Author Topic: PodCastle Essay: We Have Always Fought  (Read 25785 times)

Moritz

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Reply #50 on: August 04, 2014, 03:38:33 PM
I was on vacation for two weeks and had no internet access  ;D

After listening to the essay and discussing it here, I am thinking about Escape Artists' role in the representation of marginalised groups. From my more or less un-marginal position (I am of mixed ethnicity but it doesn't really show), I always had the feeling that especially PodCastle represents women, races/ ethnicities, and LGBT topics rather well, not only in the stories but also concerning the authors. I might be somewhat blind there though.



Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #51 on: August 11, 2014, 02:45:40 PM
After listening to the essay and discussing it here, I am thinking about Escape Artists' role in the representation of marginalised groups. From my more or less un-marginal position (I am of mixed ethnicity but it doesn't really show), I always had the feeling that especially PodCastle represents women, races/ ethnicities, and LGBT topics rather well, not only in the stories but also concerning the authors. I might be somewhat blind there though.

If I remember correctly, that was a specific goal with the podcast from the very beginning, something which Rachel Swirsky felt strongly about in her initial editorship, and which Dave and Anna have tried to carry through when they took over.  I think they've done well at picking diverse authors and stories, the best of the 3 EA casts and much better than average in SF publications as well.



Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #52 on: August 11, 2014, 06:21:16 PM



I think they've done well at picking diverse authors and stories, the best of the 3 EA casts and much better than average in SF publications as well.

And boy, do they pick DIVERSE authors and stories!
#DadJoke #SeeWhatIDidThere

(Sorry, I just woke up, and shouldn't be trusted with my own internet. )

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Varda

  • Rebound
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2710
  • Definitely not an android.
Reply #53 on: August 17, 2014, 09:09:48 PM
Yayyy! This essay just won the Hugo award! Congrats to Kameron Hurley, and non-scaly llamas everywhere. :)

Medical Microfiction: Stories About Science
http://rckjones.wordpress.com


Windup

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1226
Reply #54 on: August 18, 2014, 02:20:50 AM
Yayyy! This essay just won the Hugo award! Congrats to Kameron Hurley, and non-scaly llamas everywhere. :)

Woot!!  And congrats to all involved.

"My whole job is in the space between 'should be' and 'is.' It's a big space."


Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #55 on: August 18, 2014, 01:50:39 PM
Yayyy! This essay just won the Hugo award! Congrats to Kameron Hurley, and non-scaly llamas everywhere. :)

Not only that, but Kameron Hurley won the award for fan writer, and Dribble of Ink (where the essay was published) won it for Fanzine.



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #56 on: August 18, 2014, 05:46:01 PM
Yayyy! This essay just won the Hugo award! Congrats to Kameron Hurley, and non-scaly llamas everywhere. :)

Not only that, but Kameron Hurley won the award for fan writer, and Dribble of Ink (where the essay was published) won it for Fanzine.

Yay! Thanks for pointing that out, and Congrats all around to both Kameron and Aidan :)


Myrealana

  • Peltast
  • ***
  • Posts: 107
    • Bad Foodie
Reply #57 on: August 26, 2014, 06:59:52 PM
Brilliant and insightful. I listened twice and shared on every corner of the 'verse I can reach.

It provides some excellent food for thought.

And congratulations to all on the awards!

"You don't fix faith. Faith fixes you." - Shepherd Book


yicheng

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
Reply #58 on: September 03, 2014, 08:22:46 PM
I found the whole thing to be rather sanctimonious, preachy, and altogether overly verbose.  She could have communicated the entirety of her essay with "Hey guys, I lead a very sheltered life and didn't know that women played a big part in history and sometimes even fought in wars.  Huh!".  Problems I had with this:

1) She keeps on using the royal "We", as in "We" must understand that there's more than one way to be a woman, and "We" have to shift our perspective to be more inclusive of women as non-tropey archetypes.  Somehow she seems to miss the irony of using her own life experience and paradigm shift as evidence that everyone single other person all must have been as sheltered and ignorant of history as she was.

2) I felt like the Cannibalistic Lama trope was overplayed and largely inaccurate, because it implies that the analogy to Cannibalistic Lamas (women who happily played the role of the domestic housewife) largely didn't exist, when it's obvious that they did, although largely within the confines of Western Victorian-era-influenced society.

3) The analogy on being the "first person to act" although inspiring, seems rather egotistical, as surely she doesn't think she's the first one to talk about the misrepresentation or underrepresentation of women as fully fleshed characters in stories.

Which isn't to say that I disagree with the theme of the essay: that women should be portrayed as more than window decoration or NPC's, but I just wished she was less preachy about it.  Her point might have been valid 10 years ago, but in an era where the best female athlete is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter, I kind of feel like she's a bit out of touch.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #59 on: September 03, 2014, 09:44:00 PM
Your opinion is your opinion, of course, and if you found the essay uninspiring or sanctimonious then that is entirely fine. But when you start bandying terms like "out of touch" or arguing that she must be unusually sheltered, you should consider how many people found this essay to be affecting and thought provoking. I'd suggest that the position she was writing from, and the position she was writing to, is very much one that a lot of people can relate to. If you happen to have had more historical knowledge than most, that's great, but I don't think that that makes you representative. If it didn't work for you, it didn't work for you, but you can't deny that it did work for a lot of people.

Which isn't to say that I disagree with the theme of the essay: that women should be portrayed as more than window decoration or NPC's, but I just wished she was less preachy about it.  Her point might have been valid 10 years ago, but in an era where the best female athlete is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter, I kind of feel like she's a bit out of touch.

I fail to see what the relevance of the existance of female martial artists now has to the question of the role women played in history. This article isn't about what women can do, its about what women actually did.



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #60 on: September 03, 2014, 09:46:22 PM
Which isn't to say that I disagree with the theme of the essay: that women should be portrayed as more than window decoration or NPC's, but I just wished she was less preachy about it.  Her point might have been valid 10 years ago, but in an era where the best female athlete is a Mixed Martial Arts fighter, I kind of feel like she's a bit out of touch.

That's interesting. I feel like, in an age where Anita Sarkeseeian's life, along with her family's, is threatened and harassed for running a video series on Tropes vs. Women in Video Gaming, this essay is every bit as relevant as it was a decade ago, and every bit as important. This is an issue, and one that needs to be pushed back on.

I'd also argue that cannibalistic llamas isn't supposed to be equivalent to domestic housewife, any more than it is supposed to be a one-on-one comparison to women as temptresses, or prizes to be won, or damsels in distress, or The Girlfriend. It's about working to break down stereotypes, and do better than lazy writing.

"Hey guys, I lead a very sheltered life and didn't know that women played a big part in history and sometimes even fought in wars.  Huh!".

Yicheng, it's hard for me to read this as anything but a personal insult to the author. I realize that it's more difficult to separate the author from the material in an essay like this, but I'd appreciate it if we could avoid oversimplifications and personal insults in the future.


gutguzzler

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Reply #61 on: September 03, 2014, 10:30:57 PM
You know this is a shame. That you have to go ahead a run something like this. And I was really getting into my pod castle, the last few stories have been stellar. And then this. I had to make an account just to say this.

First off, how is this fantasy? I listen to pod castle for the fantasy, not the feminist rhetoric.

I feel like ever since the sexism scandal in sfwa last year this whole thing has gotten out of hand. Everything is so politicised now. You can’t fart anymore without being called a misogynist. But where are they? Where are all these misogynist monsters that are perpetuating all these grievous wrongs? They certainly don’t frequent these forums.

In fact this forum seems to me to be overwhelmingly in favour of inclusivity an equal rights. Nobody wants to perpetuate anything other than a good story. And it not just this forum, it goes for all genre fiction. Where are the patriarchal overlords?

I don’t know. But they are not here. They are not listening to fantasy podcasts or reading genre fiction that’s for sure.

So why, oh why, do we have to listen to this?  It was preachy, and condescending and just put me in bad mood.  The whole premise of the article assumes that we as the reader have already been duped by this false narrative. Well, hashtag- I’m so tired of being told what I, as a straight white male, think about women.

I’m not angry podcastle. I’m just disappointed.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #62 on: September 03, 2014, 10:37:53 PM
So why, oh why, do we have to listen to this?

You didn't. I'm pretty sure your podcast playing device has an off button, and there's no exam later on.



yicheng

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
Reply #63 on: September 03, 2014, 10:39:35 PM
I fail to see what the relevance of the existance of female martial artists now has to the question of the role women played in history. This article isn't about what women can do, its about what women actually did.

The relevance isn't on women in history, but rather what the author insists as a pervasive myth in  modern society that women can not fight.  I'm saying in that: while it may have been true 10 years ago, in this day and age where combat sports like Mixed Martial Arts regularly showcase women who are every bit as aggressive, skilled, and strong as their male counter-parts, it seems rather out of touch for her to portray warrior women as mythical llamas that we somehow don't know about.  It's obvious that at least a significant demographic do in fact know that women are powerful and have the capability to be Bad-ass Mother-F***ers.

If you happen to have had more historical knowledge than most, that's great, but I don't think that that makes you representative.

While I agree, the converse is also true.  Just because you (or the author) has less historical knowledge than most, it also does not mean you are representative.  From my own background, growing up outside of the West, I was well aware that women active participated in many wars through-out history.  The problem is that the author seems to assume that her own past ignorance of history must mean a vast majority of the people (i.e. the royal "we") she is talking to must be similarly ignorant, and it thus being her job to enlighten the rest of us.

I'd also argue that cannibalistic llamas isn't supposed to be equivalent to domestic housewife, any more than it is supposed to be a one-on-one comparison to women as temptresses, or prizes to be won, or damsels in distress, or The Girlfriend. It's about working to break down stereotypes, and do better than lazy writing.

You may argue that, but the way as it's portrayed in the essay:  Cannibalistic Scaly Llamas == domestic housewife, where as Real-lief Llama == women warriors.  I see where it was meant as an analogy of real-life to representation in fiction, but it's an ill-fitting analogy to begin with and she continues to beat it into the ground.  I do agree that tropes are lazy, but they aren't necessarily bad, just the over-use/over-reliance of them.

Yicheng, it's hard for me to read this as anything but a personal insult to the author. I realize that it's more difficult to separate the author from the material in an essay like this, but I'd appreciate it if we could avoid oversimplifications and personal insults in the future.

How is that a personal attack?  The author explicitly states that she had no idea women fought in wars until a professor told her so, and she essentially admits to having lead a sheltered life at one point in her own essay.  I'm not ascribing anything to her personally other than what she's already said in her essay.  In fact, I'm sure she's a very well-meaning person, and probably much more reasonable than her essay would seem to indicate. 
« Last Edit: September 03, 2014, 10:42:05 PM by yicheng »



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #64 on: September 03, 2014, 10:52:24 PM
How is that a personal attack?  The author explicitly states that she had no idea women fought in wars until a professor told her so, and she essentially admits to having lead a sheltered life at one point in her own essay.  I'm not ascribing anything to her personally other than what she's already said in her essay.  In fact, I'm sure she's a very well-meaning person, and probably much more reasonable than her essay would seem to indicate. 

It came across as flippant sarcasm, that's all. That coupled with the "out of touch" comment kind of made your post sound a bit meaner spirited than I think you intended. Happens - whenever I post criticism of pieces here or elsewhere I just remind myself that the authors sometimes read these boards too. I find it changes the tone of my posts.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #65 on: September 03, 2014, 11:01:18 PM
I fail to see what the relevance of the existance of female martial artists now has to the question of the role women played in history. This article isn't about what women can do, its about what women actually did.

The relevance isn't on women in history, but rather what the author insists as a pervasive myth in  modern society that women can not fight.

The article is about the pervasive myth that women didn't fight. The misconception that women can't fight is just one reason for that. Another is the misconception that women fighting is some sort of modern innovation.

Quote
If you happen to have had more historical knowledge than most, that's great, but I don't think that that makes you representative.

While I agree, the converse is also true.  Just because you (or the author) has less historical knowledge than most, it also does not mean you are representative.  From my own background, growing up outside of the West, I was well aware that women active participated in many wars through-out history.  The problem is that the author seems to assume that her own past ignorance of history must mean a vast majority of the people (i.e. the royal "we") she is talking to must be similarly ignorant, and it thus being her job to enlighten the rest of us.

It's a valid point that the West is not, in any sense, the majority of the world. But this is a Western author writing to a Western audience in a Western-based publication (A Dribble of Ink) and reprinted in another Western-based publication (Podcastle). Her audience is the society she came from. And her use of "we" isn't the Royal "we" (which is exclusive - the Royal "we" does not include the person being talked to), but an inclusive use. She uses "we" to mean "myself and others like me". That doesn't mean she assumes that everyone is like her.

I am someone who frequently shares your frustration, especially in discussions about race - there is a lot of writing by Americans that imply that their racial attitudes are universal, while they are quite alien to me (not, mind you, because the ones I grew up with are better. They're just different). But it's important to realize that just because what she is saying may not be universal, that doesn't mean it's less valid. It's definitely worth considering that Podcastle has a global audience and maybe more care needs to be taken to acknowledge that when posting essays such as this. But your response seems to be saying that because you know better, there is no point for anyone to have the discussion. Which is not, I think, a particularly useful approach to handling cross-cultural differences either.

If you believe that Kameron Hurley has led a sheltered life, I don't wish to argue that with you. But you need to realize that practically everyone growing up in the English-speaking West has led a similarly sheltered life. And while that is not "most" of the world, it is a large enough part of it - and a part of it whose cultural significance in today's world is far larger than it's proportion of the population would suggest - that your apparent claim that she's an exceptional individual in that regard simply does not hold true.



jkjones21

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 821
  • Fiend of borderline obssessives.
    • Catchy Title Goes Here
Reply #66 on: September 03, 2014, 11:51:07 PM
You know this is a shame. That you have to go ahead a run something like this. And I was really getting into my pod castle, the last few stories have been stellar. And then this. I had to make an account just to say this.

Welcome!  Regular forumites will likely be pleased that PodCastle's decision to run a special episode with a piece of nonfiction related to a major issue in speculative fiction has spurred you to join in the discussion.  Hopefully this will encourage Dave and Anna to run more episodes of this nature in the future!

First off, how is this fantasy? I listen to pod castle for the fantasy, not the feminist rhetoric.

It's fantasy because scaly llamas don't exist!

I feel like ever since the sexism scandal in sfwa last year this whole thing has gotten out of hand. Everything is so politicised now. You can’t fart anymore without being called a misogynist. But where are they? Where are all these misogynist monsters that are perpetuating all these grievous wrongs? They certainly don’t frequent these forums.

Personally, I can't fart without being called a gasbag, but I generally just take that as being told the truth.  As for things being politicized, well, you know, stories are political.  Every single one.  If it doesn't seem political to you, then that's probably because it's reinforcing a narrative you agree with.  Congratulations!  This is the first step into a larger world of literary critique.

As for 'misogynist monsters,' well, the problem is that they're kind of hard to spot, seeing as they generally don't look monstrous at all.  Most are just folks who think there's nothing wrong with the way women are treated in general, despite evidence that we have a tendency to pigeonhole 51% of the human population into a very narrow set of social roles.  These folks probably frequent the forums more often than you think, but since PodCastle's always been about inclusivity for marginalized groups, they realize it's not a good place to have their 'non-political' narratives reinforced.

In fact this forum seems to me to be overwhelmingly in favour of inclusivity an equal rights. Nobody wants to perpetuate anything other than a good story. And it not just this forum, it goes for all genre fiction. Where are the patriarchal overlords?

Here you go.  Read the closing thoughts from the editor of Tangent's review of Women Destroy Science Fiction.

I don’t know. But they are not here. They are not listening to fantasy podcasts or reading genre fiction that’s for sure.

Hurray!  No patriarchal overlords here!  Let's call that a victory for feminist ideology (even if it's an empty victory because we're still having these conversations).

So why, oh why, do we have to listen to this?  It was preachy, and condescending and just put me in bad mood.  The whole premise of the article assumes that we as the reader have already been duped by this false narrative. Well, hashtag- I’m so tired of being told what I, as a straight white male, think about women.

I’m not angry podcastle. I’m just disappointed.


I'm sure all the people involved in bringing you this episode, which you didn't have to listen to in the first place, are deeply apologetic for making you feel uncomfortable about playing life on easy mode.  It's such a travesty when man feels get hurt.  I think a baby panda dies or something.

You don't want baby pandas to die do you?

Jason Jones
http://jkjones21blog.wordpress.com

I'm a Cage, he's a Cage, she's a Cage, 'cause we're all Cage!


benjaminjb

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1389
Reply #67 on: September 04, 2014, 02:04:54 AM
::Wild applause for jkjones21, making points clearly and having fun doing so::



Scattercat

  • Caution:
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4904
  • Amateur wordsmith
    • Mirrorshards
Reply #68 on: September 04, 2014, 06:20:03 AM
But where are they? Where are all these misogynist monsters that are perpetuating all these grievous wrongs? They certainly don’t frequent these forums.

IRONY

(It means "sort of like iron.")

Where are the baby pandas?  I'll kill those boogers my own self.



Varda

  • Rebound
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2710
  • Definitely not an android.
Reply #69 on: September 04, 2014, 10:00:49 AM
Where are the baby pandas?  I'll kill those boogers my own self.

Bite their heads off! That's where the nougat is.

Medical Microfiction: Stories About Science
http://rckjones.wordpress.com


Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #70 on: September 04, 2014, 01:40:07 PM
That's interesting. I feel like, in an age where Anita Sarkeseeian's life, along with her family's, is threatened and harassed for running a video series on Tropes vs. Women in Video Gaming, this essay is every bit as relevant as it was a decade ago, and every bit as important. This is an issue, and one that needs to be pushed back on.

I'm glad you brought up Anita Sarkeesian, because that whole crapstorm has been on my mind a lot lately, especially as an illustration of how far things need to go in the realm of treating women equally.  It boggles my mind the hateful spew that has arisen from corners of the Internet as a result of Sarkeesian's interesting points.  And here's the thing--just like this essay, if you don't agree with the points or you don't think they're worth discussing, then turn it off and go do something else.  And if you believe that there's no point discussing this stuff because all the related problems have already been solved--then maybe this is a sign that they're not as solved as you thought they were, or alternatively take solace in knowing that these important topics haven't been forgotten now that they've been solved (to help prevent backsliding).


First off, how is this fantasy? I listen to pod castle for the fantasy, not the feminist rhetoric.

It's fantasy because scaly llamas don't exist!

To chime in my two cents on this small point in a larger post that I largely agreed with: I thought this essay was fitting for Podcastle.  But not because of the scaly llamas.  The scaly llamas are never portrayed as anything but a metaphor (and honestly were the weakest part of the essay IMO).  I thought it was fitting for Podcastle because it's a discussion of how our fictional narratives affect our view of the world.  Podcastle is a purveyor of fictional narratives and so it's appropriate to consider how the kind of fiction we consume can affect our view of the world.  IMO, it would've been appropriate for Podcastle without scaly llamas or any other speculative metaphor because of its discussion of narrative.  And it would've been equally fitting for any other venue interested in discussing fiction and the effects of fiction.

And, in the end, it's the editors who decide what is appropriate or not--Podcastle has not done nonfiction before, so this is a step in a new direction, and it was Dave and Anna's choice to take a step in that direction.  I think that the thoughtful conversation it's inspired illustrates its usefulness as Podcastle material.  And as long as nonfiction is produced IN ADDITION TO the regularly scheduled fiction, and as long as users aren't somehow required to consume everything that Podcastle produces, then I don't see what there would be to complain about.



yicheng

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
Reply #71 on: September 04, 2014, 05:43:30 PM
The article is about the pervasive myth that women didn't fight. The misconception that women can't fight is just one reason for that. Another is the misconception that women fighting is some sort of modern innovation.

Let's break this down into several myths, all of which this essay addresses at different points.

1.  The myth that women can't fight.
2.  The myth that women didn't historically fight in wars
3.  The myth the women may have fought in wars, but that it was only a recent phenomenon.

It seems like you agree with me that Myth 1 (which the author does talk about and address) is largely in the process of falling out of favor already.  Myth 2 and 3, while perhaps true, is really part of a larger problem with general ignorance of history coupled with the appropriation of history as a narrative tool to justify some sort of agenda.  Women are certain not the only victims of this, and as you alluded to this kind of historical appropriation often had a very racial tone to it.  For example, when I was going to school in the states, the narrative was that the Native Americans were stone-age primitive hunter/gatherer tribes instead of actually sophisticated and highly complex agricultural and trading empire that built tremendous earthen and wooden structures on the scale of the Mayan pyramids.  I think the solution for this isn't simply replacing one kind llama narrative with another, but rather to understand that history is not a solidified monolithic thing, and that often there are many many ways of interpreting and drawing lessons from it.  Their might very well be cannibalistic scaly llamas, and there might well be furry grumpy llamas that make good sweaters.  The existence of one doesn't necessarily mean the non-existence of the other.

It's a valid point that the West is not, in any sense, the majority of the world. But this is a Western author writing to a Western audience in a Western-based publication (A Dribble of Ink) and reprinted in another Western-based publication (Podcastle).

I would also dispute that all of the West is as she is, or that non-Western societies are somehow immune from historical appropriation.  We just tend to have different narratives and thus can more easily see the bias in someone else's narrative.

Her audience is the society she came from. And her use of "we" isn't the Royal "we" (which is exclusive - the Royal "we" does not include the person being talked to), but an inclusive use. She uses "we" to mean "myself and others like me". That doesn't mean she assumes that everyone is like her.

She may not mean that, but the use of the royal "we" comes off as sanctimonious and preachy, which I'm pretty sure is not her intent.

I am someone who frequently shares your frustration, especially in discussions about race - there is a lot of writing by Americans that imply that their racial attitudes are universal, while they are quite alien to me (not, mind you, because the ones I grew up with are better. They're just different). But it's important to realize that just because what she is saying may not be universal, that doesn't mean it's less valid. It's definitely worth considering that Podcastle has a global audience and maybe more care needs to be taken to acknowledge that when posting essays such as this. But your response seems to be saying that because you know better, there is no point for anyone to have the discussion. Which is not, I think, a particularly useful approach to handling cross-cultural differences either.

I completely agree that it doesn't make her point any less valid, and in fact I completely agree with the *intent* of her essay.  I'm just complaining that about the *way* which she made her point, which comes across more like vinegar and instead of honey.

If you believe that Kameron Hurley has led a sheltered life, I don't wish to argue that with you. But you need to realize that practically everyone growing up in the English-speaking West has led a similarly sheltered life. And while that is not "most" of the world, it is a large enough part of it - and a part of it whose cultural significance in today's world is far larger than it's proportion of the population would suggest - that your apparent claim that she's an exceptional individual in that regard simply does not hold true.

I honestly have no idea what Ms/Mrs Hurley is like.  I am only going by what she says in her essay, and in it, she implies that she viewed her early life as rather sheltered.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2014, 05:45:35 PM by yicheng »



yicheng

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
Reply #72 on: September 04, 2014, 05:50:09 PM
Here you go.  Read the closing thoughts from the editor of Tangent's review of Women Destroy Science Fiction.

So, I may have missed something, but how is this the patriarchy?  It's one guy who, while obviously biased, does make a fairly good point that the scifi community as a whole tends to be much more liberal/progressive as compared to the larger society in which it was a part of.  His argument that sexism, homophobia, and racism didn't exist because anecdotally he's never see it happen seems rather weak, but how is this evidence of a patriarchal and systemic oppression of women/minorities.  If anything, the existence and popularity of magazines like Women Destroy Science Fiction seems to suggest that the very opposite is true.



Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #73 on: September 04, 2014, 05:58:08 PM
So, I may have missed something, but how is this the patriarchy?  It's one guy who, while obviously biased, does make a fairly good point that the scifi community as a whole tends to be much more liberal/progressive as compared to the larger society in which it was a part of.  His argument that sexism, homophobia, and racism didn't exist because anecdotally he's never see it happen seems rather weak, but how is this evidence of a patriarchal and systemic oppression of women/minorities.  If anything, the existence and popularity of magazines like Women Destroy Science Fiction seems to suggest that the very opposite is true.

To clarify--Women Destroy Science Fiction isn't a magazine, it's a special edition of Lightspeed that was launched because of a perceived need for such an issue, which the Kickstarter results for the special edition implies that many many people thought it a worthwhile goal.

I've seen various discussions of gender parity in current SF/F publications, most notably a series of articles by Susan E. Connolly in Clarkesworld which digs into publication numbers for each, for example this one:
http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/connolly_06_14/




gutguzzler

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Reply #74 on: September 04, 2014, 06:36:07 PM
But where are they? Where are all these misogynist monsters that are perpetuating all these grievous wrongs? They certainly don’t frequent these forums.

IRONY

(It means "sort of like iron.")

Where are the baby pandas?  I'll kill those boogers my own self.

you know I read somewhere that they thinking about changing the definition of misogyny from someone who hates women to: someone who disagrees with me.