lagilman | Oh people, my people....

Entry tags:

sfwa

Oh people, my people....

ETA: and now people have decided that attacking and shaming me is the acceptable response to this post. People, "they're allowed to have strong feelings but you aren't" isn't helping the situation. I have not "gone after" anyone (in fact, the only person I've gone after was the author of the original article). I vented my own feelings on the topic, and my disappointment and crankiness that people have left over this, and at the same time ignored the good that's being done, too. Trying to shame me for that does not win you debate points.

So this weekend a bit of a nasty kerfuffle started in SFWA because of an unfortunate article published in the SFWA Bulletin.

I won't go into details, but suffice it to say that an older member of SFWA who has repeatedly revealed a rather wide streak of misogyny and arrogance took offense at other members calling him on it, and reacted badly (i.e. threw a temper tantrum). Apparently this older member has not realized that freedom of speech also means other people have the right to call you on your asshattedness. In public.

The SFWA board acted swiftly, not to punish anyone for their right to speech (we still believe in that) but to make sure that more editorial oversight is exercised over what is printed in an official SFWA communication. They also took responsibility for not previously exercising that oversight, and plans are underway to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

As a SFWA member, personally, I'm satisfied that the Board is doing what it should to protect SFWA going forward (sadly, we can't boot members for being asshats unless they cross a certain legal line). However, as I'm sure everyone can imagine, this has not stopped people on both sides from deciding to turn this into a mudfight and/or leaving SFWA in a huff.

IMGO, leaving SFWA because we (alas) have asshats in the organization makes me wonder if those people are also going to leave the human race. I think that's a fair question?

This is particularly grating on a week when some of us have spent our time volunteering to make sure that the SFWA booth at Book Expo America (BEA) runs smoothly, and our members are well-represented to the publishing industry (including librarians, bloggers, and audiobook people, etc). This kerfuffle has totally overshadowed any mention of what we're doing, and I may be a bit cranky about that.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I have, many times, considered resigning from the human race, but never could find out where to send the letter.

(Another writer has noted that "resigning from the SFWA" deserves its own category under "drama script" in the Nebulas.)

Was there no editorial oversight for the Bulletin before this? Was it one of those "we'll publish anything a member writes" situations?

Thank you, as one SFWA member to another, for your good, hard work at BEA this week. Really.
One of SFWA's ongoing issues is that the drama frequently overshadows the really fine work done by volunteers. This makes it hard to get good, high quality (like Suricattus-quality) volunteers. The organization has done better in the past decade or so, but...thank you.

I love sordid drama as much as the next woman--but not when it seeps out of its hermetically sealed containment vessel and threatens to undo the good work of the organization. SFWA has made great strides toward being perceived as a professional organization by professionals outside our shtetl; this stomping-off-because-I'm-offended rhetoric doesn't help.

I'm with you on this. I don't see the Bulletin as being the official Voice of SFWA, but a publication in which each article represents only the opinions of the author. Asshats embarrass only themselves.

Considering how many diverse voices there are in SFWA, and considering the service it has given to the field, I'm a bit puzzled by people resigning in a huff. Why not write an article expressing your own opinion on the subject and send it to the Bulletin?

otoh, as long as I can remember, people have been resigning from SFWA in a huff for one reason or another.

Thank you for your hard work -- and that of the other volunteers - at the BEA.

I have not had the time or physical closeness to truly do much for SFWA. I've seen a lot of the aftermath of the kerfuffle, but have not known much about it. I'm really pleased that the board has moved in a sensible way. My personal first reaction was not to run away, but to think that now that I will hopefully have more time and be able to participate in activities, that maybe I can affect positive change from within. The members I've met are overwhelmingly not misogynistic, so I can't help but think there's an overly vocal minority getting more air time than they deserve.

SFWA members paid those writers 8 cents a word for six pages of "dialogue" that called those of us who disagreed with them "fascists," among other things. Said we were anonymous (when our complaints were accompanied by name and photo in the forum), and that we wished to censor them, when we asked for respect. I won't pay $90 a year to be told on a quarterly basis that I am less worthy than others in the organization.

SFWA does a lot of amazing things and I am pleased to know a lot of the people doing those amazing things, but sadly those do not make up for the elephant in the room. An elephant I hope is finally going to be handled.

If staying is the right choice for you, I hope good comes of it. Leaving was the right choice for me and me alone.

And if it felt right for you, then that was the right choice, yes. But I am sorry to see people who could have helped us make it better instead choose to walk away.

I understand where you are coming from but I personally take exception to the idea that, just because the human race has assholes to an extreme degree, that people should remain in SFWA. The point is, we don't have control over the human race. We don't have control over whether someone is a misogynistic jerk to us in the grocery store, or whether or boss is a total douchecanoe (yes, there are rules, but often it is a matter of he said/she said and that rarely goes well).

Being a member of SFWA is a choice. If people decide that the long-standing issue of misogyny and sexism by SFWA members is something they don't want to deal with, that should be respected. They should not be told that they have to change things from the inside. Each individual person has their own life and circumstances, and fighting this may be more than they can do. They shouldn't be put down for that, and whether you meant it that way or not, it came across to me like putting them down.

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. I have literally lost count of the number of authors I know who have left SFWA because they were harassed, derided, and mocked by other SFWA members, and they believed that SFWA's administration would not support them if they brought it to their attention.

And, truthfully, I would get the same impression, just from this post alone. You describe people who are addressing a serious situation as "turn[ing] this into a mudfight" or "leaving SFWA in a huff" (which, as far as the people who are leaving because of the sexism, it is NOT because of this one incident, but because of a long history of incidents). While I absolutely believe there are individuals on both sides who are not acting with dignity, this comment is incredibly dismissive.

I honestly believe that SFWA administration wants to do the right thing. But responses like this don't engender feelings of confidence, and people need that confidence to step forward and bring up issues that have occurred. SFWA, in fact, has a history of insinuating or outright stating that people are overreacting.

I know many people hoped that things would change under Scalzi's presidentship. Unfortunately, Scalzi is only one man, and there is only so much that he can do. What this incident, and the response, sends to people is that things have not changed; SFWA is still an Old Boy's Club.

It leaves me saddened, because something I longed for many years ago was to get the credits to join SFWA. But with everything I have heard from friends who are members of SFWA... I have enough to deal with enough sexist crap in my life. I don't want to have to -- shouldn't have to -- deal with it in a professional organization that is meant for networking and support.

I understand your frustration at this overshadowing the good things that you have done at BEA and elsewhere, but I feel that you are expressing your frustration at the wrong people by including people who are upset, hurt, and offended. And I get that plans are underway to make sure this doesn't happen again -- but it should never have happened in the first place. Moreover, it brings light to the fact that there are people like this in active roles in SFWA, and frankly, I cannot blame people for not wanting to be in an organization that has this much issues with sexism and apologism for sexism. And nobody should be blaming them. The blame rests solely on the shoulders of the sexists.

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.")

Edited 2013-06-02 11:44 (UTC)

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.

Actually, the point of my post was "wow, that was a cock-up and we're dealing with it in a manner that I think is appropriate, and I'm really sorry and a little angry that X and Y are also happening because I don't think it's useful and has utterly overshadowed the good that we're doing too."

And that was IT.

We know that you (and other SFWAns) have done a lot of good, and it is much appreciated, but it doesn't wipe out the current bad shit and I'm sorry if I kneejerked, but it felt like to me that you were blaming the victims, instead.

Grr. LJ is being wonky with notifications; apologies for not replying to this sooner.

That may have been what you meant to say, but that is not how it's come across to myself, and looking from the comments, other people as well. Because frankly, every single time something like this comes up with SFWA, SFWA members jump to "but look at all the good we're doing" -- and yeah, that's great that you're doing good things, but I take extreme exception to the idea that it is not, in fact, the sexists and other *ists who are overshadowing the good of SFWA, but the people who have hit compassion fatigue and no longer have the energy or spoons to put into an organization that has shown them time and time again that they don't care about them.

If you truly can't understand that, then I don't know what to say, but I remain in horror that you feel it is okay to shame, blame, and criticize people who are leaving an organization that has proven itself either outright harmful to them or at the very least apathetic to their needs on more than one occasion.

I have to disagree. You're disrespecting people's reasons for leaving SFWA and attempting to shame them. You've going even further, and making it worse, actually, as far as I'm concerned. And this has nothing to do with the excellent work that SFWA has accomplished, but it has been a systematic issue for years, and people have been ignored, with both public and private complaints. Is it any wonder that someone might want to leave and see if things improve before coming back? But instead you punish them further, with your judgement. I completely understand that you feel hurt, but taking it out on innocent (ex)members, well, that's going too far, and doesn't help the situation. Instead we should be working together to make sure this doesn't happen again, make it a safe work environment, and see if we can't convince people to come back.

Edited 2013-06-02 14:36 (UTC)

"You punish them further, with your judgement"

I think you have a flawed idea of what concepts like "shaming" and "punishment" actually mean.

Having an opinion about a kind of behavior isn't "punishing." And your screed makes even less sense when one remembers that Laura didn't even cite any specific individuals. The way you use the terms, people are "shaming" and "punishing" every time they express an opinion that the entire human race doesn't agree with.

This is the second or third time I've seen a SFWA member go after those that have left, in the last few days. One SFWA official even went to an ex-member's facebook account and attempted to engage them there. I question that, along with anyone else who says that they should have done something else. It seems like misplaced aggression, to me. Why blame the victims? I simply disagree with the approach. Those that resigned were trying to make a statement. They succeeded. Those that stay and indicate that they want to change things are trying to make a statement. They may succeed. Neither one is wrong. Why can't they co-exist?

Edited 2013-06-02 15:03 (UTC)

Please explain where I "went after" anyone.

this has not stopped people on both sides from deciding to turn this into a mudfight and/or leaving SFWA in a huff.

The SFWA boards have become a mudfight, as both sides, well, were flinging mud. Members ARE leaving in huff, and citing this as their specific reason.

Where did I "go after" anyone?

And why is it NOT okay for me to have an opinion and feelings on the topic, but the feelings of people walking away are protected and acceptable?

I assumed it from your tone, including statements like this: "IMGO, leaving SFWA because we (alas) have asshats in the organization makes me wonder if those people are also going to leave the human race. I think that's a fair question?" God knows there's nothing wrong with having an opinion, and saying, "Look, I know SFWA has some issues, but we're working on it, and we hope to continue doing good, as we have done in the past." That's a different tone. But that's not what you said. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on your approach and don't see eye-to-eye on this. :-(

Edited 2013-06-02 15:18 (UTC)

Judging "tone" on-line is a dangerous thing, as well all know/learn.

I was making the point that asshattery is part of human nature, and it's hard to escape it unless you check out entirely.

"I simply disagree with the approach"

Disagreeing with the approach is fine. But characterizing what Laura Anne wrote as "shaming" and "punishment" is not reasonable, given the extreme mildness her remark. And the unreasonableness is only compounded by your latest accusation, that she's "going after" those who have left SFWA.

I think there are plenty of legitimate arguments for giving up on SFWA at the moment, and I really would not seek out and hector any individual who did it, even if I disagree. As a friend pointed out to me in a Twitter conversation about this yesterday, different people have different tolerance levels, and need to balance their lives in different ways.

But what you are arguing is that nobody may express even the mildest, no-names-specified disagreement with that choice of action, on pain of being accused of ugly things like "shaming", "punishing", and "blaming the victims." That's not a reasonable position.

(And by the way, regarding "blaming the victims"? There are a lot of victims of the gross misbehavior at the heart of this dustup. Some victims are those who find they can no longer stand to be in SFWA. Other victims are those, like Laura Anne, who see their volunteer work rendered invisible by the focus on the intemperate words of a couple of old men. Setting one category of victims against another isn't exactly helpful.)

I'm sorry but doubling down with "I am sorry to see people who could have helped us make it better instead choose to walk away," we'll have to agree to disagree. It sure sounds like she's blaming people for walking away. If it was otherwise, then she wouldn't have said it that way. :/

I agree with oldcharliebrown. It's the height of disrespect, arrogance and insensitivity to shame people who don't feel comfortable remaining with an organization that promotes misogyny. The whole Ike Turner "I'm sorry baby I'm sorry" responses, coupled with "not everyone does it" may not be enough of a reason for some of the offended to stay on. If anything, this mob-like attitude will drive even more people away. Sure, you have as much a right to your opinion as anyone else, but the definition of free speech DOES NOT mean you can say what you want without other people slamming you for it.

Disagree with me all you like, that is the nature of discourse. But please don't claim I'm "shaming' or "going after" or "insulting" anyone by stating that I'm upset over a turn of events.

I stated a fact - that people were leaving (anger might have been a better word than huff, admittedly, but I don't see huff as being insulting, particularly and accept that I should have considered that some do) and that some folk were turning it into a mudfight (as has, in fact, happened here).

And I gave my opinion that asshattery is part of human nature, and it's hard to escape it unless you check out entirely.

Where is the "shaming," please?

Edited 2013-06-02 15:24 (UTC)

On top of the whole "mudfight" (which I think belittles the reaction of the offended) and "leaving the human race" bit, you said this:

(more: by leaving, people are saying "I don't care enough to help make it better.")

I'd definitely call that shaming and manipulative. That's like guilting someone into staying with an abusive partner and telling someone they might be able to change them.

However, I'm probably not the best person to argue on behalf of the offended. I'm not a member, though I was toying with applying for Associate membership until I heard about all this. I'm just giving my reaction as a someone from the outside noting the kind of people in the organization who seem to have the most public influence.

Edited 2013-06-02 17:09 (UTC)

It's nothing at all like guilting someone into staying with an abusive relationship, and lord I am tired of people relating ANYTHING other than an actual abusive relationship to that. Hitler is Hitler and abusive relationships are abusive relationships. SFWA is an organization of 1800 people that screws up sometimes and does a lot of good sometimes, and is only as good as the quality of people who are members.

(deleted comment)

Unfortunately, no, this has been going on for years, and people have complained for as long, privately, and somewhat publicly, with no progress. This time it went public, and suddenly we have change. This didn't blow out from one issue, but a number of issues. It came about by a multitude of transgressions, which were ignored by SFWA for a number of reasons, and it finally hit a boiling point. With a task force in place, perhaps something can be done, now.

Yes, SFWA has definitely had a problem, and it's not only the older men causing it - the incident of the overly-sexist cover most recently was one, and one that people spoke out about, immediately. The Bulletin has long been problematic, and people have been discussing it for a while now.

However, saying the issues were "ignored" is both unfair and untrue. The results may not have been visible to the public, but there hasn't been a culture of ignoring these issues in at least two and possibly three administrations. Mainly because people stepped up and took charge and said "this needs to change." We've already taken steps to make the SFWA spaces safer, and not allow the recent convention crap to happen in our official areas. And other things that are ongoing.

Unfortunately, as I said in my original post, we don't have the ability to toss a member just because they're an asshat. If I'd been the Bulletin editor, would I have let the recent articles go? No. I would have kicked it back so hard the writers would have spun like tops. I don't think there's ANY disagreement in this thread on that matter.

Edited 2013-06-02 17:46 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely agree to your last point. I place most of the blame at Jean Rabe's feet. It was so stupid that I'm still surprised she signed off on it. And now we have to clean up the mess.

Other, dissenting opinions were given equal space.

So those other, dissenting opinions were paid the same amount of money per word for their responses as the two guys who wrote the column? Or they'll be writing a column of rebuttal at an equal pay rate in a future issue? Forgive me if these are silly questions, I really don't know much about the inner workings of the SFWA. Not trying to start a fight, just trying to understand.

I'm not sure why money paid is an issue for you, but anyone who pitches an article gets paid .07/word (last time I checked). The article in question was a long running (and in my opinion useless, but I've been saying that for a while) column covering a range of topics, but mostly ranting.

My specific example was that Jim Hines' article about problematic gender cover images and treatment of women ran in the same issue (I haven't read the article yet, because my ulcer won't let me open the Bulletin again any time soon, but other people have mentioned it).

I'd like to publicly say thanks for all the time and effort that you and the other volunteers put into representing SFWA at the BEA booth this weekend. Being a volunteer can take countless hours for very little reward.

You have a full plate at home and with your work -- this cost you time and money. As someone who could not begin to do it right now, I deeply appreciate your efforts.

Protecting another person's asshattery protects my right to tell them they're being an asshat.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Oh people, my people....

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject