Return Home

An Open Letter to Dave Truesdale

Thursday, June 5th, 2014 | Posted by John ONeill

Dave Truesdale 1997Dear Dave,

I wanted to applaud you for the exceptionally thorough review Tangent Online put together for Lightspeed #49, June 2014, the special “Women Destroy Science Fiction” issue. I was always deeply appreciative of TO‘s detailed reviews of Black Gate — starting with our print issues, and continuing without a hitch when we switched to publishing online — but we never enjoyed anything as elaborate as the 15,000-word round-robin review you assembled for this issue of Lightspeed.

Seriously, kudos. I’m certain it wasn’t easy to coordinate. I’m also glad you recognized just how important this issue of Lightspeed is. John Joseph Adams and guest Editor Christie Yant have assembled what is clearly a landmark issue of one of the most important publications in the genre. You and I have both seen the ridiculous claim that “women have destroyed science fiction”… watching a group of 109 talented women co-opt that phrase and make it their own is uplifting and frankly empowering to both sexes. I know you agree with me on that.

But I think you really put your foot in it with your closing comments, particularly where you say “science-fiction hasn’t a racist or sexist bone in its body… Not once have I personally seen a smidgeon of racism or sexism.”

I have to call bullshit on you, buddy. In those 18 months you were working for me as Managing Editor of Black Gate, from early 2001 to 2002, and while we were buying fiction together, we were blatantly, nakedly sexist — and I think you know it.

Now, I know what you’re thinking. How could I possibly have been sexist? You passed along numerous stories written by women to me for consideration — and in fact, you strongly championed several, urging me to publish them. Established writers like Nancy Varian Berberick, newcomers like Devon Monk, and many, many others. You’ve stated elsewhere that the sex of the writer doesn’t concern you when buying a story, and after working closely with you, I know that to be a fact. No one is challenging your credentials in this regard.

Black Gate issue 1-smallBut here’s the thing: you can buy fiction from women — and even champion them — and still be sexist.

How is that possible? It’s simple. We welcomed women who submitted… as long as they played by our rules. We launched a heroic fantasy magazine — heavy on the sword & sorcery, thank you very much — and crafted guidelines for what we perceived as a masculine, male-dominated sub-genre, and clapped ourselves on the back every time we bought a story from a woman who managed to jump over the bars we set.

But there wasn’t a single woman writer on the table of contents of the fiction section for our very first issue, launched in November 2000.

We certainly didn’t make any special effort to attract women writers (or readers, for that matter). We were sexist by gross omission. Our obsession was with pleasing our audience, whom we somehow believed to be 80-90% male. We took the stereotypes of male adventure fantasy, and codified them in our Submission Guidelines. We were deluged with submissions, and somehow took that as evidence that we were doing something right.

And it hurt us. We didn’t attract women writers the way we should have — the way we needed to. We had a golden opportunity to attract and develop a new generation of Leigh Bracketts and C.L. Moores. And we blew it.

How could we attract women when the subtext of everything we did told them they weren’t welcome? And because we didn’t attract them, we weren’t able to discover and nurture women writers the way we should have. It became a closed loop: we published a huge percentage of male writers, and that in turn told women they weren’t welcome.

Of course, there were many tenacious women who overlooked all that, and sent us stories that were so awesome we had no defense, and had to buy them. Amy Sterling Casil, Devon Monk, Julia Blackshear Kosatka, Ellen Klages, ElizaBeth Gilligan, Elaine Cunningham, Tina L. Jens, many others. Brave souls, all. They have my eternal gratitude.

You know who else has my gratitude? Those men and women who started compiling and reporting statistics on the percentage of women writers in genre magazines. They included Black Gate in one of the first of those reports, scoring us at an abysmal 29%. Here’s how I reacted, as I reported back in 2011 in my article Solaris Rising, Women Falling?

Someone (I honestly forget who) did the math on the first six issues of Black Gate and figured out that I’d published only 15 stories by women, out of a total of 51 – roughly 29%. Right about this time Rich Horton started reporting on the percentage of fiction by women in his yearly short fiction summations. At first I had exactly the same reaction as the old guard – this is a load of crap. I pick the very best stories sent to me; case closed. I deeply resented any implication otherwise, and considered the entire argument a waste of time.

I was, in short, a complete idiot.

All that righteous indignation was preventing me from understanding three important things:
◾it’s not always about editorial taste;
◾it’s only a criticism if you make it one; and
◾while I might not immediately care about those figures, many of my readers cared deeply.

Once I got past all the suspicion that I was being criticized, I realized that I was being given a golden opportunity to improve my magazine, and to understand what my readers cared about. And most importantly, to understand why my magazine wasn’t attracting more female writers.

That was the wake-up call I needed to take a long, hard look at what you and I were doing when we started buying fiction for Black Gate all those years ago, and face up to the mistakes we made.

We were sexist. We didn’t mean to be, we didn’t do it on purpose, we had great intentions. But we were.

The comments section of that article, as I recall, got pretty heated. Some of our steadfast male readers — none with any editing experience, naturally — challenged my reasoning. I’m not going to re-hash all that, but I do want to highlight one critique that came up again and again. A reader named “Black Dynamite” posed it most succinctly, I thought:

Mr. O’Neill, you yourself said: “Sure, I was buying the best fiction I could.”

THAT should be the ONE AND ONLY thing for a magazine editor to take into account.

This was the fallacy at the core of the arguments against me. Disregard all this “sexist” nonsense, O’Neill. As long as you’re buying the best fiction you can, you are unimpeachable. Let the women howl.

I’m not going to re-cap the argument, but I do want to reprint my response to that particular claim. Here it is.

That seems logical on the surface. Let’s try that theory out.

Suppose you start a magazine. Your expert reading skills allow you to pick out the best submissions you get. Suppose you get only 10 submissions, and you select the best five.

People tell you your magazine is crap.

“BUT!” you exclaim. “I was buying the best fiction I could. THAT should be the ONE AND ONLY thing.”

Unfortunately, that’s not enough. Your magazine is still crap, because you’re not attracting the right talent.

So you bust your butt. You advertise your magazine online, you go door-to-door. Finally you get 1,000 submissions.

People tell you your magazine is still crap. You’re not attracting fantasy writers. And they’re right.

So you bust your butt again. This time you advertise in fantasy magazines, go to fantasy conventions. You get 3,000 submissions.

Your magazine is still crap. You’re not attracting enough pros. To get better, you need to pay better rates, solicit up-and-coming authors personally, attract better writers.

Your magazine is getting better.

But now people are telling you your magazine doesn’t have enough women writers.

“BUT!” you exclaim. “I was buying the best fiction I could. THAT should be the ONE AND ONLY thing.”

But you’re not.

You’re only attracting those writers you make an effort to attract. And if you don’t care to make an effort to attract women – and writers of color, and international writers – then you’re only making a half an effort, and your magazine isn’t as good as it could be.

Perhaps you simply don’t care to attract women. That’s your prerogative. But don’t pretend you’re doing everything you could, because you’re not.

And have the courage to admit what you’re doing, instead of shouting “I just select THE BEST POSSIBLE FICTION.” Because that’s not being an editor. That’s just called “reading.”

Here’s my essential point to you, Dave: you don’t have to view what Lightspeed has done in issue #49 as a personal attack on you, or on the field you love so much. You see science fiction being implicitly maligned by all these writers, shouting out cries of “sexism!” and “racism!”, and you rush headlong to its defense. I get it. I do. I know what you’re doing, and in some ways I’m proud of you for it.

But it’s not an attack, buddy. Really, it isn’t. It’s a group of science fiction and fantasy writers who see something that we didn’t, and they’re speaking up about it. More than that, they’re doing something about it in a marvelously positive way.

You didn’t see the sexism in science fiction because, like me, you were part of the problem.

You’re better than that, Dave. I know you are. Most of the men and women writing unflattering articles about you right now — including the talented E. Catherine Tobler, who tells the story of when you called her out of the blue to discuss a story she’d submitted to Black Gate — know you’re better than that, too. They’re just a little cranky with you at the moment.

[And serious kudos for calling Catherine all those years ago, dude. I’m not sure I ever called a writer who submitted an unsolicited manuscript to Black Gate. Talk about going above and beyond the call of duty! You never once complained about your telephone bill, either.]

Anyway, thanks for listening. I know we had our disagreements back in the day, especially after you left Black Gate. We didn’t speak for a few months, then. It was Jay Lake who brought us back together, gentleman that he was.

I know we’ll get past this disagreement, too. I just saw all the things being said in the blogosphere about my old friend Dave Truesdale, and I knew I had to speak up. I know you don’t need me in this fight, but I thought I’d speak up anyway.

Good luck.


  1. John, very nice article. I hope Dave takes it well and with an appropriate attitude.

    I have to admit, when I first began writing full time, I focused on my perceived “masculine, male-dominated” audience, that supposed “80-90% male” group. I did not set out to be sexist, and I suppose one could argue I was not. Either way, I thought I was writing for a very particular audience, so I focused my efforts in that direction.

    It did not take long before I realized my mistake, my many errors. The majority of readers who contact me are, by far, female. I don’t know without adding it all up, but my guess would be the majority of my reviews have been written by females. I feel lucky to have those readers, and I am grateful for them. I’ve yet to receive a complaint about myself or my writing being sexist, but that’s not the point, because my readers have given me the gift of a new way to think. I hope I can give them what they’d like.

    Comment by Ty Johnston - June 5, 2014 3:14 pm

  2. These sort of posts make me glad that I’m not an editor. Good luck to all of you guys that are.

    Comment by James McGlothlin - June 5, 2014 3:16 pm

  3. > I feel lucky to have those readers, and I am grateful for them. I’ve yet to receive a complaint about myself or my writing being
    > sexist, but that’s not the point, because my readers have given me the gift of a new way to think. I hope I can give them
    > what they’d like.


    I think that was more insightful — and more useful — than anything I said in my comments above. Well said indeed, and thanks for sharing!

    Comment by John ONeill - June 5, 2014 3:22 pm

  4. > These sort of posts make me glad that I’m not an editor. Good luck to all of you guys that are.


    Thanks — but it’s not all drama, you know. The con parties are great. :)

    Comment by John ONeill - June 5, 2014 3:23 pm

  5. John, your article and the thrust of it is important and very much needed. Having been through the various gender wars in sf and fantasy, writers are still faced with the truth that people don’t simply buy the best fiction they can find, because when they look for fiction, they may reject fiction written by heterosexual men or women or gay men or women out of hand. If you don’t read the fiction because you are put off by the gender of the writer, then you’ll not know if it’s good. If you read it out of a sense of duty or because your friends are reading it, but you harbor a prejudice, that prejudice will color your reading of that book. Markets are not gender-blind as they are not genre-blind.

    Comment by sacredbander - June 5, 2014 5:20 pm

  6. John, thank you for the tone of your open letter and kind words—sincerely appreciated. Which makes it difficult for me to attempt to set the record straight on several points, but which must be done. John, this is very awkward for me, not pleasant.

    Your repeated use of “we” made me squirm in my seat more than once. As slush reader I was taking all my cues from you as to what you told me you wanted in the fiction department. Sword & sorcery, fantasy adventure, heroic fantasy, all those sorts of stories. I had nothing to do with the decision making process when it came to the specific genre or sub-genres of fantasy fiction you wanted for your magazine. My job as first reader was to try to choose those stories that best fit that bill. Yes, I was billed as Managing Editor for that first issue of BG, but let’s be honest, that job consisted primarily of reading the _fiction_ submissions. I was the slush reader and nothing more. _You_ were the only driving force behind what you wanted to see. Not “we.” I came home from work every day from my non-stop delivery job, tired, and read slush all night for nearly a year. I didn’t have time to go out and solicit material from anyone, save for the rare con or two I went to. And at one con in particular I solicited stories from authors I knew (Jeff Ford for one), and you bought another from a gay writer from whom I solicited a story. But as far as promoting BG to all and sundry, that was your job as publisher/editor.

    While I sent you stories from both men and women I think it should be noted that at least one—and I think a couple more—did indeed have female heroines; they weren’t just stories written by women but otherwise in the “male” mold with male protags, but had actual female protagonists. They were good stories and I’m glad we saw eye to eye on them and you published them.

    So I sorta rankle at all the times you said “we” in your open letter to me. Please don’t acknowledge your own sexism and then tag me with it by using “we.” I think this is extremely unfair. At the start, reading the slush, it was a back and forth process for both of us. You were trying to refine to me what you wanted from the stories I sent your way, and I was trying to refine my selection from what you told me you wanted. Therefore it was natural at first that I would send you pretty much all kinds of fantasy; from them you could winnow it down and let me have a better understanding of what would fit with your vision of what you wanted in BG and what wouldn’t work. It was a very normal process.

    That said, in that exploratory startup process I sent you the best of the slush for your approval or rejection. Stories of all stripes of fantasy (Ellen Klages’ “A Taste of Summer,’ a Nebula nominee and very much a Bradbury-type story and not s&s at all—and with a young female as the lead; and Jeff Ford’s bizarre surrealistic award-winning “Exo-Skeleton Town” which was definitely not s&s or adventure fantasy, either) I sent your way, some written by women and some by men, and some with male protagonists and others with female protagonists. Where does this “we” come in when it comes to this statement (which I use a representative example; a stand in, for all of the other instances where you used “we”): “We certainly didn’t make any special effort to attract women writers (or readers, for that matter). We were sexist by gross omission.” Attracting writers and readers was your job, John. I was busy reading slush. From the slush I gave you female writers and female protagonists where I found them—if the stories were good enough to pass on to you. And several of them _were_ good enough because you published them. I did my job—sometimes going _outside_ of the kind of fiction you said you wanted because the stories were just too good to pass up without letting you see them (again, Klages’ “The Taste of Summer,” Nebula nominee featuring a young female protagonist as the prime example).

    Moving on. You took the next lines out of context: “science-fiction hasn’t a racist or sexist bone in its body… Not once have I personally seen a smidgeon of racism or sexism.” You left off the first two words, words making all the difference in the world. The sentence reads, “The _field_ of science fiction hasn’t a racist or sexist bone in its body.” I purposely emphasized the word “field” to draw a distinction between the greater body of SF and _individuals_ who commit sexist acts and should then be dealt with accordingly. Because SF as a field is one of the most open, diverse, welcoming genres of fiction there is. All groups have problems with a few individuals, but I don’t think it’s fair to tar the entire organization with a sexist or racist label as _some_ are more than wiling to do. That’s all I was getting at. Wasn’t trying to say there was no sexism, racism, or homophobia in the field, but that it centered on a few individuals; the genre of SF by great majority has a fewer number of bad apples than does the “outer” world. This is all I was trying to say. Agree or disagree, but this has been my personal experience. Yet you chose to clip two lines, place them together (…) to present another visual of what I said. That’s not fair.

    Another line from your Open Letter: “How could we attract women when the subtext of everything we did told them they weren’t welcome?” I didn’t tell them anything except, in essence (in 99% of the cases) “I’m sorry this story doesn’t meet our needs,” or “I liked your story very much and am passing it on to the editor for his decision.” No subtext to those statements. And there was no “we” involved.

    This has gone on too long and I don’t have the energy to go through your letter line by line, but I think you get the gist from my examples of where I think you missed the boat. Again, and sincerely, thank you for the kind words. As for the rest of it, speak for yourself and please don’t include me in your own personal admission of sexism when all I did was read the slush, and send you the kind of stories you said you wanted to see—except for those few times when a story I knew wouldn’t fit was so good I had to let you see it anyway; one of which was, again, written by a female, with a female protagonist, and an eventual Nebula nominee (and an early feather in BG’s cap). As publisher/editor you were the head honcho and promoter of BG. It was your baby. You set the tone and atmosphere. I read the slush and did the best I could. I didn’t promote any sexist attitudes by _reading the slush_.

    And here’s one last line I take great issue with: “You didn’t see the sexism in science fiction because, like me, you were part of the problem.” Horse-hockey. Speak for yourself. I never bloody said _instances_ of sexism never occurred at any SF function, but if you factor in that there’s been an SF con of some sort or other pretty much every weekend in the U.S. for a good 3 decades, and all of the hundreds of thousands of fans (easily millions by now) who have attended them, the odds are that 99% of _everyone_ hasn’t spotted any sexism either. It doesn’t _make_ one a sexist or “part of the problem” because one hasn’t seen or experienced any, for ghod’s sake. What kind of sane logic leads to that conclusion?

    It was a lot of work but also a lot of fun being first reader for BG, and I do thank you for the opportunity and experience. It was a great experience to have been a small part of, and I certainly enjoyed reading the stories. You and BG, the writers and fans all gave BG a good run and you have earned a lot of well deserved credit for it.

    I’ve said pretty much all I needed to say in this post, so I doubt if I’m up for any protracted back and forth. My full opinion on these issues can be found at the special Lightspeed review Tangent Online has posted.

    Be well, John. You’re a sincere, well-meaning man at heart, and this is a very good thing.

    PS: I ask that anyone wishing to reply to any of my comments, please read the Tangent Online special Lightspeed review first, and my “Closing Thoughts by the Editor” before posting here. It will save all parties immeasurable amounts of time, energy, and frustration. Thanks.

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 5, 2014 7:01 pm

  7. > If you read it out of a sense of duty or because your friends are reading it, but you harbor a prejudice, that prejudice will color your reading


    Well said. But I still believe that nothing obliterates prejudice like being widely read (and widely traveled, but being widely read is much cheaper!)

    Comment by John ONeill - June 5, 2014 9:06 pm

  8. Dave,

    Thanks for the thoughtful response. You’re absolutely right that I set the editorial direction of the magazine, and the ultimate fault for sexism at any level was mine.

    Though to be honest, you weren’t simply the slush reader though, were you? You were the Managing Editor, with full authority to speak on behalf of the magazine — which you did, frequently, with announcements on the BG newsgroup, and in all your dealings with hundreds of writers. I remember the 18 months we worked together to launch the magazine as a fairly collaborative affair; I’m sorry you feel you were no more than “the slush reader.”

    > As for the rest of it, speak for yourself and please don’t include me in your own personal admission of sexism

    I have to admit that I’m more than a little surprised that, while you don’t dispute my characterization of our behavior as sexist, you sincerely believe you came out of it lilly white. If that’s true, why didn’t you call me on it? Why didn’t you say something? You certainly had no qualms arguing with me on virtually every other aspect of the magazine.

    But I won’t harp on that. I have more important things to discuss.

    Dave, one of the things I recall best about our time together was how hard you worked. You had a really fine reputation — it was one of the reasons I reached out to you for help when I started Black Gate. You acted with scrupulous integrity, and everyone I met spoke highly of you — and I mean, _everyone_. You had built a lasting legacy in the field with Tangent Online, the SFWA Bulletin, and numerous other projects. You worked diligently to build on that legacy, and I know how important it was to you.

    Dave, I have been increasingly dismayed to find that your reputation is sorely tarnished. When I stumble across a mention of Dave Truesdale these days, it’s not due to your tireless efforts with Tangent Online or elsewhere. No, among many other things, you’re known as the man who suggested Tempest Bradford needed “an emergency bitch-suction operation” for daring to make accusations of sexism, or for your angry petition against perceived political correctness in SFWA, or for loudly challenging the very assumption that sexism still exists in science fiction. In short, you have a reputation for attacking people — especially women — and sometimes in some pretty appalling ways.

    Over and over again Dave — at conventions, on blogs, in e-mail messages — when I encounter your name these days, it’s not with the respect you once commanded. You still have a legacy inside the genre. But it’s as a man who is widely and profoundly disliked.

    And that’s not fair. Frankly, it makes me mad. Truly, I can think of only a handful of fans who’ve contributed to this genre the way you have.

    But boy, Dave…. you have really pissed off a lot of folks. I mean, a LOT OF FOLKS. And right at the moment, they are the ones defining how Dave Truesdale will be remembered when he’s gone. And it ain’t going to be pretty.

    Now, I screwed up as editor at Black Gate, especially in the early years. I made a lot of mistakes. But I’m trying hard to atone for them. To face up to what I did, and to talk about it honestly; here, and elsewhere.

    Perhaps you truly are different than I am, Dave. Perhaps you didn’t make a single mistake when you worked at Black Gate, and there isn’t a sexist bone in your body.

    Or perhaps — just maybe — we were both a little bit guilty. And perhaps you’re having some trouble facing it, because of the hard line stance you’ve taken for so long, and because you’ve made so many enemies with long knives and longer memories, who are just waiting for a moment of weakness to pounce.

    Only you can decide which it is. My advice, if you’re willing to listen? Take a long hard look at what we did. Take credit for your successes — and they were many! — and admit your mistakes. Ultimately, I think you’ll find you’ll learn a lot more from the mistakes you admit to.

    I know I have.

    Peace, brother.

    Comment by John ONeill - June 6, 2014 12:31 am

  9. “How is that possible? It’s simple. We welcomed women who submitted… as long as they played by our rules. We launched a heroic fantasy magazine — heavy on the sword & sorcery, thank you very much — and crafted guidelines for what we perceived as a masculine, male-dominated sub-genre, and clapped ourselves on the back every time we bought a story from a woman who managed to jump over the bars we set.”

    this may be the all time dumbest thing I have EVER heard an editor say…. an that is really saying something.

    By your logic the women who run publishing houses that produce dime store romance novels must also be sexist towards all men.

    After all they built a publishing line of romance novels — heavy on the heaving bosoms & throbbing loins, thank you very much — and crafted guidelines for what they perceived as a feminie, female-dominated sub-genre.

    Those sick, sexist monsters.

    Its almost like that’s what a magazine & its editor does. They create a property around a specific genre or sub-genre & then you as the editor choses the material that is suitable for the publication.

    That’s not sexism, that’s freedom of choice, as in “I choose not to read your publication because it doesn’t interest me.” That doesn’t mean you bend over backwards changing what your publication is about to attract me, the same way dime store romance publishers don’t suddenly start to do so.

    Because if its sexist when you do it, it must also be even more sexist when they do it since there are more of those kinds of publishers.

    Or are you going to try to be the next champion of the holy order of “its only sexist when men do it.”

    Comment by matthew_lane - June 6, 2014 1:59 am

  10. If someone else chooses to be sexist or racist, that is their responsibility. They are the ones who have to look themselves in the mirror every morning. Each of us can only choose how we want to act, how we want to be and what we personally want to stand for. If we make mistakes we may not be able to make amends, but we can try.
    Thanks John for all you do on the behalf of your bloggers and readers. I’m in both categories and grateful for your past help.

    Comment by Barbara Barrett - June 6, 2014 3:28 am

  11. Note: writing this in good faith, and uninterested in a public filleting of any of the people involved. Also uninterested in a flame war.

    Even upon a cursory reading of the review, a couple of things are apparent:

    1) While one of the reviewers claims to have never seen an incident of sexism within the genre, the review itself textually manifests sexism. It *is* an example of sexism in the genre. It’s got mansplaining, tokenism, at least one gendered insult, tone policing…

    2) The fact that the reviewers don’t seem to understand that reflects a flawed understanding of what sexism is. Also unsurprising, given that most people have a flawed understanding of what sexism is. I’ve been a self-declared feminist since I was twelve — going on twenty years now — and I couldn’t have given you a solid definition before, oh, 2012 or so.

    And moving on from there:

    3) If there is a single person on Earth that has not perpetuated sexism against women, I’d sure like to meet him or her.

    4) That’s right — her. Sexism is so prevalent, so insidious, that women often internalize it. So much so that yours truly, a self-declared feminist since seventh grade, still slips up and uses a gendered slur, and as recently as a few years ago slut-shamed another woman or three.

    5) Because, you see, we are bombarded with sexist messages from our culture constantly, from the media and government and water cooler conversation and etc. An example: have you ever noticed how quickly criticism of a female public figure turns to her looks? Being a woman makes it easier to recognize sexism, but it provides little to no defense against absorption of paradigms such as that.

    6) Which is why I’m uninterested in filleting these guys, and also disagree with the above commenter that being sexist is entirely a matter of choice. Sure, being a raging misogynist is a choice, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. There’s a continuum. Ridding oneself of sexism takes work, especially for cisgendered men, who are handicapped in this by the blind spots male privilege affords them.

    7) Thus I applaud the OP, and hope that the reviewers can stop with the knee-jerkery long enough to read some Feminism 101.

    8) I’m not sure if science fiction is more or less sexist than other genres, and I also don’t think it matters. Its presence hurts both the genre as a whole and women within it.

    9) I entirely disagree with the review’s conclusion. It’s the sexism in genre that drives people away, not talking about it. If anything, elevated consciousness about the issue is likely to attract female fans rather than repel them, IMO.

    10) Because women generally don’t have the luxury of not experiencing, witnessing, and noticing sexism. For me anyway, the fact that other people in the SF/F community will notice it and call it out gives me the courage to stick around.

    Comment by cecilykane - June 6, 2014 4:56 am

  12. John: what a brilliant blog post. Thank you for giving me a little more faith in the world. I am very proud of Black Gate right now.

    Comment by Derek Kunsken - June 6, 2014 7:07 am

  13. “Just the slush reader”?

    I call bull-pucky.

    Hi, no one knows me. I’m Nathan. I’m the Managing Editor at the Drabblecast and the Assistant Editor at Escape Pod. (It’s the same job, really. With the same head editor these days, which is more of a weird coincidence than anything else.)

    Now, I refer to myself as the King of the Slush-Monkeys, because my job in many ways is primarily about filtering the slush to a few choice bits for editorial selection, but that’s a self-deprecating joke. J-O-K-E. If I’m not more than a slush-reader, well, that’s my fault for being a lazy asshole, and more pertinently, it’s still the key, central position for determining the character of a magazine that runs unsolicited submissions. I am the one who sees the raw material we have to work with. I’m the one who decides which authors even get a shot at the brass ring of publication. Being a gatekeeper is Srs Bzns and is not “just” anything.

    And when we find out (as Escape Pod did recently) that our published ratio is almost seventy percent male, well, that’s on me, too. Even if I read the slush blind (and I generally do – not out of principle, but just because of the way threaded e-mail works and because at this point cover letters are like banner ads to me: I don’t even perceive them unless I force myself), if we’re getting a skewed ratio, then the problem is that we’re *not bringing in as many submissions as we could*. If we want better stories, we need more options. If you’re panning for gold, you don’t refuse to run certain types of silt through your pans because someone once told you that kind of dirt never has gold in it. You darned well put all the dirt you can through your filters because you are looking for GOLD and when you FIND gold you will be SO HAPPY for SERIOUS.

    Anyway. This blog post was excellent. Mr. Truesdale’s response to it was self-pitying nonsense, and that’s coming from a man who has been doing the exact same job description as he had for a combined total of five or six years, between the two ‘zine/podcasts. I had to register just to comment on what a jackass comment he left. I may not use my own power and position to accomplish anything useful, but that doesn’t mean it’s the fault of the position. Managing Editors of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your bizarre self-esteem issues and whining excuses!

    P.S. – Plz send more science fiction stories to Escape Pod, authors who are female! *waves semaphore flags, does a little jig* If you could see what our slushpile looks like, you’d send us your stories out of pity!

    Comment by Nathaniel Lee - June 6, 2014 8:20 am

  14. […] Dave Truesdale responds to criticism made of him by a man! And is kind of gross while doing it (he keeps trotting out a story by Ellen Klages like it’s some sort of trophy). Here’s a pastebin of the comment in case the white on black at Black Gate makes your eyes bleed. […]

    Pingback by Links: 06/06/14 — The Radish. - June 6, 2014 10:30 am

  15. > By your logic the women who run publishing houses that produce dime store romance novels must also be sexist towards all men.


    I’m not going to judge how other editors run their houses, thanks. I ran a magazine for a long time. It was a true labor of love, and I appreciate just how much blood and sacrifice goes into running a publication, and a business. I’ve made enough mistakes of my own that I don’t really feel equipped to judge sexism when I haven’t seen evidence first hand.

    However, you’re clearly prepared to pass judgment so, please, share your wisdom with us. And by all means, please continue to call us “dumb” and use other insults, as nothing works better to sharpen our appetite to learn.

    I await your further wisdom with breathless anticipation.

    Comment by John ONeill - June 6, 2014 11:43 am

  16. > Thanks John for all you do on the behalf of your bloggers and readers. I’m in both categories and grateful for your past help.

    And thank you, Barbara. Which reminds me! When will we see another of your excellent posts? Don’t make me drive down to Texas to ask. :)

    Comment by John ONeill - June 6, 2014 11:45 am

  17. > There’s a continuum. Ridding oneself of sexism takes work, especially for cisgendered men,
    > who are handicapped in this by the blind spots male privilege affords them.


    Splendidly, splendidly said, and I wish I’d made the same point.

    Sexism isn’t a binary condition. The world isn’t divided into those who are sexist, and those who aren’t. We all exhibit sexist behaviors, and becoming aware of them and being constantly vigilant against them is the best defense.

    > It’s the sexism in genre that drives people away, not talking about it. If anything, elevated consciousness
    > about the issue is likely to attract female fans rather than repel them

    Bingo – and exactly right.

    Thank you, Cecily.

    Comment by John ONeill - June 6, 2014 11:50 am

  18. > Thank you for giving me a little more faith in the world. I am very proud of Black Gate right now.

    Derek – thanks for the support. There was a brief moment after I posted this when I regretted doing it, and thought it would be grossly misinterpreted. I’m very grateful that hasn’t happened.

    Comment by John ONeill - June 6, 2014 11:51 am

  19. > I’m Nathan. I’m the Managing Editor at the Drabblecast and the Assistant Editor at Escape Pod.

    Welcome, Nathan. Thanks for your comments.

    > Plz send more science fiction stories to Escape Pod, authors who are female! *waves semaphore flags, does a little jig*

    And to everyone else: THIS IS HOW YOU DO IT. Was that hard? No. But this is the kind of attitude you need for your publication to be perceived as open towards women.

    For the first four years we were in business, Black Gate never did this. It was a huge mistake. We were perceived by some as a market hostile to women, and WE DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. Please, don’t make this mistake yourself.

    Nathan, I wished you’d worked for us, all those years ago. Keep reading slush, my friend. And may you find many treasures!

    Comment by John ONeill - June 6, 2014 11:55 am

  20. For what it’s worth to anyone–and I’m sure it won’t be worth anything to those who are bound and determined to tar and feather me regardless of what I say–I was also at the same time I was slush reader for BG, was editor of the SFWA Bulletin and editing Tangent. I was trying to juggle three important positions at once. Not whining, just explaining the situation.

    I’ll stick to my belief that it was not my role to be the primary front man in promoting BG to the world, and to let folks know what we were about, the kind of fiction sought, etc.

    When I did have the opportunity to make it to a con or two I did my best to convey to those I asked for a possible contribution what John told me he was looking for.

    John mentions those who now dislike me for my certain stances on this issue. All I can say is that when you consider the sources then I’m not too worried about what they think. There are plenty of people who agree with much, if not all, I’m trying to get across to folks, who understand where I’m coming from, and whose opinions I respect much more than those who make no attempt whatever to give an honest reading or understanding of what I’ve been saying over the past few years. They choose to misunderstand, and then make it their life’s mission to destroy the messenger or anyone else who disagrees with their sometimes radical viewpoints, that even some in the feminist community disagree with and choose to distance themselves from.

    I think the definitions of feminism and what constitutes it today are so general and so broad and so all-encompassing, that the game is rigged so that just about _anyone_ can be accused of some form of it, to the point where people are afraid to speak about it, or try to rationally discuss it, for fear of being accused of sexism by those who control the very language and definitions.

    Theodore Sturgeon’s famous line comes to mind: “Ask the next question.” Well, I ask Who sets the definitions of what is considered sexist today? Some revered person in the feminist community who wrote a book about the feminist ideology? Do a couple of outspoken members of the feminist community write their theories of what _they_ believe is sexist? Are these theories just picked up then by other feminists and touted as consensus truth? I mean, who sets policy and is this policy never to be examined or challenged, and has it evolved over time to the point where certain new “code words” are deemed sexist if used by otherwise well-meaning folks, even other feminists?

    Forgive me for not just accepting every new dictum that comes down the line from this or that feminist blogger. Like we tell ourselves in other areas of our life, whether it be politics or religion or anything else: challenge the authority, go to the source, do your homework, decide for yourself what works for you–or doesn’t.

    If asking hard questions about what constitutes sexism or a true understanding of feminism and the why and wherefores of its goals, and by what authority we’re supposed to _accept_ such rules of behavior–down to how we must speak and act… If merely asking difficult questions labels one as sexist, then we’re in big trouble.

    Sturgeon exhorts us to Ask the next question, but a certain subset of feminism wants to make this a sexist offense and seeks to destroy any earnest questioner by making them out to be enemies and something to be marginalized and shouted down at all costs.

    Is this the way it is to be, in of all places the science fiction community, where to rebel against authority is the norm for many among us? No one likes to be told or forced what to do or say, yet a _certain subset_ of the legitimate feminist community tries to squelch serious questions aimed their way by any means at their disposal.

    And it’s not right, regardless of how just or noble any cause is, which the basic tenets of feminism are.

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 6, 2014 12:11 pm

  21. John wrote: “I don’t really feel equipped to judge sexism when I haven’t seen evidence first hand.”

    But John, when I said the same thing about not personally seeing any sexism first hand at conventions, certain feminist bloggers jumped all over my case, and even you said that maybe it was because I wasn’t looking for it. I caught all kinds of grief when I said it.

    And now you turn right around and say the very same thing, that you can’t judge the sexism because you hadn’t seen any first hand experience of it?

    I happily offer you this rope so you can climb out of the hole you just dug for yourself. :-)

    And, because there’s no hypocrisy in the radical feminist community at all and they always play fair, I wonder if the same people who gave me the bizness for my assertion will give you the bizness as well. Or if certain offenders–at their sole discretion–will get a pass…

    I wouldn’t worry about it, though. You can always nuance and massage what you said and all will be forgiven.

    Just sayin’.

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 6, 2014 12:33 pm

  22. > And now you turn right around and say the very same thing, that you can’t
    > judge the sexism because you hadn’t seen any first hand experience of it?

    Sorry, Dave. I happen to think there’s a difference between being asked to pass judgment on sexism among people and an entire industry I’m not familiar with, and commenting on sexism that occurred when you and I were doing it.

    I realize the difference may escape you. But it doesn’t escape me.

    Comment by John ONeill - June 6, 2014 12:44 pm

  23. […] Nathaniel Lee: […]

    Pingback by » Encouraging diversity – an editor’s perspective - June 6, 2014 1:16 pm

  24. Please stop using me as your poster child, and get your facts straight.

    1) You did not reacue “A Taste of Summer” from the slush pile. John O’Neill asked me if I’d send him a story, and I did.

    2) That story was never nominated for a Nebula, or any other award.
    (I’m fond and proud of it, but do not give it airs it did not earn,)

    — Ellen Klages

    Comment by ellenklages - June 6, 2014 1:31 pm

  25. I love (what I see as) your more mature attitude toward the genre. There’s a very straight forward reflection of this in the English blog Pornokitsch, which is reviewing all ten of the novels on the Gemmell long list in accordance with ten or so criteria.

    The final criterion:

    Is it a reactionary piece of shit? As always, if a book is bubbling over with race- or gender-fail, I think we should call it out. This is a simply a matter of the award’s dedication to excellence. I think many of the finalists over the past few years have demonstrated that epic fantasy can be suitably epic and fantastic and successful without pandering to the failmarket.

    I LOVE the word failmarket. No pandering to the failmarket… Words to put on the masthead.

    Comment by Tulkinghorn - June 6, 2014 1:48 pm

  26. Hey Ellen!

    Great to see you here. I loved your article/speech on “The Scary Ham!”

    And, um, y’know, I appreciate you giving me credit for soliciting a story directly from you. I just wish I had the same memory.

    To be honest, I have the same memory as Dave… that he gave me “A Taste of Summer,” and confessed it was way outside the guidelines I’d given him, but that he begged me to read it.

    In fact, if I remember correctly, you and I didn’t meet until the World Fantasy Convention, at the Black Gate launch party — where you entertained us all with tales of the Tiptree auction at Wiscon. By that time, I think I’d already purchased “A Taste of Summer.”

    Sorry if my memory is faulty… those e-mails are long gone, or I would double-check!

    Comment by John ONeill - June 6, 2014 2:30 pm

  27. Ellen, please accept my apologies. Obviously my memory has done me a severe disservice. Did you send your story to me or John? Did it perhaps make the Nebs prelim list for that year and this is what I was thinking of? I didn’t just make my–obviously wrong–claim up today, but have thought this was the case with your story for years.

    To the absolute best of my recollection (and that was what, a good 15 years ago now) I know I read your story because I then discussed it with John due to its decidedly non-heroic fantasy/s&s nature.

    Extreme mea culpa and apologies. (It was still a feather in BG’s cap to have published it.)

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 6, 2014 2:46 pm

  28. It was a long time ago, and memories are tricky things.

    No, John, we’d not yet met, but you had talked to a friend at a con and said you’d like to see a story from me, and she passed that information on, and I thought I was sending it directly to you.

    Perhaps not. Once it left my mailbox, I don’t know what process it went through. I was surprised and pleased when you bought it, though.

    – Ellen

    Comment by ellenklages - June 6, 2014 3:34 pm

  29. I think I had Ellen’s story mixed up with another of BG’s early stories, one that at least made the 2002 Nebula Preliminary ballot: Eileen Cunningham’s “Iron Joan.” Credit where credit is due, and in this case it goes to Eileen Cunningham for her fine short story, one that also came from the slush—but I wouldn’t swear to it. :-)

    The Nebs information on “Iron Joan” can be found here:

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 6, 2014 3:41 pm

  30. Er, make that Elizabeth Gillgan as the author of “Iron Joan.” Shesh, what a day!

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 6, 2014 3:45 pm

  31. Dang it. “Gilligan” and “Sheesh.” Time for a break from the computer I think…

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 6, 2014 3:47 pm

  32. Thanks, John!

    I see I failed to leave an impression on Mr. Truesdale, so allow me to elucidate.

    If you ask different women what sexism is, you’ll likely get different answers. Because, y’know, we’re individuals with different opinions and stuff. Though I think there is general consensus in feminism that sexism is essentially this:

    1) Man = good, woman = not good. (Phrase originally coined by feminist blogger Sady Doyle.) Feel free to substitute virtually any adjective that can be used to describe personal attributes positively in place of “good” — smart, capable, etc. Further, “man” and “woman” extends to “man stuff” and “woman stuff,” whether that “stuff” has a direct association with women (e.g. childbirth) or a cultural association with women (e.g. romance novels).

    2) The privileging of a man’s experience, viewpoint, or authority over a woman’s when there isn’t a defensible, inherently logical reason for it (e.g. the topic is medicine and he’s a pharmacist while she’s an advertising executive).

    I don’t think it’s that what constitutes sexism has changed over time (though some words do change meaning of course; language is fluid and dynamic). It’s that the world has changed over time. Thirty or forty years ago, marital rape was still legal in many states. They were fighting different battles, and feminists have to pick them in order to stay sane.

    Now, I could take an example of something sexist from a review of Mr. Truesdale’s (there’s at least one other besides the review under discussion), not to excoriate but to illustrate why it is problematic and how it hurts women, but as I wrote earlier, I’m profoundly unmotivated to risk a flame war.

    However, as I also wrote earlier, the reviewers in question (as well as many other menfolk and some women, too) would benefit in their understanding from some Feminism 101. I’m linking a source here that I’m not affiliated to in any way. The individual post that I’m linking goes over the definition of sexism and also covers both benevolent sexism and unintentional sexism, and the entire site is a great 101 resource; I learned a lot from it:

    The last line is appropriate (for my case; MMV certainly):

    “In the end, though, the important thing to remember is that sexism is defined by the result, not the intent so when people are called out for having said something sexist, it’s not a comment on their intent or character, but rather on the message that was conveyed.”

    Comment by cecilykane - June 6, 2014 4:43 pm

  33. Interesting article, Cecily. I don’t know if I’ll remember every detail of it because it gets into the tall grass, definition-wise, and there’s subsets of what constitutes sexism for certain situations, etc.

    I did notice that in the Comments section following the article that several of the responders did not agree with some of the assumptions/premises upon which some of the definitions of sexism are based. Which tells me that the discussion is still very fluid and ongoing and what is for the moment a consensus on this or that definition of sexism might very well not be in the future as the discussion evolves and new points are brought up, or new books written on the subject.

    I also noted that following a definition of sexism, that in several areas there were caveats, the gist of which was that while what is considered sexism by some is not necessarily so for others. So there’s plenty of wiggle room on the individual level in several of the definitions put forth, and even debate on what constitutes institutionalized sexism (see several of the respondents’ comments).

    But I am pleased that you pointed us toward it, and I am glad I read it. There’s some of it I agree with and some I don’t. But it is definitely worth a close look.

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 6, 2014 6:00 pm

  34. First an observation, somewhat tangential to the discussion of sexism. A small press editor of my acquaintance relatively recently updated her guidelines to say she was specifically welcoming diverse fiction. She always had been in her own mind, and her guidelines had never said anything to imply they were UNwelcoming.

    And yet, once she added that line, she got, in a matter of months, a greater quantity of fiction from PoC and non-standard cultures than she had got in ALL the YEARS prior to it.

    Similarly, It’s easy and nice to say that not being overtly sexist means one is welcoming. That’s not, sadly, how it works for a lot of people.

    (I always liked Black Gate. I mostly didn’t submit because I write few short stories, and fewer of those are S&S. But I have been a reader.)

    Comment by Lenora Rose - June 6, 2014 7:16 pm

  35. And a point perhaps more on the topic of sexism: if your argument that your behaviours have never actually been sexist depends on debating the exact definition of sexism? The chances are, you’ve crossed the line, intentionally or accidentally, more than once for well over half your audience. This is not a subject where being an edge case is genuinely stretching boundaries, the way edgy slipstream magical realism stretches the boundaries of fantasy. Most often, it’s more of a no true Scotsman fallacy instead.

    Comment by Lenora Rose - June 6, 2014 7:16 pm

  36. “We were perceived by some as a market hostile to women”

    The association wit Theodore Beale didn’t help

    Comment by Baldanders - June 6, 2014 7:49 pm

  37. You would have made a fine Jacobin, Mr. O’Neill.

    Comment by Tyr - June 6, 2014 9:54 pm

  38. I have a question. What is the overall percentage of male to female writers of S&S or Science Fiction as a whole? To me this is the number that would determine whether or not a publication is sexist in the submissions it accepts. If the overall percentage of male to female writers in S&S is 70% and 30% respectively then this is the ratio that a publication needs to maintain to be fully compliant with non-sexism in it’s submission acceptances.

    Are we getting ridiculous yet?

    Comment by CMR - June 6, 2014 10:05 pm

  39. Imagine a reader who grows up on C.L. Moore’s Jirel of Joiry stories, Tolkien right down the the last drop of the Silmarillion, and Marion Zimmer Bradley’s Sword and Sorceress anthologies, among other fantastical things. She’s interested in swords, certainly, and sorcery, certainly, but the first book she picks up that looks like S&S turns out to be one of John Norman’s Gor novels. Well, that’s nothing she wants to read, and cover art that looks like the stuff on Gor books becomes a red flag to her for which other books will be hateful, about her and everyone like her.

    Later, in college, she hasn’t read any Robert E. Howard yet, but her kindhearted geeky boyfriend persuades her to watch the classic Conan film with that bulky Swiss guy playing the lead. What is good in life, Conan? Yes, it’s funny to hear Schwarzenegger talk about hearing the lamination of the woman in that accent he hasn’t quite ironed out, but later, when our reader holds a volume of Howard in one hand and volume of Le Guin in the other and decides which book to buy, she thinks about what kind of character would regard the lamentation of the woman as a third of what is good in life. So which book does she buy?

    She keeps trying to go to conventions, because that’s where her social circle goes, but after the 20th time she gets groped by some stranger and nobody has her back when she protests loudly, she leaves fandom for 15 years, and for most of that time takes refuge in, of all things, modernist poetry. Because after the Silmarillion and a few rounds with H.P. Lovecraft, even the insane Cantos of Ezra Bleeping Pound cannot be daunting.

    Fifteen years later, she gets over her unrequited crush on fantasy literature and returns to the sf/f community to see what it’s up to. And what kind of conversation do you suppose she finds there? No girls can be real geeks, because some girls read romance novels.

    Right, then. Joss Whedon fandom is looking better and better to our reader. The fact that she’s still curious about Sword and Sorcery at all suggests that her interest is either extraordinarily committed or tragically compulsive.

    Does such a reader count, in your view, as a reader of Sword and Sorcery? If this person doesn’t count as a reader of Sword and Sorcery, might sexism have something to do with it? You, the arbiter, might not be sexist, but a whole bunch of other people’s sexism has been in play here.

    Suppose, for the sake of argument, that right now, this evening, the overall ratio of male to female writers in S&S is 70% and 30% respectively. Each one of those writers has been living some kind of life, involving some kind of personal experience, in the years leading up to this moment. So has each one of the people who considered being a writer of Sword and Sorcery, but who is now doing or writing something else. Is it ridiculous for an editor to consider how the ratio might have gotten that way?

    Comment by Sarah Avery - June 7, 2014 12:44 am

  40. “I’m not going to judge how other editors run their houses, thanks.”

    Sure you are. The second you made a positive assertion & announced that this positive assertion was sexism, you essentially made a statement about how other publishers run there publishing imprints.

    An just in case you forgot the objective qualifiers for sexism you made, let me list them for you.

    “We welcomed women who submitted… as long as they played by our rules.”

    So you only allowed women in if there work matched your sub-genre.

    “We launched a heroic fantasy magazine — heavy on the sword & sorcery, thank you very much — and crafted guidelines for what we perceived as a masculine, male-dominated sub-genre,”

    You created a property about a specific sub-genre.

    “clapped ourselves on the back every time we bought a story from a woman who managed to jump over the bars we set.”

    You adequately judged properties on the basis of being within that specific set of criteria, as set up by yourselves, to get only the best example of that genre.

    So using your own criteria for what is sexism in the print industry, you must also be calling out every publisher of dime store romance novels.

    This would include: Avalon Books, Barbour Publishing, Cerriowen Press,
    Champagne Books, Changeling Press,
    Dorchester Publications, eHarlequin, Hearts on Fire Books, ImaJinn Books,
    Medalion Press, Moonlit Romance,
    Mundania Press, New Concepts Publications, Rocky River Romance, Rogue Publications, Sihoutte Books, Silver Lake Publications, Tigress Press, Triskelion Publishing, Venus Press, Vintage Romance Publishing, Whisper Publishing, Wild Horses Press & finally, Wild Rose Press.

    After all, they all publish only dime store romance novels, they think they appeal to a mostly female audience, they have a criteria for entry that means authors must write to that specifically female audience: So tell me, given that it falls into all the categories you PERSONALLY announced where sexists, is it sexism? Or are you seeking to pick up the champion title for the holy order of “its only sexism when men do it.”

    “I’ve made enough mistakes of my own that I don’t really feel equipped to judge sexism when I haven’t seen evidence first hand.”

    Well now you have evidence: I’m telling you romance novel publishers all fall within your given criteria, so stop with the obfuscating & have the backbone to answer clearly: Are romance publishers sexist, given that they fall within all the criteria you personally just labelled as sexism?

    Comment by matthew_lane - June 7, 2014 1:21 am

  41. Loose Ends Department:

    I’d like to put into perspective and clear up something John quoted me as saying. To wit, John copied the following quote, that I “suggested Tempest Bradford needed ‘an emergency bitch-suction operation’ for daring to make accusations of sexism.”

    This is an accurate quote. I said it. I daresay I wouldn’t use such language today, but here’s the perspective I think is needed. John had to go back to when I posted that quote something like 7 or 8 years (or close to that). I was responding to someone else’s post who Bradford had been having a run-in with. It should be noted that while John pulls up a quote from long ago, that the person I wrote it about—and several others of whom I term “the usual suspects,” –routinely and to this day are known to be exceedingly foul-mouthed, using the F-word as part of their reportoire, employing its several uses as not only parts of speech but in name-calling toward anyone disagreeing with them. Check it out. Search back the 7 or 8 years like was done to me and follow any of their several blog or Live Journal posts and see for yourself. It’s part of their usual lexicon when confronted with anyone with whom they disagree. In fact, one need not travel back 7 or 8 years and move to the present. One can find instances of this from just the other day in a couple of places.

    But I lose it once—some time ago—and it’s dragged up as an example of something one is led to believe I have a long history of, when actually it’s the other way around and it is the person I was referring to then (and those like her now) who say worse on a routine basis, have for years, and no one bats an eye. All I ask is that these things be placed in context and perspective. In politics this sort of thing is done all the time; it’s called the politics of destruction, when someone in a news organization looks for “dirt” on someone.

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 7, 2014 9:58 am

  42. Going to ignore the inane non sequitur about another genre upthread to address what Sarah said:

    Exactly. This process is recursive.

    SF/F books written by women get fewer reviews, are less likely to be shelved cover-up in bookstores (or shelved at all), and receive less marketing support from their publishers. And due to the work of bloggers, we now know that women are less likely by far to be published in SF/F mags.

    These facts in the aggregate make SF/F a far less welcoming place for women on all levels, both in terms of reading SF/F and writing it. As Sarah points out, even if the ratios on female submissions and publications are exactly equal, there’s a reason that submission by women is so low (if in fact it is).

    Since SF/F written by men is getting a disproportionate share of the reviews, accolades, awards, and mentions in SF/F media (blogs, online magazines, etc.), this leads to the perception that SF/F is by and for the menz, when that is far from the case.

    This is a systemic problem.

    I don’t think that He-Of-The-Unfortunate-Initials or one review or even the 10% or so of the fandom that is overtly sexist is really the issue, or even terribly relevant. And on an individual level, I think it’s getting better. Since consciousness has been raised over the last few years, I’ve seen more and more guys asking for recommendations of books written by women; dudes who have come to the realization that their reading is ridiculously SWM-dominated and actually seeking out diversity. On an anecdotal note, I’ve started conversations about diversity of setting (because medieval Europe gets boring, and there’s a lot more to the world) and they generated a lot of excitement just for the sake of entertainment. I have a blog dedicated (almost) exclusively to women in the genre and most of my readers are men.

    I find this encouraging.

    But, still — it takes a great many individuals working in concert to affect systemic change.

    One example: there’s an online SF/F mag I follow that lists a well-cultivated list of new SF/F releases. Well-cultivated except, that is, that very prominent new releases by women that aren’t urban fantasy or PNR are frequently not on it.

    Stuff like that needs to change. And since we have seen that many men are more likely to listen to criticism by a man than a woman, I think issues like this, and the OP’s efforts, are probably the direction that male allies ought to take in order to make things happen.

    And this:


    Yeah, this. As Sarah pointed out, people have experiences. Women see that some SF/F pubs are not interested in female protagonists (has happened), that they are under the impression that men won’t read hard SF written by a woman (has also happened); and may be harassed or called “fake” or any of a number of microaggressions within the fandom. And this is true for other historically marginalized populations as well.

    Combating all that takes effort. Merely being satisfied with not being a bigot is not going to change it.

    Comment by cecilykane - June 7, 2014 3:09 pm

  43. Whoops, I meant to quote this:

    –A small press editor of my acquaintance relatively recently updated her guidelines to say she was specifically welcoming diverse fiction. She always had been in her own mind, and her guidelines had never said anything to imply they were UNwelcoming.

    And yet, once she added that line, she got, in a matter of months, a greater quantity of fiction from PoC and non-standard cultures than she had got in ALL the YEARS prior to it.

    Similarly, It’s easy and nice to say that not being overtly sexist means one is welcoming. That’s not, sadly, how it works for a lot of people.–

    Addendum: I’ve heard from some black writer folks I know that they’d had very little to no luck with fantasy they’d written based on folklore and history within the African diaspora. I would imagine that stuff like that gets discouraging enough after a while that people stop trying. Hence the need to seek it out.

    Comment by cecilykane - June 7, 2014 3:19 pm

  44. Here’s another accurate quote from Truesdale:

    “Did you notice anything about the [Philip K. Dick] ballot? About how very vagina-heavy the ballot is? …But to extrapolate from the two books on the overwhelmingly white, pussy-laden PKD ballot that I have read, this year’s contenders are a solid pussy pride of tail-twitchin’ novels.”

    Okay, so Truesdale is riffing on an earlier article about the Hugo ballot, and is using some of the author’s phrasing against her. And the comments are old, from a June 2007 F&SF article. ( Still, they’re just breath-taking in their offensiveness, so much so that I’ve remembered them all these years. Truesdale says he’s never seen sexism in the field, so I have to wonder just what this is.

    Comment by lampwick - June 7, 2014 3:29 pm

  45. John,

    First, kudos to you for owning up to the “sin of omission.” I have been there and I have done that. Second, more kudos to you for being a class act, as always. Having the pleasure of knowing you in the actual world, and being proud of my association with Black Gate, I applaud the high road you choose to take here. I know you as one of the least sexist men I’ve met and come to know, and I know you champion women writers — the sheer number of talented ladies who belonged to our wonderful little Top Shelf writers’ group still astounds me, and your generosity to them is to be lauded. Great article and discourse. Rock on!

    Comment by Joe Bonadonna - June 7, 2014 4:59 pm

  46. “It’s part of their usual lexicon when confronted with anyone with whom they disagree.”

    Mr Truesdale, whether or not a group of people use the ‘f’ word is irrelevant to your motives in calling a woman a bitch. It’s a gendered insult, based on who she *is*. Now I’ve seen a lot of people criticising you, most notably over this:

    (which is how I learned of your existence)

    And that criticism (and any effing and blinding) has been related to what you’ve *done* (like reviewing a female-centric anthology and demonstrating the need for one by your own attitudes.) The ‘usual suspects’ are an amazingly large, diverse group of people who just happen to find things you’ve done really, really offensive.

    May I also suggest that the author of this crapola has no business rules lawyering anyone about the definition of feminism or sexism:

    You don’t get it, you refuse to get it even when led gently by the hand by your friends, and you blame everyone else for the fall out from your refusal to get it.

    That’s toddler logic. You’re a grown man. Not attractive.

    Kudos to Mr O’Neill for calling out a friend and recognising past failure. May the change of heart be permanent.

    Comment by ann_somerville - June 7, 2014 7:17 pm

  47. lampwick – and DTruesdale: Not exactly disagreeing with you, lampwick, but elaborating on why that particular phrase and its ilk were Horrible, and anticipating the obvious defense Truesdale will attempt as to why it’s okay, because it wasn’t his own true opinion of women.

    If I read that editorial correctly, then, like Matthew Lane here, you, DTruesdale, state in that article that reversing sexist behaviour to demean men has the exact same effect as demeaning women.

    I think there are reasons to do with power ratios why it isn’t as clear cut as you think, but it’s at least a not wholly insane perspective to take.

    But that quote is more offensive if you don’t mean it than if you do. if you meant it, you’d be owning your words. I’d feel contempt for you as a human being, but at least I would know where you stand.

    So why is NOT meaning it worse?

    First: you ignored the power those words have to genuinely hurt even if not genuinely meant. And I mean shaking and ill and triggered hurt, not just “a smile slipped a half-millimetre”. Like a man who would never actually touch a fellow man against his will thinks it’s okay to make a prison-rape joke in front of someone who was sexually assaulted. No attempt was made to cope with potential laceration of the target audience even when the target audience was clearly not just the writer of the original article.

    It also reduces any intellectual or intelligent point being made. That you led with offensive stuff without explaining it as a direct role reversal says much about poor judgement and equally poor writing ability, which makes the messenger more dubious; why should I believe anyone who has such bad judgement of the balance between making a point and hurting people willy-nilly?

    More, it causes more than a few readers to be unable to actually get deep enough into the article to notice the caveat that it wasn’t your opinion, or the point under discussion. Any sane and decent writer would know that some people would read that opening paragraph, get slapped in the face, and click away – again, shaking and triggered in some cases, NOT just with a few fee-fees out of place – without caring to read enough to learn “Oh, that offensive screed? That was just a little point about reverse sexism.” Those people would never actually know you didn’t mean it, but they would still associate the words with you. And you might wave off those people as too sensitive to get your manly prose style or your point, but. No. Not everyone worth addressing is thick skinned. I know some sensitive highly intelligent people who are far more worth talking to. Driving them away, especially when the cure might have been as simple as an introductory paragraph? Makes the conversation poorer.

    It made me SICK to read and I have stomach for a lot of sexist BS. But getting to the point of “By the way, that wasn’t what I really meant” made me SICKER. Because it meant you’d gone and sprayed buckshot in the vicinity of a lot of innocent people – mostly but assuredly not all women – THEN afterwards said, “Duck!”. THEN said, “Now, here’s the reason I fired the gun. It’s because I felt like someone did the same thing to me, and I didn’t like it. Aren’t I clever?” AND THEN told anyone who’d run away after the first firing of the gun and didn’t stay for the lesson, “Oh, and by the way? YOU were all too emotional to be worth talking to.”

    That none of those people (Or at absolute most, one) were the ones whom you believed to have fired the gun AT you? seemed irrelevant to you.

    You wanted to feel superior to the hypocritical female who was demeaning men. So you hurt a LOT of people who weren’t her. A little more compassion for your target audience, even an introductory paragraph before the full on triggering horror (The equivalent of saying “Duck!” FIRST), would have gone a long way.

    Comment by Lenora Rose - June 8, 2014 2:07 am

  48. John, I’m still waiting for that answer mate.

    Are romance publishers sexist, given that they fall within all the criteria you personally just labelled as sexism?

    An if they aren’t sexist when there editors do there job of being discerning about what they publish (note I said what & not whom), then why is it sexist when Dave did it?

    I’m ready for your well written, intellectual answer whenever you care to issue one.

    Comment by matthew_lane - June 8, 2014 5:06 am

  49. Matthew Lane

    Is there a reason you’re grinding this axe so hard?

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 8, 2014 6:29 am

  50. Lampwick (and Lenora),

    You just don’t get it, do you. That F&SF column (the first part anyway) was _supposed_ to be offensive. A woman blogger was complaining about the number of males on that year’s Hugo ballot. In doing so she likened men to dogs. And used the F-word.

    All I did was use pretty much (I had to change some of the background details because I was talking about the PKD ballot, not the Hugo) her exact wordage and switch it around to say the PKD ballot that year was too woman-author laden, and I likened them to cats because she used dogs. And I used the F-word because that’s what the original, offensive words were in her column. I then linked back to her original column to show that it wasn’t _me_ using the F-word and likening the male authors on the Hugo ballot to dogs, but that I wanted to show people how offensive (sexist) it could be by turning it around and getting their reaction.

    I even made a definitive, clarifying statement to the effect that those were not my original words, but the blogger’s, and that I would never have written them myself, and that it was _meant_ to show how what she said sounded on the other foot–when I’d turned the tables on her own words. I made a specific point that if I had _meant_ what I wrote then I could be justly chastised, but that I would never had written them on my own.

    But I guess it’s okay for a female to use the f-word and liken male authors on the Hugo ballot to dogs, but when I did it in reverse to show how it sounded, then everyone jumps on me. That’s hypocrisy and a double standard.

    The more folks got offended and raged against me for pointing out the double standard at work, the more it made my point–because when I reversed the foul language and animal analogy, it was meant to arouse an emotional reaction. Just like hers did.

    I did nothing but point out a double standard in a manner designed to do so in spades. And I’m called the sexist. The system has been rigged so that if an injustice is committed by a female they have an easy out by the way the rules are rigged (or overlooked), and guys are always somehow to blame.

    Well, I’m not buying it.

    A lot of people who read my parody/reversal thought it was funnier than heck, and wrote to tell me so–including several editors of magazines of lesser or greater visibility and/or circulation.

    Every time someone writes how they were taken aback or made angry or outraged at that piece just convinces me I did what I set out to do even better than I expected.

    I don’t like double standards and so I set out to expose one. That’s not sexist by any definition I know of, and if someone says it is then that proves to me yet again just how much the game is rigged against anyone who says or does or writes anything a few feminists don’t like. And I’m not buying what _they’re_ selling either.

    And Lenora? Your unbelievable over-reaction to my reversal piece was way overplayed. For ghod’s sake, if something like that makes you physically ill and damages your tender psyche to the point of no repair, then you’re in for a difficult time in this life. I get a warm spot in my heart for some of you special little snowflakes, I really do.
    But likening what I said to shooting a gun over someone’s head? That’s a bit much, don’t you think? The perpetually offended routine blown out of all proportion to what was actually said reveals quite a lot. Your post is so far over the top it’s almost laughable…but if that’s the way you want to play it then fine.

    Again, the initial issue has now been taken off the front burner by distracting from it with long-ago dealt with stuff. Distract, character assassination, politics of destruction. Same old, same old.

    And yet not a word about the women who demean men and swear like sailors routinely. You’ll note that in each instance where I am accused of anything, my words have been in _reaction_ to something else. I write about hypocrisy and double standards, I write about Political Correctness gone amuck in the Bulletin, where now certain common, everyday words can’t be used because someone doesn’t like them.

    And yet the one who cries foul is the one held to blame. Something is not quite right here.

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 8, 2014 8:51 am

  51. I don’t think swearing like a sailor and insulting men are conflated. You do. Your mistake. The former doesn’t bother me if done with point. The latter is a problem. You seem to think the one is the other. If that’s the case, then just typing fuck is an insult to you (Hint, it’s not), and suddenly, your comments about my special snowflake or fragility are laughable.(That, on the other, hand, if true, might be insulting.)

    Anyone who remotely knows me knows I’m way more on the tough assed argumentative side of the line than I am the easily bruised. But some days, you know, I’ve been through getting called a bitch by a random drive-by on the street, had someone tell me in all earnestness that women shouldn’t get the vote because fewer of them vote libertarian than do men, had a conversation with a friend about the recent time the minister at a mutual friend’s wedding (Knowing her politics were about equality) quoted to her in her special moment that women must obey and yield to their husbands. And the look on her face as her day was ruined. Had a conversation with a friend who came out trans in which he talked about the ways his parents were reacting to his declaration he was male. (Which, whatever you think of trans* people, you can imagine rejection by family is awful stuff to deal with.) Then I sit down to the computer, and I know I shouldn’t click on someone’s link to somebody’s sexist screed, but you know, the last 5 times I’ve read one, it’s been nothing worse than “Ah, women are bitches” even when more gently written, and I can take that … and I meet your screed. Still think that’s about oversensitivity?

    (No, not all days are like that. But yes, some really, really are).

    And really, if your defense to the accusation that the way you applied shock rhetoric actually caused mroe damage to your point (And for more reason than the feelings you deride) is to deride those feelings more? You’re missing the point of what compassion IS.

    You’re also missing the OTHER points, such as : It made your point less powerful because who would trust someone with such poor judgement and comprehension of rhetoric (Of course, missing points clearly laid down in someone else’s rhetoric reinforces that), and B: it would cause a lot of people to leave before noticing you didn’t *mean it* and then forever and on associate those words with you *believing they WERE your feelings*.

    And your portrayal of what happened with the bulletin, (which was not that long ago as to be ancient history, even on the net), so misrepresents the actual complaints about the Bulletin, what was beign done about those complains, and what your own petition demanded that it just blows my mind.

    Comment by Lenora Rose - June 8, 2014 10:11 am

  52. Matthew Lane:

    People aren’t taking you seriously because you’re mistaking the format. John is talking about his own experience as an editor, not conducting an undergrad poli sci class.

    Having said that, you do have a logical argument, but are you sure you want to tie F/SF to the same set of standards as romance novels? I don’t have a problem with romance novels, but I don’t read them because I don’t think they’re going to challenge or surprise me. Even the fans and advocates of romance novels tend to acknowledge that they are written and marketed as disposable entertainment. You read them once, got the specific kicks you came for, and then threw them over your shoulder. Lots of “male adventure fantasy” was written the same way and for the same reason. If that’s the only form of the genre that you’re interested in, then you’re lucky enough to live in a free country where you have the right to only seek out what interests you to the exclusion of everything else.

    But speaking as a reader, I’m not into it. I don’t want to lock myself in a dark room with a bunch of other dudes who look and talk and see things just like I do. And as a genre-agnostic writer with a healthy ego, I don’t get much of a thrill competing against a skewed field. I don’t want my work to be compared only to the other people in my little ghetto. I want to take on everybody. I’m ready for the big time, damn it.

    Seriously, it’s right there. “Adventure Fantasy”. What kind of adventure is it when you only go places you’ve already been and meet people you already know? Where you never have to figure anything out? Where there’s zero possibility that you might make a mistake that you might have to apologize for?

    Comment by Brendan_Detzner - June 8, 2014 10:14 am

  53. “People aren’t taking you seriously because you’re mistaking the format.”

    Oh there’s no mistaking the format: An editor utilised his position as an editor to call someone sexist. Those qualities also appear in every editor for every romance publisher, that too must be sexist.

    At which point John went and hid behind a pandering obfuscation answer.

    “John is talking about his own experience as an editor, not conducting an undergrad poli sci class.”

    The plural of personal experience is not imperial evidence: John called out sexism & then justified what that sexism is. These are positive assertions, now either those assertions hold water or they don’t.

    That’s not a property of poli-sci, in fact I have no idea why this would have anything to do with political science, its simply a matter of basic logic.

    “Having said that, you do have a logical argument, but are you sure you want to tie F/SF to the same set of standards as romance novels?”

    Yes, I hold one set of publishers to the same set of standards as another set of publishers? What genre they publish has no bearing on tow identical methods for sourcing material.

    I’m choosing to skip the rest of your comment, as its nothing more than special pleading, as you try to invent reasons why its only sexism when DTruesdale does it.

    It doesn’t matter what content they generate, either the actions of romance novel editors are all sexist across the board, since they universally utilise the same qualifiers John announced were sexism, or it isn’t.

    The fact is that Johns talked himself into a corner: Either he retracts his own statement & swallows his pride.

    Or alternatively he confirms that his statement is one he holds to be self evident & tomorrows science fiction news is going to read “John O’niel, Science Fiction editor declares female editors sexist.”

    So which is it going to be John?

    Comment by matthew_lane - June 8, 2014 10:46 am

  54. Given the content and style of everything I’ve read by Dave Truesdale, I’m mystified that anyone would choose him as an editor, even if unpaid.

    Matthew Lane is inadvertently amusing, though totally unoriginal.

    Comment by Helivoy - June 8, 2014 10:49 am

  55. Lenora Rose — First, I’m very sorry the linked article had that effect on you. I should have thought about this possibly happening when I linked to it, maybe put some kind of warning first.

    Second, thank you very much for your analysis. The article bothered me horribly when I read it (obviously — I remembered it for seven years), but I couldn’t put my finger on why, though I knew it had something to do with punching down instead of punching up. I’m glad you articulated what I’d been feeling.

    And Dave Truesdale — You didn’t call women cats. You called them pussies. If you don’t understand how offensive this is I can’t help you.

    Comment by lampwick - June 8, 2014 12:49 pm

  56. On the inane non sequitur: even in the romance genre, books written by men receive a massively disproportionate share of reviews than books written by women do. That leaving aside the whole reason that romance is not often written to appeal to men is derived from sexism against women (i.e. woman stuff = not good, ergo few men will buy it). This is, however, changing in the younger generation; YA writers are increasingly being asked by boys for romance that appeals to them to appear within their books. And the market is happily obliging.

    Of course, I only know that because I have romance and YA authors as friends, which is the kind of detail that John may not have, since it requires a passing familiarity with ANOTHER GENRE. Lane, your argument is full of assumptions.

    And speaking of triggers, also this lovely bit from Mr. Truesdale:

    “We’ve come a long way baby, and this nostalgic reiteration of the strident feminist attitudes prevalent in the latter part of the past century is a welcome blanket of comfort to those young breast-bobbing firebrands who once burned their bras, who are now old broads gone to flab and seed (and who need their bras now more than ever) and who desperately attempt to remember fondly the ‘good old days.'”

    Ah, because when I’m exploring my relationship to genre, what I’m totally looking for is reminders of the times dudes within it have considered it less important than their relationship with my breasts. How comforting it is to know, as I enter my thirties, that my breasts’ relationship to gravity will be on the table as well.

    Stay classy!

    Comment by cecilykane - June 8, 2014 1:36 pm

  57. lampwick: I read it when original. The pain is not your fresh link, though it was a vivid reminder that this was THAT person.

    It took me a while to put together for myself why it was that “I didn’t mean it” was inadequate as excuse for the rhetoric; I’m glad it helped someone else.

    (Why “She started it” is also inadequate excuse for the rhetoric I suggest may be self-evident.)

    Comment by Lenora Rose - June 8, 2014 2:04 pm

  58. Lenora: “(Why “She started it” is also inadequate excuse for the rhetoric I suggest may be self-evident.)”

    Just another poor, but expected, defense of a double standard at work when a man points out female sexism. It’s okay when the woman does it and no one is allowed to call her out on it.

    I get it. Simple enough for anyone to understand. :-)

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 8, 2014 2:42 pm

  59. “It’s okay when the woman does it and no one is allowed to call her out on it.”

    Just another poor, but expected, defense of sexism.

    If you had simply called women ‘cats’ in your little hypocrisy inquisition, it might not have been so bad (I can’t say for sure, I’m not a woman). That would have perhaps added a touch of the surreal and bizarre to it.

    But instead you called them ‘pussies’.

    And if you really don’t understand why that makes what you wrote so offensive that it overshadows whatever point you think you were making, then quite frankly I am amazed you’ve been an editor so long.

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 8, 2014 3:50 pm

  60. Also, in that article, you gripe about men being called animals, and how demeaning that is. In an article where women are called plants, which is pretty obviously more insulting, to me, if either is insulting (Animals have mobility, higher brain functions, and are recognizably closer to human.) I don’t think this is entirely the double standard you are looking for.

    Comment by Lenora Rose - June 8, 2014 5:18 pm

  61. Jonathon, since everything they don’t like is automatically offensive to them and expressed in high outrage, it’s hard to tell where the line is.

    Besides, my comments are always and ever directed only at those few feminists on the edge who go to excess. They do not represent, or necessarily speak for, the larger body of feminism, with whom I find myself in agreement on many individual issues.

    Every group has a few members who reflect poorly on the majority of its membership, and feminists are no different–no better and no worse. I get rankled by these outliers, not the general feminist movement as a whole.

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 8, 2014 5:19 pm

  62. Truesdale, that is the worst defence I have ever heard. You didn’t know calling a woman ‘pussy’ might be offensive?

    I suppose we should thank god that you weren’t quite so dumb as to say ‘c**t’.

    Which, by the way, you might as well have, because that is how it came across.

    No need for anyone to assassinate your character, you’re doing just fine on your own.

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 8, 2014 5:48 pm

  63. It was somewhat tongue in cheek, Jonathon, not meant as a literal defense. :-)

    And the word I used was supposed to be offensive to drive home the point. Obviously it worked all too well. And for the record, it didn’t come across as offensive as some make out. Emails at the time from both men and women (!) thought it was hilarious.

    And some of course didn’t. That’s the way it goes in any endeavor; some will like what you do and some will hate what you do.

    Have a good one, Jonathon, and be well.

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 8, 2014 6:03 pm

  64. “the larger body of feminism, with whom I find myself in agreement on many individual issues.”

    I don’t know any self-identified feminist who would not find your review, your petition, your entire attitude towards women, as sexist and offensive as all hell.

    You are a sexist to the core. By that, I don’t mean you hate women. You probably like women, and even love a few, like your mother, sisters, wives, daughters and so on. You find women decorative, as you said in your petition. Women are just fine, in their proper place.

    But the second they criticise you, then they must be put back in their place. YOu will guide them there, and if they don’t agree with being guided, you will shout them there, bully them there.

    You will call them gendered slurs, to remind them that you are a *man* and therefore you can do as you wish with them.

    You will do hatchet job reviews on them, to remind them that *you* are a man, and *you* will decide what is worthy to be published.

    You will ignore many, many reports by women of assault and harassment and discrimination, but indignantly and unfailingly pick out any slight against *your* gender and label it ‘sexism’ because you are a *man* and your feelings of resentment outweigh any woman’s feeling of despair.

    I don’t know any self-identified feminist who would look at your examples of ‘sexism’ against men, and not hurt themselves rolling their eyes at your obduracy.

    You respond to men criticising you seriously, as if they are worth responding to. But you ignore most of the women, unless they are ‘approved’ in your eyes. They must be ‘good’ women or you will not give them your attention, because you are a *man* and are the ultimate judge of a woman’s worth in the world.

    You are the problem, Dave Truesdale. You are why the Women Destroy Science Fiction anthology exists. You’re the grit in the oyster, and smart women used you to make a pearl. But grit is nothing special, and your so-called feminism isn’t worth the paper this comment is written on (hint, there is no paper.)

    I feel sorry for the women in your life. I’m glad you have so little importance in SFF now because your attitude is toxic to creativity.

    Comment by Ann Somerville - June 8, 2014 6:58 pm

  65. Truesdale, it might help your case if you stopped treating it as a joke. Especially since nuance tends to be lost on the internet.

    Also, if you step on someone’s foot and that person complains, it doesn’t help to point at other people and say “Well, they aren’t complaining”.

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 8, 2014 7:11 pm

  66. And while it is correct that not everyone will like what you do, if someone doesn’t like your work there are more graceful ways to handle the situation than doubling down and blaming them.

    You have demonstrated all the grace of the Titanic.

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 8, 2014 7:14 pm

  67. Ann, you’re entitled to your opinions, but not your lies. I never said the following anywhere: “You find women decorative, as you said in your petition. Women are just fine, in their proper place.”

    I’d like a direct quote please, where I said such things.

    Thank you.

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 8, 2014 7:27 pm

  68. “I’d like a direct quote please, where I said such things.”

    The cover of the 200th issue of the Bulletin was part and parcel of the furor that has led to its suspension. Cries of “sexism,” portraying women as “sex objects,” and other like phrases reached the ears of the President and will now become part of the “review process” overseen by the new editor, “volunteers and an advisory board” and the President himself. Covers like the one shown here are not new. They have graced the covers of countless magazine and book covers for many decades. So have magazine and book covers featuring handsome, ripped and rugged males in various stages of dress, depending on the story and what the publisher hopes will appeal to his readership in order to advance sales. Yet there are those who object strenuously to a sexy female (scantily clad or otherwise) on the cover of anything, and always somewhere in the mix of reasons, primary among them is that women are being portrayed as sex objects and that such covers are blatantly sexist and therefore are to be avoided, or removed, or are otherwise to be castigated and held up to ridicule and scorn.
    Or are never to be seen on a SFWA Bulletin cover again. Ever.
    Who exactly is so up-in-arms offended from viewing a sexy (or sexily portrayed) man or woman on the cover of a magazine? The cover under discussion is rather bland and generic, actually, and nowhere as sexually provocative as any number of such illustrations on many a book and magazine cover today, and for decades. Obviously those feminists, or rather those who ascribe to the feminist viewpoint on this particular issue, for not every person (male or female) who count themselves as sympathetic to the feminist cause agree on every plank of the feminist platform.
    For instance, straight women who might otherwise count themselves as feminists, think nothing of going to a night club or establishment when the Chippendale’s are in town. Just like any group, political or otherwise, it is not a unified ideological block down party lines, but has, among its members, those who hold differing beliefs on individual issues. It then occurred to me that those objecting to the use of women as sex objects (on the cover of the Bulletin, in this case) were primarily leveling this accusation against straight males. But what of the GLBT community?
    SFWA prides itself on being all-inclusive and a strong promoter of diversity, which I believe is a good thing. But if straight males are the object of all the heat being given them for treating/viewing women as sex objects, then wouldn’t this same accusation hold true for gay men who like ogling the male form on a purely sexual basis?

    Original here

    The cover:

    Numbers of men in bikinis on the SFWA bulletin covers, I’m guessing, would be zero. It is disingenuous to try to pretend that there is equal oppottunity ogling going on.

    You consider us nothing but deocaration. You think it’s perfectly okay to have semi-naked women on the cover of a trade magazine because we all like to ogle our sexual objects of desire. The reasons this was a profoundly incorrect opinion (and why the cover was just a *small* part of the SFWA’s problem) were pointed out fot you at the time, and I’m sure Mr O’Neill would rather not relitigate that here. But I’m fully prepared to do so if you keep pretending you are not a sexist tool.

    I’ll leave this link here for those interested in what *other* trade magazines for writers look like:

    Comment by Ann Somerville - June 8, 2014 8:37 pm

  69. Ann, you appear top have quoted a whole heap of stuff…. however what you don’t seem to have quoted is any place in which DTruesdale says anything remotely similar to “You find women decorative, as you said in your petition. Women are just fine, in their proper place.”

    Care to give that a second shot?

    Okay so moving on to your next salient point.

    “You think it’s perfectly okay to have semi-naked women on the cover of a trade magazine because we all like to ogle our sexual objects of desire.”

    Whose using this image to ogle exactly? I’m not sure if you are aware of this but you are currently on the internet a place full of high speed access to photos & videos of naked people… To assume that people who oppose what they see as draconian measures that exists specifically to benefit a very small group of social justice warriors is at best silly & at worst dictatorial.

    To try to break it along gender lines is likewise disingenuous: There are many women who like that particular style of artwork & many men who don’t.

    But you know what, I’m going to apply the same standard to your statement that I have with Johns.

    “You think it’s perfectly okay to have semi-naked women on the cover of a trade magazine because we all like to ogle our sexual objects of desire.”

    If its sexism when that appears on this specific property, then it must be equally sexist every time the opposite appears on the covers of romance novels.

    So tell me, are you declaring female editors or romance novels sexist?

    Comment by matthew_lane - June 9, 2014 4:20 am

  70. Anyone else wondering just how many times Matthew’s romance manuscript was rejected?

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 9, 2014 5:21 am

  71. “Care to give that a second shot?”

    No, actually. You can read just fine, you just don’t want to.

    “Whose using this image to ogle exactly?”

    According to Truesdale himself, he is. It’s apparently the right of every straight man to ogle the sexual objects of desire, regardless of forum or appropriateness. (psst, “who’s” not ‘whose’. When you finally resubmit “I was a teenage sex slave in a millionaire virgin widow’s harem” to Harlequin, correct grammar will count towards success!)

    “every time the opposite appears on the covers of romance novels.”

    You probably already looked this up for a gotcha, so I’ll make the point – I’m fine with nudity on novel covers. I use a bound naked man on the cover of a self-published anthology. I like looking at tasteful pictures of pretty people.

    Now, you’re so clever, you tell me – what’s the difference between the official journal of a professional organisation with nearly two thousand members, male and female, who are *not* paying membership fees to have soft porn drop into their mail boxes on a regular basis, and a novel with erotic content?

    When you know the difference, you might begin to have a hope of comprehending what an arse you’re being over this.

    “Anyone else wondering just how many times Matthew’s romance manuscript was rejected?”

    Jonathon, you made me laugh out loud :) On a serious point, Matthew would have his backside handed to him in a bag if he started this crap up on a romance forum. He’s only pushing it here because he imagines he’s among likeminded peers. I am so intensely surprised and pleased to find he is not.

    Comment by Ann Somerville - June 9, 2014 5:40 am

  72. Ann, thanks. I may not be quite so sure of my facts as to argue the point with him, but I damn sure don’t agree with him.

    But really, wow, he sure is desperate to have someone declare romance genre to be sexist.

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 9, 2014 5:50 am

  73. “No, actually. You can read just fine, you just don’t want to.”

    I have read it, it doesn’t say what you have stated it does. So can you be more specific?

    “I’m fine with nudity on novel covers. I use a bound naked man on the cover of a self-published anthology. I like looking at tasteful pictures of pretty people.

    Now, you’re so clever, you tell me – what’s the difference between the official journal of a professional organisation with nearly two thousand members, male and female, who are *not* paying membership fees to have soft porn drop into their mail boxes on a regular basis, and a novel with erotic content?”

    /facepalm. You say you have no problem with nudity, but then immediately denounce the given illustration as porn.

    Certainly sounds like you are trying to create an excuse for when you do it, but when someone else does an identical thing its no longer “tasteful pictures of pretty people” its now “porn.”

    An if this is what passes as porn then I am shocked…. Apparently I’ve been acting in porn for years now…. An here I’ve been calling it the wrong thing for all those years: I’ve been calling it a sword and sorcery LARP, but apparently we’ve all been making porn. I wonder if the women I’ve been larping with are aware they are in porn & just didn’t tell me?

    “Matthew would have his backside handed to him in a bag if he started this crap up on a romance forum.”

    I wouldn’t try it on a romance publishers page because unlike here, romance publishers would never make such a silly comment as the one made by John in this editorial.

    It is the job of the editor to set the standard for there publication: If an individual is incapable of writing to that standard, including to its given audience, then it is the job of the editor to offer them a rejection & if they have some talent, just in need of refinement, possibly some advice.

    This is done universally by ALL editors: It has nothing to do with the gender of the author, nor does it keep women out (as evidenced by those female authors who do exist) & as such cannot be sexism.

    See sexism is what occurs when you discriminate against someone on the basis of gender. What an editor does is discriminate against everyone on the basis of quality of work.

    Not some editors, not a majority of editors, but ALL editors. An yes that includes the overwhelming female editors at romance novel publishers.

    So either this standard by which ALL editors function is sexist, in which case all editors including romance novel publishers must be sexist, or its not sexist.

    An no I would never state that on a romance forum board, but only because I wouldn’t have to: Because romance publishers wouldn’t ever declare sexism about such a thing & isn’t that a sad state of affairs when romance novel editors are more insightful than speculative fiction editors.

    Comment by matthew_lane - June 9, 2014 7:22 am

  74. King to serf: “You’re a jerk!”

    Serf to king: “You’re a jerk!”

    According to Matthew Lane, these are totally equivalent situations, with the exact same investments and consequences.

    Even a toddler understands basic logic — when not in the grip of “I wanna!” tantrums, of course.

    Comment by Athena Andreadis - June 9, 2014 8:42 am

  75. Matthew what’s on a professional journal cover versus a book cover should be different. If you want you can go hang out on RWA forums or blogs to see how they are grappling with similar issues and have cleaned up their act.

    You might also be surprised to find out how many male romance readers write under female names because readers are just starting to adjust to the idea men can write romance and traditional publishers are always years behind their readers. Hopefully with self-publishing and more authors “outing” themselves/pen names the changes in romance will move along although since Harlequin has been bought by one of the Big 5 I’m not holding my breath.

    Would it surprise you Matthew to find out that women editors make up a good portion of the publishing industry? Surprisingly women can be unknowingly sexist (it’s called institutional sexism) and behind the curve also. Also the biggest power positions in publishing are frequently held by men. The Big 5 as well as Barnes & Noble and many magazines are either out-of-touch with who their real readers are, what their readers want, or as John has pointed out in his article don’t realize that it’s the way they are wording their submissions that prevents them from getting submissions from a more diverse group.

    Comment by TashaTurner - June 9, 2014 9:25 am

  76. Dave you would get more respect if you’d just admit you are sexist. All your attempts to claim you aren’t just dig yourself deeper. Have the women in your life read your responses and ask them for truthful. Hopefully you are more open to listening to the women you love in person than people on the net.

    Ask them whether they’ve ever been harassed at cons they’ve attended with you. Ask them if you make sexist jokes that they find offensive. Ask them if they were raped or sexually harassed if they would tell you. You might learn a lot from open conversations you start with them.

    All I know about you are the words you write. They come off as sexist. Time and time again. From the SWFA petition to your latest editorial on WDSF to your comments here.

    As a technical writer I was taught that if my audience is constantly misunderstanding my words it’s me not them. Know the nuances of the words you use. Know how words affect groups of people emotionally. When I was a manager it was my job to make sure my writers were keeping in mind that we were writing for a global audience. I had to know each writers biases and my editors biases to make sure those weren’t showing up in a negative way in documents and informal communication.

    Now that we are global all day nothing you say is private. Anything you communicate in writing might be made public. Anything you put on a blog or online magazine is going to be seen globally so it’s more important than ever to choose your words carefully especially if your business is words. You can’t blame others for misinterpreting you or overreacting if you did not choose your words carefully. Anyone our age knows joking on the web is likely to be misinterpreted so complaining and insulting others when a “joke” goes wrong if you chose to use emotionally charged words does not help your cause.

    Do yourself a favor. Take a step back. Don’t react. Think and breathe. Not responding makes you look smarter.

    Comment by TashaTurner - June 9, 2014 9:51 am

  77. David Gerrold, one of the signers of the Bulletin petition (which was about free speech), pointed out that the Bulletin cover in question was actually not just a generic one, but of the iconic and popular Red Sonja, which most people had overlooked–whose stories are read and enjoyed by male and female alike.

    Several of those signing the petition (male and female alike, and feminists to boot) remarked to me that they saw nothing wrong with the cover. And the editor who published it happened to be female as well.

    I’m sorry, but not everyone subscribes to the views of those attempting to restrict free speech (and expression) by a surprising ethic/ideology that I term Progressive Puritanism. For entirely different reasons, both the Puritans and now a certain feminist element end up in the same place on this specific issue: of how the female body is dressed, or covered up.

    No one, certainly not I, am saying women are pure decoration. That is patently absurd. True beauty lies within a person. By the same token, there is absolutely nothing amiss by a man admiring the female form, and vice versa. If a certain faction of feminism tries to tell me this is wrong, then we part ways very quickly on this specific matter.

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 9, 2014 10:17 am

  78. “You find women decorative, as you said in your petition”

    Just followed the link provided by Ms Sumerville to the petition in question.
    ControlF find decorative produces the result zero- the word does not appear in the petition.

    And what exactly might the problem be with finding a woman pleasing to the eye?

    Comment by jim braiden - June 9, 2014 11:21 am

  79. So the entirely unsubtle point that “Red Sonja is fine on the cover of a novel about Red Sonja – or even a serious non-fiction book about sword and sorcery and the legacy or Howard – but not on the cover of a Professional Organization’s magazine – still escapes both Lane and Truesdale.

    matthew Lane – The link Ann provided to Sylvia-Moreno-Garcia shows what the covers of RWA’s professional trade magazines look like. They do not look like the actual romance novels. (Which themselves do not feature the dreaded half-naked clinch nearly as often as detractors say, either – and haven’t for at least a decade. Not saying they never do, but it’s a subset of a subset. And appropriate for fiction books about people getting romantically involved, including having sex.)

    If the RWA regularly featured pretty boys in loincloths on their trade magazine, we could get somewhere with arguing that eye candy – even named eye candy – is remotely appropriate on the cover of the SFWA magazine.

    Also, Truesdale, maybe the usage I understand for the word “Ogle” is more specialized than I thought, but it seems to me that it means not just to look at but to gape at and react altogether like the wolf in Red Hot Riding Hood (Possibly minus howling) rather than to “Give an appreciative glance to an attractive form of the gender of preference. EVERYONE does the latter, and that’s fine. Nobody is saying that no-one should find other people attractive, or even look.

    But the difference between admiring a woman going down the street and ogling her is not subtle. So, to, the difference between appreciating the physiques of Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth on a movie screen whilst enjoying the story those actors appear in, (or, for your predilections, enjoying seeing Red Sonja on a novel cover featuring adventuresome stories about who she is and what she does), and thinking it’s reasonable to see cheesecake on a supposedly professional organization’s magazine is not small.

    The former is where the person is pretty but also can be admired for their personality, their agency, and their general ability to defeat their enemies. The latter is where you get into objectifying.

    As it happens, I don’t think people who decide it was okay (or at least no less unprofessional than some of the badly-designed spaceships and other hackneyed art the bulletin has featured) are Horrible Wrong-headed evil people. I disagree with them, and I’ve stated why it crosses my lines. Nor do I feel any particular animosity to you, even though you crossed a whole lot of other lines both in your defense of it and in your other statements, and those are where you and I go from respectful disagreement and well into my losing any respect for you.

    of course, it doesn’t matter. I’m a nobody. And a hundred nobody women can disagree with you, but if two agree, and those two happen to be Big Name Authors, their Big Names trump ALL other voices. (Even if their authorship has nothing to do with the topic at hand.) Appeal to Authority rules for you. You’ve made that clear more than once here. Also, that the lurkers support you in e-mail.

    Comment by Lenora Rose - June 9, 2014 11:40 am

  80. One thought before I (try) to bow out of this…discussion.

    There are an awful lot of warm, wonderful, loving, decent people in this world. One will never get all of them to agree on everything. This is no reason to mark them, to hate them, or to write them off as some sort of enemy to whatever one’s “cause” may be–just because they disagree on certain dictates of any given cause. Those who do such will be removing from their lives the possibility of friendship in some of the unlikeliest places.

    You can’t expect to try to force any agenda down people’s throats–expecting them to agree with it 100% and 100% of the time–without the very real risk of alienating them to the very real and good aspects of your cause.

    Let people be people, most of whom are decent folks who abhor the real injustices of life. The vast majority of folks are not racists, sexists, or homophobes–unless designated so by some ornate ideological constructs which turns everyone, by some definition, into them.

    When some convoluted line of reasoning (well intentioned, perhaps, but nevertheless) makes sure that everyone is a racist, sexist, or homophobe unless they adhere to this specific line of reasoning, then something is very wrong with the definition.

    I feel that the point of diminishing returns has been reached, at least for me, so with this post I shall take my leave.

    Jim, carry on. :-)

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 9, 2014 11:54 am

  81. O hoho, the “censorship/free speech” gambit again (still), the desperate final refuge of those bereft of real arguments. Don’t US citizens read or understand their own constitution?

    Also, in connection with “basic editing skills”, the term “female” as a noun is used for animals. For humans, the term is “woman” — I’ll be sending an invoice for Basics 101 soon.

    Comment by Athena Andreadis - June 9, 2014 11:56 am

  82. It’s easy to jangle those who possess small upper heads, especially when they delegate “thinking” (indulgently defined) to their lower ones.

    Comment by Athena Andreadis - June 9, 2014 12:29 pm

  83. I just deleted a post by Jim Braiden for being insulting.

    A reminder to everyone on this thread: this is not a public forum. It’s my blog. Think of it as my front porch.

    If you’re not one of my invited bloggers, you’re an uninvited guest. You’re welcome to drop by and listen, and your comments are welcome as well. Until you start being belligerent, or insulting my other guests. Then I kick your ass off my front porch.

    Not a free speech issue. You’re welcome to cross the street and say whatever you like, as often as you like. But not on my front porch where we’re trying to have an adult conversation, thanks.

    Jim, you’re welcome to return to the conversation when you like, but please keep it civil.

    Comment by John ONeill - June 9, 2014 12:48 pm

  84. While it has been said that the Bulletin cover warrior was Red Sonja, or at least Sonja-like, it has also been noted that, at the very least, she is dressed ENTIRELY unsuitably for her surroundings. Seriously, a chainmail bikini in a snowy clime? What if it rusts? And have you ever had your tongue stuck to ice? Now imagine that on more sensitive areas, especially those prone to sweat and chafe.

    You really want us to believe that a woman as capable and clever as Red Sonja is going to be that stupid? Or is she relying on the warm glow from the eyes of countless drooling fanboys and fangirls to keep her from freezing?

    I suspect that if she had been dressed sensibly – not modestly necessarily, but sensibly for the environment – there would have been less outcry. Or if she was shown in a warmer climate.

    And I just googled it to make sure my memory was accurate, and she is very much posed as if showing off her body for the reader.

    So, as it is, the cover was simply gratuitous.

    And if you’re arguing for the right to gratuitous cheesecake images, you’re arguing for the right to treat women as decoration. Whether you use the word ‘decorative’ or not.

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 9, 2014 2:56 pm

  85. I LOVE images of cheesecake, as in the following cheesecake shot:

    The more cheesecake the better. yum, yum, yum! 😉

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 9, 2014 3:44 pm

  86. *sigh*

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 9, 2014 3:53 pm

  87. Athena offered: “It’s easy to jangle those who possess small upper heads, especially when they delegate “thinking” (indulgently defined) to their lower ones.”

    Traditional words of wisdom: Two heads are better than one. 😉

    Comment by DTruesdale - June 9, 2014 4:06 pm

  88. “I feel that the point of diminishing returns has been reached, at least for me, so with this post I shall take my leave.”

    Well, it’s not like I really trusted your word before anyways.

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 9, 2014 4:29 pm

  89. “isn’t that a sad state of affairs when romance novel editors are more insightful than speculative fiction editors.”

    And you wonder why no one is taking you seriously when you make a remark so astonishingly bigoted? You assume romance editors are somehow inferior because why, exactly?

    I see Truesdale has managed to derail the conversation nicely and attracted the ‘support’ of someone too ignorant to spell my name correctly, so while they may be welcome in the conversation, this ‘uninvited guest’ is not going to waste time here any more. Jim Braiden has accused victims of sexual harassment and rape of being responsible for their own assaults, without a shred of embrassment, so staying where he’s been explicitly welcomed (when none of the rest of us have been) is an exercise in self-abuse. Besides, Jim Braiden has already trolled one conversation about sexism in SFF to a standstill in the last week, and I predict he will do so here if allowed. I don’t feel like standing around to watch.

    I am heartened to see that of all the people commenting, only three disagree with Mr O’Neill, and one of those is the man Mr O’Neill was trying to persuade to change his sexist ways. Nice try, Mr O’Neill, but as you can see, it’s a thankless and pointless task. Perhaps now you understand the frustration of people who don’t have your advantages of gender and friendship with people like Truesdale, in dealing with the systemic sexism and other issues in this genre.

    Comment by Ann Somerville - June 9, 2014 5:01 pm

  90. John O’Neill, you seem to feel a lot of guilt about how you selected stories for Black Gate.

    I’m not sure why.

    I mean, if you intended, from the beginning, to have a magazine that featured female authors equally as often as male authors, I suppose I can see why your would be disappointed with the percentage of female authors actually published. But if you were hoping to have an equal number of male & female authors, why would you even start a magazine so heavily focused on sword ‘n’ sorcery fiction?

    Isn’t that kind of like starting a magazine about muscle cars and being surprised that most of your contributors are men?

    Comment by Ebonsword - June 9, 2014 5:17 pm

  91. Ebonsword
    I think the premise of your question is based on a false assumption, which is actually the same assumption which drives the whole stupid, vicious cycle. ie. that sword ‘n’ sorcery fiction (and muscle cars) are inherently male and somehow inviolate as such.

    Last I checked, reading and imagination (or an interest in automotives) were not governed by testicles.

    And if they have traditionally been seen as such, it is because men have made it that way from the start.

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 9, 2014 5:58 pm

  92. I’ve never thought about how representations of women in science fiction impact economics, but it makes perfect sense. As I look at the science fiction in my bookshelves, there are fewer and fewer male authors, not because I had especially political motivations or because I was especially offended, but because I look for stories that immerse me in their world or, to put it another way, stories that do not cause me to put in mental brackets.

    Here is how the bracketing phenomenon works. You’re reading along and there is a scene of a sexually available female alien [bracket], there is a tragic and dead lesbian [bracket], there is a wise black person [bracket], there is rape [bracket], you get the picture. These are all things I have to put aside to enjoy a story and I am very capable of doing that, most likely because life as a half- sane woman requires you do that. Then one day I looked up and noticed I didn’t have to do that with certain writers–Willis, Bujold, Atwood, Butler, Le Guin. Is it coincidental they are women? My guess is no.

    My worry for the future of science fiction is that the next generation of reader will be much less tolerant of the bracketing someone my age will do. The present generation doesn’t tolerate that as much and, here is the clincher, modern day publishers have speculative fiction that doesn’t require it, but it isn’t generally science fiction, it’s fantasy.

    My daughter’s friends–smart, funny, university educated men and women–don’t read much science fiction, not because they aren’t advanced or because they have a political ax to grind, but because they will not buy things that we still think it is ok in science fiction to tolerate. They don’t want to bracket and why should they?

    We, in science fiction, give the impression that if you are a good reader, you should be able to bracket sexism, racism, and homophobia every time we look at a collection like the June Lightspeed issue and say it’s stirring the pot, that good readers don’t worry about this stuff. We send the message that there is a “good story” independent of issues of gender and race.

    The strength of the June Lightspeed issue for me is that I could read the stories without the bracketing and that’s real reading. Real readers want that and as they start to claim it more and more, science fiction had better start to realize it is in our economic best interest to think this through, not because we’re political or easily offended, but because we are good writers and readers.

    Comment by marthajburns - June 9, 2014 6:50 pm

  93. I know a lot has been written in response to this post and it is not my attention to dig any rhetorical holes any deeper, but I wanted to highlight something from John’s original post above:

    “We certainly didn’t make any special effort to attract women writers (or readers, for that matter).”

    And this is a problem. Why? Because while Sword and Sorcery is often thought of as a “male” genre, many of its best writers and characters are/were women. C.L. Moore, Leigh Brackett, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Lois McMaster Bujold, Elizabeth Moon are all fine writers who have written gripping tales of S&S fiction.

    Too often people associate Sword and Sorcery with what a friend calls “Bikini in the Snow with a Sword” tales — clearly referencing R.E. Howard’s tale the Frost Giant’s Daughter. They are wrong to do so. Certainly, S&S tales often deal with the “barbaric,” but they do so in that barbarism represents man’s attempts to struggle against fate. Read any of Howard’s wanderings regarding the virtues of barbarism and this becomes quickly apparent.

    I consider myself a huge S&S fan, but I think that BITTS stories are the worst kinds of S&S tales. The weakest of REH’s tales were the bikini in the snow with sword tales. Thankfully, Michael Moorcock did a nice deconstruction of them with Elric.

    As an aside, it is to REH’s credit that he could write BITSS stories and have them be readable. Gardner Fox? Nope. Lin Carter? Nope. Sprague? Nope. Robert Jordan? Nope. John Norman? Unless you are big into fetish porn…nope.

    The best S&S writing has a lot more going for it than BITSS, and the assumption that S&S is primarily BITSS is one of the reasons too few women read and write the stuff today. Bringing more C.L. Moores into S&S will only improve the genre for everyone. John is acknowledging that he should have been actively pursuing those writers, and I applaud him for it.

    Comment by ChristianLindke - June 9, 2014 7:08 pm

  94. Well Mr. O’Neill this is indeed you site and you do indeed have the right to decide who and what is posted here.
    But the fact that you have allowed all and sundry to swarm here and post attacks and insults directed at Dave Truesdale and chose to block someone when they respond in kind speaks volumes as to you character or rather lack of it.

    I stand by every word I wrote.
    You and the rest of your band of bullies are indeed the Red Guard writ small.
    Mean spirited little thought police, bullies who gleefully mob anyone you regard guilty of failing to conform to your vision of right thinking.
    Moral and intellectual pygmies devoid of anything resembling a sense of humour or irony.
    I would echo Joseph Welch and ask:” Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
    But of course the answer is no

    Comment by jim braiden - June 10, 2014 2:33 am

  95. John,
    One of the things I’ve admired about Black Gate website is the intellectual and intelligent conversations many of us have shared here. The arguments based on personal attacks or who shouts the loudest or who gets the most demeaning and degrading have thankfully been missing. I realize this is a *hot* topic (meaning emotionally charged) and I’ve been following most of the posts but when it gets to the ranting– without even the pretense of joining the *conversation*– posted by Jim Braiden, it’s time to quit reading. This falls far below BG’s usually high standards of posts.
    Thanks for posting and for trying…

    Comment by Barbara Barrett - June 10, 2014 5:17 am

  96. Jim

    So, this Red Guard… are there uniforms? Are they snazzy? I’d like a snazzy uniform. Can’t oppress bigots in sweatpants. Just doesn’t look right.

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 10, 2014 5:40 am

  97. Well Jim, what can I tell you. I have one simple rule: don’t stoop to insults.

    I disagree with what Mathhew and Dave are saying, but they’re being gentlemanly about it, and I honestly appreciate their comments. You seem to be telling me that you’re not intellectually equipped to participate in this discussion WITHOUT hurling insults.

    Sorry to hear it. But by all means, lecture us on decency some more. I’m sure the assembled crowd will find it educational.

    Comment by John ONeill - June 10, 2014 8:13 am

  98. “Last I checked, reading and imagination (or an interest in automotives) were not governed by testicles.

    And if they have traditionally been seen as such, it is because men have made it that way from the start.”

    Jonathon Side, I’m not sure I understand your comments.

    In my experience, men *love* to encounter a woman who is interested in traditionally masculine hobbies like sword ‘n’ sorcery fiction or fast cars.

    What I have noticed, though, is that men tend to react poorly to women (or anyone else, for that matter) who expresses an interest in their hobby, but then wants to change it.

    So, the woman who claims to like fast cars but then wonders why car magazines don’t spend more time covering cars like the Toyota Prius is going to receive a similar reaction to one who claims to like sword ‘n’ sorcery fiction but then says she wants to read stories with less violence.

    Comment by Ebonsword - June 10, 2014 9:28 am

  99. Ebonsword: So you’re saying we’re not allowed to say, “I like fantasy and SF” but not “It could be better if it were less sexist/racist/homophobic”? We HAVE to accept SF on men’s terms only, or we’re stepping out of line?

    Do you actually see women talking about sword and sorcery without swords, in particular? I never have. But maybe the rise of some other subgenres and alternate stories, often driven by women, is seen as trying to shame or exclude S&S, somehow, instead of trying to expand choice.

    And the number of female fans of Game of Thrones suggests a surprising tolerance for violence in a vehicle that carries much the same audience as S&S.

    Though no few of those women have said “If you must have this many nude women, can we get an equal number of nude men, too? Instead of a rare one, and not usually the cutest ones, as a sop?”

    Does that count as daring to want to change the things guys like? Have they stepped out of line? What about the ones who said, “And by the way, in the book, Daenerys wasn’t raped on her wedding night, did you really have to change that to a rape scene?” Are they now out of line because they called out icky sexism?

    Also, MEN have advocated for changes to “traditionally masculine” pastimes a whole lot. (Ever seen the debate on trying to cut fighting from junior-league hockey?) They too sometimes suffer backlash, though it seems rarely as badly as you’re implying a woman would. Or maybe you’re implying that EVERY change a woman ever advocates is equivalent to asking a muscle car magazine to run only articles on tiny fuel efficient vehicles instead.

    But, if a man speaks up about a change they’d like to see over time, is this also wrong? The pastime must never ever change at anyone’s advocacy or it is no longer pure?

    I’m confused.

    Comment by Lenora Rose - June 10, 2014 10:07 am

  100. Lenora, please note that I said “men tend to react poorly to women (or anyone else, for that matter) who expresses an interest in their hobby, but then wants to change it.” That was my point–that people resist change to hobbies they enjoy.

    Which is understandable to me. If you enjoy something the way it is, why would you want it to change?

    John O’Neill seems to have started Black Gate as an homage to the pulp magazines of old. So, it seems reasonable to me that he would adopt submission standards he felt would generate tales similar to ones from the old pulps.

    What I don’t understand is why he now he seems to think that doing so was somehow wrong.

    Comment by Ebonsword - June 10, 2014 3:08 pm

  101. Ebonsword
    Don’t move the goalposts. First you imply that the issue is that sword ‘n’ sorcery (and muscle cars) are the domain of men, so why would Mr O’Neill be surprised he didn’t get stories from women.

    Now you’re saying the problem is CHANGING sword and sorcery. That allowing women in means… what, Conan becomes a hairdresser?

    Nobody said anything about changing the genre itself, or making it less violent. At least, not in this thread.

    And if you honestly believe that making efforts to be more welcoming to women writers and readers means that the genre has to change in any way other than simply being less sexist, I can’t help you.

    I should note that once upon a time, women did not vote.
    Once upon a time, women were not employed in ‘proper’ jobs.

    Not because they didn’t want to. Not because they couldn’t handle it.

    Because men said they couldn’t.

    Sometimes, ‘how things were’ was wrong, and we should not cling to that as an example for how things must always be.

    Comment by Jonathon Side - June 10, 2014 3:32 pm

  102. Ebonsword: But then there are the people who enjoy the thing *in spite* of* certain things that are associated with it but NOT intrinsic to it. And others are just as resistant to changing those aspects as they are to changing what’s intrinsic. You can’t do muscle cars without muscle cars, but maybe it IS possible to do hockey without fistfights?

    What’s intrinsic to Sword and Sorcery? Swords. Magic. A fast-paced prose style. An adventure/action based plot, usually without too much politics (Though it has happened), or romance (Ditto), or introspection (Ditto). Strong warriors. Low levels of technology, and worldbuilding based on cultures with the same. Strange gods (both those the good guys worship and the notorious weird cults of the enemy). Often moral codes closer to black and white, rather than multitudinously grey, but ones in which killing the enemy is not considered morally wrong – or at least is not in the right circumstances.

    None of the above requires sexism to also fit in alongside it. NOTHING says that one can’t hark back to the pulps in all of the above and more, but ALSO say in the guidelines, “BTW, we’ve made progress in how to write decent female characters since the days of Red Sonja, so please do better yourself. And we’d welcome women who send us manuscripts of S&S with open arms.”

    This isn’t asking one to remove Conan from Canon. Conan is here. He’s been written. He’s iconic to Sword and Sorcery. But there’s a lot of reasons why he’s also not the final word on what can be written in 2014 in the subgenre. Too close a resemblance to Howard stories would get a story rejected for a lot of reasons BESIDES sexism if you tried to do it now; different writing styles are in vogue, some storytelling techniques have been refined, our knowledge of history has improved in leaps and bounds. And yes, many of our moral codes and ethics.

    But take people who would try to refine their stories in all the above ways and more to suit a modern audience hankering for more Sword and Sorcery and pulp-like adventure, but tell them to take out the sexism (And racism, and homophobia) as well…. and suddenly we’re told nobody wants it to change. In the face of the people asking for just that.

    Comment by Lenora Rose - June 10, 2014 4:40 pm

  103. <>

    Argle. Slightly off-topic to current discussion…The second fantasy author I read was David Gemmell. I own every book he wrote, and still love them dearly. His characters changed my life–saved it, really, given the situation I was in as a teenager–and while he made mistakes, he also had many wonderful characters.

    So my love of Sword and Sorcery goes back to my very early years, but. An ex once sent me a Red Sonja story, saying that she was totally me in another world. He genuinely meant it as a compliment, but that was one of the worst reading experiences of my life. Red Sonja needs to stop being held up as the Queen of Feminist icons, please. She was, perhaps, remarkably advanced as a character at the time she was originally written, but there were so many elements of her that were just plain cheesecake fantasy. (I can’t speak to the newer stuff, in all honesty. I fled after the little bit I read, back to Gemmell and my other beloved S&S authors.)

    And, as mentioned elsewhere in this conversation, women are far from immune to sexism. I’ve been advocating for the safety and respect of women in this genre since the San Diego WFC incident some years ago, and I can still be astoundingly sexist. It is, in fact, more damaging when women are sexist than when men are, because it gives a banner for the deniers to gather under and point at.

    And it still stuns me that something so simple as “Please treat me like an equal human” is so painful, so angering for so many people to hear and adhere to. I’m passionately invested in this genre, and it’s been a struggle, recently, to stay in love with it.

    In fact, this is my last year in this genre for some time, most likely, simply because I need to rediscover my love for the stories, divorced from the politics and manners of the genre. That depresses me more than I can say, because in no other genre do we have the incredible possibility for positive change, for hope, and for rational discourse, than we do here.

    We have such a strong voice in this world already, more than we realize, and we’re squandering it. We should be LEADING culture in a better direction, not trying to drag it back to the 50s.

    So thank you, John. I’m still sad that I’d stopped writing by the time I met you. I would have loved the opportunity to have one of my pieces in Black Gate, but thank you for continuing to grow and open discourse on polarizing subjects.

    Comment by JaymGates - June 10, 2014 8:20 pm

  104. Jaym,

    I’m very sorry to hear you’re leaving. The genre is losing a tireless promoter and creative voice.

    I’m sad I never received a story from you, too. I’m not buying stories any more, but you can still send them to me, you know! :)

    Comment by John ONeill - June 10, 2014 8:25 pm

  105. I’ll send you my Sword and Sorcery girl, once I find the ebook. :) Art inspired by her had the distinction of being praised by…ah, a Distinguished Author Who Shall Remain Nameless…as being a fluttery Disney princess compared to Red Sonja, who at least had the grace to know she was badass.

    Comment by JaymGates - June 10, 2014 8:34 pm

  106. […] the ins and outs. But evidence of the most recent outbreaks of stupid are here, and in comments here and […]

    Pingback by M/M and the arseshowening » Rants and Ramblings By An Old Bag - June 16, 2014 10:01 pm

  107. […] Leckie on swearing. Considering what a tizzy some people get into when the ladies swear, well. This is a fascinating […]

    Pingback by Links: 06/20/14 — The Radish. - June 20, 2014 10:30 am

  108. […] O’Neill recently summed up a paradigm that many folks have been explaining to deaf ears for a long time — that […]

    Pingback by How to fail gracefully. | Manic Pixie Dream Worlds - June 23, 2014 11:29 am

  109. […] way back by Mary Shelley when she published Frankenstein. Amal El Mohtar, E. Catherine Tobler, John O’Neill of Black Gate Magazine, and Rachel Acks were the ones I found the most astute and Natalie Luhrs was […]

    Pingback by A Link to a Cool Magazine Issue with some Diversity Links (Dumping Days) | The Open Window - January 15, 2015 1:52 am

  110. […] An Open Letter to Dave Truesdale […]

    Pingback by Black Gate » Blog Archive » The Top 80 Black Gate Posts of 2014 - January 26, 2015 1:26 am

Comments RSS  |  TrackBack URI


Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Black Gate Home
This site © 2020 by New Epoch Press. All rights reserved.