NOTE: I’ve since changed my views and retracted many of the things I said in this blog post. You can find a link to the retraction here.
Oh, boy, has there been a lot of drama in the science fiction & fantasy community recently. From the trouble with the SFWA bulletin to the revelation of accusations of serial sexual harassment by a senior editor at Tor, it seems like the whole community (or at least, the part that sees itself as part of a wider community) is up in arms. And while a lot of the response has been balanced and civil, I’ve also seen some things that I find troubling.
For the benefit of the doubt, let me just say that I support the people who are coming forward with stories of harassment and abuse. It’s clear that this is a problem, and that it needs to be addressed in a way that brings about real change. Also, I agree that the community has a history of demeaning or undervaluing the women within it, making it a lot more difficult for female writers to earn the same level of respect as their male counterparts. That, too, needs to change.
But guys … can’t we get along? Can’t we come together and get back to what this community is really about–sharing and telling good, fun stories?
Don’t get me wrong–I’m not trying to minimize any of the problems causing this drama. They need to be fixed, and it’s going to take time to do so. But are they going to become the focus of everything we talk about, or are we going to turn back to the things that unite us, and pull together as a stronger and better community than we were to start out with?
Right now, I get the impression that the majority of members who are active in the SF&F community mean well and want it to be a welcoming space. They may have their faults, but they’re working on them. And most of their faults are not causing direct harm to others.
Then there’s a small but outspoken minority who wants change, wants it now, and wants it so badly that they see problems everywhere. Many of them have legitimate concerns, and people from the less outspoken majority are coming out and confirming that. But many of them are dangerously overzealous–and since we have in this community some of the most imaginative minds in the world, it doesn’t take much for people to start projecting onto people they disagree with, or reading things into comments that aren’t actually there, or seeing those who question or disagree as The Enemy.
I cannot control how others perceive me. I cannot speak without risking that someone is going to misconstrue my intent and feel “silenced,” or “afraid,” or whatever. I can reach out to people privately, though, so if you feel like I’m part of the problem, please contact me and let me know.
This whole thing reminds me of my time from ’03 to ’05 as a Mormon missionary. Oh boy, was there drama. Imagine a couple hundred sexually repressed, 19-21 year-old boys (and a couple dozen young women) in a rigidly structured environment, with tremendous emotional pressures and very little direct supervision. There was drama, and I hated it. The best times on my mission were when I never saw anyone but my companion (Mormon missionaries live and work together in pairs) and maybe the four or six other members of the district once a week or so.
But the way things are playing out right now, I wonder if the outspoken minority is so determined to reshape the SF&F community in their own image that they’re tearing it apart. Orson Scott Card, for example, has been tarred and feathered multiple times and thrown out of the community on a rail. And yet, Ender’s Game is still one of the best (and bestselling) science fiction books ever written. Mike Resnick, for all his chauvinism, has written a lot of really good books and stories too. Jim Frenkel, for all his creepiness, has been instrumental in bringing us great books from Tor.
Does this excuse their faults? Of course not. But guys, these authors and editors aren’t The Enemy–they’re part of the community just as much as you are. And you deal with offenders within the community differently than you do with offenders who are not.
A lot of people are congratulating themselves and saying that we’re doing a good job rooting out these problems and dealing with them in an open and reasonable way. And to an extent, I think that’s true. But if there’s one thing I’ve learned from all this drama, it’s that the SF&F community is a lot more fractious than I’d previously realized, and that the ties that bind us really aren’t that strong at all. And that makes me wonder if it’s better just to forget the whole thing–forget the conventions, forget SFWA, forget the major blogs–and just do my own thing independently of everyone else.
And honestly, it would appear that a large number (perhaps even a majority) of SF&F writers are doing just that, especially the self-published ones who don’t really care about courting publishers or winning awards. For these guys, it’s all about the readers–and isn’t that the way it should be?
I’m not sure if you want a response to this or not, or if you’re just letting out steam, but I’m going to assume that responses are welcome.
I saw your comments on Mary’s blog about how you wish people would detail what the sexual harassment was if she was to name Frenkel as the perpetrator, so that nothing would get misconstrued and he wouldn’t be unduly hurt. I’m assuming you still stand behind that comment. So I’m going to reply to both those thoughts and your blog post here.
On the outside, I agree with you that the combined mess of the SFWA bulletin and the sexual harrassment report looks like a bunch of loud finger-pointing drama. I also agree that the missionary community was very drama-prone.
However, being the recipient of lots of sexual harassment over the years and belittling by male writers (not you), I am trying to come up with ways to show that the two are different.
At least in my experience, the missionary community drama was directionless. It was a bunch of stressed-out people who don’t know right from wrong, up from down, how abc should be handled, or what to do about xyz. How important strict obedience to the rules was or if the principles behind the rules were the guiding compass. And then lots of arguing over these.
This, however, has a direction. It is a chance for women to be open about how they are treated, and to deal with real, concrete examples as opposed to fighting for women’s rights in an abstract, inchoate sense.
SFWA isn’t a community of writers to feel good about each other. SFWA has always been about fighting against injustice done to writers. Whether the injustice is bad contract terms offered by a traditional publisher, or whether that be the mistreatment of women within its borders. Writers tend to have a strong sense of justice/injustice. So when that fighting spirit is addressed within its borders, I can understand why that appears exactly like “drama” or a civil war.
I also understand why you want the destructive finger-pointing to stop and why it looks like a smear campaign. However, here I want to say that I disagree with your comment on Mary’s blog. A victim of sexual harassment shouldn’t have to give details about what happened to her in order to prove what happened or justify saying anything. It is always a traumatic experience. And I think that someone who has sexually harassed someone else shouldn’t be surprised if his actions have repercussions, even a negative repercussion on his career or his image in the community.
You mentioned Orson Scott Card as an example of someone who has been gang-smeared by the community. I agree that this is sad, but I also think he can handle himself. When he wrote all the articles he did expressing his opinions, he knew what would happen (even said he did) but he did it anyway. Such is the life of an opinionated writer with unpopular opinions. Many people disagree with what he says and think he is speaking out against peoples’ happiness and rights. I wish everyone who disagreed with him did so with respect and was civil. But all OSC has done is talk. He has not sexually harassed anyone. He has not taken away anyone’s rights. He is not in a position of power. He’s not an editor nor a politician.
I know you want the world to be a better place for women. But it can’t happen without honesty and some friction. The community is being really civil. No one has claimed that “all men are bad let’s give up on them,” but they are calling out the perpetrators and asking them to take responsibility for their gross behavior. It takes more guts than I have to do that. I have repeatedly let it slide because I have been afraid. So everyone who has done it to me has gotten away with doing it, not just to me but to others. If they’re not called out on it, if their actions have no consequences, of course they will continue to do what works for them, without caring about the damage they do.
The woman who wrote about the sexual harassment did it to show how to file an official report, because if it’s not dealt with officially, it officially never happened. She is a hero. And heroes fight. Society never changes without some sort of fight, I am sad to say.
Good points, and I think we mostly agree. I took back what I said on Mary’s blog, about making the specific details of the incident public. However, I still think that if Jim Frenkel has been outed as a problem, that we need to at least delineate the nature of the harassment–not only to keep him from getting unjustly smeared, but so that we can get a clearer picture of the extent of the problem and hold people accountable for it. A lot of other people are coming out on their blogs about other Frenkel incidents, and I think that’s a good step.
My missionary experience was not entirely directionless. At one point, I had to clean up the mess left when an elder had an inappropriate relationship with the daughter of a recent convert. It was a headache, to say the least.
For the most part, I think people have been responding to the Frenkel harassment problems in a positive way. I also commend Ms. Matthesen for coming out about this, and Mary, Scalzi, Brandon, and Jim C. Hines for signal boosting this.
The SFWA Bulletin controversy, however, left a much more sour taste in my mouth, and made me wonder if there isn’t a power struggle going on between people who aren’t afraid to push their ideological agenda at the expense of the community. I’m starting to see echoes of that in the latest scandal, albeit on the fringes. I’m just worried that this attitude will move from the fringes to the mainstream.
Hmmm. In my mind “drama” is pointless and directionless. It sounds like if the elder had an inappropriate relationship, then it wasn’t drama, it was something legitimate. A legitimate concern (and headache) that you had to deal with.
Legitimate concerns are often filled with strife and discomfort, though. The current wave of problems being dealt with in the SF&F community are also legitimate problems, and hence there will be strife. I understand the sigh&complaint of “Why can’t we all just get along?” but it’s unrealistic. As long as there is sin, there will be strife. Both caused by the sinners and by those who take it upon themselves to fight against the darkness and bring about more light for others.
If you want a clearer picture of the sexual harassment going on in general, then be prepared for there to be anger and frustration expressed along with the honesty as people talk about the issue. I know I can’t talk about what’s happened to me with perfect equanimity, for example. I’m not super-human. Even if I love those who have misteated me, the mistreatment frustrates and angers me. I’m well-trained in being tactful and civil, but not everyone is. And just because some people hit harder than others with their opinions doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be listened to or their thoughts considered.
I’m curious about what ideological agenda you’re concerned about? Where you draw the line, I mean.
Interesting question. I’m not sure if I’d draw the line with a particular ideology, so much as with the notion that offending authors shouldn’t be read. That’s happened with Card to some extent, and in a quieter but more insidious way I think it’s happened with C.S. Lewis, at least within mainstream SF&F. Will it happen with Resnick? It’s quite possible, though to be fair I haven’t seen signs of it yet. But considering the rage that the SFWA controversy has inflamed, that’s a very real possibility.
And Frenkel? Well, his case is a little different because 1) he hasn’t written anything that I’m aware of, and 2) his alleged behavior crosses the line between what’s acceptable and what’s predatory. Should he be banned from attending any more SF&F cons? Probably, yeah. Should he be fired from Tor? Almost certainly. Should any of his writings (essays, I guess) be suppressed, or any of the books he’s worked on? That’s going a little too far.
I’ve read some of the “let’s boycott Card” posts, and though I don’t think Ender’s Game is a preachingly-anti-homosexual work, I think people who are enraged with his opinions and forth-right nature are allowed to keep themselves at a distance from his body of work. They are also allowed to use boycotting as a signal of their own consciences.
I haven’t heard of C.S.Lewis being banned, but I do know that he spoke against Mormons and Mormonism, but his intolerance hasn’t hurt his sales or popularity in the Mormon community.
Personally, I’ve never been a fan of Resnick, even before this came out. Hearing him speak wigged me out and I could never place exactly why. My boycotting his works hasn’t hurt him.
Actually, all of these men are too popular to be really hurt by a small group of people boycotting reading them. Even if all of SFWA boycotted them, there are enough readers in the world who simply won’t care, and even if no editor takes them ever again, they can self-publish and probably make even more money than they do now.
I agree that Frenkel’s case is different, being that he’s an editor. He will be banned from the Con he did this at (but probably not all Cons). I hope he is fired from Tor. But his authors won’t hurt for his absence, they will simply get a new editor. Editors come and go all the time. There won’t be many ripples. And if he wants to continue editing, I’m sure he can freelance with the body of work he’s produced as a reference. Or else he can submit his writings to any number of magazines and his writing will be judged blind on its own merit, just like everyone else’s. Or if he does encounter some prejudice against him, I must admit it might be refreshing if he tastes his own medicine a little. I’ve encountered plenty of prejudice against me (you might be surprised how much) simply because I’m a woman writer. That may sound callous of me, but honestly I don’t think his life is ruined. He’s got imagination. He can be resourceful. I hope he learns from his mistakes.
Even with a black mark, none of these men are completely ostracized.
I do want to point out your wording of “his alleged behavior crosses the line between what’s acceptable and what’s predatory.” First, it’s no longer alleged behavior, since the process of reporting him was official. And second, it’s only acceptable if it’s welcome. If it’s unwelcome, it’s predatory.
I wasn’t there, and he hasn’t been convicted in a court of law, so I’m not comfortable dropping the word “alleged” just yet. Doesn’t mean I doubt the victims who are coming out. It’s more of a formality to protect myself from accusations of libel.
And I disagree about the boycotts. By all means, if it’s your personal choice not to read someone, then go ahead, but to discourage others from reading someone because of their behavior or ideological beliefs … yeah, that’s not right.
Also, I’m really curious about Lewis’s anti-Mormon stuff. Know where I can find it? Considering how he’s the most often quoted non-Mormon at General Conference, I think I’d find it rather amusing.
It’s not right to ask others to join you in a boycott? You’ve brought up some history in other comments, so…what about the boycott on tea against the British at the start of the American revolution? The revolutionaries didn’t force anyone not to drink tea (besides dumping a bunch in the river, I suppose). It was a call to action, but it wasn’t a call to action at gunpoint-or-else. It was a community wanting to take a stand against what they saw as injustice. When a writer is involved, what do you do? Boycott his books. When a company is involved, what do you do? Drop their services. You put your money where your mouth is to make a difference, for whatever cause you are fighting for.
What I mean is, there will always be people who wish to boycott or ban books, but unless they’re the Soviets taking away Bibles on pain of death or something of that violent, tyrannically forceful nature, I don’t think it’s a problem.
I don’t have Lewis’ anti-Mormon stuff on hand, but I will see about getting it for you later. He’s not the only anti-Mormon writer, though. Mark Twain was another popular one. And of course there was that evil Mormon Sherlock Holmes mystery.
I think I’ve seen the Sherlock Holmes mystery, or at least heard of it. It looks hilarious. And the confontations between Mark Twain and Brigham Young are also really funny. What I really want to read is Sir Richard Francis Burton’s account of his visit to Salt Lake City back in the 19th century. I downloaded an old trail guide from Project Gutenburg, and it warns not to rely on the hospitality of the Mormons.
I also think that boycotting books is a little different from boycotting products like tea or fur coats or ivory. I think it’s wrong to boycott a book for anything that doesn’t have to do with the actual content of the book. There are clearly people within the SF&F community who aren’t against taking things that far, and if these controversies come down to that, then I think we’ve crossed the line. We haven’t yet, but I’m worried that we may.
Which has less to do with Frenkel and more to do with Resnick and that other guy. With Frenkel, I do think it’s unfair to say that he did a Very Bad Thing without specifying the lines he didn’t cross. Which, from the sound of it, don’t seem to be too many.
The thing about books is that they’re like boxes of diffused ideas. A misogynistic man can’t help but write in a misogynistic fashion, even if it’s not overt. Even if his ideas only seep into his characters and stories sideways.
I think it’s okay for someone to say, “This person’s ideas are dangerous, beware of her.” Or, “Keep xyz in mind when you read this.” Or, “This man’s views on women are offensive/disgusting, perhaps we shouldn’t read them or encourage others to read them. They might think it’s okay to treat them like this.” We are what we read and what we think about. Books shape our views, consciously or unconsciously. And books are written by people. Flawed people, true, but just because someone has written a book doesn’t automatically give the thing merit.
The media’s portrayal of women is deeply flawed and often terrible (coming from written scripts, of course). I think talking about what people write and how they treat women in their writing is a discussion we should have. I think it’s also okay for friends to recommend that books be read or not, based off of these issues and what they find out about the views of the writers.
So, if people do ever suggest it on a personal blog post or decide this is what they want to do, I can understand the impulse. But I doubt it’d go SFWA-wide. We raise our eyebrows at library/parent-banned books far too often as a collective group. You can rest assured and without worry.
But I think that’s besides the point. It seems to me that the point really is that you want to protect them, their lives and livelihoods. You don’t want anyone to speak against them or tarnish their reputations. You don’t want their creations to be shunned. You don’t want them to be hurt. I understand that impulse. It comes from a good place. I, too, hate seeing people suffer. Even when it’s their own choices that brought them to the difficult place they’re in.
But as I said, they will be fine. And if their careers go through a few bumps, think of it as a chance for them to see their mistakes, to learn from them, and become better people thereby. But sometimes people don’t learn until their world is shaken up a bit, and sometimes they need people to call them out on it. Maybe a whole lot of people.
Or who knows. Maybe the only thing they’ll take away from this is that pissed off women are scary or annoying. *snorts* For their sakes, I hope they learn more than that.
As for the “With Frekel, I do think it’s unfair to say that he did a Very Bad Thing without specifying the lines he didn’t cross,” I’m not sure what to tell you. The lady is a writer, she could possibly write out a movie script of the play-by-play, but that would help no one. Not even him. But why are you trying to protect him when it’s clear he’s guilty of sexual harassment? Sexual harassment is sexual harassment. To use a related but more serious offense, it’d be like trying to define rape by penetration vs. climax on a person. No one needs that kind of information shared. Not the victim, not the perpetrator, not the public. It’s serious no matter what the details were. It’s serious if he was drunk. It’s serious if he was sober. It’s serious if he used words only. It’s serious if he touched her in a suggestive way. It’s serious if he implied she should sleep with him in order to get a book published, even if he laughs it off seconds later with lying eyes as a “joke”. The source is trustworthy, and that’s what’s really important in deciding who and what to believe. She’s not blowing a lot of hot air in order to get attention. So it’s not “unfair” of her to say “sexual harassment but no details” as long as it’s a true report. Details are not needed except perhaps in the officials’ hands, which we know they have. You/the public are not entitled to them. The media loves its details and so we’ve grown very used to having them at our fingertips so we can “make our own judgments”, but sometimes they are inappropriate to give.
You’re just going to have to trust the victim’s best judgment on this. You’re going to have to trust the people who were there with her. You’re going to have to trust the HR people. The judgment of the seriousness of the offense is not yours to make.
I know you want to defend them, but you can’t. Let them make their mistakes and let them learn from them. And let people be angry about the unfair treatment of women. Cross your fingers for civility and mostly-level heads, but give them the right and the space to be angry and to talk about what’s wrong.
I have no desire to defend Mr. Frenkel. I just think that if he’s going to be called out, it should be fair.
A lot of people are coming to a lot of conclusions based on a very, very small amount of evidence, and I think that’s dangerous. What’s to stop someone from making false accusations against someone, and getting a bunch of friends together to make it look like a serial problem? I don’t believe that that’s the case here, but I do think that it could happen, and for that reason I think we need to be fair.
My anti-boycotting sentiment about books actually has very little to do with protecting the authors, or protecting their livelihoods. It has a lot more to do with protecting the diversity of ideas. By all means, if you find something in a book that’s objectionable, let people know and discourage them from reading it. But to say “I disagree with your opinions” or “you’re a Very Bad Person,” and use that as a reason to suppress someone’s books, that’s like saying “you did a bad thing, therefore all your children should be punished.” It also turns the community into an echo chamber.
I don’t think that’s happening, and I’m not sure at what stage we are towards making that happen, so perhaps this post was a bit premature. I do think that a small amount of drama on top of everything that’s already happened could push us in that direction, though.
Hmmm. (Insomnia, so I guess I’ll sneak in one more).
I know you’re not defending Frenkel himself or his actions. You know what he did was wrong and you’re not making excuses for him. But you’ve written more worries in these comments about the hypothetical victim that could be someone in Mr. Frenkel’s shoes than the women who are currently being abused by situations as they stand. Also the books and the ideas that could be slashed or victimized in the future, rather than what’s currently being slashed or abused.
Yeah, I agree the post is a bit premature. Right now we don’t have problems with women banding together to lie & destroy men’s reputations/books/lives/careers/whathaveyou. Right now the perpetrators are male and already in positions of voice and power, and it will be some time before women are in a powerful enough position to destroy someone with little evidence and without a thorough investigation made my officials.
You’re right about sexual harrassment cases having little “substantial evidence.” They’re never really done in front of an auditorium full of witnesses. Unfortunately, that’s the nature of the beast. :/
Also, I agree on the prematurity of a concern about book/idea suppression. A boycott done between friends or a small community is a far cry from a much more universal, all publisher&distributor-wide, regulated suppression.
About the convention harassment issue, yes. About the way we seem to be bouncing from one scandal or controversy to the next, I’m not so sure it is. A lot of these thoughts came to me before the Frenkel thing broke, and have more to do with the SFWA bulletin nastiness. Maybe it isn’t fair to lump them all together, but at this point it’s kind of like “well, what’s the new scandal this week?” I don’t think I would be saying any of this if people hadn’t come out with names, and done so in a way that didn’t strike me as very fair.
‘Sup, Joe.
Here is what I’m hearing from this entry:
WOW people sure are upset these days! Everyone’s making a big deal about sexism and sexual harassment! I mean what the heck, people are refusing to sit back and calmly accept half of the community being treated like second class citizens. They have the gall to get openly upset about it as if it’s a serious issue or something! What the heck, man!
I mean sure I guess it’s a problem and some change should happen… someday. Eventually. When we get around to it. But I mean… WHY MAKE WAVES? Look, let’s just leave it to the perpetrators to come together with the victims they’ve had no problem abusing for generations, they’ll work it out somehow! That’s why we give pedophiles teaching assistant jobs, right? They’ll work out a solution if everyone is just calm and civil!
I’m not here to make sure people get their rights, that humans are treated like humans, that people without wieners don’t have to fight tooth and nail to not be dismissed out of hand or straight up assaulted just for daring to enter the SF/F arena. I’m here to read good, fun stories, and you people are blocking the view!
GOSH.
I mean okay, yeah, I already said it’s a problem! But problems take time to fix! Women can just sit down and hush and deal with the day to day harrassment and inequality they face and wait patiently for someone to do something about it! If we keep talking about these issues and making them a big deal, someone is actually going to have to pay attention or take it seriously or do something about it or something and who has time for that! I’m trying to read a book here, man!
And hey, let’s be honest. People who tell stories really can’t tell the difference between reality and fiction. That’s why they’re writing books in the first place! Sure they -think- there’s a problem, but that’s just their big imaginative minds at play. Harassment – ha! Inequality – tut tut! Next they’ll be saying TOR’s hired a glory of unicorns to deal with the slush pile, ho-ho!
And I mean just LOOK at these people who are being dragged through the mud. Famous authors! Important editors! These people have written excellent stories, and if they did that, what does it matter if they’ve harmed women, stood in the way of equality, and actively upheld a system of discrimination and hostility! Can’t we look past those itty bitty trivial character flaws in the name of great entertainment? I mean, come on. Chris Brown still makes great music, right? Right? Just because he wants to beat a girl senseless every once in a while doesn’t make him a -bad person-. Same logic here – these guys are bards of the modern age! Instant carte-blanche. I mean it’s not like people’s attitudes and opinions about women seep into their books and are noticed and absorbed by their readers.
Some people are actually going so far as to be proud of their accomplishments in calling out these problems and helping to bring about change. What exactly do they have to be so proud of, anyway? If they’d just sit down, shut up, and take it; if they’d just accept the way things are and get back to writing stories (which, if they’re female, they’ll probably be extremely underpayed for if they’re ever given a chance at all), we could all go back to acting like there isn’t a problem at all and we’re one big happy family.
I mean heck, I’m a straight white man and I’ve been doing just fine in this community all along! I don’t see what YOUR problem is!
CALM DOWN, PEOPLE! Stop speaking out against oppression and injustice or I’m leaving!
Not to demean your comment, but I must admit, it was rather amusing. 😀 The criticism of my post is fair, though I do think you’re projecting a bit. I should probably try to make my point a little more clear.
I have nothing against people talking out about oppression, injustice, sexism, harassment, or things like that. I commend it, actually. I think we need more people to come out and talk about these problems, so that we as a community can address it. If the controversies alone made me want to leave, I wouldn’t have written this blog post.
What I’m worried about is the sort of reverse-intolerance demonstrated in your comment. I think that Mike Resnick and Jim Frenkel have contributed in a positive way to the community, therefore I must be giving them a carte blanche (I’m not). I think we should focus on the things that bring this community together, therefore I think that women should be silenced or deal with these issues privately (I don’t). I’m a straight white man, therefore I have nothing useful to contribute to this discussion (respectfully, I think I do). In other words, I’m worried that some people (not all) are gearing up for a crusade, and those tend to end badly.
If I could distil what I was trying to say in just a few sentences, it would be this: Guys, let’s deal with these problems, but do so in a way that brings us together rather than drives us apart. Otherwise, what’s the point?
Why, thank you. 🙂
Okay, let’s talk about this idea of ‘reverse intolerance’.
I see this one thrown around a lot. Situation: Women are treated like crap for being women. Women speak up about this, point out problems, call out individuals, and the response is:
HEY, Y’ALL ARE BEING INTOLERANT, CUT IT OUT.
Wait wait wait.
HANG ON.
Refusing to make excuses for victimizers is not intolerance. Pointing out destructive reasoning is not intolerance. Standing up for yourself is not (you guessed it) intolerance.
Actually, let’s first look at what intolerance is.
a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.
b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.
I’m particularly interested in B, here. I’m not trying to not let men participate. I’m not saying OKAY, ALL DUDES. CLEAR OUT, THIS IS MY ARENA NOW, YOU WILL NOT BE HEARD. Lots of dudes are doing AMAZING awesome things to help the cause of equality in our field! Rothfuss, Sanderson, Gaiman, I’m looking at you! Even just dude people regularly going about the business of making cool stories are awesome, I hecks of don’t want them un-included, that would be more of the exact same problem we’re trying to fix in the first place.
Pointing out areas where someone is contributing to the problem, though, is not the same thing as trying to push them out of the genre.
Look at it this way:
So okay, if we go about this by saying: “Hey man, Frenkel did some pretty effed up things to ladies but he’s still a good member of the community. We’re going to condemn that particular set of his actions, but we’re still going to look up to him, we’re still going to respect him,” we are sending a message. We are saying Yeah, you can treat women horribly and still be respected. You can treat women horribly and still be really successful. Maybe you might get a slap on the wrist at some point, but being horrible to women is not going to impact your career because inequality is something we are willing to tolerate. TOLERANCE.
You know what, you’re right about crusades not ending up well. A crusade is a war for a higher cause. It’s a struggle that hopes to overthrow something wicked. For the something wicked getting overthrown, damn straight things are going to end badly. When the something wicked being overthrown is a set of unacceptable attitudes and actions deeply embedded in the culture and old guard of our genre, then yep, it’s going to get ugly, and there’s going to be a mess, but how often has equality been won un-messily? We could probably chat with George Washington, Ghandi, Alice Paul, Dr. MLK Jr., and a score of other crusaders about that.
Women speaking out on this issue are not speaking out against MEN. They’re speaking against the attitudes and behaviors that some men (and heck, some women!) have against women. They aren’t saying MEN, GET OUT. They’re calling for equality. They’re asking that attitudes be examined and changed. They’re asking for the right to be heard. There’s a really big difference there, and it gets overlooked.
I totes agree with your desire to solve these problems and bring the community together. But I don’t want to tip-toe around issues and wait decades for my chance at equality while we slowly, carefully pick at what we already know is a huge problem today.
Fair enough. And I do agree that Mr. Frenkel should be fired, or at least banned from attending all future conventions. But here’s a question for you: are you going to stop reading Mike Resnick? Do his books deserve to be suppressed? How about the books that Frenkel has worked on?
The thing about the crusades (the original crusades) is that they set out to save Jerusalem and destroyed it instead. They also burned Constantinople and made enemies of all the Christians in the Middle East. There’s a reason why Saladin took no prisoners among the Templars and Hospitaliers, and why he beheaded Renauld de Chatillon personally.
So what kind of a crusader are you going to be?
Joe,
I read your post above, and also your retraction in the ‘More Thoughts’ post. Can I suggest that you put a note about the retraction at the top of the post? I found THIS post because of a link off some blog; I might have missed your retraction.
Good idea! Thanks for pointing it out.