lagilman | 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 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. :/

Oh people, my people....

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject