Even despite that there were other articles in the issue that disagreed, I personally have an issue with something that is overtly sexist (or *ist in any fashion) being published in a professional publication. It does sound like we are in agreement that there was a breakdown in oversight.
However, where we are in disagreement is that it sounds like you think that people are leaving because of just one man. And what I'm seeing, with the people I know, is not that it is one man; it is that this is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. There have been issues with SFWA and sexism for ages. Some of the people have been trying to change it. Some of them have been at it for years and have no more energy. Tamora Pierce blogged about leaving SFWA several years back because of the sexism she received for wanting to promote SFF and help young writers (I can provide a link to her post about this if you want). Nora Jemisin posted to the SFWA LJ community asking about promoting diversity in SFF and was roundly dismissed (and I have a link for this but the main people arguing with her have deleted their accounts, and thus, their comments).
What I'm trying to say is, it's not a new thing, and reacting like it is a new thing is harmful. Perhaps we are seeing different people and different corners, but what I'm seeing is people who are upset that these incidents are still happening. And frankly, the response is pretty much the same anytime something major happens; people get defensive. They may do something about the issue at hand (or they may not), and posts upon posts come out about the good that SFWA is done, as if that overrides the sexism in the community. These incidents are going to keep happening until there is some kind of methodology for handling sexism within the organization.
I am not sure if you are aware but your post, and your reply, very much comes off as, SFWA does good things, people should be content that the issue is being addressed, and people shouldn't leave because SFWA is doing good things. And honestly, that sort of response is part of what people are angry about, because SFWA is addressing the individual incidents that come up and not the, quite frankly, elephant under the rug.
no subject
However, where we are in disagreement is that it sounds like you think that people are leaving because of just one man. And what I'm seeing, with the people I know, is not that it is one man; it is that this is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. There have been issues with SFWA and sexism for ages. Some of the people have been trying to change it. Some of them have been at it for years and have no more energy. Tamora Pierce blogged about leaving SFWA several years back because of the sexism she received for wanting to promote SFF and help young writers (I can provide a link to her post about this if you want). Nora Jemisin posted to the SFWA LJ community asking about promoting diversity in SFF and was roundly dismissed (and I have a link for this but the main people arguing with her have deleted their accounts, and thus, their comments).
What I'm trying to say is, it's not a new thing, and reacting like it is a new thing is harmful. Perhaps we are seeing different people and different corners, but what I'm seeing is people who are upset that these incidents are still happening. And frankly, the response is pretty much the same anytime something major happens; people get defensive. They may do something about the issue at hand (or they may not), and posts upon posts come out about the good that SFWA is done, as if that overrides the sexism in the community. These incidents are going to keep happening until there is some kind of methodology for handling sexism within the organization.
I am not sure if you are aware but your post, and your reply, very much comes off as, SFWA does good things, people should be content that the issue is being addressed, and people shouldn't leave because SFWA is doing good things. And honestly, that sort of response is part of what people are angry about, because SFWA is addressing the individual incidents that come up and not the, quite frankly, elephant under the rug.