According to the membership guidelines of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA) website, I’m qualified to be an associate member for two of my short stories and possibly an active member if you count my Cat and Bones novels as UF verses PNR (I don’t, but many people do). However, I’ve never applied for associate or active membership. Up until a couple months ago, that wasn’t a deliberate decision. I kept meaning to, but one thing after another took up my time instead. Then, the first sexism scandal* broke when an outspoken misogynist ran for SFWA president (you can read author Jim Hines’s post about it here). After reading some of the would-be president’s posts (such gems included “Why Women Ruin Everything” and thoughts about how the real threat to Western civilization is female equalitarianism – his word, not mine), I was surprised that he was even allowed to run. The decision to let him do so was defended by many SFWA members as freedom of speech. While I understood that, it still left a sour taste in my mouth. The SFWA is a private organization that can, if it chooses, decide that discrimination isn’t in line with their standards and thus not allow it by their members. Or at least, not give it a podium by permitting such persons to run for office within the organization.
Anyway, when that happened, I agreed to disagree with the SFWA’s decision and largely left it alone. It helped that Mr. Sexist lost the election by a landslide.
Then a new firestorm about sexism broke out. To get detailed write-ups on the whole story, author Jim Hines has a link-heavy post here (can you tell I read Hines’s blog a lot?). There are also screen-snaps of various quotes in Trisha Lynn’s write-up here. In summary, it started when two male authors posted an article in the SFWA bulletin that was supposed to be about the contribution of female editors/writers in the genre and somehow devolved into a discussion of which “lady editors” and “lady writers” were better-looking in general and how one looked in a bathing suit (because that’s TOTALLY the same thing as discussing their professional merits). Then in the following issue, women were advised by another male author to be more like Barbie. Yes, that Barbie, because “She has always been a role model for young girls, and has remained popular with millions of them throughout their entire lives, because she maintained her quiet dignity the way a woman should.” (italics mine on that last part).
Now, there’s nothing wrong with a woman being dignified. I strive for that myself oftentimes, particularly now (note how this post isn’t peppered with angry howls of profanity – go dignified me!) But before I point out how it’s insulting to be told how my entire gender should behave by someone who isn’t of that gender, do I need to list all the reasons why a plastic, my-measurements-aren’t-even-possible-in-nature doll isn’t a good example of a role model for girls?
I assume most of you are sane, so I didn’t think so.
Then, after the completely unsurprising outcry these incidents generated, in the next issue of the SFWA bulletin, the same male authors of the aforementioned “lady editors” article aired their hurt feelings about being called sexist. Let me sum it up: If you’re upset that we said these things, then (a) you’re for censorship against free speech or (b) you’re a liberal fascist (same claim, really).
In response to the outcry over this, SFWA president John Scalzi opened a task force to “look at the role of the Bulletin within the organization moving forward” and also wrote a post about the matter. I’m glad Scalzi agrees these are legitimate concerns that affect all SFWA members/associates and isn’t falling for the “but it’s just whining from a few liberal fascists!” defense, but I also heave a weary sigh of agreement with author Jenny Truman’s Tweet: “Why, @sfwa, do you need a task force to determine if your own members should be given professional respect within your own publication?”
It does seem like a no-brainer to me.
Until it’s a no-brainer to the SFWA, too, I’ve decided not to apply for any form of membership. Some might argue – fairly – that more female writers should join to combat the problem from within, but I’ve got too many other things to do than spend my time arguing over why I’m worthy of the same respect that’s automatically given to a writer with a penis. My refusal to join hurts the SFWA not a whit, of course. They are now, and have been, a thriving and largely well-respected organization, but it’s my stand on the matter anyway. If their policies change in the future, I’ll look forward to applying.
Now, back to writing.
This post is one of the many reasons you are one of my most favourite authors.
Thank you.
Ditto to Stephanie’s comments. I also think that although some may argue with me that if let that misogynist crap go unchallenged we not only allow it to continue but silently nod our ascent.
Agreed. One good thing that’s come of this is that women who were bearing discrimination silently in the SF community are now speaking up.
Jeaniene, I’m a long time reader, a first time commenter, and after reading this post, I’ve realized something very important: I love you. You are dignified, intelligent, and courageous. And what I would consider a ‘proper’ role model for girls today!
I’d debate over being a proper role model, but thank you for the kind words :).
exactly my thoughts. Well spoken
Wow! I am amazed by what was written. Who would have figured these thoughts could still exist?
I’m not surprised that it exists, sadly, but I was surprised to see it elevated in a SFWA publication.
Stand strong and represent us well! What a well written article and no name calling!
Thanks. It was hard to edit out the more explicit version of what I was thinking when I wrote this.
Good for you, and you are helping women by writing your female characters real and relatable.
Thank you for taking easy on us by doing that.
We are more than our weight but if a toy is his goal for how a woman should look and behave, than the size of a dildo should represent how a man should be. Sorry, couldn’t help compare…lol.
PS: I’m sorry for my english i still have a lot to learn.
This made me laugh!
But if they want to say the only worthwhile women are like Barbie, then maybe we could require all men be like Ken. Honestly, how many of the male SFWA authors have Ken’s perfect hair, perfect teeth, broad chest, washboard stomach, and wear expensive, preppy clothes?
“if a toy is his goal for how a woman should look and behave, than the size of a dildo should represent how a man should be.”
Still snickering over this!
OMG where’s the thumbs up button 🙂
I strongly agree with your views, you’re a good role model and writer!!! well, I need not even go there, love, love your books, keep on…keeping on 🙂
Thank you. As I said above, I’d disagree about the role model part, but I appreciate the thoughts behind it :).
I adore you! (And your work but that is a different comment.) I’ve heard similar horrid things in the past about SWFA and that is why I decided a long time ago not to join. I was a member of MWA (and a regional president and on the national board) for years. During my time there I never heard anything sexist. Arguments about styles and genres, yes. Sexism? No.
Thank you! I’m gobsmacked that you know who I am, let alone read my stuff, but before I embarrass myself by fangirling all over you…good to know about the MWA. Makes me want to write a mystery just so I can join.
Posts like this are what makes me like you not only as a writer but as a person. You have all my support (for all that it might be worth ;P)
Support helps. Always. Thank you!
Ditto! Awesome post. I’ve been following the blogposts with outrage. In the corporate world, this kind of thing still happens too, but I can’t imagine a major corporation allowing members to air those types of opinions on their public media. Free speech is just an excuse in this instance to condone behavior that should have gone the way of the Dodo bird.
Hopefully change will come out of all of this mess.
AMAZING! WHAT CENTURY ARE THE LEADERS IN SFWA FROM?! I’d be checking them for fangs, certainly no one is so dense as to believe women are not (at least) the equal to men? I know they are smarter and more compassionate than most men I know…and pain tolerance is sure a lot higher than we have (if men gave birth, we wouldn’t have Billions of people on the earth, it would probably be under 100,000 worldwide)! (-:
Scalzi, the SFWA president, has spoken out against sexism before, but I imagine it’s an uphill battle. Some members clearly have “outdated” mindsets when it comes to their female peers, but I believe the SFWA guidelines are “once a member, always a member unless you withdraw yourself” (not 100% sure though).
Is this not 2013! You tell them Jeaniene!
Honestly men, I only hope I raised my son to have a better attitude towards women.
If you agree that this isn’t acceptable, I’m sure you did :).
Very well written post Jeaniene! I can see how hard that could have been to write, I would just be cursing at the apes all the way through! I also agree with the role model comments, its authors like you who create worlds and characters that readers can relate to. I’ve taken so much out of them, one of the biggest would be to be happy to be who you are and not be ashamed or confined by the people around you.
All I can say is keep writing and inspiring!
Thank you!
I am recovering from an eating disorder and the comment about Barbie can be really harmful for those who do suffer from that. It’s frustrating that this world can be so ignorant with how words can affect people. Writers should already know this. I have never idolized Barbie but I did enjoy playing with her as a child. Did I ever think I wanted to look like her? No. I never compared myself to a doll. Making comments like that can affect women and girls out there. This society focuses on weight and appearance and it’s difficult. I hate that they did nothing but harm.
As someone who’s overcome an eating disorder as well, I can’t begin to list all my objections to Barbie being held up as a role model.
First, very well-written post. Thank you.
Second, I find genre classifications and the fences between genres to be very very strange.
I have always classified your books, and Ilona Andrews books, and Faith Hunter’s books as fantasy. They’re secondarily classified (in my brain) as mystery or romance, but your books are on my shelves with Charles de Lint and Nina Kiriki Hoffman and Guy Gavriel Kay and Steven Brust.
Thus, it makes me sad that you all (you all being you, Ilona Andrews and Faith Hunter specifically) feel excluded from the group that contains so many other authors I adore.
Not that SFWA membership shapes what I buy and read. It just seems like it would be so much more helpful is these groups were inclusive rather than so damned exclusive.
I mean, how else am I to get anthologies with all my favorite authors contributing stories, if y’all feel like you don’t belong together?! 🙂
I hope all of the attention given to these issues will result in change for the SFWA. If not, at least it’s bringing these issues to light so that people who are dealing with them know they are not alone.
I’ve no doubt you could positively affect the SFWA from within. However, I am all for you spending that time and energy writing. I love you books! Thank you so much for sharing your stories.
Time shortage is definitely a factor with all my future endeavors, but right now, I also feel that not joining is the best stance for me.
This forcibly reminds me of the same arguments proffered for generations now by military commanders of why women shouldn’t serve in combat roles, never mind that for the past oh half a century or more there hasn’t been a war with a definable front. I understand and encourage your outrage, at this, well outrageous sophomoric behavior. Perhaps, if one doesn’t already exist, a new organization should be formed maybe a UFPNR specifically for those unmentionable ‘lady writers’ and ‘lady editors’. If the SFWA wants to be a good old boy network I say let them go the way of the dinosaur.
I don’t think a new organization is the way right now, but if nothing changes in the future, maybe.
As a voracious reader of SF / Fantasy / UF / etc. and a male … I have to say the following –
1) I read based on talent and the stories interest to me … not the gender of the writer.
2) A large majority of the books I have read and greatly enjoyed over the last several years have been written by the ‘Lady Writers’ … THANK YOU!!! I think I most of Jeaniene’s books and am looking eagerly towards the next.
3) This should probably be 1 but … allowing discrimination of any type is, in my opinion, just plain wrong.
I’m with you. Content sells me, nothing more. Aside from discussions like this, I normally don’t even think about the gender of the authors that I read.
I have never based my reading choice on gender and it wasn’t until I read this post that I realized that about 90% of my favorite authors are women. I think part of that is the fact that I like romance to be a big part of any book I read and I prefer to read from a females perspective on romance since I am male and already have a male perspective. But again I never consciously decide that female writers were my favorites, that is just the books that I decided I like the most.
The funny thing is, you could be reading some men without knowing it :). Male authors who publish romance usually use a female pseudonym. For example, one of my favorite authors, Dean Koontz, started out writing romance as “Leigh Nicols.”
Definitely appreciated reading your thoughts on this situation.
I am a member of SFWA and while the recent idiocy hasn’t played well with me, I am seeing changes from within that organization that give me hope. Compared to the SFWA of a few years back, this current version is not strictly an old boys’ club (though some still linger), and many of those involved in the decision making are forward thinking.
Hopefully they can bring the organization into the 21st century and make the Bulletin more industry specific. Some of the articles are of value, some are not. Clearly it needs an overhaul.
It’s a shame that the actions of a few have cast a cloud over the whole. I heartily second your comment of “Hopefully they can bring the organization into the 21st century and make the Bulletin more industry specific.”
I’ve read about these incidences in other author blogs. Perhaps, some of the SFWA are feeling threatened by the changes in the sci-fi genre. Maybe they are lashing out because they are afraid their writing will become outdated. In the meantime, they make SF male writer look bad, even though they don’t represent all of them. Ann Aguirre’s treatment and her finally talking about it may be a catalyst for better treatment to female SF writers. This is bad business, for now.
I felt sick reading Anne Aguirre’s account of everything she’s put up with, plus the hate mail she received after posting that blog. Change will hopefully come because it’s long overdue.
I have a serious girl-crush on you now :-). I used to dream of the day I could join SFWA. It would mean I “made it,” that I was a “real” author. I’d be part of the “club.”
Now I realize I don’t need a club like that. Nobody does. It also makes me think that women should band together and start a new club. One that has respect for everyone. And I do mean everyone, no matter what gender, what side of the publishing table you’re one, no matter what religion or color or whatever. Everyone. RWA does it right. It’s about time SF/Fantasy did too.
Good for you. I join Melinda VanLone in the Woman Crush on Jeaniene Club. The ‘this is a man’s world’ mentality of a few (okay, many) absolutely disgusts me. There is no reason for that. And when this kind of nonsense sits at the heart of a professional organization, it it best to walking away from the infection.
Well said! it’s sad such things still happen in this day and age.
Hard to tell whether the guy was serious or just trying to get a rise out of everyone. Can tell you from my time spent fundraising for the Tiptree award at SF cons that the general ambience at the things reverts to 12-yo boy mentality. His editorial belongs in that category, methinks.