![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
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.
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.
no subject
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.
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.")
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.
no subject
And that was IT.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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?
no subject
no subject
I was making the point that asshattery is part of human nature, and it's hard to escape it unless you check out entirely.
no subject
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.)
no subject