Sexism, the current SFWA kerfuffle, and "lady authors.": seanan

Sexism, the current SFWA kerfuffle, and "lady authors."

All right, here are the basics: in the latest issue of the SFWA Bulletin there was an article essentially saying (among many other problematic things) that if I say that taking about my gender as if it somehow makes me an alien creature makes me uncomfortable, I am censoring and oppressing you, rather than just asking that you, you know, stop doing that shit if you want my good feeling and respect.

jimhines has collected links to a wide range of responses and rebuttals. You don't need to read them all, but they're still a good, overwhelmingly unhappy view of a bad situation. I recommend reading at least a few of them, because it'll help you understand what's going on, although for many people, the important points are:

1. This article came after several instances of sexism in the Bulletin.
2. The Bulletin is the official publication of SFWA*, which makes it look like organizationally condoned sexism.
3. It's 2013, for fuck's sake.

One of the things that Resnick and Malzberg, as the authors of the piece in question, objected to was that people were unhappy that they were defining their peers as "lady authors/editors" and "gorgeous." These are, after all, factual definitions! A female peer is a lady peer. A beautiful woman is a beautiful woman. Don't women like being told that they're beautiful? Aren't we supposed to be precise when we talk about people? And to this I say sure, except that your precision is unequal and belittling. "Bob is my peer, Jane is my lady peer" creates two classes where two classes do not belong, and humans are primates, we're creatures of status and position. Give us two things and we'll always start trying to figure out which is superior to the other. Right or left? Up or down? Peer or lady peer? What's more, adding a qualifier creates the impression that the second class is somehow an aberration. "There were a hundred of us at the convention, ninety-nine peers and one rare lady peer."

No. Fuck no. "Bob and Jane are my peers." Much better.

As for the appearance thing...yeah, people often like to be told when they look good. But women in our modern world are frequently valued according to appearance to such a degree that it eclipses all else. "Jane was a hell of a science fiction writer...but more importantly, she was gorgeous according to a very narrow and largely male-defined standard of conventional beauty." All Jane's accomplishments, everything she ever did as a person, matter less than the fact that she got good genes during character generation. You don't think that burns? You don't think that's insulting? "Bob knew how to tell a good story, and he did it while packing an impressively sinuous trouser snake." What, is that insulting? How is it more insulting than "Jane could really fill out a swimsuit"? It's the same thing. If my breasts define my value to the community, you'd better be prepared to hold up your balls for the same level of inspection—and trust me, this is not sexy funtimes inspection, this is "drape 'em in Spandex and brace yourself for a lot of critique that frankly doesn't have a goddamn thing to do with how well you write, or what kind of human being you are." Don't like this idea, gentlemen of the world? Well, neither do the ladies.

It's very telling that you'll get people saying, again, "author and lady author are just true facts," but then getting angry when you say that fine, if they want divisions, it needs to be "male and female author." No! Male is the default the norm the baseline of human experience! How dare you imply anything different!

I, and roughly fifty percent of the world's population, would like to beg to differ. It's just that women get forced to understand men if we want to enjoy media and tell stories, while men are allowed to treat women as these weird extraterrestrial creatures who can never be comprehended, but must be fought. It's like we're somehow the opposing army in an alien invasion story, here to be battled, defeated, and tamed, but never acknowledged as fully human.

Does that seem like a lot to get out of the phrase "lady author"? It kinda is. But that's what happens when the background radiation of your entire life is a combination of "men are normal, human, wonderful, admirable, talented, worth aspiring to," and "bitches be crazy."

Am I disappointed that these sentiments were published in the official Bulletin of the organization to which I belong? Damn straight. It shows an essential lack of kindness on the part of the authors, who felt that their right to call me a "lady author" and comment on my appearance mattered more than my right to be comfortable and welcomed in an organization that charges me annual dues that are the same regardless of gender. Maybe if I got a discount for allowing people to belittle and other me? Only then I would never have joined, because fuck that noise.

At the same time, SFWA is a wonderful organization that has done and is doing a great deal to help authors, and moves are being taken to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. My membership is up for renewal at the end of this month, and I'm renewing, because change comes from both without and within. I am an author. I am a woman. I am not going to shut up and slink away because I feel unheard; if anything, I'm going to get louder, and make them hear me. (Please note that I absolutely respect the women who are choosing not to renew their memberships; voting with your dollars is a time-honored tradition. But everyone reacts differently. For them, this is a principled stance. For me, it would be a retreat. I am the Official SFWA Stabber, and nobody is making me retreat.)

One of the big points of the Resnick/Malzberg article was "anonymous complaints." Fine, then: I am not anonymous. My name is Seanan McGuire. You can look me up.

(*The Science Fiction Writers of America.)

liddle_oldman

June 7 2013, 15:41:36 UTC 4 years ago

New comment

And of course (I appologize if this point has been made in the preceeding discussion) adding "lady" to anything -- lady author, lady doctor, lady repoarter -- implies several things: that these roles are, by nature and by right, male; that a lady filling the role is so unusual it needs to be remarked on; that a woman in these roles is absolutely and irrevocably Other. It also has the sulferous scent of "Isn't she so cute all dressed up in her author suit". It's intrinsically exclusive, demeaning, and infantilizing.

And, for fuck's sake, it's 2013. Writing "amirite or what?" from the depths of 1963 pretty much does for one's dependability anyway.

seanan_mcguire

June 7 2013, 16:14:29 UTC 4 years ago

You are spot-fucking-on.

archangelbeth

June 7 2013, 20:29:39 UTC 4 years ago

*finally has a chance to read all the comments*

I need to see if there's any of your stuff I have not yet bought, so, y'know, I can buy it.

saoba

June 8 2013, 01:30:37 UTC 4 years ago

I'm at the 'who haven't I given one of her books?' stage.

It's a short list.

4 years ago

Charles Ellis

June 8 2013, 00:38:54 UTC 4 years ago

I remember a time when in most fields male was the default norm and being a "Lady X" was a mark of exceptional achievement.

Then again, I remember a time when my mom had to argue long and hard to get her name put on the title to her car that was being paid for with her income. Even the fact that my dad wholly approved had little impact.

Today, my stepdaughters can buy cars and it's not even an issue. It's long past the time when being female in any field of endeavor is worth comment. (Except maybe "sperm donor.")

I will note that men are not entirely free of being on the downside of sexual distinctions. It's amazing how many hits "male nurse" will pull up on a Google News search. Of course, that's largely perpetuated by other men.

June 11 2013, 16:04:36 UTC 4 years ago

Not entirely free, no, but almost all of those gender distinctions are actually tied to misogyny: how DARE you be a man seeking a stereotypically female role?! WE MUST SHAME YOU.

If we get rid of the hatred and dismissal of women, things get better for men, too.

anisosynchronic

legoline

June 8 2013, 17:54:38 UTC 4 years ago

Word on the whole "lady author/lady peers" thing.

It's like when people don't understand why the concept of a specially branded Kinder Surprise for girls upsets me, or the fact that there are a lot of products/things that exist in their "normal" state, and then in another designed for women. It upsets me when people call it emancipation because look at all the shiny things women now get. Now, it's not emancipation or equality. It's sexism. It's singling us out. It's saying, "Here's the thing for normal people, and then here's one for women."

Ugh. It frustrates me so much.

June 11 2013, 17:15:55 UTC 4 years ago

Me, too.

alicetheowl

June 8 2013, 20:29:51 UTC 4 years ago

Just as all this was unfolding, NPR put up a piece on Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who was proposing legislation that would do something about all the rape in the military. The piece contained several references to her cute perkiness, mentioned she's blonde, and may have even used to word, "firecracker."

They edited the piece after some readers complained, but they kept a line where one of her colleagues remarked on how pretty she is.

I have a lot of respect for Gillibrand. I heard a rumor she might run on the Democratic ticket in 2016, and I got all excited. She has good ideas, she works hard, and she doesn't seem beholden to corporate interests as much as a lot of other politicians. And yet, the fact that she's a pretty, petite mom is how she's often defined in the press.

It's infuriating, and it has to stop.

June 11 2013, 17:16:15 UTC 4 years ago

Because we're girls. That's all about us that matters.

Bah.

mouseycat

June 8 2013, 20:40:30 UTC 4 years ago

Dammit I've been on Tumblr too long, my instinctive reaction is to look for the like and reblog buttons

June 11 2013, 17:16:24 UTC 4 years ago

Heh. I get that.

ext_1996559

June 9 2013, 17:00:19 UTC 4 years ago

Party of one over here, standing fucking ovation. <3 it!

June 11 2013, 17:16:38 UTC 4 years ago

capplor

June 9 2013, 22:42:44 UTC 4 years ago

I love you, but I respectfully disagree. The white, het, male, able, .... could NOT do this to women, without managing to convince everybody else to go along because "in THIS sense, I'm a real person"

June 9 2013, 23:04:17 UTC 4 years ago

This is a small part of a HUGE discussion. I cannot and will not moderate every aspect of the discussion; I don't have time. So yes, this post, this conversation, is about the marginalization and othering of women.

ontogenesis

June 9 2013, 22:56:09 UTC 4 years ago

It's like we're somehow the opposing army in an alien invasion story, here to be battled, defeated, and tamed, but never acknowledged as fully human.

It's 2013, and we're still The Other. I thought we'd have flying cars by now, but our society is still trying to wrap its collective brain around the fact that maybe women *are* really human beings, worthy of respect. C'mon, didn't anyone ever watch Star Trek: Infinite diversity in infinite combinations? That's a good thing, not a "kill it with fire!"

Anyway, the positive bit is that people are mobilizing and rallying together to call out this BS. Also, through reading Hines' link post, I found some new female sci-fi authors to check out (and also a few male authors who apparently write good female characters).

June 11 2013, 17:17:01 UTC 4 years ago

At least something good has come of all this!

louise3anne

June 10 2013, 15:27:35 UTC 4 years ago

Wow!
Good for you.
I never heard of The Science Fiction Writers of America, until Chuck Wendig's link sent me to your article.
Disappointing to hear about the comments published In the bulletin.
Great article. Well said.

June 11 2013, 17:24:16 UTC 4 years ago

Thank you.

Another response to the SFWA

livejournal

June 10 2013, 20:11:27 UTC 4 years ago

User

ysabetwordsmith referenced to your post from Another response to the SFWA saying: [...] Why "lady authors" is insulting [...]

retsuko

June 10 2013, 20:57:07 UTC 4 years ago

As usual, you say it so succinctly and perfectly. I am so glad I've discovered your writing as a result of your blog and look forward to reading more in the future. :)

June 11 2013, 17:24:30 UTC 4 years ago

Aw, thank you. :)

Deb Anderson

June 10 2013, 22:08:56 UTC 4 years ago

Thank you for directing me to those excellent responses to the SFWA kerfluffle that were all excellently written and eloquent. I frequently am reading your blog after midnight when I get off work. Which means I then get completely immersed into the threads you connected to and then I'm up til the sun starts appearing over the horizon. Thank you for making me stay up til the wee hours of the morning and making me think.

June 11 2013, 17:24:40 UTC 4 years ago

Very welcome.

thnidu

June 11 2013, 03:21:31 UTC 4 years ago

Bravo, Seanan!

June 11 2013, 17:24:47 UTC 4 years ago

Ta!

rasmusb

June 13 2013, 19:21:21 UTC 4 years ago

I love this statement.
" It's just that women get forced to understand men if we want to enjoy media and tell stories, while men are allowed to treat women as these weird extraterrestrial creatures who can never be comprehended, but must be fought. It's like we're somehow the opposing army in an alien invasion story, here to be battled, defeated, and tamed, but never acknowledged as fully human."

July 25 2013, 17:20:14 UTC 3 years ago

Thank you!

Ah, Speculative Fiction

June 16 2013, 19:02:46 UTC 4 years ago

browngirl referenced to your post from Ah, Speculative Fiction saying: [...] I could write a big long essay about reading aboutrecent developments in the SF publishing community [...]

deire

June 21 2013, 03:38:19 UTC 4 years ago

It's a real shame that when the stupidity burns, it burns the smart folks instead of the source.

July 25 2013, 17:20:24 UTC 3 years ago

Agreed.

fayanora

June 22 2013, 09:58:32 UTC 4 years ago

Silly human meat sacks, so preoccupied with genitalia, as though it makes any real difference. The grey meat is what matters, and it's all essentially the same.