I understand that SFWA administration is trying to address the issue, but I think what is being missed is that this is not a single issue. It is an ongoing issue of culture.
You may also have missed the other articles that were in this issue and others, taking opposing views. Or the fact that this was ONE MEMBER'S REACTION and not an official or even popular view. Does SFWA screw up? Yes. This is, as I said, human nature, especially for an organization that is not homogenous or driven by a single political, religious or any other bias except we all write SF/F. We have a lot of different and opposing viewpoints.
The ongoing column co-written by this person has been a point of contention for a while now, but if we cancelled everything that we personally disagreed with, we'd be shutting down discussions, and I don't see that's a good thing, either. That said, there SHOULD have been editorial oversight and this article SHOULD have been kicked back to the author. I'm in total agreement on that: it was inappropriate.
Anyone who wants to leave, that's their choice. But leaving because this person was an asshat (news flash: he's been as asshat for decades) and a misjudgment allowed that asshattedness to go to press is dismissing everything else that SFWA does that is good and positive.
And THAT is what I am angry about.
(more: by leaving, people are saying "I don't care enough to help make it better.")
no subject
You may also have missed the other articles that were in this issue and others, taking opposing views. Or the fact that this was ONE MEMBER'S REACTION and not an official or even popular view. Does SFWA screw up? Yes. This is, as I said, human nature, especially for an organization that is not homogenous or driven by a single political, religious or any other bias except we all write SF/F. We have a lot of different and opposing viewpoints.
The ongoing column co-written by this person has been a point of contention for a while now, but if we cancelled everything that we personally disagreed with, we'd be shutting down discussions, and I don't see that's a good thing, either. That said, there SHOULD have been editorial oversight and this article SHOULD have been kicked back to the author. I'm in total agreement on that: it was inappropriate.
Anyone who wants to leave, that's their choice. But leaving because this person was an asshat (news flash: he's been as asshat for decades) and a misjudgment allowed that asshattedness to go to press is dismissing everything else that SFWA does that is good and positive.
And THAT is what I am angry about.
(more: by leaving, people are saying "I don't care enough to help make it better.")