaming the situation. But that's not your style. I like John Clute. Wish he were writing this column...   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 06:44 pm:    You were _supposed_ to take offense at the satirical parody section of the column, PM. I exaggerated to drive the point home. That you were upset by it makes my point. Thank you. And, uh, I never said that Locus Online supported the viewpoint expressed in Martini's piece. All I did was to report that Locus Online linked to it, and even said it was probably for the greater good.   PM Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 07:02 pm:    "And, uh, I never said that Locus Online supported the viewpoint expressed in Martini's piece. All I did was to report that Locus Online linked to it, and even said it was probably for the greater good." From your column: "I wonder if Mark Kelly will continue to see any value in her chauvinistic diatribes as of real interest, or value, to Locus Online's SF readership." I don't think that any greater good is served by your column or by the bookslut.com column. I have no interest in being punched in either my left or my right eye. I could see how one could/would object to Locus Online's agnostic approach to links.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 07:09 pm:    From the column: "That Mark Kelly at Locus Online provided us the opportunity to view Ms. Martini's hardcore sexism is, in the larger picture, a good thing."   PM Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 07:17 pm:    Why didn't you simply quote from her article instead of inflicting a needlessly inflammatory effort upon us? I'm tending to believe that you get some sort of visceral enjoyment from pissing folk off. I REALLY can't get into that. I see it on the left and on the right and it's vulgar.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 07:43 pm:    I thought the parody section was pretty funny, actually. Don't you like stroking a little furry pussy now and then? I know I do. My roommate has two little cats and I like to make them purr on my lap. Where's your sense of humor, PM? :-)   PM Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 07:51 pm:    I enjoy hugging kittens without the need to be vulgar.   Glenn Glazer Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 08:17 pm:    I think, PM, that Dave's piece would vulgar if it were not satire of something else that is, in my opinion, extremely vulgar. By reflecting the original vulgarness, he amplifies the satire like a funhouse mirror. But I would also like to say how appalled I am at the original essay, not only for the crudeness and vulgarity, but for the extreme vitriol combined with a lack of knowledge of the basics of the Hugo nomination process. I'm not expecting her to know the fine points of the WSFS Constitution, but she should at least be aware of how democratic an institution it really is before tarring it and my fellow committee members with a mighty wide brush. Sincerely yours, Glenn Glazer Data Management/Pre-Con Reg Nippon in 2007   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 08:26 pm:    "Dave's piece would be vulgar if it were not satire of something else that is, in my opinion, extremely vulgar. By reflecting the original vulgarness, he amplifies the satire like a funhouse mirror." I'm gratified to know you understand my point, Glenn. Thank you. I love the Japanese fans I've met here in the U.S. at several worldcons, and know that Nippon 2007 will be a terrific convention. I wish I could afford to go. :-) My best to you and the rest of the committee. Dave   PM Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 08:40 pm:    Glenn, after Dave's Emshwiller incident I wouldn't consider it a funhouse mirror experience. The original article, in Dave's mind, provided an opportunity that was right up his alley. I think the author was/is still upset about the 2006 Ellison incident which undoubtedly provided vitriol for this article. Sometimes when folk are clearly ranting it's hard for me to take them seriously. But the author clearly has what are most likely irreconcilable differences.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 08:50 pm:    PM, there was no Emshwiller incident, as you inaccurately characterize it. I raised objections to the ending of one of her stories, which no one could figure out definitively. Why would you assume Glenn is familiar with it, or even cares? And where you pulled up the Ellison incident as having anything to do with Martini's article is beyond me. You just make this stuff up, or what? Where do you _get_ this stuff? (shaking head in disbelief)   PM Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 08:53 pm:    Dave, you live in a strange state of denial. "And where you pulled up the Ellison incident as having anything to do with Martini's article is beyond me." No one would accuse you of even doing minimal research. http://www.bookslut.com/specfic_floozy/2006_09_009877.php   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 09:06 pm:    I admit I hadn't read Martini's article about the Ellison caper from her article back in Sept. of _2006_. So I stand corrected on that point and apologize. But, as she states in that article, she has ranted about other things concerning males in SF before (there was a link to something or other). So I think her beef has more to do with males than about any one incident. Her latest little diatribe is but one of at least several (if not many), and not directly attributable specifically to the Ellison incident. So I am not in denial. It had to do with something of which I was unaware, and which now I am. :-)   PM Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 09:28 pm:    The Ellison incident took place at the Hugos. The issue she has is with the Boys Club. The difference is that in Sept 06 she's nowhere near as inflammatory as she is in her most recent article. The one that you chose to parody. If you had done even a minimal amount of research and God forbid actually spoken with her you might have understood that she had flown off the handle. What she said was wrong. But her forum isn't a consequential one. If her column had appeared on the F&SF site then yeah I'd be all over it. But what the casual reader may not understand is that you have your own animus towards these feminists that you classify as "anti-male". And while you call what you wrote a parody I do wonder how much of it actually reveals your own sentiment. Especially after the Emshwiller incident which you deny as even happening. Everyone who posted on that thread disagreed with your interpretation of The Hunters and you still wiggle around about it.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 09:40 pm:    "Especially after the Emshwiller incident which you deny as even happening." Stop twisting my words, PM. You call it an incident; I call it a spirited disagreement where a lot of people had a *lot* of different interpretations of what went on throughout the entire story. I'm not denying anything except your calling it an "incident." "Everyone who posted on that thread disagreed with your interpretation of The Hunters and you still wiggle around about it." The story was called "Killers," not "The Hunters." And a certain editor agreed with my interpretation of the ending, IIRC. But that's neither here nor there. It won't serve any useful purpose to rehash something that was so thoroughly hashed and discussed at great length some months ago. You've had your say about, I've had mine, any everyone else who participated had theirs. It's over. Can we please move on?   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 09:50 pm:    PM: "But what the casual reader may not understand is that you have your own animus towards these feminists that you classify as "anti-male"." Yes, I do, and Martini is a case in point. Wouldn't females be irritated, upset, or pissed with men who were blatantly anti-female? It's just that they aren't called on the carpet for it as much as men are, and it's high time they were. I have better things to occupy my time than to go looking for these types, but when I happen to spot them... I'm off to bed. Have a long day at work tomorrow.   Glenn Glazer Posted on Monday, April 16, 2007 - 10:18 pm:    For the record, I was not aware of any "Emshwiller incident" prior to writing my response. I was *at* the Hugo Ceremony where Harlan so badly misbehaved himself. His ill turn certainly doesn't justify another. What remains after all of this mudslinging is some facts: 1) The Hugo nominations are open to every member, supporting or attending, of the Worldcon. In particular, they are not chosen by the committee except in the sense they they are also each members and have the right to nominate and vote. 2) Worldcons are enormous undertakings by large committees. To assert that each and every member is somehow involved in every department (remember she slandered each and everyone of us, not just the Hugo Administrator or that department) boggles the mind. I have enough to do in my corner of the con without meddling in the Hugos and Program and Dealers and Art Show and ... 3) Terms like "penis-heavy" are exceptionally perjorative and charged with negativity. US Law refers to such phrases as "fighting words" and they can be a defense against assault charges by showing the defendant was provoked. For example, I could (wrongly, falsely and mean-spiritedly) assert that your initials come from a syndrome women experience late in life. Other than as an illustration, there's no purpose to such an assertion *except* to anger you. Similarly, why does Martini use such phrases if the intent is not to insult and anger? 4) As might be obvious from my first name (I choose not to use handles - I'm willing to stand by who am I and what I write), I am a male. I am neither proud nor apologetic for act of DNA recombination a little over four decades ago. Now, some opinion. I read Martini's writing as having a hatred for me simply because I am male. I certainly do not hate all women but I am opposed to those who are "anti-Glenn" so to speak. This is not having an "animus", just survival instincts. I am Jewish, therefore I am anti-anti-Semitism. BTW, I don't think Dave has an animus, rather an anima. Being fond of things Japanese, I have an anime. ;) (Yes, I know animus can mean predjudice or ill-will, but so does the much more common animosity. That you chose the more obscure Jungian noun is interesting all by itself.) I'm also not sure what you mean by this: "But the author clearly has what are most likely irreconcilable differences." Irreconcilable differences is a legal term for justifying divorce. I'm not sure who in this conversation this applies to, even by way of analogy - Martini and Harlan? Surely, she is not the only person to have a less than stellar opinion of him. And even if she does hold such an opinion, how does her getting riled up by Harlan at one Worldcon justify her unloading on the committee of the following year? (Which, I might add, has less than the usual number of usual suspects due to the expense and logistics of going to Japan. So this is a year in which such an accusation is *particularly offbase*.) Best, Glenn   PM Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 05:33 pm:    First I would want to make it clear that I'm explaining rather than justifying what Martini wrote. Quotes from her Sept 2006 article: "No, my gripe is with Harlan Ellison, who shall now always be linked with Willis in my mind, spoiling my fond memories of her and my hope for the genre’s current state." "Further down the line, Ellison’s election to Grand Master status -- alongside writers like Asimov and Heinlein -- is a near certainty." Seems to me that she was upset with Ellison and since the Hugos as a group did not denounce Ellison then she would consider the Hugos as complicit, even endorsing his behavior. And so the Hugos become a target. And then when 2007 rolls around she sees what she considers to be more of the same and then explodes. But just a wee bit of research would help. I'll do it since Dave clearly didn't. She has a husband and two children. So this whole man-hating mantra of Dave's should return to the fantasy world inside his head. Unfortunately, she has a history of mental illness. So there's another victory for Dave. I think that it's fine to disagree with what she had to say and to correct factual errors. But personal attacks on a mom with a history of mental illness is low. The word "penis-heavy" doesn't bother me. I mean who doesn't like a big cock? But I understand that it was intended as an insult. But I wouldn't take Dave's approach and just make discussion impossible. Do you really think that if she read Dave's article she would just smile? So let's just step back for a moment and ask the question is it reasonable to suggest that women have difficulty winning the Hugos? Could it be that there are more male voters than female voters? Do the male voters vote overwhelmingly for the males? Can we have a calm discussion about this? Evidently not with Dave and Martini. At any rate, I'm sorry for Glenn and others who have had to endure harsh comments. A few more points: I'm not here to trade on my identity. It has nothing to do with hiding (as in hiding from the consequences of my comments). It has everything to do with just being a common person. As to "irreconcilable differences" I suspect that Ellison would not be able to win Martini over.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 06:23 pm:    "I think that it's fine to disagree with what she had to say and to correct factual errors. But personal attacks on a mom with a history of mental illness is low." What personal attacks? Since her words were printed publicly, she is subject to the normal critical machinery of assessment, and criticism or praise, as anyone else. Are you saying no one should criticize anything she spouts because she's had some mental problems? These are irrelevant, and doesn't give her a free pass to say anything she wants. She is not above criticism, and not to be made a "victim." She may be a mom with two kids, but she is also a professor of English. How does her mental history make you feel about her teaching our youth? If she is not to be held accountable for her writings, is she also not to be held accountable for her teachings? :-) The only thing relevant to this discussion is what she wrote for public consumption. Psychoanalysis and determining the hows and whys of what she wrote may prove interesting and worthy of a scientific paper, but doesn't concern me. And it certainly doesn't absolve her from taking responsibility for what she wrote.   PM Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 06:53 pm:    "What personal attacks?" If her article was a personal attack then your parody would likewise be a personal attack returned. Describing someone as "anti-male" is usually a personal attack especially when the person (you) making the statement is fighting some "war" against feminists. Of course if I knew that you had a history of mental illness or some other sympathetic factors then I would accord you appropriate compassion. Don't know what she says in the classroom. Maybe it's way out of line as well. But the fact remains that you're a bridge burner more interested in telling your "joke" than actually resolving an issue.   Elizabeth Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 07:27 pm:    I've only read two of your online columns, Dave, but as a feminist, I'm concerned that it's going to turn into a regular "Why I Hate Feminists" rant. I hope not. I might think your column expresses the view of the editor and publisher and if so, I would certainly reconsider my subscription. Yes, yes, I'm all for freedom of speech, but frankly, I'm in my 40s and I've had my fill of feminist bashing, thanks. I don't want to read more each month on the F&SF website.   PM Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 07:31 pm:    Glenn, Men vs Women can become unnecessarily nasty. I would mention that all the guests of honor are white men or Japanese men. Maybe there's a good explanation for this. I would mention that there's one woman nominated in the novel category and no women listed for novella, novelette, and short story categories. I'm a bit puzzled as to why M. Rickert isn't listed. So that's a gross way of looking at it. I would observe that some of the same folk continue to win which would appear to indicate a dedicated voting bloc. Looking through the past winners I see Connie Willis winning several times. So that's symptomatic of something...a dedicated voting bloc. Ditto for some other ongoing winners.   PM Posted on Tuesday, April 17, 2007 - 07:33 pm:    Elizabeth, I likewise share your concern.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 03:48 am:    Elizabeth: "I've only read two of your online columns, Dave, but as a feminist, I'm concerned that it's going to turn into a regular "Why I Hate Feminists" rant." Hi, Elizabeth, Not to worry. The two columns you mention were just coincidence. My column will cover (and have--read all of the others) all sorts of topics. I'm not a feminist hater; far from it. What sets me off from time to time is when (in the Martini case) women have an obvious anti-male bias or exhibit sexism themselves, and there's not the outcry there would be if a male had written or said the same thing. I've said many times before (elsewhere) that I am pro-choice and equal rights for women (and all others: gays, minorities, etc.), but that *sometimes* the more radical elements of these groups go too far. That's all. All best, Dave   Marguerite Reed Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 03:50 am:    I agree about the unnecessary bashing of the Japanese hosts. That was uncalled for. What was also uncalled for was the choice of "pussy" to parallell Martini's choice of "ferns."   Dave Truesdale Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 03:57 am:    The reference to cats as "pussies" was to parallel Martini's reference to *fauna* as "animals" (males), not "ferns." You read it backwards. Best, Dave   Dave Truesdale Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 04:02 am:    "What was also uncalled for was the choice of "pussy" to parallell Martini's choice of "ferns." Again, the reader was supposed to be upset by this--as I said in the piece itself. And it was *satire*. Please don't forget this. I wasn't being serious. Dave   Elizabeth Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 06:53 am:    That's good to hear, Dave. I enjoy a strong opinion piece as much as the next person and I appreciate your wide and long view of SF, especially the classics. I wouldn't want to see your column devolve into a mouthpiece for your personal political pet peeves (p4s) of whatever stripe. I might add that I found the original piece far less offensive than your "satire". When I went back and read it again, I wondered why you over-reacted. It seemed to me that you were spoiling for a fight against a favorite foe and found one. YMMV.   Adrienne Martini Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 07:45 am:    FWIW: http://www.martinimade.com/martinimade/2007/04/tempest_meet_te.html Carry on. -Adrienne   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 09:38 am:    I'm glad that you've apologized. Insulting people especially the wrong people is rarely an effective strategy for progress.   Ahmed A. Khan Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 09:54 am:    I kind of think that Dave's column played a major role in Adrienne's apology.   Elizabeth Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 11:24 am:    Props to Adrienne for apologizing for the needless insult to the Committee. That aside, I think the rest of her post was fine and I think that Dave's response to it was an over-reaction. In response to Ahmed's point, I suspect that a much more reasoned and rational post about Adrienne's insult to the Committee would have elicited an apology as well. However, without such vitriol from Dave, I might never have even heard of her post nor read the discussion around it. I agree with Adrienne that it is a good thing when people discuss the issue of gender in SF, but sadly, it often takes outlandish language to get people's attention.   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 12:47 pm:    Because Dave's column is associated with F&SF it gives all of us (that feel any solidarity with the publication) a black eye. Well actually I feel worse than that. I would not be surprised if one or more people contacted Martini and asked her to apologize. But Dave continues his collective embarrassment. It may very well drive folk to the F&SF website while actually driving away magazine readers. Of course there are those who already know Dave and just ignore him. And I would add that no one is discussing the gender issue (the questions I raised earlier).   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 01:05 pm:    Thanks for posting here, Ms. Martini.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 02:22 pm:    I thank you for posting here as well, Ms. Martini. And thank you for apologizing to the Japanese worldcon committee. Being the gracious folk they are, I'm certain it will be well received. Thank you, Dave Truesdale   Dave Truesdale Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 03:43 pm:    "I suspect that a much more reasoned and rational post about Adrienne's insult to the Committee would have elicited an apology as well." On the heels of her original piece, a Japanese fan wrote to her online and explained that he felt wronged (or whatever word the poster used), and tried to explain to her the error she made about the nominating process. From Ms. Martini in response: Zip. I think it was Terry Bramlett (IIRC, if not, apologies) over at the Tangent Online newsgroup, who reported that he had emailed Ms. Martini and explained the Hugo voting process to her. He reported back to the ng that she seemed disinterested. And still no apology. So much for the "reasoned and rational" approach. Dave   PM Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 05:56 pm:    She did finally apologize and hopefully will not repeat this again. Dave, on the other hand, can't seem to understand that he's even done anything wrong. So what's it going to take for Dave to apologize? Dave who doesn't espouse the "reasoned and rational" approach...   Ahmed A. Khan Posted on Wednesday, April 18, 2007 - 09:51 pm:    Adrienne apologized to the organizers of Hugo because she had called them "bastards". Who should Dave apologize to? Ahmed http://ahmedakhan.journalspace.com   PM Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 02:27 am:    The readers.   Elizabeth Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 06:53 am:    I agree, PM. I felt that Dave's "satirical parody" crossed the line of what I expect from this magazine, but I am beginning to worry that I can expect this kind of rant from him. By all means, I think it was fair to criticise Adrienne for her insult to the Committee. He failed to address the meat of her post -- gender imbalance in the award. Instead, his post spent its time whingeing about poor men subjected to those mean girls/feminists and double standards, which I suspect is a pet peeve of his. He's blind to the real issue of gender in SF, and focused on this pseudo-issue -- the "double standard". It would be great to read about the substance of Adrienne's post i.e. gender in SF, but Dave's post was an over-reaction and insulted me as an F&SF reader/subscriber while completely ignoring the substantive -- substantive -- issue about gender in SF.   Charles Coleman Finlay Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 07:03 am:    That's it exactly, Elizabeth.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 08:13 am:    There's a very good post by Geoff Ryman about gender and the hugos here: http://ellen-kushner.livejournal.com/99877.html   PM Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 09:32 am:    Ryman's women = domesticity is an unfortunate view. Yes there are those women who fulfill this expectation. It's a gender stereotype. Man and woman = domesticity would be the contemporary heterosexual formulation. Certainly I oppose blind quotas. I continue to note that all the guests of honor are male. I'm willing to hold out that there may be a reasonable explanation for this. Returning to Ryman. Modifying his point somewhat we can extract the following: 1. Women, by and large, do not write that "type/s" of science fiction which appeals to the majority of male readers. 2. Men constitute a majority of the voters. 3. It is difficult for women to win the science fiction Hugos. I agree that this has some impact on the Hugos. Looking over the winners reveals names that pop up again and again. It does make one wonder if those authors are not preferred by the voters.   Lisa Goldstein Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 09:37 am:    I too would like to see a serious article addressing the issue Martini raises, that of gender in sf. Ryman's post is a good start, but I'm wondering more about how women's writing is received -- why women get fewer awards, are reviewed less, are underrepresented in recommending reading lists, don't seem to get talked about as much in general. There are certainly a lot of reasons for this, and I think it would really benefit the field if they could be brought out into the open and not dismissed as unimportant. And I have to say I was offended by the word pussy. Yeah, I get that it was supposed to be satire. Call me humorless.   PM Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 09:47 am:    What's needed is more discussion and much less polemic. Our crotches are getting sore from all the needless kicking...   Byron Bailey Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 02:01 pm:    Enough talk! With so much smoke in the air, what we need now is a good old-fashioned burning at the stake. Otherwise, it would be like showing up to a barbecue without the -cue. Do we have any Barbies in the audience who would like to volunteer? Traditionally, it's usually been a Barbie. If worst comes to worst, we can probably settle for a Joan, though.   Jeff VanderMeer Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 06:04 pm:    The main problem with Truesdale's piece is that it's *horrible* satire/parody. I mean, it's tone deaf and just plain old *awful*. I don't care what point he has to make one way or the other--I'm just horrified that anyone would publish such a piece, let alone F&SF, electronically or otherwise. Blah. Swift is rolling over in his grave. And if you think that convinced anyone in mainstream of anything about SF, I really think all it convinced them is that we're crazy as nutters. JeffV   Matt Hughes Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 06:50 pm:    Dying is easy. Comedy is hard. Satire is what closes on Saturday night. And sometimes even Swift had a damned heavy hand -- not much subtlety in a Yahoo. Matt Hughes http://www.archonate.com/majestrum   Dave Truesdale Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 07:36 pm:    Jeff: "And if you think that convinced anyone in mainstream of anything about SF, I really think all it convinced them is that we're crazy as nutters." And I suppose you think Martini's inaccurate (a proven fact she has apologized for), angry (she admits she was angry and upset when she wrote it), sexist ("white males," and refering to males as "animals") rant did, Jeff? Where's your equal condemnation of her? Or do you think the mainstream press of which you are so enamored, and slaver at their feet for approval, would condone her nutzo rant. I couldn't care less how the "mainstream" saw my piece; I wasn't writing for them or their approval. The point was to show the hypocricy of a double standard by way of exaggeration via a satire. I *wanted* folks to be pissed. The more pissed they might become, the more they would prove my point. The point of my piece wasn't to discuss gender issues (as someone wished it had, upstream), but simply to point out the fact that when women say angry, sexist things they are allowed to get away with it, while males are not. Ms. Martini received an online letter from a Japanese fan expressing his displeasure with her calling the committee bastards. No reply from her. Ms. Martini received an email from a writer explaining to her the error she had made in the above matter as well. The report came back that she seemed "disinterested" in the process. I then jumped her case big time, and--agree or not with my methods--it got immediate and *effective results*. An apology to the Japanese worldcon committee followed within 48 hours (or less). You choose to criticize my "style" in re satire. Fine; I have no problem with that. You've always placed an emphasis on style over content (Jeff: "I don't care what point he has to make one way or the other") and so this doesn't bother me at all. Really. Someone upstream was upset that I used the word pussy. Well, *I* was upset that Ms. Martini refered to men as "animals." She wanted animals, I gave her animals in spades: a pussy (cat). If she's in the kitchen, then she's got to be able to stand the heat. If it got a little too hot for any of *you*, then that's your problem, not mine. The fact that some folks here are jumping my case for every imaginable reason--while for the *most* part giving Martini a pass (except for her calling the Japanese worldcon committee bastards), only proves my point in spades. The funniest damn thing is that I foresaw this very thing happening, and even said as much in my column: (to paraphrase) that if my over-the-top satire were to be taken seriously and at face value, I'd be lynched from the highest tree. Well, guess what's happened. To those of you with the pitchforks and torches, thank you one and all. Your actions have proven my point beyond my wildest expectations. :-)   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 08:20 pm:    Lisa, I keep looking at your post and thinking that I share the same basic sentiment with you---but considering the various gender-oriented discussions I've heard over the past decade, I suspect you're asking the wrong questions. For instance, you ask "why [do] women get fewer awards"? It seems to me that's a dead end question if it's asked in general terms. Is anyone going to come forward and say, "I only vote for the men/women on any award ballot."? I doubt it. I doubt anybody votes that way. And even if you break it down to individual races, will you really get a useful discussion from trying to analyze whether J. K. Rowling's Hugo victory over George R. R. Martin in 2001 (http://2001.worldcon.org/hugos/2001novel.html) has any gender significance? A close analysis of the voting probably won't teach you anything more than that more people voted for Rowling than for Martin (or Sawyer, or anyone else on that year's ballot). My point: I think you need more focused questions if you want more fruitful discussion. For instance: did Chris Moriarty's publisher hide the author's genders on the SPIN CONTROL---and if so, why? Would the book have been more likely to make the Hugo ballot if the byline was Christine and not Chris? But general questions like the ones you ask, I just don't think they're going to yield much in the way of results.   PM Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 08:39 pm:    Dave, for someone who is a reviewer you continue to display a remarkable inability to understand what you read. Dave, maybe you can find someone or invent some imaginary someones who have praised Martini's comments. As far as I know everyone has condemned or disagreed with her remarks. Dave, what you don't know is that others asked her to apologize. EXCEPT THEY DIDN'T POST IT ON THE F&SF WEBSITE. And Dave what you continue to fail to grasp is that if you'd omitted the over-the-top parody folk would have still discreetly asked her to apologize. I wouldn't even mention that others had requested her apology EXCEPT THAT YOU INSIST THAT IT WAS YOU AND YOU ALONE THAT BROUGHT IT ABOUT. What we can all agree on is that you've brought attention to Martini's piece. There wasn't a "double standard" because folk have to actually read her piece before they can give it a pass. However, Dave you've done before than bring attention to Martini you've demonstrated what an UNAPOLOGETIC SELF-RIGHTEOUS person you can be. If you had not engaged your need for parody and mutually assured destruction and instead written a reasoned piece folk would be thanking you for it. And Dave, if as you claim you've been "lynched from the highest tree" we should inform GVG that you will no longer be able to write your column for F&SF.   PM Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 08:45 pm:    GVG, seems to me that some folk are just popular with the Hugos: Haldeman, Resnick, and Willis. I note that M. Rickert almost made it this year so at least she was on someone's ballot. However, I do wonder about the guests of honor. Perhaps no one is in a position to provide information though. One potential solution is for more folk to participate in the Hugos. Certainly that's more advantageous than mere complaining. So if you haven't already joined then join and vote your conscience.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Thursday, April 19, 2007 - 09:49 pm:    PM: "I wouldn't even mention that others had requested her apology EXCEPT THAT YOU INSIST THAT IT WAS YOU AND YOU ALONE THAT BROUGHT IT ABOUT." I never "insisted" anything, PM, especially that it was me and me alone. Talk about a hateful smear campaign! This is an untruth. I've *mentioned* _once_ that following several attempts by others, with no response, she apologized after my column appeared. This is a fact. She even mentions me by name in her apology, and that I had a point about the worldcon committee, and then apologized. It was rather obvious that I did have *something* to do with it (and this was first brought up by someone else; not me). But up until my previous post I had said nothing about my role in her apology. In fact, I thanked her for her apology as nicely as I could. Speaking of thanking people; I'd like to thank PM. She is the most articulate, intelligent, insightful, stick-to-the-facts, objective, and fair-minded person in this forum. She is a shining example for all to emulate. I've learned a great deal from you, PM, and I thank you. You can have the last word, and then I'm done with you on this particular subject.   Sean Melican Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 09:04 am:    The (sad) fact is that the Hugos are a popularity contest. Like any popularity contest, the problem is that, over time, it becomes a self-reinforcing cycle. Readers come to believe that the winners and runner-ups represent the 'best' of the genre, and develop a rubric to determine whether a novel is 'good'. Each year, they vote for a novel that fits that presecribed rubric. Each year, that rubric loses some variability because each preceeding year eliminates a quality that was formerly present. In essence, readers looking back decide (unconsciously) that certain qualities present in previous winners aren't necessary: if this year's winner is the best, and it doesn't have x quality that the previous winners had, then x quality is therefore unnecessary; and, if this year's winner has y quality that previous winners had, then y quality is therefore critical. Of course, there is going to be drift. A new generation's attitudes and foci will necessary be different than the previous; but it remains a popularity contest. So, white, heterosexual males read science fiction, vote for those that match the 'good' rubric, and vote for them. They appeal to more white, heterosexual males because they reinforce particular unconscious attitudes (often, covert racism, sexism, and homophobia -- count how many Hugo winners have strong female, black, Hispanic, or gay or lesbian characters) and voila, a certain homogeneity is born. The same problem occurs, not incidentally, with politics. Obama is the 'black' candidate; Clinton is the 'female' candidate. They are first defined by their 'deviations' from the norm of white, heterosexual males. Edwards, Guiliani, Romney, etc. are not the 'white' or 'male' candidates: they are simply candidates. Women have, of course, entered speculative fiction and written some top-notch fiction. However, Connie Willis' typically wins awards (often deservedly) but those books and stories rarely challenge the rubric. Hell, "Inside Job" reinforces the particularly atrocious archetype of beautiful, second-fiddle woman falling for dorky but good-hearted male lead. It's a sign that the Tiptree awards had to come about to encourage and promote good writing about women; the Lambda awards for good writing about gays and lesbians. There's good reason that the Hugos are largely male. And that's terrible.   Lisa Goldstein Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 09:29 am:    Gordon -- Nah, I want to ask even bigger questions. Are men perceived as better writers of science fiction than women, even by women themselves? (Women vote for Hugos too.) And why do people get so emotional whenever the topic comes up? I know I won't get any answers, but maybe people will start thinking about their own unconscious biases, which would be a start.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 06:15 pm:    I've been thinking about this, and I have some questions. Maybe some answers, maybe not; I don't know. But here's what I've been thinking: Sean said: "They appeal to more white, heterosexual males because they reinforce particular unconscious attitudes (often, covert racism, sexism, and homophobia -- count how many Hugo winners have strong female, black, Hispanic, or gay or lesbian characters) and voila, a certain homogeneity is born." I'm not as certain as Sean that because a lot of SF appeals to white, heterosexual males that it reinforces covert racism, sexism, and homophobia. That's quite a stretch and doesn't necessarily follow at all. Doesn't his statement automatically imply that somehow the stories are racist, sexist, and homophobic? I feel this is a false assumption, even for a generalization. The SF book publishing business is just that, a business. As a percentage of the population, gays, lesbians, blacks, and other minorities are just that--minorities. Filter that down to the SF reading population and the numbers decrease in kind. Except, of course, for women, who aren't a minority of the general population, but are in the SF population (though there are many more women reading and writing SF than ever in its history). If I am a lesbian, then one would think I'd like to read about characters in SF I can identify with, and share my concerns and problems with through SF stories, etc. The same with blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, etc. But since the buying and reading public for gay, lesbian, and other minority fiction is relatively low compared to that of white, male or female heterosexuals, most SF (written by men and women) caters to that audience. Is it fair to blame white, male (and female) readers for liking to read what they like to read? Is it fair to blame white women (or any women) for liking what they like to read? Is it fair to blame gays or lesbians or any other minority for liking what *they* like? No. No one can help the way they were born. I was born a heterosexual. While I strongly believe the 'live and let live' philosophy, and 'whatever floats your boat' philosophy, I can't help it, or do anything about the fact that seeing two men make love turns me off--totally. Am I some sort of pig or homophobe because of the way I was born? No. I'll stick up for gays and lesbians and any other minority's rights to do what they desire when it comes to sex, or other legal civil rights denied them because of their sexual preferences, etc. But in the fiction I read, I just can't relate to what gays or lesbians relate to in the same way. So I naturally gravitate to fiction that floats *my* boat. In fact, I don't care if the protag in anything I read is male, female, gay, lesbian, straight, black, brown, yellow, or purple with waving antenna, as long as the story they're involved in holds my interest. If the story is about a gay love relationship, for example (with little else to spark my SF interest), then I'll most likely put it down. I can't help it if this doesn't interest me. It doesn't make one, therefore, a homophobe. If an SF story is full of good characters thrust into some tension-filled piece where their actions will save or ruin the day (or whatever, and this would include philosophical or moral tension as well as physical action), then I don't give a hoot if the characters are straight, gay, lesbians, men or women of color, or aliens. It's the *story* I'm concerned about. When it comes to gender in SF/F, I really don't care who's on top. There are just certain themes I'm very interested in, and others I am definitely not. I'm sure it works this way with everyone, whether they are straight, gay, lesbian, or some combination thereof. And none of us can really help who we were born as, or who we are now, or what our likes and dislikes are. We buy and read what we like. And publishers buy and publish what they think will sell. And voters vote on what they thought the best of what they bought and read. You can't force the buying public to buy what they don't like, and can't relate to. There's no accounting for taste, maybe, but in the real world this is Reality. Trying to assign the label of homophobe or sexist or racist merely because a majority of the population in SF are white males and buy and read what they like and can relate to, isn't justified, IMHO. And again, there are *many* more white females reading and voting for SF/F awards than ever before, so they can't be dismissed or forgotten or given a pass. They must figure into the equation as well. Again, certain sorts of stories I like, some I don't. I can't help the way I was born, just like gays, lesbians, and folks of color can't help the way they were born and the stuff they can and can't relate to. This doesn't make any of us *automatically* good or bad or anything else. An *understanding* of different lifestyles and different concerns faced by others is a good thing, and is to be strongly encouraged. This doesn't mean that it will change one's reading habits, though. My gay roommate (who is 60) is a lifelong SF and comics fan. He now bemoans the fact that--in his opinion--it seems there are too many new, buxom female superheroes being introduced. I asked him why (thinking wrongly that since he was into guys...). He thinks its because the publishers are catering even more heavily to the adolescent male market. I reminded him that back in the day (the 60s, when I was a teenager) that the Legion of Super Heroes also had buxom young things to titillate us young males, and that maybe it was the case today that the introduction of more female superheroes was meant to draw in a possible female audience, who saw, through these new superheroines, a role model they could relate to. He then offered that regardless of the reason, the comics publishers are in business to make money. They publish what they think will make them money. And so do book publishers. And so do SF/F book publishers. Trying to link every reading habit under the sun to some sort of social injustice (racism, sexism, homophobia) is to me the wrong angle of attack if one wishes to change the habits of the buying public (which can't be done; and certainly not by such inferences). Sometimes Reality bites. But can we help it if we are born a certain way, and have certain likes and dislikes by virtue of this birth over which we had no control? This works for the majority as well as the minority, doesn't it? Nothing wrong with trying to broaden horizons and perspectives, but you can't *force* them on people, either. That's elitist and is sure to backfire. I'm not trying to be argumentative or start any fights, believe me. But can't you see what I'm getting at, in my round about way? One group says You don't like what I like, so there must be (somehow, someway) something sexist or racist about you. When neither party can help the way they were born. That more people (male and female) buy a certain kind of book that sells better *or* wins awards probably has very little (if anything at all) to do with sexism or racism or homophobia, and might just be a matter of something as simple as their own taste. Just a matter of more numbers of people like X than Y. Occam's Razor. I don't know for sure, but this is how I see it as of right now. I may not have it all correct, but I do think there is at least something to what I've laid out here. Whaddya think? In the interim, I've just this morning begun reading an AUP of "Water Logic" by Laurie J. Marks. Haven't gotten very far into it yet, but it begins with a couple of lesbians brought together by some political intrigue or other (like I say, I just started it). So far, so good.   PM Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 07:12 pm:    Hmm... Nature vs nurture. We can look back over the last 75 years and discover that attitudes towards race/gender/sexual orientation can change. School integration, work integration, violence against homosexuals, etc. What is and isn't acceptable behavior continues to change. So frequently, I hear those who struggle with these issues raising the specter of sex. If blacks are equal do I have to have sex with blacks? And likewise for homosexuals? Do I have to enjoy homosexual sex? We have to acknowledge that this bothers some folk. But it's clear that attitudes have changed over the years and those attitudes couldn't change if inviolable nature were involved. Dave, I don't know who has the queer ray, but evidently someone was able to convince quite a few heterosexual males that lesbians are hot and that three-ways are acceptable. 75 years ago. Not a chance. What we do find is that there's a tendency to ossify over time. We don't all ossify at the same time and in the same manner but all of us who have reached a certain age can look back (and if we can still actually remember) and be self-assured in our attitudes/outlook. We can recognize an unwillingness and even what appears to be an inability to change. I would suggest that you're equating this apparent inability to change with nature.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 07:43 pm:    Remember that we're focusing on gender in SF on the specific level, and gender in general. "I would suggest that you're equating this apparent inability to change with nature." Only in certain aspects, as I outlined above. Certain things we just can't change, such as (to speak only for myself) my disinterest in reading about things to which I can't relate, and therefore don't interest me (such as homosexual sex). Now, if I then were to discriminate in the real world against homosexuals that would be a homophobic act, and would reflect an *attitude* that could in theory be changed. But my basic biologic aversion to homosexual sex couldn't be. This is why I can avow a distaste for the homosexual sex act and still stick up for gay/lesbian rights on a moral, philosophical level. (Chuckle) And from your statement above, I happen to think two lesbian chicks having sex *is* hot. Can't help it; was made that way, and didn't need any convincing. I'll have to tell you some time about the young lesbian woman I once worked with (back in the late 80s) who brought her *gorgeous* bi-sexual, blond partner to the company picnic. And how they brought me home to their place, got me drunk and high, threw some steaks on the grill, rented some porn tapes, and then we... Well, some other time. But boy howdy, Yahoo for "women's lib"! :-)   PM Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 08:21 pm:    "my disinterest in reading about things to which I can't relate, and therefore don't interest me (such as homosexual sex)." So you can relate to being an alien or an elf, traveling to other planets, etc.? Is it fair to say that if you knew beforehand that a novel portrayed one or more instances of homosexual sex that this would deter you from reading it? But if it just portrayed homosexual characters who weren't having sex that this wouldn't bother you?   Dave Truesdale Posted on Friday, April 20, 2007 - 09:00 pm:    "So you can relate to being an alien or an elf, traveling to other planets, etc.?" Not in a strict, literal, sense, no. But in a looser sense I've "been there" so many times in my SF reading that it's familiar territory on a basic level. I can relate to the excitement of traveling somewhere I've never been before (be it on earth or to some other planet via SF), and to seeing strange earthly wildlife (or elves or aliens in my SF). "Is it fair to say that if you knew beforehand that a novel portrayed one or more instances of homosexual sex that this would deter you from reading it?" If graphically depicted, *probably* yes. I don't read SF/F to read about graphic, blow by blow homosexual sex. Turns me off Big Time. But if I also knew beforehand, through word of mouth fer instance, that the novel was supposed to be Really Good, I might tough it out and see what the hubbub was all about. But otherwise I'd probably pass. "But if it just portrayed homosexual characters who weren't having sex that this wouldn't bother you?" Nope, not at all. And let's narrow that to homosexual men. I can handle lesbian sex scenes a lot better. Just the way I'm wired, remember? :-)   Elizabeth Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 04:02 pm:    Sometimes Reality bites. But can we help it if we are born a certain way, and have certain likes and dislikes by virtue of this birth over which we had no control? This works for the majority as well as the minority, doesn't it? So . . . you're saying that the fact the Hugos are overwhelmingly white male reflects the fact that the voters are white males and vote for books written by white male authors as a matter of taste? It has nothing to do with sexism or racism, but just the tastes of white men, which are of course, beyond their control? They were just born that way? Not nominating books written by non-white men and women, gays, lesbians, etc. is not a result of racism or sexism, but due to personal taste. So when Joseph Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness, it didn't embody his personal racism or sexism or support for British Imperialism -- it merely reflected his "taste" for white British Imperial society because that is what he was? Am I on the right track?   Sean Melican Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 05:45 pm:    But in a looser sense I've "been there" so many times in my SF reading that it's familiar territory on a basic level. Ergo: homogeneity.   Sean Melican Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 05:48 pm:    Not nominating books written by non-white men and women, gays, lesbians, etc. is not a result of racism or sexism, but due to personal taste. Which is typically institutional racism, sexism, homophobia, and largely denied/ignored because it's not the archetype of a bigot.   David Marshall Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 06:06 pm:    Personally, I don't care if the author is white or black or asian, or gay or straight, or male or female. I just want to read a good story.   Sean Melican Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 06:42 pm:    But that's just it, David. What constitutes a 'good' story? An analogy: My son prefers a very limited set of certain types of food. Getting him to try anything new is near impossible. He doesn't know what he's missing out on, of course, and his palate is the poorer for it. I can't force food down his throat, but I can make available and encourage him to try new foods. Eventually, he does. Readers do the same thing. They have a set of preferences, (as Dave Truesdale said) it's 'familiar territory.' But when readers ossify, individually and collectively, they miss out; and not only do they miss out, but publishers cater to their narrow palate. Then, stories that might attract other (non-white, non-straight, non-male, non-vanilla) readers doesn't get published, or are published by small presses. And while that's good, small presses have a hard time establishing a foothold in the large bookstores. Potential readers go elsewhere for their black and Hispanic, gay and lesbian writings. And that leaves speculative fiction (at least the kind easily available for the curious) bland and homogeneous. You have to search for the different. And that, dear readers, is institutional racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.   GSH Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 07:23 pm:    "Personally, I don't care if the author is white or black or asian, or gay or straight, or male or female." Amen! Just give me a d-mn good story! One that makes me think, that I'll still be thinking about after I've turned the last page, and maybe still be thinking about the day after. Near as I can tell, an author's race, gender, or sexual persuasion have little or no bearing on the ability to do that. If one has a certain intellectual curiosity about the counting of beans and the gender statistics of science fiction and fantasy publication, this might be your bean counting arena: Gender Statistics   Ellen Datlow Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 08:23 pm:    I find the statistics really interesting. If you actually divide YBFH into two separate books: horror and fantasy, you'll notice that the fantasy half is overwhelmingly female while the horror half is overwhelmingly male. This year's book (2006, #20) I've actually chosen 6 stories by women, the most I've ever taken throughout the years. (two are by the same author: Margo Lanagan).   PM Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2007 - 09:54 pm:    But Lanagan and Rickert are rather new writers so they weren't around to tip the scales for quite a few years.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 06:55 am:    Elizabeth: "So . . . you're saying that the fact the Hugos are overwhelmingly white male reflects the fact that the voters are white males and vote for books written by white male authors as a matter of taste? It has nothing to do with sexism or racism, but just the tastes of white men, which are of course, beyond their control? They were just born that way?" No. I was saying that readers (whether white male or not) vote for books they like. And that _some_ books they simply can't relate to, because of (as but one sort of like/dislike) their sexual preferences. I used myself as an _example_ of a hetero male who doesn't like to read graphic homosexual sex scenes. It's just the way I'm biologically wired. I like women. I also said that I don't care who writes what, as long as it's a good story and stimulates me in any number of ways. I've read my share over the years of all kinds of SF/F. Lots of it having to do with different social and sexual dynamics. I accept that there are different strokes for different folks, different ways of expressing sexuality, and differint scenarios for family units than the traditional man/woman/children scenario. I don't _agree_ with all of them, but I can understand them and appreciate the difference(s). They broaden my view of the wonderfully diverse people in this world, and I truly appreciate the experience. All I was trying to illustrate was this: gays and lesbians and folks of color can more readily relate to fiction when the characters are of like kind, right? If this is wrong, then why do they _prefer_ their fiction with gay or lesbian characters? Why do they vote for _them_ to win awards, and not fiction by hetero or white characters (not saying all of them do, but neither do all white males or females vote for hetero stuff)? Why set up a Tiptree award if not to promote fine work extolling the virtues of a lifestyle they like, can relate to, and were hard-wired into at birth? Same with the Lambdas? And just as a matter of reality, since the hetero population (male and female, white or folk of color) far exceeds the gay/lesbian minorities, can anyone really say its sexism when just by the numbers most stuff is written and read by heteros? That's no one's fault, and certainly not "institutional sexism." Just because I can't relate to certain kinds of fiction doesn't mean I only read "vanilla." SF, by its very nature, is the most un-vanilla literature on the face of the planet. There just happens to be a _very_ small percentage of it that I can't relate to, and that therefore doesn't interest me. Reading _about_ different lifestyles, ways of looking at relationships, etc. is fine if there's a good SF/F story to go along with it (i.e. "The Left Hand of Darkness" for but one). I think the charge of institutional sexism and racism is way too easy to throw at the problem. SF is the best place to expose readers to new ways of thinking about these issues, and more folks should be less sexually and racially provincial in their thinking. But then it is up to them to decide what works for them and what doesn't. No matter how hard one tries, no matter how hard one wishes things were different and the world was perfect _according to what they think is a perfect world_, one can't change certain things about people, whether they be white or not, male or not, gay or not. Their attitudes _toward_ various groups can certainly be changed through exposure; they can learn to be more tolerant and all-inclusive of other ways to live, etc. But this still won't change the fact that they are straight or gay and prefer those things which they like, or don't prefer those things that they can't help not liking--_some_ of which is due to their biology, the way they're made. And like it or not, the vast majority of all societies/nations/peoples on this planet are sexually straight. And this is reflected in the marketplace. Actually, I like to experiment a lot in my reading of SF/F. I bore very quickly and easily. Vanilla (for the most part, unless really well done) bores me. I almost insist on reading anything but vanilla. Of course, what's vanilla to some isn't vanilla at all to others. Why isn't _this_ respected instead of being looked down on? As frustrating as it obviously is to some, there are some things exposure to other lifestyles and sexual preferences can accomplish, and certain things it just can't. Tolerance and understanding, hopefully yes. Total _acceptance_ in all areas, no. Besides, there will be future Hugo and Nebs and PKD and Sturgeon nominee lists where mostly females will turn up, or there will be an even mix, and it will swing this way one year and that way the next. To _blame_ white heteros for everything seems a bit much--and extremely unfair--to me. The logic just isn't there, and using terms like "institutional sexism or racism" is way too specious and easy to slap on anything with which one disagrees.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:10 am:    Dave, that still doesn't answer the question of the Hugo guest list. Perhaps there is a logical explanation. The Tiptree award was setup to recognize "science fiction or fantasy that expands or explores our understanding of gender." (www.tiptree.org) Both men and women have won the award. Dave, whether you enjoy male/male sex does not address the issue of women being nominated/winning the Hugo. As I mentioned earlier, the imbalance could be corrected by joining and voting. (And women writing worthy work as well )   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 09:06 am:    PM: "Dave, that still doesn't answer the question of the Hugo guest list. Perhaps there is a logical explanation." Guest list? If you mean final nominees this year, then why not just accept that it just happened to turn out this way this year? Did anyone ever think that maybe these five nominees all wrote terrific books? PM: "The Tiptree award was setup to recognize "science fiction or fantasy that expands or explores our understanding of gender." (www.tiptree.org) Both men and women have won the award." So? Most of the stories or novels over the years have been published in the very same SF/F magazines, and from the very same SF/F publishers who publish all the rest of our genre's stuff. They're right there on the racks or bookshelves of the same bookstores for all to choose from. People buy what they like, and after reading same, vote for what they like. PM: "Dave, whether you enjoy male/male sex does not address the issue of women being nominated/winning the Hugo." It wasn't meant to. I was addressing something else in context of another post. PM: "As I mentioned earlier, the imbalance could be corrected by joining and voting. (And women writing worthy work as well :-) )" I would love it if more people joined the worldcon each year, and then could vote. I would love it even more if all of the potential voters read more than a handful of books a year, and subscribed to and read carefully every story in at _least_ the top three magazines. Even that would be an improvement, though it's not saying much. An informed electorate is always a plus. I'd as soon ascribe laziness to the problem than I would the straw man of "institutional sexism or racism." Also, possible lack of funds. Remember, SF writers are competing for Joe or Jane's beer money. The average SF hc novel costs something like $22-24. That's the equivalent (depending on what beer you like) of 4-5 6-packs. Even a mere handful of hc SF books will run the average person around $100/yr. I know _I_ don't have that kind of disposable income just for SF books, though I suspect a lot of folks do. But to get an adequate feel for the variety of good novels in any given year, you'd have to spend at least $500 (and that's still only 20 novels). And unless they were pb originals, you'd have to spend that much on hc's, just to make sure you'd read them quickly enough so you could vote for your favorites come nomination time. Many times a hc isn't financially available in pb until a year after its hc release. This makes it too late for a vote in the preliminary Hugo nominations the next spring (assuming you'd also ponied up the major $$ to join the worldcon and vote). People just do the best they can, given _any number_ of reasons for voting this way or that. As I said, I want them to be more intelligent and well-read voters, and get frustrated myself at some of the final nominations for the Hugos or Nebs, or whatever award. But you don't label folks as sexist or racist or homophobic, or foist the responsibility for an awards list you may not like on the evils of an "institutionally sexist, racist, and homophobic" society. That's "reading" way too much into the process.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 09:46 am:    Dave, She means the guest of honor at the Japanese convention.   Elizabeth Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 09:51 am:    But you don't label folks as sexist or racist or homophobic, or foist the responsibility for an awards list you may not like on the evils of an "institutionally sexist, racist, and homophobic" society. That's "reading" way too much into the process. Dave, judging from what I've read of your columns and posts on this forum, and that's really all I have to go on when it comes to understanding your views, I'd say you're trying to read out of the process any taint of sexism and racism and homophobia. Instead, you've written off any gender or race or sexual orientation bias that may exist in the literature or awards as a matter of "taste". Trying your darndest. In fact, based on what I've read of your columns, the only "ism" you see sexism you see or feel is significant is that of women towards men.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 10:11 am:    Dave, if you go to: http://www.nippon2007.us/ you will see that all of the guests of honor are male. Perhaps there is a good explanation for this. If not one has to wonder why no women would be invited or folk of color. "If you mean final nominees this year, then why not just accept that it just happened to turn out this way this year? Did anyone ever think that maybe these five nominees all wrote terrific books?" Well in the novel category there is one woman. It's just rather odd that no women could make it in all the other fiction categories. However, the other awards for this year have more nominated women in fiction categories. It could be a combination of factors: 1. The voters didn't read M. Rickert for example. 2. The voters read M. Rickert and didn't like her work. 3. The voters preferred other work over M. Rickert's which just happened to be written by a male. And we'd have to note that Asimov's had nearly all of the nominees that one would have to wonder if the voters were REALLY into Asimov's. As M. Rickert was published in F&SF, one could raise the question would she have made the final cut if she had been published in Asimov's instead? Dave, I agree with you that being informed is critical. Locus is helpful in that regard as are a variety of websites. It's easier with the internet to stay/become informed. Certainly time is a factor. Even if one has accessibility to hundreds of works, one has to have the time to read them. Regarding the cost of buying all those books. If you're buying books then hopefully you're not paying fool price. Libraries can be helpful and I use them. Unfortunately, some authors are unable to sell enough copies which results in the need to sell very expensive limited editions. The libraries (I have easy access to) do not purchase these books.   Elizabeth Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 10:14 am:    I want to state for the record that I don't claim that any of the works nominated are sexist, racist or homophobic: I've only read one of the works nominated for best novel -- Blindsight by Peter Watt and I don't really think anyone could claim it was any of the above. I personally am not well-read enough in the genre to be able to quibble with the list of nominees. I am sure that the novels and works in question are all worthy of nomination. I merely want to keep open the possibility that the lack of women on the list of nominated works in all categories may reflect the biases of the nominators and voters towards the kind of SF that men write and that underpinning that "taste" and "choice" are sexist attitudes towards women and the kind of SF they write that keeps them off the nomination role. We have thirty or forty years of research on how gender influences the way people view others and their works. It seems way too naive or blind to claim that the dearth of women on the ballot is a reflection of the lack of quality and deserving works by women. In my mind, we should not view the Hugos as any objective measure of the quality of works in the genre, but instead as a popularity contest of those who nominate and vote. As such, the biases of those voters can't help but influence the results.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 10:33 am:    I think that everyone will agree with you that Hugos is not "any objective measure of the quality of the works in the genre". No one reads all the works.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 01:22 pm:    PM. I really don't think M. Rickert is a good example as I'll bet that 90% of the readers do not know that she is female. Only recently, through the publication of her collection and her winning the Crawford Award would this info become "more" public.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 01:32 pm:    I don't see any big deal about NipponCon having only male guests of honor. If you look at the GOH at the Worldcons of the past 7 years, they are overwhelmingly male. Why? No big mystery. Science fiction fandom has alwys been dominated by males. SF writing has always been dominated by males. SF conventions still mostly celebrate sf not fantasy. If it was the opposite, you might see more women being represented because women DO write more fantasy (although as far as I can tell the bestselling fantasy is mostly published by men: Eddings, Jordan, Terry Brooks, George RR Martin, and Terry Goodkind. Women are starting to sell (obviously J.R. Rowling) but not as well. Ok. Why is that? (I have no idea, I'm just throwing this out). Perhaps the more important question to ask is why and how can we encourage more women to write sf.   GSH Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 02:45 pm:    A total of only 409 voters chose the 2007 Hugo nominees. The nominating voters were self-selected, not having to meet any particular qualifications. I don't think we can make valid generalizations about supposed biases of the science fiction and fantasy community as a whole, based on the selections of that sort of sample. I don't even believe we can make assumptions about the relative merits of the chosen works. I always enjoy knowing that a book or story I've especially liked has won an award. It's good to feel that my own opinion has been validated; that an author I especially appreciate has been deservedly recognized. Beyond that, awards mean little. I may give award winners a second glance on the bookstore shelf, but that has little to do with what I actually choose to buy. Is that not true of most of us? The whole issue of gender bias would bother me a great deal more if I suspected it was seriously effecting the choice of stories placed before me, or the chances one author or another has of finding their way into the market. Years past that was certainly the case, but I don't believe it is now. My assumption is that editors consistantly select the best material they get that falls within their stated guidelines.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 02:55 pm:    M. Rickert is a curious omission. It would not surprise me if many had not read her work. It's a stereotype to assert that men can only write science fiction in a certain way and support only male science fiction writers. Ellen, why not propose an original all-woman sf anthology?   Rachel Swirsky Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 03:07 pm:    I've subscribed to F&SF since I was sixteen, but unless circumstances change greatly before the time comes, I will not be renewing my subscription.   Elizabeth Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 03:51 pm:    Perhaps the more important question to ask is why and how can we encourage more women to write sf. For one, we can put some effort into publicising the works of those who women are writing SF. I'm not calling for quotas or demanding a 50-50 balance in published works, but I think that SF works by women writers may be overlooked because of gender bias. I'm going to make a special effort from now on to promote the work of women SF writers in my blog and anywhere else I can. An example from another of the arts: few women were able to break into the ranks of symphony orchestras until they instituted curtains and carpets. Curtains prevented reviewers from knowing the gender of the performer auditioning for a position and carpets prevented judges from hearing women's high heels on the floor as they entered the auditorium to audition. In one symphony orchestra, they had instituted the curtain but still were not getting a gender balance in hirings. Once they also instituted the carpet, they started seeing more parity. Even being able to hear the click click of the woman's high heels was enough to bias the judges against women applicants. I don't know if that's the case in SF, but it is possible and even probable. None of us enlightened people would consciously discriminate against women or visible minorities or gays/lesbians, but it is possible that we might unconsciously do so.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 04:13 pm:    Elizabeth, I presume you'll only be promoting the work of women whose work you think is good, yes? Because promoting bad or mediocre work by women (or men) does not do the field any good at all. PM, I believe M. Rickert is only slowly working her way into the consciousness of the Hugo voters. She's been recognized by the Nebula voters and being noticed by editors of Best of the Year editors. I think her time will come to be noticed by the Hugos. Also, she only occasionally writes sf. Some of her best work is fantasy or horror. I'm afraid I don't have any interest in editing a gender specific anthology.   Maura McHugh Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 04:25 pm:    You know, Pamela Sargent was doing all-women sf anthologies from the mid-1970s (her _Women of Wonder_ series). You'd think that after 30 years we wouldn't have to take that road again, but maybe we do. The Philip K. Dick shortlist was dominated by women this year: MINDSCAPE by Andrea Hairston; CARNIVAL by Elizabeth Bear; SPIN CONTROL by Chris Moriarty; CATALYST by Nina Kiriki Hoffman; RECURSION by Tony Ballantyne; IDOLON by Mark Budz; LIVING NEXT DOOR TO THE GOD OF LOVE by Justina Robson - none of the seven made the Hugo shortlist. The difference is popularity contests versus panel selections. There is always important material that will not be popular, but that does not mean it's not worthy. I've just finished reading Cormac McCarthy's _The Road_, and it's a hard, brutal story, but damn that man can write. It certainly should have made the Stokers shortlist, because it is horror through-and-through in my opinion. Everyone has concentrated on the novel shortlist for the Hugos, but I was really bewildered by the *zero* representation of women across the three short fiction categories. It is not an accurate reflection of the amount of women writing sf and fantasy today.   Elizabeth Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 04:28 pm:    Ellen, here's the thing: just because I like a particular work doesn't mean I think it is better than everything else. I could never be in a position to make such a judgement for while I am a lifetime reader of SF, I am not trained in literary criticism nor do I have a wide enough background in SF to claim any special insight into it. I believe it's possible to promote a work without endorsing it. Promotion, at least in my mind, is more letting people know that a work is out there. Endorsement is when you claim that a work is "good". I don't think I am the arbiter of all that is good in writing, SF or otherwise, so I wouldn't want to claim that works I like are better than works I didn't like. I may just pass on information about works written by women and let others judge for themselves. I will also advocate for those works I liked.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 04:40 pm:    Maura, The Road got several recommendations for the Stoker but didn't make the preliminary ballot and I can tell you why. Many of those in horror (as in sf and fantasy) are very isolated in their reading--they will not read anything outside their realm of what is "in the field" even if some reviewers say they should read books (or stories) that are published in the mainstream and not "in genre." I'm always surprised when something outside the genre DOES win--eg. I was please and surprised that LIVES OF THE MONSTER DOGS won for first novel. However, that book --which was blatently sf was most likely not read by the Nebula or Hugo voters. I think that kind of blind eye is as pernicious as gender bias--genre bias goes both ways. The short forms of the Nebulas were dominated by women in the early to mid-90s. I really don't think any of this can be quantified by one year's representation. How many women have been nominated in the past ten years in the Hugo short forms? (I don't have the time to check right now).   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 04:41 pm:    "I'm afraid I don't have any interest in editing a gender specific anthology." Perhaps someone else will take up the call. This is one way to provide more science fiction stories written by women.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 04:44 pm:    I prefer advocating books that I like no matter the gender of their author. Elizabeth, please take a stand--if you're going to promote something, promote what you like. If you like it you are indeed endorsing it in that you are recommending it for others to read because you like it. Or am I misunderstanding.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 04:47 pm:    "Everyone has concentrated on the novel shortlist for the Hugos, but I was really bewildered by the *zero* representation of women across the three short fiction categories. It is not an accurate reflection of the amount of women writing sf and fantasy today." That's been mentioned in prior posts though. I would suggest that editors can have an impact by encouraging women to write science fiction.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 04:50 pm:    "I prefer advocating books that I like no matter the gender of their author." As do I. I also like to advocate books written by non-white males. With the caveat that it's good work regardless of who has written it.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 04:51 pm:    When I edit an anthology, I solicit about 40 writers whose work I enjoy and ask for stories. I expect maybe one half will actually submit a story and I may take about two thirds of those (I'm pretty picky who I contact in the first place). Depending on the genre of the anthology I may contact more women than men, more men than women or about half and half--it varies but as I contact those writers I do not even consider their gender. I consider their work--which writers I think can write a story that I will love. For horror, it's mostly male. For my Del Rey antho, which is sf/f, I ended up just about even in gender distribution. I was goign to try to distinguish between sf and fantasy but most of the stories are just weird and I'm not sure how I'd categorize them ;-) Oh well.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 05:00 pm:    I was addressing your earlier question/comment regarding how to encourage women to write more science fiction. And in a very real sense one cannot expect the voters to vote for women in a science fiction category if there aren't any/many works to choose.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 05:20 pm:    Perhaps the question should be posed a different way. Ellen, are you interested in doing original science fiction only anthos? If you're not that doesn't make you a bad person. "For horror, it's mostly male." As I understand it you choose your authors that are already established writers. In order for additional women (beyond the ones you've already selected) to be a part of your horror antho they would have to distinguish themselves elsewhere.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 05:20 pm:    PM, Sorry. Of course. Whenever I'm on a "what do editors want" panel at a convention, I and most other editors on the panel ask for more sf overall--not just by women. But I mean in short fiction, as I don't generally edit novels. Since I don't read sf novels by anyone I can't judge those that made any of the award ballots. I don't know how meaningful it is but the Dick award is for novels published first published in paperback.   Charles Coleman Finlay Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 05:24 pm:    Maura, keep in mind that the Phillip K. Dick Award is for paperback original novels. That (generally) means the novels aren't getting the same advances, distribution, or promotion that hardcover novels are -- if the Phillip K. Dick Award list is dominated by women, that might indicate something more complicated about the industry than you think. I'm a bit at a loss here with regards to the column. I thought Dave's column was sexist and offensive, WAY out of proportion to the column that inspired it. I thought the "it's just a satire" defense was the kind of thing you hear from passive aggressives when they say mean things but try to slide out of it by claiming "it's just a joke" and blaming the object of their attack for "not being able to take a joke." It's pathetic and I don't believe it for a second. When Jonathan Swift suggests that we should turn Irish babies into gloves, I, at least, don't believe him. But, based on the pattern of Dave's comments online in a variety of places including the Tangent newsgroup, I think the views in his essay come pretty close to representing his real opinion. Ergo, not satire. I believe in free speech, and if Dave published his essay in his own blog, as an expression of his opinion, that'd be fine by me. The blogosphere is full of people I don't agree with. More power to them. But by printing it under the F&SF banner, it looks to me like it has the sanction of F&SF, that it reflects the magazine's official thinking. It's not like a book review or a movie review, where sometimes we even see different opinions of the same movie by different reviewers. The issues raised by Dave are especially important because of the perception -- whether that perception is true or not -- that exists in portions of the spec fic community that F&SF has become hostile and dismissive of female readers. Iirc, according to the last survey, about 40% of F&SF subscribers are women, so this represents a substantial portion of the magazine's core readership. One expects that essays like the one Dave wrote would be approached with some thought toward the reactions it seems intended to produce. I never thought F&SF was sexist. I started reading the magazine regularly around the time that M. Rickert and Yoon Ha Lee started publishing there, around the time that Amy Sterling Casil had a couple cover stories, and it looked to me at that time that not only was F&SF publishing women writers, but it was finding new women writers and championing them. As a reader, all I want are great stories, and women write as many of those as men, so I was happy to see a gender mix of writers. And I continued to read great stories in the magazine by Carol Emshwiller, and Maureen McHugh, stuff that made an impression on me, as well work by Esther Friesner that consistently amused me. Women writers figured large in my mental image of the magazine. That's why, a few years ago, when I first heard the complaints about F&SF being sexist, I simply dismissed them. Over time, I grew to understand how people might feel that way, but, knowing Gordon and looking at the facts (only 20-25% of submissions come from women writers, for example, about the same proportion as published stories; or seeing that about half of JJA's slush survivors were women), I thought that people were mistaken, they were forming opinions based on anecdote and narrow personal experience rather than looking at the whole picture. That's one reason why I proposed the infamous slush bomb last year. I'll admit here that F&SF has been very good to me. About half of my published fiction has appeared there, far more than any other market. In fact, there aren't many other markets for some of the lengthy stuff I write, and no editors that have liked my work as much as Gordon, nor has any editor done more to help me and my career. So I recognize that I'm predisposed to like F&SF for those reasons. But when I see something like Dave's poorly reasoned, poorly written essay, with its misogynist and deliberately inflammatory language, published under the F&SF banner, I find it hard to keep my old position any more, despite my years of believing it, and my vested interest in getting along with the magazine. I'm posting this here because of the discussion I saw over on Cat Rambo's blog: http://spezzatura.livejournal.com/78087.html There, I see folks saying things that are hard to disagree with anymore. The original post said, "While I'm glad to see F&SF mag finally trying Web-only publishing, can't say as much for their choice of content, unfortunately. ...that column's not something that makes me feel very warm and fuzzy about subscribing.... Pretty much the opposite. If I'm pointedly not welcome at your country club, I'm not sure I feel the need to help with the greens fees." When I asked one person if she had made her comments over here, she said, "I haven't Charlie, because it's reached the stage where there's only so many times I need to hear 'You're not the reader we're looking for.'..." Someone else said, "Dave Truesdale's sexist rants were published by someone who wanted to give them a forum. If someone doesn't want sexist rants to be part of his image, someone doesn't need to publish them. I refuse to pin this on Truesdale." I find it hard to disagree any more. It makes me sad.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 05:31 pm:    Ellen, I understand that your expertise would be women in the context of short fiction. You just happen to be here with us (which is appreciated). Hope you don't feel that I'm trying to pick on you or single you out.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 05:43 pm:    Charles, I suspect that those writers who are aware of Dave's columns are in something of a bind. There aren't a huge number of high paying short fiction genre markets and undoubtedly no one wants to burn their bridges with GVG. I don't really relish going after GVG or hurting F&SF. I continue to scratch my head as to why GVG greenlit this column. And it's as if there are two Daves. The bomb thrower and then the more discussion oriented one.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 05:44 pm:    PM, I was very happy editing a mix of sf/f. If I could get a contract for an all original sf anthology I'd be happy to edit one. I'm most comfortable mixing the genres which is what I did as fiction editor of OMNI, Event Horizon, and SCIFICTION. For original anthologies yes, I go after writers whose work I'm familiar with --that doesn't necessarily mean established, as I've been reading widely in sf/f/h for over 25 year--and more specifically reading EVERYTHING in short horror for the past 20 years. So I know who is out there writing horror. Male and female. Looking back at my notes for INFERNO, here's the breakdown --approximately. I may have misnoted or misremembered or miscounted ;-) I solicited stories from about 20 female writers. Four were rejected. One was taken for a different project. Twelve never submitted Three I bought One came from a writer I didn't specifically ask I had 52 males on my list--some, like Clive Barker and Stephen King I knew I'd get nothing from but they were on my "wish list." Four were rejected Thirty -two never submitted Fourteen I bought Two came from writers who I did't specifically ask at the time There are two stories in the book.   Elizabeth Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 06:27 pm:    Ellen, it's like this: I've left a few copies of F&SF at work (we have a staff lending library) as a way of trying to promote it. I don't just leave the stories I personally liked, and cut out the others. I leave the whole issue. Not all the stories are my cup of tea, but there usually are one or two that stick with me. From reading the forum, I see that other readers liked the stories I didn't and some don't like the stories I did. I expect it works the same for women SF writers. Some I may like, some not, but just because a writer doesn't impress me doesn't mean they might not impress others. I'm interested in getting the names of women SF writers out there so women SF writers will be more visible. The more women writers see other women writers in print, the more they will be encouraged to try. It's a critical mass kind of thing. As to claims that F&SF is biased or sexist in its publishing practices, the stats suggest that F&SF publishes a higher percentage of women than submit to the magazine so that suggests that Gordon does not discriminate against women writers. The problem is to get more women to submit and give him more of a choice. When women see more women getting published, they may submit more because breaking in won't seem so insurmountable.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 06:27 pm:    Charles: "I thought Dave's column was sexist and offensive, WAY out of proportion to the column that inspired it." I don't know how many times or how many ways I can say this, Charles, but it was *supposed* to be offensive and over-the-top--just as Martini's piece was offensive to me (and others). It does in no shape, manner, or form reflect my own views. I merely reversed what Martini wrote and upped the ante to make the point. If you choose not to believe this, and smear me as a sexist, then you need to address issues of your own. It appears that anyone who challenges a sexist remark or remarks from an angry female is certain to be automatically attacked himself, regardless of the worth of his words. This is very disturbing. Gordon can speak for himself, but I can tell you that he does NOT necessarily endorse anything I say in my column(s). You may not *like* what I wrote, or the manner in which I made my point, but your own overreaction (calling me a sexist and questioning GVG and F&SF) is beyond the pale. You can't stand it when someone challenges the orthodoxy *you* ascribe to, so now you're trying to shut me up by casting aspersions on GVG and F&SF; the goal being to intimidate Gordon into dropping the column. This is such a common tactic I hardly believe you're pulling it out of the playbook. You know, smear those who don't agree with you (mixing innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies) and intimidate the publisher/editor/sponsor/movie studio/tv show into dropping the supposed "offender." Are you calling Martini a sexist as well, and intimidating bookslut.com for running her stuff? Or did you find *nothing* out of line and reverse-sexist in her remarks? Or are you just p*ssed that I made people sit up and take notice of her sexist nonsense in a way you didn't like? C'mon, Charles. Did you spot any sexism in her remarks at all? If not, then you're a lot more blinded by your own ideology than I've ever been, or will be. The only times in my writings I've carped against women is when I perceive a double-standard at work. That's it. I like women writers as much as I do male writers. Don't care who writes what as long as I like the work. Don't know how much plainer I can say it. If you want to go around spreading poison and lies about me being some sort of sexist because I point out sexism by a female, then you're the bigot, not me.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 06:32 pm:    Arghhh. I just noticed what I typed and it's too late to edit it. There are twenty stories in the book.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 06:33 pm:    Ellen, I thought I said it but perhaps I didn't. What I intended to say was that you didn't accept stories from unpublished authors in your anthos. So no new women (or men) who were previously unpublished would be added. Which is a roundabout way of saying that your anthos are not publishing entry points for women (or men)...and you can only work with those who have been already published. So if writing "quality" is roughly equal between men and women and there is a disproportionate ratio between men and women, then this will be carried over into your antho. If more women would actually submit then they'd be there. Thanks for sharing the "behind the scenes" view.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 06:33 pm:    Elizabeth, I see what you're saying. Go forth and do it ;-)   Sean Melican Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 06:33 pm:    They're right there on the racks or bookshelves of the same bookstores for all to choose from. No, they're not. There are endless volumes of traditional fantasy, by men and women, and plenty of rehashed cyberpunk. And, dear heaven, how many military sf novels do we need? Try finding an Aqueduct title at your local store. Alanya to Alanya and Renegade are some of the best world-building and critical novels in the last few years. Raise your hand if you've read them. Hell, if you've heard of them. Try to find Small Beer or Nightshade. You can probably find one or two if you look hard -- and you know what you're looking for. Major publishers have to answer to accountants first, editors second, or so I've been told. It's difficult if not impossible for a book that doesn't fit a market niche to find shelf space. If it doesn't have shelf space, it can't find readers. If it can't find readers, it won't be read, and won't be voted for. Perhaps, Mr. Truesdale, if you read LOCUS (or the equivalent) you'd know how the market worked. But, as has been pointed out, your arguments (the italicized above)are specious and ill-informed. I find it hard to disagree any more. It makes me sad. Amen.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 06:39 pm:    PM, I did indeed misunderstand because you said "already established writers" and didn't realize you meant "unpublished" writers. At a magazine-- where I had reader-- I was able to consider slush. Reading for anthologies I don't. So no I don't publish first stories in my anthologies but I rarely published first stories in the other venues I edited in. I did however, publish many second, third or fourth stories. First stories have to compete with every other story that comes in to a venue, and generally, they just aren't as good as later stories by the same writer. (and I don't think you're picking on me :-) )   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 06:48 pm:    Sean, I just quickly checked and Alanya to Alanya from Aqueduct Press, Small Beer Press books, and Nightshade Books are available on amazon. It's all in the distribution. I for one, rarely go to bookstores any more. I shop on amazon when I need to buy a book. Any book that isn't a big blockbuster has trouble getting and staying in a brick & mortar bookstore these days. That's where book reviews and magazines like Locus DO indeed come in. So you find out what books you might like to read. They're out there.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 07:11 pm:    Sean: "No, they're not. There are endless volumes of traditional fantasy, by men and women, and plenty of rehashed cyberpunk. And, dear heaven, how many military sf novels do we need?" Sean, I believe I was referring to the Tiptree Award in the post you quoted me from. How many final nominees came from _established_, big name magazines or publishers who publish SF/F? My memory is faulty on this, but my guess is that _almost_ all of them were/are. And because they come from magazines and publishers whose publications one can find in a bookstore alongside all the other SF/F, they have an equal chance of being purchased, read, and voted for. That's all I was trying to say by that observation; that since the nominees come from well-distributed magazines or publishers that anyone can find in the SF/F sections of major bookstores, they have an equal opportunity of being bought and read the same as military SF or media tie-in SF/F, or anything else. Not arguing with you that there's a lot of good stuff in the small press that doesn't get the same exposure, but it's always been like that. SF had its own struggles like that "back in the day" until a few small press publishers in the 40s began publishing SF's first novels without having them serialized in the magazines first. One thing led to another, and you know the rest of the story. Perhaps not an exact parallel, but I think maybe a lot of the same general principles may be at work here. If enough readers like what they *can* find in the many small press publications springing up all over the place, then sales will gradually increase, the readership will increase, and so forth. It's all market driven, and SF began the same way. Now, if the majority of the final nominees of the Tiptree Award (from year one) have *not* come from readily available sources such as major bookstores alongside other SF/F, then my observation will be wrong. Maybe someone will be motivated to check to see where all of the Tiptree finalists appeared and let us know.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 07:33 pm:    Wow. I miss a day's worth of postings and look what happens. I figured yesterday that this thread was well on its way to petering out. Color me wrong. Regarding Dave Truesdale's "Off on a Tangent" column, I enlisted Dave to write an online column for F&SF for a few reasons, including: a) I missed reading his columns since he stopped publishing them anywhere b) They seemed like a good bet for experimenting with an online-only column. What I mean by that is that I figured they'd be interesting and often provocative, but I thought they'd be so, um, tangential that I wondered if our average newsstand reader would be interested in them. Dave's first six columns ranged through historical pieces (like looking at Alfred Bester's reviews), writer appreciations, and other topics inspired by his readings in SF. Basically, I've let him write about whatever he wants to cover, though I think I might have encouraged or discouraged him from a topic or two. At what point in their publication was it ever suggested that Dave Truesdale's viewpoints represent my own? By the fact that I published them? If so, doesn't that mean that I like every book Charles de Lint praises or that Lucius Shepard's opinions are my opinions? I'm amazed to see people making this suggestion, to be honest. Dave's latest piece is abrasive---I thought that from the start. And considering I'm one of the people who administers the Philip K. Dick Award, the parody of section certainly read to me as an affront, initially. But the bulk of the piece isn't about sexism per se. It's about what you can and cannot say nowadays, and because it's tied in with Don Imus's recent departure, I thought it was best to run the piece quickly (before everyone forgets Imus altogether). That's all there was to it. Am I missing something? I mean, Dave's previous columns have said some things about recent F&SF stories like "Okanoggan Falls" and "Killers" with which I didn't agree. Should I have not published those columns because they didn't reflect my opinion? Regarding the allegation that I'm sexist, I'll start a separate thread for that. It's really not the point of Dave's article, in my opinion, and if you folks want to get into a discussion of the subject, I think it makes more sense to give it its own thread.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 07:45 pm:    I'd like to emphasize something else. It may seem like the *few* times (maybe two or three whole times in all I've written over the past 14 years in different print and online venues), that I'm picking on women. If I see sexism in something I've read and it's by a male, I'll jump all over that, too. But I don't think it fair to say I pick on, or single out women for my commentaries because of only two totally unrelated pieces out of literally (at a reasonable guesstimate) several hundred thousands of words I've written over the years. If anyone comes across something they believe to be sexist by a male in an SF/F short story (I don't have the time to read but maybe a handful of novels anymore), or an essay or article either in print or online, then please let me know. Blatant sexism is just that, sexism, and it doesn't matter where it comes from. Or, the next time you perceive sexism in any short SF, F, or H story, article, or essay, why not write about it yourself? Exposing it is a good thing, yes?   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 07:45 pm:    Dave, I can't speak for all bookstores everywhere but I can assert that these titles would not be available to me locally. I checked six Manhattan Borders stores' inventory for Half Life. It wasn't available at any.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 07:49 pm:    Dave, it's true that you've had a history elsewhere. Some already dislike you prior to your arrival at F&SF. But if the discussion is limited to what you've written at F&SF then it skews in a different direction.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 07:52 pm:    PM, Half-Life is from a major mainstream publisher: Harpercollins. This implies major problems for ALL books if that book is not available.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 07:57 pm:    GVG, yes I think that you're missing the point of just how provoked folk are after reading Dave's column. Dave is encouraging the fight. It doesn't seem to me that other writers are going out of their way to provoke people. Doesn't have that venom. And quite frankly if they or anyone were writing what Dave has written, then folk should be all over it. So I wouldn't limit this to only Dave. If other writers wrote the same it would be equally repugnant. Then there's the issue of style. There are quite a few writers who write better than Dave...   Charles Coleman Finlay Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:05 pm:    I don't know how many times or how many ways I can say this, Charles, but it was *supposed* to be offensive and over-the-top-- Right. Which I why I question the wisdom of running it under the magazine's banner. But more on that specifically below. just as Martini's piece was offensive to me (and others). I thought Martini's piece was under-informed and driven by anger. And when she was called on this by people -- not just you -- she fessed up with some class, and made some corrections. Regardless, in the end it was just another opinion on another blog -- it didn't appear as a column in, say, Realms of Fantasy, and if it had, my reaction to it would be different because of the context. Your column appears in on F&SF's webpage, which is a very different context than the appearance of Martini's blog entry. Please acknowledge that. It does in no shape, manner, or form reflect my own views. From out here in the peanut gallery, it seems very consistent with views you have repeatedly expressed on gender issues. But in terms of argument, I'll grant you this point if you want -- I don't consider it worth the time or energy to go hunting your previous opinions up, as whether or not they are an accurate reflection is hardly the main point or the main problem here. I merely reversed what Martini wrote and upped the ante to make the point. If you choose not to believe this, and smear me as a sexist, then you need to address issues of your own. This is a nice rhetorical trick -- reverse an accusation on your opponent and make them defend their views. But it avoids the main criticism: what I -- and others -- don't understand, regardless of whether or not this is a true reflection of your views, is why F&SF would choose to publish it, knowing how it was likely to be interpreted, unless there was a deliberate choice made to provoke the reaction that has happened. For me, that's the main issue here. It appears that anyone who challenges a sexist remark or remarks from an angry female is certain to be automatically attacked himself, regardless of the worth of his words. Er, no. This is another rhetorical trick -- make a claim that your statement is equal to all similar statements and magnify the complaint against one argument to a complaint against all similar arguments, making your opponent try to defend a whole class of arguments. But I said specifically that your piece was poorly reasoned and poorly written. I said specifically that your piece was published in the wrong context. Your column was not an attack on Adrienne Martini, who deserved to be called on a few points, but reads to me like an attack on women. Period. If you want to publish these opinions on your blog on your homepage somewhere, that's fine. I totally defend your right to believe this and to try to spread your beliefs, regardless of how much I disagree with them. But I do have concerns about the message when something like your column is published under the banner of a magazine with approximately, if I understand the numbers correctly, 7,000 or so women subscribers. Gordon can speak for himself, but I can tell you that he does NOT necessarily endorse anything I say in my column(s).. Okay, but editors do speak for themselves by selecting the material they choose to publish. If this were not true, then the so-called "liberal bias" in certain media would be impossible, right, Dave? Unless there are statements otherwise, all the readers have to go on is what they see appearing under the magazine's banner. In this case, your column. You may not *like* what I wrote, or the manner in which I made my point, but your own overreaction (calling me a sexist and questioning GVG and F&SF) is beyond the pale. Once again, instead of reading what I wrote, you make broad accusations forcing me to defend a position I never claimed. It's another rhetorical device, and is as illegitimate as the others you used above. Instead of your accusation, I specifically said that I never thought F&SF was sexist, and I talked about how my impression of the magazine was shaped by the women writers I read in it, specifically the new women writers who I thought were doing really cool stuff in their fiction. I said that for years, I defended F&SF against charges of sexism -- I can point you to my journal entries and comments on other people's journals -- and that I thought the claims that it was were based on mistaken impressions. I'm repeating all this because apparently you didn't read my original post. You can't stand it when someone challenges the orthodoxy *you* ascribe to, so now you're trying to shut me up by casting aspersions on GVG and F&SF; Dave, do you have any idea what my orthodoxy really is? Because, based on your comments, it appears that you haven't paid any attention to anything I said. I'm a middle-age, middle-class white male who loves the fiction in F&SF, who has sold a lot of stories to the magazine, and who has thought for years that all the accusations of sexism were off the mark. I was so convinced that they were off the mark that I helped organize a slush bomb of women writers, because I believe that Gordon can't buy stories he doesn't see, and the only way he can buy more women writers is if more submit to him. Period. the goal being to intimidate Gordon into dropping the column. My goal is to bring to Gordon's attention the effect that this column has on his subscribers and readers, many of whom have spoken up here for themselves. My goal is to bring to his attention that even people like myself, who have been defending the magazine against these charges for years, are baffled by the publication of your piece. This is such a common tactic I hardly believe you're pulling it out of the playbook. You know, smear those who don't agree with you (mixing innuendo, half-truths, and outright lies) and intimidate the publisher/editor/sponsor/movie studio/tv show into dropping the supposed "offender." That's not what I'm going at all, Dave. Your column wasn't funny, it wasn't insightful, and it didn't hit its target (if the target was Adrienne Martini) -- that's all. Instead, it alienates a lot of readers and subscribers who, prior to this, were still willing to give the magazine the benefit of the doubt. Gordon can leave your column up forever, for all I care. It's part of the history of the magazine now, and something to consider in the future when we see what direction the magazine takes. Gordon is a smart man, and he's making the best choices he can for the long term health of the magazine. I just don't understand this choice. Are you calling Martini a sexist as well, and intimidating bookslut.com for running her stuff? Or did you find *nothing* out of line and reverse-sexist in her remarks? Or are you just p*ssed that I made people sit up and take notice of her sexist nonsense in a way you didn't like? C'mon, Charles. Did you spot any sexism in her remarks at all? If not, then you're a lot more blinded by your own ideology than I've ever been, or will be. I think she said some dumb things. People called her on it. She came out and admitted, "yeah, I said some dumb things." She said it here, she said it on her blog. We all say dumb things sometimes, out of anger, out of our own issues, whatever it is. I thought she handled it with some class. I think her main point -- that the Hugos are gender imbalanced in a way that doesn't reflect work being done in the genre -- is basically accurate with some ntoable exceptions; although I think other people have said it more thoughtfully, based in more facts, and offering better solutions, than she did. The only times in my writings I've carped against women is when I perceive a double-standard at work. That's it. I like women writers as much as I do male writers. Don't care who writes what as long as I like the work. Don't know how much plainer I can say it. That may be, but in this case your attack went way beyond responding to one individual's unguarded remarks and attacked a whole group of people who had nothing to do with what she said. Again, that's your right, if that's what you want to do. I just don't understand why F&SF would publish it under their banner. More importantly, when you're called on it -- just the way that Martini was called on her remarks -- you respond with defensiveness and counter-attacks instead of self-reflection the way that she did. You seem completely unfeeling about the reaction that your column caused, unless it was your intention to inspire people to cancel their subscriptions and feel unwelcome at the magazine, not because of their political opinions, but simply because of their gender. If you want to go around spreading poison and lies about me being some sort of sexist because I point out sexism by a female, then you're the bigot, not me. One of the first things my mom taught me was that two wrongs don't make a right. You don't defeat sexism by "doing the same thing back and upping the ante" -- that just perpetuates sexism on both sides and creates the kind of hard feelings that take years to overcome. A true satire of Martini's column would have taken her perspective and magnified it to the point where it looked ridiculous and untenable. That's easy to imagine -- write a blog entry in her tone of voice that descries the appearance of even a single woman on the ballot. "Those bastards nominated a woman this year! What the hell is wrong with them?!" Now that would have been satire against sexism. The publication of your column only makes it look like she has a good point. As a final word, let me just say that you can write whatever you want, and F&SF can publish whatever they want, but I don't understand why the magazine wanted to publish this column. I just don't. I don't think it accomplishes any of the things you claim it is supposed to, and I think the negatives outweigh any imagined positives.   Gordon Van Gelder Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:11 pm:    PM, as you say, Dave Truesdale's columns weren't an unknown quantity when we started publishing them. Yes, he can be provocative. When Harlan Ellison started writing the film column for F&SF, did people expect him to check his fangs and claws at the entrance?   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:11 pm:    PM: "Dave, it's true that you've had a history elsewhere." For ghod's sake, PM. We've all had histories elsewhere--especially those of us who've been around for awhile; in my case some 30+ years. A lot of folks over the years have liked what I've written about all sorts of things. Some have disliked what I've written on a few things. So what? You don't know me from Adam, nor what I've written and the stances I've taken on various topics since I began the original version of Tangent back in early 1975. Your selective cherry-picking does your viewpoint no good service.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:24 pm:    GVG, I'd have to say more than "provocative". Closer to fighting words. I can't equate what Dave has written with what others have written in 2007. HE can at least apologize when he steps over the line.   Sean Wallace Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:33 pm:    Gordon, Truesdale is no Harlan Ellison, and I don't think that many people would even think so.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:44 pm:    Charles: "I think she said some dumb things. People called her on it. She came out and admitted, "yeah, I said some dumb things." She said it here, she said it on her blog. We all say dumb things sometimes, out of anger, out of our own issues, whatever it is. I thought she handled it with some class." Right. She says "dumb" things; but me, I'm a sexist when I reverse it to a degree you don't like. Talk about a double-standard. Unbelievable. The one thing she didn't apologize for in her apology, was the sexist part of her original commentary. The only thing she apologized for was calling the Nippon committee "bastards." You keep saying she only published her piece on her own blog. Yes. But when Locus Online (_the_ watering hole for the SF community) links to it as worthy of its wide SF readership's notice, then its another whole ballgame. Let's don't forget that Mark thought it worthy of our notice, shall we? I couldn't disagree more with the rest of your post. And, if you can't pinpoint anything (except my current column, which I flatly deny is sexist) of a sexist nature that I've personally said or written original to my hand, then I'd appreciate your not smearing me with the sexist label. Those are strong words one just can't toss off without iron-clad, indisputable proof. I, ah, suppose this is merely another "tactic" of which you also don't approve: asking for proof of a serious allegation.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:45 pm:    Sean, I think this is a big part of the problem. GVG evidently likes Dave quite a bit, while not agreeing with everything he writes. On the basis of his F&SF columns, I'm surprised that Dave has made it this far... I think GVG likes Dave based on his past work, on history.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:53 pm:    Sean: "Truesdale is no Harlan Ellison, and I don't think that many people would even think so." No one is like Harlan. He can write rings around just about anyone. Gordon obviously meant only in the sense of being provocative--not in the quality of the writing. I freely admit I'm no polished "writer," and am the first to admit it.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 08:53 pm:    Dave, I addressed your Locus Online allegation earlier. Locus Online appears to be rather agnostic and appears to try and link to all sorts of genre related. Just as the magazine mentions all sorts of book releases: the good, the bad, the ugly. And Dave continues to utterly miss much of Charle's point. If person x calls person y "evil" and person y replies by calling person x "evil cocksucker" practically everyone can determine that person y delivered the more severe comment. Now when person x apologizes and person y does not, one naturally wonders what's going on with person y.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 09:20 pm:    PM: "And Dave continues to utterly miss much of Charle's point." I get it, I just totally disagree with it and therefore see no need to apologize. One of the *purposes* of parody or satire is to point up something the author believes to be ridiculous by _exaggeration_ through use of hyperbole. It is *supposed* to be absurd and not to be taken literally. When "A Modest Proposal" was written, did anyone take the author seriously, that children should be eaten? Did _that_ horrible scenario enrage some people? Wasn't it so disgustingly outrageous that some people reacted to it violently? In its absurdity, it was supposed to drive home a certain point, and it certainly did. But it didn't make the author a cannibal, now did it. My piece did the same thing, but it certainly doesn't make me a sexist. For the umpteenth time: that people have reacted so passionately to my parody only proves my point about the double-standard concerning what folks can and can't say these days--and who is given a pass and who isn't. Read anything more into it and you do so at your own peril.   PM Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 09:48 pm:    Well we do read your column at our own peril. After all one has to endure all those hurtful comments before reaching the sentence: "Now I've had my fun..." Parody doesn't wipe it away, doesn't make it alright. Folk were mad as hell and admitting that you were doing this for your own entertainment didn't dilute the anger. Then going on to say that you weren't being serious and that it was a parody does not somehow make it alright. And if you happen to be mad then it's due to your double-standard. Martini was held accountable and has apologized. Yet Dave does not and actually argues that he's done us a favor (by making us mad).   Elizabeth Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 09:50 pm:    Dave, what bothers me the most about your column is that you appear to be fighting an iguana whilst ignoring the dragon belching fire over us. Most of us who have reacted so strongly to your post understood and appreciated Adrienne's main point even if we might have wished she had used different language -- that there appears to be a gender imbalance in the Hugos and in SF in general. Your post was a massive over-reaction and in bad taste. I know you were trying to provoke, but really, if you want to get so inflamatory, please pick a more significant target. That you focused on the language Adrienne used and not the substance of her post -- the real issue of gender imblance in the award -- says a lot to me about your self-professed gender neutrality... Your post trivialized the more serious issue that concerns many of us. By focusing on Adrienne's use of language instead of the content of her post, you ignored the real issue. And you've stubbornly refused to acknowledge that and in fact, have made it clear that you don't or won't understand.   Charles Coleman Finlay Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 09:52 pm:    Dave, as I read her apology, the only thing she didn't apologize for was raising the issue of gender imbalance, which isn't sexist no matter how many times you call it that. It's just a fact. For the lines she crossed, in particular the angry language she used, she admitted wrong as far as I can see. Locus Online regularly links to perceptions, both positive and negative, of the genre in non-genre sources. That it did so in this case is neither unusual nor a validation of her opinion, a fact which you continue to ignore. Once again you challenge me to prove something about your opinions which I said outright was irrelevant to my main point, which is understanding why F&SF would publish this, given the quality of it and the likely effects. Aside from that, thanks for dismissing the substance of my specific remarks by saying, "I couldn't disagree more with the rest of your post." Let's look at some of my points in the form of a dialogue. Charlie: "I never saw F&SF as sexist, and in fact, thought the opposite, as it was the only magazine publishing some really amazing new women writers." Dave: "I couldn't disagree more." Charlie: "Gordon should be aware of the effect that a column like this has on his readers." Dave: "I couldn't disagree more." Charlie: "I totally defend your right to have this opinion and express it, maybe on your own blog." Dave: "I couldn't disagree more." Charlie: "I think Gordon should leave your column up at this point." Dave: "I couldn't disagree more!" Charlie: "Two wrongs don't make a right." Dave: "I COULDN'T DISAGREE MORE!" See, that would be an example of satire. And I didn't have to use the word cock or dick or cunt or pussy to make my point. Woo. Go me. Reverse-sexism and sexism don't cancel each other out like two sides of an equation. It's more like anti-matter and matter, which only leads to, what, oh yeah, explosions. Even if your diagnosis of Martini's column was spot on, your response to it was a world of wrong. The thing to do when you've made a mistake is to fess up to it and move on. It's a humbling thing to have to do, and never gets easier. I still suck at it sometimes, just ask around. But there it is.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 10:29 pm:    Charles: "Once again you challenge me to prove something about your opinions which I said outright was irrelevant to my main point," You called me a sexist because of other things I've written. Either retract that statement or prove it. You say I hurt other people by my satire. I only used the PKD ballot because it was heavy with females, just as the Hugo was heavy with males. A simple reversal. Do you think the male Hugo nominees were hurt by Martini referring to them as "animals"? Or the digs at the "white males" or the "penis-heavy" comment? Taken together, it is obvious to see Martini had an axe to grind. You contend I missed the point of gender imbalance by focusing on her language. Well, just how did *her* language detract from her point? It obviously offended me and took me off the point you think she was trying to make, didn't it? *Her* language diverted the original focus, now didn't it. By turning it around, and exaggerating for effect, you accuse me of something she did as well. But you've given her a pass on that, haven't you. And I disagree that she apologized for any of her sexist word choices/remarks. When she apologized for the "bastards" comment, she said she was angry when she said _that_. I didn't hear her say the same for the other comments with which I took issue. Not a peep.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 10:53 pm:    Elizabeth: "By focusing on Adrienne's use of language instead of the content of her post, you ignored the real issue." I'd like to point out that _many_ here have objected to the language I used in my parody, and have totally neglected the content of my post (which dealt with double standards in what some folks get away with and others can't). Double-standard? Naw, couldn't be. _Dave_ wrote it, so it _must_ be in poor taste, or sexist. Poor Adrienne, though; she was angry, and didn't really mean it, and it was only a blog, etc., etc., etc., etc.,... Double-standard? Naw, couldn't be. Not even close. Not even worth considering. We _know_ Adrienne just couldn't be the teensiest bit sexist in her heart of hearts. Poor thing spoke without thinking, but we forgive her cuz she apologized for (most of) what she said. She didn't have to come right out and say she was sorry for the tone of her article in which she slyly referred to men as animals, we kinda know she implied it and that's good enough for us. Please be fair, Elizabeth (and the rest of you to whom this applies)? Just be fair.   S. Hamm Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 02:16 am:    Dave, Not to belabor the obvious, but since your objection is to sexism in all its forms, not just the female-on-male variety, it should be a simple matter for you to establish your bona fides -- and hush your critics -- by linking to (or, if they're unavailable online, giving us a few extended quotes from) the various critical pieces in which you have analyzed traditional male-on-female sexism in the SF genre. There is, as you know, plenty of it floating around, and I'm sure that in the past it has been your habit to attack the gander with the same ferocity you have latterly reserved for the goose.   PM Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 05:14 am:    Dave, men are animals. So are women. Yeah, it was intended as an insult but it's rather mild. It's also true. And when Martini asserts that women are plants, well we all know that this is biologically false. Which is more insulting? Calling men "animals". Calling women "pussies". And after you've irritated everyone, you mention that you meant "pussycat". I would agree with you that "penis heavy" is an insult. It shouldn't have been said. It is factually accurate though in the fiction category and in the context in which she meant it. Dave, as you insist on describing her as a "sexist" perhaps it would be helpful for you to further elaborate what that means. Martini's article and blog have praiseworthy comments towards men.   Sean Melican Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 05:24 am:    ...and have totally neglected the content of my post... You've compared Martini to Imus. Imus was called on it and apologized. Martini was called on it and apologized. Imus lost his job, not because CBS and NBC discovered morals, but becasue the sponsors pulled out. You've been called on the carpet for sexism, poor satire, and the egregious error of using a single entendre. You haven't apologized. You've called into question Mark Kelly's and LOCUS Online's responsbility. It's been explained that Mr. Kelly links to material that may be of interest in LOCUS readers and does not represent his views. It's been explained that your remarks insult at least half of the readership -- either because of your sexist comments or lack of satirical ability, or both --- and that you've blackened the reputation of a fine magazine. If you believed in responsible journalism, you'd apologize (but God forbid! Dave Truesdale is superior to Martini and Imus) and have your column removed. But, nope. I found Adrienne Martini's little rant to be factually inaccurate, foul-mouthed, insulting, and sexist. You've been shown to be inaccurate, foul-mouthed, insulting and sexist. Martini apologized. Ball's in your court.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 06:36 am:    I have written nothing in my current F&SF column that is sexist or that warrants an apology. Just because a few folks say any damn thing that comes into their heads doesn't make it so. I will not apologize for writing a parody of someone else's angry, sexist comments, nor will I bow to the pressure from a mob mentality witch hunt frothing at the mouth for blood simply because they don't like the tables turned on a sexist rant by Adrienne Martini. Lie about me all you will in your self-righteous, arrogant indignation, it won't get an apology from me. It astounds me that SF writers who are supposedly open-minded to anything and everything (but only anything and everything with which they approve as it turns out), and have used all sorts of sexually descriptive language in their stories, now are so aflutter, nay _offended_ over the word "pussy." This is the only foul-mouthed word *I* used, and I don't consider it foul-mouthed at all. Slang, yes, but not foul-mouthed. The true foul-mouthed words I used were the words Martini used in *her* rant, not mine. What a bunch of prima donna, two-faced hypocrites you are.   Glenn Glazer Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 08:12 am:    This may be futile, but what the heck. When I first joined this conversation, there were several factual errors in the original piece (since corrected or apologized for, thank you Adrienne and Dave). I still think that Dave's satire was very funny, but that's a taste issue. I also think that the The Three Stooges aren't even vaguely funny, so I wouldn't use my opinions on humor as a barometer of the general population. In the time since I last wrote, I've been a bit busy and I can see the thread has moved on a bit from the original topic into wider areas of sex and fandom. I think that much of that is OT, so I'll decline to jump into the fray, but I do want to make one exhortation. People seem to be under some strange impression that arguing on this discussion page is going to change the Hugo voting. In fact, it isn't going to do diddly. There is only one way to change who wins the Hugos: get out there and vote. It is a democratic process and the voters decide. Don't like the voting population? Feel disenfranchised? Stop yakking and start voting. And get those who you think are like you to vote as well - rock the vote as they say in the real elections. Without action, all of this is just talk. So, literally, put your money where your mouths (and keyboards) are. Lastly, and this is opinion: I think most of the complaint is not long term viable. I personally could not give a damn if the person who wrote the winning work was a man, a woman or a Martian. What is important to me is the *quality* of the work. It does not matter to me what the minority or majority characteristics of the author are. It is my hope that we move towards a colorblind world, not just in terms of color, but creed, religion, sex and so forth. I see more and more positive signs of this every day: more and more mixed families, more and more acceptance of my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community. I think that continuing to count statistics and fly of the handle about perceived inequities actually exacerbates our differences rather than our great commonalities. It further worsens the situation by pushing the hardliners into being even more reactionary than they already are. No, it is my continued opinion that the revolution will be one of slow infiltration, not radicalism and opposition and I invite you to infiltrate the Hugos.   des lewis Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 08:16 am:    Lastly, and this is opinion: I think most of the complaint is not long term viable. I personally could not give a damn if the person who wrote the winning work was a man, a woman or a Martian. What is important to me is the *quality* of the work. It does not matter to me what the minority or majority characteristics of the author are. =========== Hear! Hear! Read fiction anonymously. des   Elizabeth Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 08:27 am:    I'd like to point out that _many_ here have objected to the language I used in my parody, and have totally neglected the content of my post (which dealt with double standards in what some folks get away with and others can't). Double-standard? Your language was not my main concern. I've been called a lot worse than "pussy", Dave. I tend to look past the inflamatory language because I recognize that it is a symptom of some underlying sense of sleight or threat to the self or group. In your case, I'd say that your anger is due to your sense of being in some way harmed by feminism. Many men feel that way. You don't like your perceptions and values and comfortable assumptions to be challenged. You feel threatened by women's demands for equality and so you either over-react to, or manufacture outrage at, perceived sleights to your sex. /armchair analysis What I objected to was the way you ignore the real issue -- sexism in the Hugo award and in SF in general -- and divert attention to language. Yes, language is important, but it reflects something deeper. To me, Adrienne's language reflected her anger and frustration at the lack of women nominees and award winners and guests of honor. As a woman in the SF genre, I understand and share that frustration and anger. Other than her needless insult to the Committee, I cut her some slack for her language because I recognized that her personal frustration and anger is about something substantive -- an anger and frustration that I share. I don't share your sense of men being threatened by some "double standard". I just can't get all worked up over the spectre of men's oppression in SF at the hands of feminists when there are greater injustices being done. You are so blinded by your obsession on this so-called "double standard" that you totally ignore the substantive issue. For that, I have to write you off in the future as having anything salient to say about sexism. To me, the the kind of sexism I'm concerned with is the kind that prevents women writers from advancement. There will always be people using inflamatory language out there, but in the end, I'm more concerned with barriers to women's success in the genre rather than one person's use of the word "animal" to describe men or "penis-heavy". Please -- give me a break.   Elizabeth Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 08:38 am:    Lastly, and this is opinion: I think most of the complaint is not long term viable. I personally could not give a damn if the person who wrote the winning work was a man, a woman or a Martian. What is important to me is the *quality* of the work. It does not matter to me what the minority or majority characteristics of the author are. I appreciate the sentiment, Glenn, but let me ask you this: Do you really think that judges who decide on auditions for symphony orchestras are a bunch of sexist pigs out to keep women down? Of course not. Yet, the evidence showed that despite equal numbers of women applicants, more men were selected. Is this because men are simply better musicians and deserve to be selected? Or is there an unconscious gender bias at work in the selection process? People in the field knew that women were very talented performers, and so the gender imbalance was a mystery. No one thought that the judges were outright sexists. Yet, the imbalance continued and more men applicants were selected than women. To test if unconscious gender bias was at work, the symphony tried to mask the gender of the applicants during auditions. The judges did not know the gender of the applicant nor could they see them while they performed. Yet, despite this care to hide gender, there was still an imbalance. Finally, a carpet was put on the stage to mask the sound of women's high heels when they walked on stage to audition. Presto! Greater gender parity was realized. It appears that despite their conscious committment to gender equality and fairness in judging the applicants, the judges unconsciously perceived male applicants as superior and female applicants as inferior. Those unconscious prejudices pervade our culture and are hard to overcome despite the best of intentions. I put it to you that this is not a phenomenon unique to the music world. I put it to you that it is likely systemic in our culture, at work in business, the arts, and academia -- even, shock of shock, in SF.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 08:44 am:    Wow. Dave - what were you smokin! Let me put it this way -- I hadn't read the original article you were parodizing, and in that sense, your editorial made me think . . . well, I pictured Britney Spears' desperate photos. I clicked on the link and went to the other, and saw what you were doing. But, to take the criticism out of the gender area and into the practical area -- it's hard to make sense of what you were saying, had someone not read the original first, and then yours. In other words, it only made sense to me when the two were "side by side." That said, I think there is a "gender difference" in some ways - but what's being discussed here is primarily short fiction, and, despite Ellen's excellent contributions describing her anthologies and experiences, primarily the SF in F & SF magazine. This has been discussed at great length over the years. There's literally nothing editors can "do" about it, in my opinion. The right thing for writers to do, male or female, or any different ethnic, cultural, or sexual-orientation background, is to write what they believe in. The editor can only choose from what she or he receives -- they can't buy some nebulous non-existent work or publish it. As far as nominators and award committees, they are very limited groups. And there is little the author can do, or even the editor, to influence such groups. Better for everyone to worry about the real customers: readers - subscribers and book buyers.   Elizabeth Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 08:57 am:    It would be an interesting experiment for one of the major magazines to strip any identifying detail from slush and just read the story without knowing the gender of the writer. I wonder if it would affect the choices editors and slush readers make.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:11 am:    Elizabeth, This comparison just doesn't hold water. 1) Every story submitted is created by a different person. In symphony auditions, those auditioning are using the same material (or a limited amount of material, as I assume they're not playing music they've created. 2) In sf, a lot more men write sf than women do so the "applicants" aka submittors are not at all equal in number. <<<Yet, the evidence showed that despite equal numbers of women applicants, more men were selected.<<<   des lewis Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:11 am:    Elizabeth, I've done that for five years by anonymous email. The stories have also been anonymously published and late-labelled in the subsequent issue. But 'Nemonymous' is not a major publication ... yet. :-)des   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:14 am:    "It would be an interesting experiment for one of the major magazines to strip any identifying detail from slush and just read the story without knowing the gender of the writer. I wonder if it would affect the choices editors and slush readers make." Algis Budrys has said he did this when reading slush for the late (print and then online) _Tomorrow_. That he didn't want to know who wrote the story, that it was the story that mattered. I applaud him for this.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:18 am:    It's always the story that matters for any editor worth her salt.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:19 am:    Des, and what's the percentage of female to male contributors over the years?   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:28 am:    Amy: "it's hard to make sense of what you were saying, had someone not read the original first, and then yours. In other words, it only made sense to me when the two were "side by side." " Hi, Amy, You may be right. Someone else upthread pointed this out also. My reasoning was that I wanted folks to read my over-the-top parody as if it were "for real" first. Just as someone reading Martini's original piece for the first time came to it "fresh." I wanted them to be upset at what I wrote, just as I was upset with Martini's piece. *After* this, I would reveal that what I wrote was not to be taken literally but a satire/parody. I thought that letting people know that it was a satire first would take some of the intended sting out of it. Right or wrong, that was the plan. It, er, seems to have worked a little too well. :-)   des lewis Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:29 am:    Ellen, based on the evidence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemonymous a *lot* more male writers than female! But gender considerations were never at the forefront of my mind when I started this process, but literary aesthetics, big name/ small name, subscriber/non-subscriber issues. 'Nemonymous' is only, after all, one man's editorial taste. Mine! I think a wider sample would be useful and that would entail other publications starting to do it this way.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:33 am:    Not criticizing you, Dave. For those who are looking into this for the first time, Dave Truesdale was supportive of my very first work, and not in a condescending "I'll give some lip service to that young woman" way. Getting some perspective on the entire thing, I think these issues should be considered as part of the greater body of literature. I put my thoughts this a.m.: http://asterling.typepad.com/incipit_vita_nova/2007/04/gender_in_sff.html   Elizabeth Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:41 am:    Ellen, I disagree: Something is being measured -- whether a performance or a story/novel. If unconscious gender bias can affect the former, why not the latter? In my mind, there are a few possibilities: 1) women don't write SF as well as men in general, and so their works don't cut it. 2) women don't write the kind of SF that editors want in the same volume as men. They write some "other" kind of SF that the editors/markets don't want. 3) women write SF as well as men, but don't submit their stories in the same numbers as men. As a result, their stories don't get selected as often. 4) women write as well as men but editors (and readers) are biased -- unconscious or otherwise -- towards their work and so their work is not selected as often as men's. We can all guess what the ultimate cause of the gender imbalance is but until there is a more rigorous means of testing any of the above, we can only guess. I suspect it is some combination of 2, 3 and 4. I can't believe that women don't write SF as well as men in a technical sense or craft sense. I might think that women write a different kind of SF, that they aren't as competitive as men and so give up more easily, and that, despite all our enlightened views about gender, there may be some degree of bias -- unconscious most probably -- towards their works. YMMV   Ellen Datlow Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:43 am:    Des, I think the point is that "gender considerations" are rarely in an editor's mind when buying material. And ALL magazines/anthologies are really just one person's editorial taste--the editor's. So did you find yourself receiving more submissions from men than women? And if so, is there any way you see of changing that?   Sean Melican Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:44 am:    And because they come from magazines and publishers whose publications one can find in a bookstore alongside all the other SF/F, they have an equal chance of being purchased, read, and voted for. That's all I was trying to say by that observation; that since the nominees come from well-distributed magazines or publishers that anyone can find in the SF/F sections of major bookstores, they have an equal opportunity of being bought and read the same as military SF or media tie-in SF/F, or anything else. You've proved my point. All, or most, of the Hugo selections come from big-name publishers and magazines. So the little press publishers and magazines don't stand a chance. Again, particularly in books (as opposed to magazines) the bookstores want a guaranteed sell, and the publishers have to give that to them. How? By either signing major names, or promoting a book as similar to another best-seller. So books that don't fit a certain type (gee, does that sound like an any -isms we know?) don't get published by the big publishers, don't get the shelf space, and don't get read by the Hugo voters. Gosh, Dave, sounds like absolute equality to me. One example: even though Ian R. MacLeod's brilliant novella "The Summer Isles" won several awards, the novel of the same name couldn't get published by any major publisher. With it's gay, middle-aged, promiscuous, morally weak, Oxford don protaganist, it didn't fit the narrow type of fiction the bookstores and thus publishers want. Well, geez, Dave, if that happens with a proven, award-winning story, what the fuck do you think happens to all the other books that have alternative, often uncomfotable, viewpoints?   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 09:57 am:    Sean: "Ian R. MacLeod's brilliant novella "The Summer Isles" won several awards, the novel of the same name couldn't get published by any major publisher. With it's gay, middle-aged, promiscuous, morally weak, Oxford don protaganist, it didn't fit the narrow type of fiction the bookstores and thus publishers want." I loved that story, and love MacLeod's work. Am proud to own his Arkham House collection _Voyages by Starlight_, too. What can I say? It's an unfortunate fact that the market place and marketing forces drive what is on the shelves. I don't particularly *like* it, either, Sean, but it's a fact we all must live with, and try to work with, as best we can. I don't have any ready, easy, sure-fire answers. Wish I did.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:09 am:    Amy: "For those who are looking into this for the first time, Dave Truesdale was supportive of my very first work," Thanks, Amy. When I was reading slush for Black Gate before it launched, I selected quite a few stories by women to pass on to the editor. Very many of them were published. Some of the women whose stories I enjoyed enough to pass on (and were subsequently bought) were Amy Sterling Casil, Leslie What, Julia Blackshear Kosatka, ElizaBeth Gilligan, Ellen Klages ("A Taste of Summer," remember that one?), Patrice E. Sarath, Nancy Varian Berberick, and Jennifer Busick. The editor and I went round and round on a lot of stories that I liked and he didn't, and vice versa. Sometimes I'd win and sometimes not. But I fought very hard for the stories I sent his way, whether they were penned by a female or male. I didn't care who wrote them. Thanks for reminding me of this, Amy.   des lewis Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:13 am:    So did you find yourself receiving more submissions from men than women? Ellen, I received hundreds and hundreds of stories over the years and - except rarely - did not discover whom I had rejected. So impossible to tell.   Matt Hughes Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 11:18 am:    Judging by the composition of audiences I've seen at sf cons, more men than women are dedicated fans of sf. From that, I extrapolate that more men than women write sf. It follows that more men than women would be published. I think the question that would determine whether or not there is a gender bias in favor of the former would be to look at the success rates in submissions. If, say, five per cent of men who submit stories succeed in having them published, but only three per cent of women writers' submissions succeed, there would be an indication of bias, although it might be possible, as Elizabeth noted above, that women in our culture may be less persistent in trying to get published. Perhaps a better way to tell might be for a group of women writers to adopt male pseudonyms and submit stories under one or the other name. If the stories submitted under male names were more successful than those submitted under female names, that would be a clear indication of bias. Matt Hughes Majestrum   PM Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 11:35 am:    "What a bunch of prima donna, two-faced hypocrites you are." Yet another reason why Dave shouldn't be representing F&SF to the world at large. Dave just doesn't seem to be able to grasp that BOTH he and Martini were taken to task for their comments. Dave, I hope you have a good therapist or someone who can serve in that capacity to help you with what clearly are issues.   Elizabeth Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 11:44 am:    Dave, you claim to be "gender blind" except when it comes to depictions of gay sex. You claim to be against sexism and point to women writers you have supported in the past as proof. Your issue seems to be that you think women get off lightly for their sexism, but men are savaged when they show it. You see that as unfair. Here's the relevant quote: "Wouldn't females be irritated, upset, or pissed with men who were blatantly anti-female? It's just that they aren't called on the carpet for it as much as men are, and it's high time they were." So, this is what I have been picking up in your posts, Dave -- this sense of a mission to set things right with those sexist women who are not getting called on the carpet as much as sexist men. That was the subject of your post on Emschwiller's story "Killers" and this post on Bookslut's comments about the Hugos. Am I right? I'm all for combatting sexism, so far be it for me to dissuade anyone from doing so. However, there are mountains and molehills, and I think you've been mixing them up. I think men are doing quite well in the SF field, by all accounts. I just don't see men being pushed out of SF by women's sexism; I don't see men being denied sales because of women's sexism, or men being denied sales and acknowledgement by women editors, publishers and award nominators. What I do see is an SF genre that, for one reason or another, women do not appear to be contributing, selling and gaining recognition and awards to the extent expected based on their readership in the genre. I do see the possibility that long-standing gender biases may be playing a role in this lack of representation in SF. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me you're in some other world than the one in which the rest of us reside. So ultimately, your posts may be irritating, your language crude, your satire and parody sub-standard, but what really makes your posts on the double standard in SF unworthy is that they are, frankly, irrelevant in the greater scheme of things -- except as a painful reminder of what the real issues are.   Elizabeth Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 11:50 am:    Matt, I would love to go to some conventions, but alas, I have two children and a full-time job and a mortgage, pension plan contributions, and other responsibilities so going to a con is a dream rahter than a regular occurrence. I might be able to make one con this year if I really try, but that is no measure of how dedicated I am to SF. While I read other genres, SF is the mainstay of my reading and has been for most of my adolescent and adult life.   PM Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:02 pm:    Amy, loyalty is a good thing. Women certainly need not be monolithic in their viewpoint. But one has to understand that Dave is doing his dead level best to antagonize. Over at the Tangent newsgroup there's a thread titled: Feminists with PHS. It's started by Dave. And then there are the posts that were too weird for me even to read. The ones about femifacists. http://webnews.sff.net/read?cmd=read&group=sff.publishing.tangent-online&artnum= 11155 Amy, I would hope that you find this unsettling. That doesn't take away from how Dave has helped you in the past. Elizabeth, very good post!   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:06 pm:    Elizabeth: "I think men are doing quite well in the SF field, by all accounts. I just don't see men being pushed out of SF by women's sexism; I don't see men being denied sales because of women's sexism, or men being denied sales and acknowledgement by women editors, publishers and award nominators." Elizabeth, you are making a cardinal mistake here, one reviewers and critics are warned about all the time. I kept meaning to say this before, so I'll say it now. My satire wasn't *intended* to address the issue of gender bias. It was solely intended to point out the sexist *language* Martini used, and how females can get away with it and males can't. You (and others) have chastized me for not writing my column on the gender bias issue. This is the equivalent of a reviewer who pans a story he has just read because it isn't the story he wanted the author to write. The reviewer must review the story the author wrote *on its own terms*, and not in terms of what the reviewer wanted the author to write. Same thing works here. You're not taking my column for that which it was intended, but rather for what you wanted it to be. My column was focused on what some folks can say and get away with, and what some folks can't say--which is a double-standard. If you want to rip me for that, then fine; but don't rip my column for not being what you wanted it to be. That isn't fair, okay? Right? Thank you.   PM Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:13 pm:    "It was solely intended to point out the sexist *language* Martini used, and how females can get away with it and males can't." Martini didn't get away with it. If her column had been put on the F&SF website and your column didn't exist she still would have been called on it. And I would be asking GVG why he ever allowed it to be posted.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:24 pm:    PM: "And then there are the posts that were too weird for me even to read. The ones about femifacists." The "femifascists" label was nothing *I* said. It was taken from a book by a sitting judge here in Missouri who cited chapter and verse (i.e. court cases) where the radical feminist Left has tried to hijack the court system--to ridiculous (and unfair) lengths. I, too, privately took issue with his "femifascist" terminology, but the cases he cites and the documented facts in his book are what should be looked at. It was unfortunate that this term was used by the judge (to say the least), but it was part of an effort on my part to show another poster that radical feminists exist. This poster (a male author) flatly denied that radical feminists even exist. I was merely showing him objective evidence to the contrary. I think the poster was confusing *militant* feminist with *radical* feminist, but that was his error, not mine. PM, you've tried to imply that I used *that* term, and have gone out of your way to inflame this discussion--by twisting facts, employing non-sequitors, and outright making things up (same as you did in the thread a coupla months ago re the column on manumission, where you misread everything and even claimed I was pro-slavery. Thank goodness posters revealed you for what you were, but here you are, at it again). I've tried to be civil to you, but you have shown everyone here what a little troll you are, and it's about time you stopped the gratuitous and inflammatory and erroneous smears. Give it a rest willya--unless you truly have something positive to add? And for the record, everyone: PHS stands for Pre-Hugo Syndrome, which is how I (tongue in cheek) referred to Martini's column just after reading it. The thread has been dead for some time now, but here's ole PM trying to fan the flames again. Feel free to read any or all of the thread you so desire.   Sean Melican Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:25 pm:    It's an unfortunate fact that the market place and marketing forces drive what is on the shelves. But you don't label folks as sexist or racist or homophobic, or foist the responsibility for an awards list you may not like on the evils of an "institutionally sexist, racist, and homophobic" society. That's "reading" way too much into the process. You don't see how the marketing forces discriminating against, for example, The Summer Isles is homophobic? Mr. Van Gelder: I don't believe many people believe you agree with Mr. Truesdale. However, in giving him a forum through F&SF you've tacitly agreed that what he has to say is worth saying, and that the backlash is worth it. Frankly, I don't think he has much worth saying; I don't think what he says is said well; and I don't think the potential lost readership is worth it. I'll be honest. I'm a fan of F&SF; I've subscribed for twelve years or so, I think. I haven't always liked every story, or agreed with every review column, but it's the only magazine other than LOCUS that I've subscribed to for as long. However, and I hate to say this, if you allow another pointless rant (regardless of whether it's sexist, racist, etc, and regardless of whether it's written by Mr. Truesdale or someone else) I'll have to unsubscribe. It deeply saddens me to think that I would ever have to say such a thing; but I don't want my money or name associated with garbage.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:35 pm:    Sigh. PM, I think Dave is frustrated in general. He used to advocate strongly for a certain type of story and writing. I'm not sure how happy he is with what's out there today, or what his position would be on that. Fact is, I had to pay some bills and I did so. I wasn't writing short science fiction at all between 2002 and January, 2006. I went to see - PHS is "Pre-Hugo Syndrome" and it's related to the article that Dave was trying to satirize here in this editorial. I'll be blunt. I don't have a lot of interest in these debates (awards ballots, etc). I don't think they're very productive to argue about. My interest is in what I'm writing and in what others are writing that pushes the envelope or strives for excellence. I think it's a false avenue for writers who feel "disenfranchised" to tell themselves that the reason they're disenfranchised is that they are of whatever "disenfranchised" category is of concern. This makes it much more difficult for them to grow as writers, because they can constantly tell themselves that their lack of success is related to their gender, ethnic background, whatever -- or, related to that, that their subject matter is what's being discriminated against in favor of . . . (the favored/protected group). This is a standard argument. It runs all ways. I've certainly seen more than a small amount of male resentment against female writers and their successes over the years and been the recipient of some hostility myself. I don't necessarily see anything in what Dave wrote except to point out that the "pussy" aspect is pretty disgusting, especially just coming upon it "by surprise." I see now the happy "C" word is in use over there, so I'm not going to be too "into" following that discussion. In truth, about THREE PEOPLE (four hundred and some) vote on Hugos and it's the SAME THREE PEOPLE (four hundred and some) and I have been in rooms and heard them talking, too. I am not entirely sure that "fans" of this hardcore nature read all that much any more, so that their votes would even have a chance of being representative of all that's out there and the true "best" or "favorite" choices. So, to me, there shouldn't have been "Editorial One" or "Editorial Two" because it's hardly worth talking or arguing about and I doubt too many people's entrenched attitudes will be changed one way or another. There have been some good, factual studies of awards, gender and race, and so-on over the years, and there is a clear trend or pattern toward more inclusion and representation in general. So the overall "it's all men, all the time" point of view isn't true. And furthermore, SF in general is not remarkably healthy and vital these days, and I think there are many reasons for that. It's certainly not a single cause. This type of fight definitely doesn't help too much of anything. Dave has, over time, definitely done his part to uphold standards of good writing. I don't consider him at all associated with the truly whacky hardcore, "It hasn't been the same since RAH" crowd -- you should see this one guy's rant on Amazon for one of the Nebula anthologies (crazy and priceless). So I'll let his pussy commentary go this time and hope he's just been temporarily unhinged by the PHAF - Pre-Hugo Annual Furor.   Ellen Datlow Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:35 pm:    Performance has only a limited number of variables. The technique of the performer is what is being judged. In fiction, there are far more variables which means that the judgment is as much a question of taste as to whether the editor enjoys the technique, style, subject, theme, characterization, tone, voice, language, sense of place, and probably a bunch of other elements that I'm not thinking of off-hand. I will assume that those who judge members wanting to join symphanies judge on multiple levels too but I maintain that judging a piece of fiction and a performance are just not comparable. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. But editing short fiction for 25+ years I'll stick my neck out and say that the answer is #3. Strictly talking about short stories and not novels. >>>Ellen, I disagree: Something is being measured -- whether a performance or a story/novel. If unconscious gender bias can affect the former, why not the latter?   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:43 pm:    Sean: "You don't see how the marketing forces discriminating against, for example, The Summer Isles is homophobic?" If you want to equate market forces (i.e. what the buyers want to buy) with homophobia, that's your call. It doesn't make *me* a homophobe for pointing it out. *I'm* not telling potential readers to stay away from *anything*, Sean. All I have said is that, for good or for ill, the market place decides what it wants and what it doesn't. Go blame the publishers if you want to, they're in control. I don't have a damn thing to do with it. How you can blame me--even indirectly--for what publishers decide to buy is beyond me. I'm afraid I don't see how alleged book publisher homophobia has anything directly to do with my column or F&SF, and your wanting to cancel your subscription. Cancelling your subscription isn't going to make ABC SF publisher do anything differently, now is it?   PM Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:49 pm:    Dave, you wouldn't know a troll if you saw one. It's obvious that while you're on a mission to battle radical feminists you're not able to actually identify who they are. Emshwiller and Martini wind up being lumped into a category that both deny that they are in. I tried to explain to you on the manumission piece that black folk really don't appreciate being compared culturally with the whites who enslaved them or being called "crackers". I tried to get you to further clarify your positions rather than jump to conclusions. BECAUSE IN YOUR ARTICLE IT COULD BE READ TO HAVE ADVOCATED THE CONTINUANCE OF SLAVERY. It was for your benefit. At any rate, you quoted Sowell in that piece and the judge who used the term, "femifacist". You dig your own holes. I've tried to get you to explain yourself out of the hole and you keep digging. It's incendiary stuff. "I think the poster was confusing *militant* feminist with *radical* feminist, but that was his error, not mine." Now that is funny. "PHS stands for Pre-Hugo Syndrome, which is how I (tongue in cheek) referred to Martini's column just after reading it." Women love those PMS jokes and are unlikely to laugh with you.   Sean Melican Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 01:47 pm:    Go blame the publishers if you want to, they're in control. I don't have a damn thing to do with it. You have the ability to not buy or promote their work. It's not the publishers as much as it is the accountants. I tried explaining that it's the bookstores who want to populate the shelves with material that will sell extremely well. Like Hollywood, bookstores (now) want to find the lowest common denominator, and stock the shelves with that. Usually, those are books that are unoffensive, unchallenging (John Grisham and his imitators play on anti-corporation sentiment, for example), and written at a third-grade level. It's the reading public who's in control. If they bought quality, quality would be published. There isn't an easy solution (if any exists at all, which I doubt), of course, which is why the smaller publishers are so critical to the continued successes of the field; and why your assault on feminists, etc, who want to see more variety is ludicrous. Cancelling your subscription isn't going to make ABC SF publisher do anything differently, now is it? If only. No, not lonely ol' me; but perhaps in the aggregate. I will do what I've done for the past three years or so, which is promote quality books, particularly those that are from the smaller publishers, and take to task those books that are sloppy, lazy, rehashed, or poorly written garbage. (Incidentally, Ideomancer will be running my interview with L. Timmel Duchamp in June, if anyone is interested in a genuine discussion of feminism in SF.)   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 02:16 pm:    This is for Sean Melican. Sean, I’m sorry if you feel I’m homophobic because I either don’t understand, or agree, with your viewpoint on institutional homophobia being the cause for certain works not being bought by large publishers. But it’s an honest disagreement on the why of a situation, and you’re trying to make it into one where anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a homophobe. This is simply not a logical position to take. I am honestly not a homophobe. My column had to do with the sexist language used by someone else, and double-standards. How it morphed into my being a homophobe I don’t know. But let me tell you a quick story about myself. About 15 years ago one of the local KC delivery companies “stole” me away from my then current delivery company to come work for them—in the office. They gave me some title or other, but what I did was to hire, train, and fire drivers (and other duties, including handing out their weekly paychecks). I trained and hired an average of 20 drivers a week. All sorts of people: male, female, white, black, Hispanic, married, single, young, old. High school dropouts and graduates, college dropouts and graduates, temporarily unemployed college professors and other professional types. I saw them all. One day this smallish African-American kid walks in, wearing a bright purple silk shirt that made him look like a pirate without a parrot. He was obviously very gay. He passed all of the written, map, and drug tests, seemed intelligent and on the ball, so I hired him. Almost a week later he came into the office to turn in his paperwork. I overheard a couple of the other male drivers giving him a rough time; making gay jokes at his expense, etc. So I called him in the office, sat him down, and asked if he was gay. He easily admitted the fact (which I already knew). I then told him what I’d overheard in the break room. He hung his head. I told him to hang in there, and if anything like that ever happened again he was to come tell me double asap. He looked noticeably relieved. Sure enough, it wasn’t long before he was in my office with a complaint. He named two drivers. I called them in and asked if it was true. They admitted it, and I immediately fired them. They then went to both the VP and President of the company. The VP and Prez called me into the Prez’s office and reamed me out, telling me never to do that again. Very diplomatically, I told them both to kiss my ass and to fire me if they didn’t like it. The real rub for me was that they fired the owner of the company’s son-in-law to make room for me, and everyone in the place hated me for it. So I was in a bad situation to begin with. But I stuck to my guns on basic human principles of fairness. It wasn’t until some time later that I found they had 2 sets of books and were skimming the drivers out of a collective $250,000/yr. So the day I quit, I placed in every driver’s pay envelope that choice bit of information, and told them to quit the company and come drive for the company I’d left. Nearly half of them did, including the African-American kid. We all lived happily ever after at my old company, and what I’d done spread throughout the local delivery companies. My old company then had drivers from all sorts of driving companies coming to ours because of what I’d done in exposing the racism and cheating done by this other company. I think actions in the real world, where one can make a real difference (albeit sometimes at one’s own expense—in my case my job), counts for much more than a protest where nothing is really apt to change things for the better. If you feel I don’t understand your position on any given issue, then try to work with me and try to make me understand your position better. I still may or may not agree, but communication is the first step toward understanding. That one might still respectfully disagree doesn’t make one some mean, evil ogre. Nobody ever solved anything by quitting. Quitters never win, okay? There’s more than one way to skin a puss—er, cat. ;-)   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 02:29 pm:    Sean: "and why your assault on feminists, etc, who want to see more variety is ludicrous." Excuse me, Sean, but I never said anything of the sort. I only challenged Martini's language, not the substance of her piece. Please understand this crucial distinction. Thanks.   Charles Coleman Finlay Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 04:20 pm:    Dave, let's take at face value your claim that there's a double standard and examine it on its merits. To claim that there is a double standard presumes that equal situations are being compared. If we start with your comparison of the Hugos and the Philip K. Dick Award, we'll find that those situations are not equal. The Hugos have multiple categories embracing both long and short fiction as well as all books from hardcover and specialty editions to mass market; it is awarded by a self-selected group of genre fans; it has traditionally been dominated by men. The Dick Award is for paperback original novels only, about which I will say more in a moment; it is awarded by a jury of authors and academics who have to meet a certain set of minimum qualifications, including never having served on the jury before; and it has traditionally been dominated by men (I think 16 out of 25 winners), though women have been more prominent in the past three or four years. Part of the point of the Philip K. Dick Award is to bring attention to a category of books, which by their very nature, are a kind of second class, being less likely to get reviews, publicity, or wide distribution. (This is a categorical statement, and so, of course, there are notable exceptions to it; but it generally holds true.) If more women are showing up in this category of original paperback novels over the past few years, and fewer men, then I think one could make an argument that more of their books are being pushed into second class status. I don't know enough facts to make that argument. But I do know that it absolutely does not show the opposite fact, that women have any kind of favored status. If you want to make the comparison for the sake of satire, that's fine, but it simply doesn't hold up to the briefest intellectual scrutiny as a legitimate argument for the existence of a double standard. Whether you look at the overall history of the PKD Award, or look at only this year within the context of the limitations of the award, it proves the opposite point of the one you're trying to make. If we move to the category of language used by Adrienne Martini and you in your respective writing, we will see again that there are unequal situations, and therefore no double standard. Martini's opening paragraph talks about her personal situation, about parenting, about aging and the passing of another birthday, and the long reluctant appearance of spring. In the second paragraph, she uses the words "bastard" and "penis-heavy." Her comparison of men to animals, which you harp on constantly, is in the context of an extended metaphor also comparing women to plants, a fact which you conveniently ignore: the comparison isn't favorable to either men or women and treats both, for the purposes of her metaphor, as something less than human. There is exactly one use of a derogatory term, and one reference to masculine genitalia which uses a neutral scientific term. She was called on her use of the derogatory term and apologized for it. She was mocked for her animal-plant comparison and accepted the mockery with good grace. In your opening paragraph, we have two references to women, the "wind-blown pamphlets handed out door to door by the local feminist chapter equivalent of The Watchtower," and your closing line: "...I will at least practice my heavy breathing and let all of it not bother me. In the meantime, there's porn." I'm assuming it's not gay porn, but if it is, correct me. So, if I'm keeping score at this point, it looks like this -- Martini, opening paragraph, no mention of men; Truesdale, opening paragraph, two mentions of women, one as annoying prosyletizers, the other as pornographic distraction. In your second paragraph, we see the use of "bastards" in a direct echo of Martini, but as we proceed to the third, at least when this was originally published, the first thing we notice is the substitution of "cunt-heavy" for "penis-heavy." Yes, yes, I know that you changed it to vagina-heavy after people complained. You get some credit for that. But to think for even a moment that "cunt," with its history as a derogatory word and term of abuse, is in the least bit comparable to "penis" in terms of connotation shows either a deaf ear or a different agenda. To put it another way, the kids in "E.T." use the word "penis" and it still has a PG rating. Do you think it would have a PG rating if they'd used the word "cunt"? No, not likely. Martini could have used the phrase "dick-heavy," but didn't. From there, in your essay, we move on to seven uses of the word "pussy." For this to be comparable to Martini, she would have had to extend her metaphor from animals to rooster to cock and used the word cock at least seven times. She doesn't. So again, let's take score -- Martini, one use of the word bastards, and one use of the word penis; Truesdale, one use of the word bastards, one use of the word cunt (later changed to vagina), and seven uses of variations of the word pussy. Martini could have made the exact same kinds of choices that you did, in order to be more offensive, but she didn't. But your essay describes women as annoying feminists, as porn actresses, and as cunts and pussies, two terms which are considered vulgar and derogatory by most folks and which are based solely on women's genitalia. Calling you on that is not a double standard because you can point to nothing in Martini's language which is remotely similar. If we look closely at the language in both pieces, it proves the opposite point of the one you claim. Finally, let's look at the double standard of behavior. Martini's first response, on being called out on her behavior, was to say this: "I do need to offer an apology to the Japanese WorldCon committee. I wrote in anger and lashed out at the wrong people. I am sorry that I labeled you as 'bastards.' Mea culpa." She also acknowledged some of the silliness of her plant/animal metaphor by upgrading Naomi Novik's status to baobob tree from fern. This is exactly the kind of apology people ought to make when they've done something wrong. Your reaction, when called out on wrong behavior, has been a continuous series of defenses and counter-attacks without any admission of wrong-doing. So there is no double standard in play here, because the situations aren't remotely comparable. The PKD Award doesn't compare to the Hugo, your essay doesn't compare to Martini's blog, and your apology doesn't match up to hers. As for proof of sexism, I think that the exclusive use of derogatory sexual terms to refer to some of the finest women writers in our field when there was nothing comparable, not even by the most strained interpretation, in Martini's original, counts as proof. If it wasn't intended that way, you see many people here saying that they read it that way, me among them. But frankly, on a personal note, even if Martini's blog had been full of references to men as dicks and cocks, I wouldn't want to see that in your response. The idea that you can fix sexism or reverse-sexism by matching the lowest performance of your opponents is an idea that would only drag us all down to our worst. You can never win that battle by being more vile. In the end, you just become more vile. You goofed. Everybody does. Admit it and then make it right, that's all you can do.   Charles Coleman Finlay Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 04:25 pm:    And, GOD, do I sound as annoying and sanctimonious to everyone else as I do to myself when I reread that last post? Sometimes I think I try too hard to be detached and rational. When really I'm just disappointed and pissed-off.   Elizabeth Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 04:47 pm:    Excuse me, Sean, but I never said anything of the sort. I only challenged Martini's language, not the substance of her piece. Please understand this crucial distinction. Thanks. And that's the problem, Dave. We're interested in the substance of her piece. You're interested in the tone. Style over content. As such, it's almost like you don't think it "is" a problem that so few women are among the nominees and winners of the award. It's almost as if you see Adrienne's language as worse than the absence of women on the ballot. You freak out that she uses the word "penis" as if that's a huge insult, and freak out that she refers to men as "animals" as if that's a huge insult, and then rail against feminists and the double standard, as if it's some huge problem in need of a champion. In the process, you insult a number of women readers and subscribers who don't need to be referred to as "pussies" -- I mean, come on. At least give us a novel insult!   Elizabeth Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 04:48 pm:    No, Charles, at least not to this reader. I appreciate your very thoughtful posts.   Elizabeth Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 05:02 pm:    My column was focused on what some folks can say and get away with, and what some folks can't say--which is a double-standard. If you want to rip me for that, then fine; but don't rip my column for not being what you wanted it to be. That isn't fair, okay? Right? Thank you. Sorry I missed your original response to my post but what I said above still applies: the main reason I was angered at your column was that it is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things. You chose to write about this horrible crime of the "double standard" while the rest of us, when reading Martini's post, were focused on the substantive issue she raises of sexism in SF and in the awards. An irrelevant insulting rant. Not fit for the likes of F&SF.   Nathan Ballingrud Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 05:04 pm:    No, Charles. You sound spot-on. Detached and rational is precisely what's called for.   M.K. Hobson Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 05:43 pm:    Charles, having followed this thread silently (as I do most of these odd little kerfluffles) I feel compelled to delurk. Your post was not at all "annoying and sanctimonious" but rather a brilliantly clear and compelling comparison of the two texts being discussed. The objectivity is refreshing. Thanks!   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 05:59 pm:    Charles, my satire was NOT intended to be an exact one-to-one, equal response. It was MEANT to exaggerate by number and language what she wrote. I've said this so many times now, that I weary of it. And I didn't use the "c" word in my published column because it went too far, so why try to lump it in with the final, published column? And you gloss over that Martini did not apologize for her language (except to the Japanese). I used the PKD award ONLY because it ended up being top heavy with women and was a good vehicle for purposes of reversal of what Martini said. It had nothing to do with the fine folk on the ballot. I don't hear you saying the same things about the men Martini insulted by her crude remarks. Why not? If those on the PKD ballot were offended, then why not the men on the Hugo ballot? Look, you've made up your mind about me and there's absolutely nothing I can say to change your mind. My reverse satire was way over the top on purpose--to drive home a point in spades. You don't like it, fine, but the more you all whine and moan about it only proves my original point that _you_ can't seem to see. Work yourself up into a frothing lather and say anything you want. I ain't apologizing for anything. If you people can't dig a parody then that's your problem. You characters act like I _believe_ what I wrote as _satire_. For crying out loud, no one in their right mind would write that and truly believe it. I know I don't. All this shows me is that I hit my mark a little better than I imagined. Another reason I didn't address the gender imbalance issue with the Hugo ballot is that it comes up every time the gender swings one way or the other on any given ballot. And we all righteously go through the same arguments and discussions every year or so and nothing ever happens. I happen to believe (as do others here) that the ballot just happened to turn out the way it did this year. Next year will be different, and the year after that, different again. If the ballot happens to have all females next year, does that mean that publishers are promoting more female-written SF/F? No. It'll just be the way things turned out. You can agree or disagree, but calling someone all kinds of names isn't worthy of any of you. And so the gender imbalance issue wasn't the issue I chose to address in my column (heck, even Ellen, over at the Tangent Online ng, called Martini's piece "crazy"). So why should I bother? I chose another aspect of her essay instead. So I guess we will have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.   Byron Bailey Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 06:11 pm:    "When 'A Modest Proposal' was written, did anyone take the author seriously, that children should be eaten? Did _that_ horrible scenario enrage some people? Wasn't it so disgustingly outrageous that some people reacted to it violently? In its absurdity, it was supposed to drive home a certain point, and it certainly did. But it didn't make the author a cannibal, now did it." As one of the most notable cultists of his day and the translator of the most widely read version of _The Necronomicon_* in history, how can anyone think that Swift wasn't serious about eating babies? After all, he glimpsed the horror known as the Houyhnhnms, a horror that not even Lovecraft himself managed to glimpse or if he did, had it mercifully banished from his mind. After looking into the face of the Houyhnhnms, how could anyone see any horror in eating babies? *Admittedly, _Gullliver's Travels_ isn't among the most accurate translations of _The Necronomicon_ available.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 06:20 pm:    Byron: "*Admittedly, _Gullliver's Travels_ isn't among the most accurate translations of _The Necronomicon_ available." A little humor, Byron? How _dare_ you! Right on. :-)   Sean Melican Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 06:40 pm:    ...and asked if he was gay. Did it matter? If he wasn't, would you have acted differently? (And, I'm not absolutely positive, but I believe it's illegal to ask that. Regardless, it's unethical.) Look, you've made up your mind about me and there's absolutely nothing I can say to change your mind. You could say 'Sorry' for using a highly offensive term. You could say, 'Yes, there are gender, sexual, racial, and sexual oriented differences in the publishing industry that favors heavily white, male, heterosexual books.' If you feel I don’t understand your position on any given issue, then try to work with me and try to make me understand your position better. I've tried. Others have tried. But your response is vitriol and specious arguments. Charlie: not sanctimonious at all.   Matt Hughes Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 07:09 pm:    Byron: Somewhere in the dim past of my university years I remember coming upon a mention of one contemporary country squire's reaction to Gulliver's Travels. "Frankly," he confided to a friend, "I think the fellow made most of it up." Matt Hughes Majestrum   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 07:32 pm:    Back in 1998 I did a rather exhaustive study of roughly 24 magazines from around the globe, and marked the male to female ratio published in each. An updating is needed, but it was a lot of work to go through all of the magazines year by year and count the stories myself, so someone else will have to do the update if so inclined. So, for whatever it may be worth (and there are a couple of eye-opening stats), here is the piece I wrote some 9 years ago. http://www.tangentonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=589&Itemi d=285   PM Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 07:50 pm:    "heck, even Ellen, over at the Tangent Online ng, called Martini's piece "crazy"" And she didn't pat you on the back either. "You can agree or disagree, but calling someone all kinds of names isn't worthy of any of you." Can't recall calling you any names. But you've called me a troll, a liar, etc. You went to the edge with Emshwiller insinuating that she was a man-hater and when the temperature got too hot, backed down. And called the protagonist in "Killers" a bitch repeatedly, enough that folk began to wonder where you were coming from. "And I didn't use the "c" word in my published column because it went too far, so why try to lump it in with the final, published column?" No you were using it before the F&SF column appeared. Here's your post from the 7th in its entirety: "Thanks for the background on her, Laura. You know, Locus Online is supposed to be a "newspaper" of the field. It reports. There's two issues here: freedom of speech, and responsible journalism. I daresay that Mark Kelly wouldn't have given me a "blink" if the situation were totally reversed and I had called a Hugo ballot cunt-heavy and the all-white female authors animals (even in metaphor). Or, if he had reported it, I'm sure I would be smeared and vilified from here to kingdom come by the Left (and most everyone else of sane mind). I wonder how much outrage anyone from the left side of the literary tracks will show toward this nutball's sexist, chauvinist, man-hating remarks. Hmm? Talk about your double standard in the press. Criminy. Dave" What's those words? "nutball's sexist, chauvinist, man-hating remarks" Those are your words for Martini. It's obvious that if you read the rest of her column that she isn't a man-hater. She's married...to a man. Over on her blog she mentions men in a positive manner and several books that she's reading are written by men.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 07:56 pm:    Sean: "...and asked if he was gay. Did it matter? If he wasn't, would you have acted differently? (And, I'm not absolutely positive, but I believe it's illegal to ask that. Regardless, it's unethical.)" My thinking at the time, Sean, was that if he wasn't gay, then it would just be a "regular" case of verbal abuse and, aside from my telling them to cut it out there was nothing I could do. BUT, if I could officially confirm (*for the record*) that it was abuse based on sexual orientation, then I had them dead to rights. I confirmed that the abuse was based on sexual orientation, then fired them. And uh, you turn this into my being unethical. I stick up for a gay man, fire two assholes, and I'm the bad guy. Someone's logic is twisted out of whack here, Sean, and it isn't mine. A true homophobe in my position might never have hired the gay guy in the first place, and given some other reason for not doing so. A true homophobe would have turned the other way when the sexual abuse was spotted. But I fire the jerks, get yanked into the President's office to hear more sexist _and_ racist sh*t, my job is threatened, and _I'm_ the bad guy in your eyes?   PM Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 08:07 pm:    Dave's stats are a good thing and then you click next at the bottom of the page and then he goes into his screed. Here are some more stats: http://www.broaduniverse.org/stats.html Don't know if these stats or Dave's stats are accurate. (Just a standard disclaimer.)   Elizabeth Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 08:12 pm:    Dave, it's very useful to see those numbers, but they only tell us part of the story. The question is also how many submissions were made vs. acceptances by gender. If 30% of submissions are from women and 30% of the stories published are by women, we might be safe in saying that there was no gender discrimination in the magazine as far as submission vs. publication ratios go. If 40% of submissions are from women and only 30% of stories published are by women, it appears women don't have the same sucesss rate as men. That has to be explained. Gordon has already provided information on submissions vs. acceptances ratio by gender for F&SF. He published more women than the percentage of submitted stories. So women had a better success rate than we would expect, all things being equal. That's why I feel quite comfortable that Gordon does not discriminate on the basis of gender when buying stories for F&SF, consciously or otherwise. Without similar info from the other mags (other than SH) I can't say anything about their selection practices.   Amy Sterling Casil Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 08:29 pm:    Dave drew my attention to the story of the anti-gay sexual harassment incident at his work. I was previously involved in a four-year false sexual harassment claim (male against female) at work. I was the supervisor. Dave had to do as he described to comply not only with what's right, but with the law. In order to investigate, he had to determine the facts, not "assume" anything. Regarding the Broad Universe survey, this would be why I was one of the founding members, later to drop like the ignorant potato that I am. I'm going to put this link here: http://www.sf-ffw.com/members.html There are many, many more members, and some of the most revered writers ever, in this group. We sponsor the "Roots Award" - http://wiki.feministsf.net/index.php?title=Roots_in_Writing_Award Of this group, I am the least, but am also a founding member.   Dave Truesdale Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 08:32 pm:    Guess Who: "Dave's stats are a good thing and then you click next at the bottom of the page and then he goes into his screed." PM, I see you've been gargling the bong water again. At the end of my Statistics editorial, there is a "Next" link at the bottom of the page. It just sends the reader to the next editorial I wrote (back in 1995), which has absolutely nothing to do with the Statistics column. As a matter of fact, however, I'm quite proud of that lengthy editorial from 1995. A _lot_ of people liked that one. Now, PM, go spit that nasty water in the sink and put the pipe down. Thank you.   Ben Seeberger Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 06:02 am:    Being new here, I'm wondering if you guys ever consider starting new threads when these things get really long...?   Dave Truesdale Posted on Sunday, May 06, 2007 - 07:48 am:    Ben, This thread was indeed broken into two parts. See Sexism: part 2. Also, at the top of this page there is a sub-topic thread, and at the top if it there is yet another sub-sub-topic thread.   John William Thiel Posted on Thursday, May 17, 2007 - 04:00 pm:    Wow. Is this a fandom?   des lewis Posted on Tuesday, June 05, 2007 - 10:14 am:    It would be an interesting experiment for one of the major magazines to strip any identifying detail from slush and just read the story without knowing the gender of the writer. I wonder if it would affect the choices editors and slush readers make. Dear writers, perhaps the best way to solve all the new problems created by the internet etc is to use the internet: i.e. for passworded 'portfolios' of work set up by each author so that editors can explore them and choose. This avoids work sitting for a long time in slush piles and the necessity for simultaneous submissions...because several editors will be reading your work at the same time (and hopefully competing for it!) And, in the context of this thread, the portfolios could be anonymous or with nicknames to which the editors would get accustomed to searching for certain sorts of stories. Of course, once the real author behind the nickname is revealed to any particular editor, that editor will then know your gender if he or she should explore the same portfolio again.... hmmmm... des