Tag: SFWA

The culture of abuse

The Mad Genius and former SFWA member that is Kate Paulk slogs her way through my response to the SFWA Board report and finds it not only worth reading, but apparently not entirely lacking in entertainment value.  She also determines that SFWA is a “culture of abuse”:

Naturally, he has made public his response to the shit-sheet… ahem…
report. I recommend reading it. My knowledge of the SFWA by-laws from
actually reading the wretched things when the last revision of them came
up for a vote is that Mr Beale’s facts are 100% accurate. That’s
something I’ve noticed with him: you can disagree with him on how to
interpret the data, but the data he offers is usually pretty damned
accurate.

Among the many things Mr Beale is totally correct about is
the culture of abuse within TOFKASFWA. Name-calling that could make a
dock worker blush is one of the charming features of the regular
shit-storms, right alongside a truly remarkable lack of originality and
wit in the insults being flung right and left… mostly from left to
right, but but that’s another story. You’d think a collection of
speculative fiction writers could manage better insults than endless
conjugations of the standard four letter words (and no, I don’t mean
‘work’ and ‘food’).

Having read Mr Beale’s “vigorous” responses to some of
these childish inanities, I can say with a degree of authority that he’s
definitely more imaginative, and often more witty. He even manages to
be self-deprecating once or twice.

As for the substance of the alleged offenses he allegedly
committed: it’s pretty clear that every sin Mr Beale committed against
TOFKASFWA was committed in greater quantity by what seems like half the
flipping membership. Possibly half the non-flipping membership, too.
Since they apparently don’t keep accurate membership records (in
violation of their by-laws and the relevant laws for non-profit
organization in the two states they’re incorporated in – because their
MA incorporation is not over and they’ve taken out CA incorporation.
Possibly in violation of Federal laws for their tax status as a
non-profit as well) it’s a little difficult to tell what proportion of
the membership does anything.

Actually, it’s not too hard to tell what the barely published affiliate members who are pushing the pinkshirt agenda do. They clearly spend considerably more time reading obscure feminist sociology papers than they do publishing anything.  I suspect that what will ultimately be seen to have killed SFWA in the end is the removal of the requalifying requirement for Active membership; the techno-democratization of publishing may have eliminated SFWA’s original raison d’etre, but it was the makeup of the membership that prevented it from finding a new one still related to the creation of science fiction.

I have to confess that I am just a little disappointed no one has yet managed to identify the stylized way in which I began my response. I mean, I’m not at all surprised that it went right over the head of the relatively poorly read members of the SFWA Board, but I would have thought that more people here would have caught the reference.  I thought it was rather funny myself, but then, as Spacebunny assures me, I am the only one who truly appreciates my own sense of humor.

Kate Another Mad Genius, Dave Freer, also has some interesting thoughts on publishing and probability that the writers here will probably find worth checking out.

Burying the evidence: the SFWA Report

It appears the SFWA really doesn’t want the public to be able to learn why the SFWA Board “voted for the expulsion” from the organization of an unidentified member.

Kate Baker
Date: August 19, 2013, 3:52:59 PM CDT
Subject: DMCA Take-down Notice – Request

Requester: Kathryn Baker – Operations Manager SFWA
Organization: Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America
On Behalf of Copyright Holder: Matthew Johnson – Regional Director – SFWA

Work infringed – SFWA_report.pdf

Title: Evidence regarding the complaints made against Theodore Beale
Report to the Board of Directors of SFWA
Matthew Johnson
Canadian Region Director

Referring piece: This is an internal and private document written by Matthew Johnson. No one has been given permission to post,copy, edit the report/article in parts or in whole. We ask that you work in accordance with DMCA take-down procedures to remove the copyrighted piece from the link above.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Baker, Operations Manager – SFWA

This is an astonishingly hypocritical move by SFWA, especially in light of how Matthew Johnson both broke the SFWA Forum rules and infringed my own copyright by copying my Forum posts, blog posts, and blog comments, and distributing them in his report without permission. But I suppose they had to decide what makes them look worse, this DMCA Take-down Notice-Request or the Board Report itself.

I’ve already arranged for access to the document titled “SFWA_report.pdf” to be removed from the ISP as I expect it is only a matter of time before the report becomes a matter of public record. I trust the irony of a writer’s organization fighting to prevent information from reaching the public does not escape the average reader here.

In the meantime, one can still get the gist of Mr. Johnson’s report by reading my formal reply to it: Response to SFWA Board Report. One can also read my detailed response to each section of the report below.

Mailvox: the futility of cancer

Nate explains both why left-wing parasites are driven to take over organizations and why their takeovers always end in the eventual demise of the organization:

They never learn. They don’t understand civilization, and they don’t
understand power. That’s why they are never able to successfully build
organizations in the first place. So they have to take over the
organizations others have already built and try to use them for their
own goals. They think that the organization itself… the name… is
what makes it relevant. So they imagine if they can just get control of
it… all that power will be theirs.

So they break the very tools they are planning to use to fix the world.

Then
they stand there with a dumb look on their face… trying to drive a
nail with a broken hammer… and cannot understand why it isn’t working.

This process is as true of the Episcopalian Church and the Boy Scouts of America as it is of the SFWA.  Some believe that destruction was always the aim, but I don’t think that is true of the average parasite who joins an organization. I think in most cases they genuinely wish to “improve” the organization and do not understand that their desired improvements will kill it.

I’ll write more on this in the next day or two, in my response to NK Jemisin’s call for further “reconciliation”. What is interesting is the way in which Nate’s description here perfectly describes her approach to “improving” SF/F.

Their analytical abilities don’t appear to exceed that of the average cancer cell. The current SFWA is rather like a collection of cancer cells congratulating themselves on how much they have improved the body they are inhabiting and celebrating the way in which they have driven most of those disgusting, unprofessional white blood cells out.  And it is not hard to imagine their alarm when suddenly the body that sustains them begins to cease functioning, for no particular reason at all.

This is something that the Society for the Advancement of Speculative Storytelling may wish to keep in mind, lest it one day find itself going the same route as SFWA.  And speaking of SASS, the organization released a statement entitled: “Statement on the expulsion of a member by another writers’ organization“

In response to requests for comments regarding the decision of another writers’ group to formally expel a lifetime member, SASS Secretary and spokesman Lou Antonelli makes the following statement:

“Although the subject in question was exercising his free speech rights under the First Amendment to the US Constitution, that has nothing to do with the standards of conduct and behavior within a private organization

“Like any private club, the organization in question is allowed to police its membership according to its regulations and bylaws. This is an internal discipline issue and not a matter of concern to the Society for the Advancement of Speculative Storytelling.

“The by-laws of the Society for the Advancement of Speculative Storytelling clearly state that members should not discuss religion or politics within its auspices, and its members are expected to treat each other with respect. Those are our bylaws, and each group operates according to its own bylaws and policies.

I note that not only does SFWA have no standard of conduct and behavior, but it previously had one that was, if I recall correctly, junked during the Russell Davis administration.  As the SFWA’s statement demonstrated, the current Board believes it can throw anyone out of the organization at any time for no particular reason at all.  If I hadn’t made it clear to everyone that I was the member to whom the statement referred, no one would outside the SFWA Board and its confidants would even know with certainty who the expelled member was.

Of course, it would certainly be amusing if the Board’s assumptions turned out to be incorrect, would it not?  Because in that case, I would not even be expelled at all. And it occurs to me that someone inclined towards conspiracy theory might even conjecture that the reason the SFWA Board refused to publicly identify the expelled member is because they know very well that the expulsion was not legitimate, that it was a sham expulsion, and they are attempting to avoid being sued for damages once the illegitimacy of their action is established.

The organization formerly known as SFWA

Kate Paulk shares her thoughts on my recent, and historic, distinction:

His crime? I never really figured that out. It had something to do with
the SFWA twitter account, for which there were no official guidelines
until after whatever Mr Beale did, at least, not that I can find. As far as I can see, Mr Beale was doing nothing more horrible than
stating his opinions – not representing his opinions as those of any
other person or organization, not claiming to be anyone but himself, not
doing anything remotely unethical in other words.

Considering that a leading light of the industry can publicly grope a
female author at an awards banquet and not even get a mild, “that was
bad form” from the organization formerly known as SFWA, it’s clear that
the real reason for Mr Beale’s eviction was his outspoken personal
views.

Now I don’t particularly care what anyone’s personal beliefs are. I do
believe that an organization claiming to represent “Science Fiction and
Fantasy Writers” should have some kind of clause up front if they’re
going to limit membership to people with the “correct” beliefs. Now, if
they were the Communist Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America,
they’d have every reason to want Mr Beale out of their ranks, since he
is vehemently anti-communist. They’re not. Or at least, not openly.

SFWA may not be openly communist, but it is eminently clear that the F in SFWA now stands for Feminist. I didn’t see much hostility for capitalists in the organization, but it is readily apparent that if you are not a self-described feminist, of either sex, there is no place for you in the SFWA. The pinkshirts have already implemented various diktats concerning sexual harassment, SF conferences, and diversity, such as this one.


The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America Statement on Diversity
 
The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America strongly believes that a diverse membership is the key to a strong community. We define “diversity” as understanding and embracing the fact that our current and future members are composed of a broad range of individuals, who may vary in ethnicity, race, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, physical disabilities, political or religious beliefs.

By including in our membership those of diverse backgrounds and experiences, we hope to provide an inclusive environment for our members, which is the foundation for civil discourse and the free exchange of ideas. Moreover, maximizing the diversity of our organization is important so that we can benefit from the talent and energy of all those who contribute to excellence in science fiction and fantasy writing.
 
Recognizing that historical and present day inequities must be addressed, we understand the need to promote diversity within the Board, staff, members, programs, and written policies of our organization. We must embody the change we advocate for others in the publishing industry. By seeking greater diversity and inclusion, we can serve as a model of the fairness and equality of opportunity we envision for our members.

We value the perspectives and contributions of all of our members. We welcome and support anyone who comes to us in good faith and with the desire to promote the SFWA, science fiction and fantasy writing, and the genre community as a whole.

This Very Important Statement was penned on the organization’s behalf by one Carrie Cuin, a fat little feminist who hasn’t even published enough fiction to qualify as a full member.  Many, if not most, of the outspoken feminists who have appointed themselves the organization’s stormtroopers haven’t published a single novel; the nobodies on the SFWA Board look like respected elders of the field by comparison.

And forget science fiction, the self-appointed experts on Stormfront and its associates have even gotten into the business of determining who is, and who is not, Hispanic. Despite my great-grandfather being a Mexican revolutionary and close associate of Pancho Villa’s, and despite my great-uncle being a well-known Hispanic painter, due to my failure to be publicly “Latino-identified” and my “discriminatory statements against Latinos”, Ms Cuin informed me that she “was afraid that you wouldn’t fall under that category” and therefore could not be included on a list of Hispanic SF writers.

Of course I’m not “Latino-identified”. I’m not Latino. And I don’t think I’ve made any statements about Latinos at all. The inability of a white woman from Ithaca to recognize the difference between Hispanics and Latinos is merely the icing on the irony cake.  No doubt they all look the same to her, and besides, they all speak Spanish anyhow, right?

The SFWA’s position on who is and who is not Hispanic reminded me of a statement by one of my feminist university professors, who once quite seriously declared that Margaret Thatcher “was not of the gender woman”. SFWA is so committed to diversity and inclusiveness that it excluded one of its few genuine writers of color… for no particular reason at all.

¡Viva la Revolución!

On advice of counsel

The SFWA’s official announcement of my expulsion doesn’t happen to mention me or why I was expelled.  The SFWA President didn’t provide a reason in his email to me either.  That was interesting in light of this belated addition to the official announcement:

Amended to add:

We will continue to omit the expelled individual’s name and the details of his behavior on advice of counsel.

They can’t mention the reason, of course, because that would reveal that their action was either a) highly selective, or, b) ideologically driven.

Meanwhile, Jemisin makes it clear, in her uniquely civilized way, that she’s got others on her hit list:

I’m still thinking about how much I’m willing to put up with, and for how much longer.

For the time being, though, I’ll remain a SFWA member. By expelling Mr. Beale,
and making a clear choice to offend at least one bigot this one time,
SFWA has done the bare minimum of what it must to retain relevance to
the bulk of its membership. Much, much more needs to be done, and I
suspect the organization will always be reactive to change
rather than proactive in this area. Frankly I don’t expect better of a
group that took 10 weeks to decide whether a member who spread hate
speech in its name was deserving of the label “professional”. But at
least for now SFWA might manage to stay relevant enough, to enough
people, to last awhile longer. I guess we’ll have to see.

Some time ago, I warned several SFWA members who were on the political left but concerned about the precedent an expulsion would set that my expulsion would not mark the end, but rather the beginning of the ideological cleansing. The mediocre feminist members of the organization, virtually none of whom should ever have been permitted to join in the first place, have nothing better to do than play sex police and ideological enforcer.  They love having an excuse to be outraged and if they can’t find one, they will manufacture one. I may be the first to be expelled by the rampaging rabbits, but it seems very unlikely I will be the last.

The lesson of the SFWA saga is the way in which it demonstrates how good organizations are invaded, conquered, and purged of both its purpose and its members by the progressive Left.  If your church, or your business, or your interest organization is not actively on guard against such individuals, and is not prepared to prevent them from joining, then the chances are very good that the process you have observed here is already underway.

In case you are interested, here is the actual vote.  Note that none of the four individuals named in the response, who were documented as doing the same thing I was accused of in the complaint, recused themselves.  Even the Board Appointed prosecutor voted:

Moved: That, having determined there is good and sufficient cause, a member be expelled from the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for conduct materially and seriously prejudicial to the purposes and interests of the organization.

Steven Gould, President
Rachel Swirsky, Vice President–Second

Lee Martindale, South/Central Regional Director–Aye
Jim Fiscus, Western Regional Director–Aye
Matthew Johnson, Canadian Director–Aye
Bud Sparhawk, Treasurer–Aye
Tansy Rayner Roberts, Overseas Director–Aye
Eugene Myers, Eastern Regional Director–Aye
Susan Forest, Secretary–Aye

Vote carried: 9-0-0-0

The SFWA Board decides

Well, so long as the consideration of the evidence was careful….

After careful consideration of the evidence gathered by the Board-appointed investigator and your response, and in compliance with the existing Massachusetts By-Laws, the approved operations and procedures, and legal counsel, the SFWA Board has unanimously voted for your expulsion from the organization, effective immediately. This has been a difficult decision, but thorough examination of the evidence and the situation makes it clear that this action is necessary to best serve the interests of the organization and its members.

According to our records, you paid for your Lifetime Membership in October of 2002. As this period of time exceeds 10 years, you are not eligible for any pro-rata refund of your dues.

Sincerely,

Steven Gould
President
Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America

Fascinating. Notice that Steven Gould informs me “the SFWA Board has unanimously voted for your expulsion from the organization”, but he did not inform me that I was actually been expelled, nor did SFWA subsequently announce my expulsion, presumably because Gould knows “the existing Massachusetts By-Laws” state that as per Title XXII, Chapter 180, Section 18: No member of such corporation shall be expelled by vote of
less than a majority of all the members thereof, nor by vote of less
than three quarters of the members present and voting upon such
expulsion.

In any event, if you’d like to see the evidence that was so carefully considered by the SFWA Board yourself, you can download the two relevant documents:

And if you’re looking for my immediate response to what appears to be an elaborate charade on the part of the SFWA Board, all I can really say is this: rabbits gonna rabbit.

UPDATE: I was initially been under the impression that SFWA had expelled me from the organization. But after legal review, it was determined that the Board merely took the first step in the process since they have not yet held the full membership vote to confirm their decision that is required by the existing Massachusetts By-Laws.

    Handism in SF/F/SF

    Standout Author and anti-handist activist Mike Z. Williamson was inspired to action after encountering this troubling discussion of racism:

    Stephen Geigen-Miller
    June 13th, 2013 at 1:41 pm · Reply
    Jim,
    I agree completely and deeply respect what you’re doing in this post
    overall. Because of that, may I please suggest that you rethink your use
    of the phrase “tarred by association”? There are some problematic
    connotations there. Thanks very much.


    Jim C. Hines
    June 13th, 2013 at 1:51 pm · Reply
    Stephen
    – I’m not familiar with the connotations in question, and Google is
    failing me. Can you help fill in this knowledge gap for me?
    Thomas Wilde


    June 13th, 2013 at 1:57 pm · Reply
    I’m assuming he’s referring to tar babies or somesuch.
    Trey
    June 13th, 2013 at 2:06 pm · Reply
    Tarring and feathering. Also associated with lynching.


    Josh Hawks
    June 13th, 2013 at 2:28 pm · Reply
    I’m assuming it’s referring to tarring and feathering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarring_and_feathering), which does have classist/racist undertones.


    Jim C. Hines
    June 13th, 2013 at 2:15 pm · Reply
    Had a quick and interesting Twitter chat about it, and did a little reading at http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-tar1.htm. I did go ahead and change that phrase, though. I like the new version better anyway
    To which Mr. Williamson responded on the subject of privilege and the discriminatory bias of handism:
    There’s one minority still not given proper respect in language: Left handers. The term “sinister” is still used as an epithet for evil, wrong, unpleasant. Likewise, “gauche” is a reference to rude behavior.  People are considered “dextrous” if they have good manual skills.

    Why are the negative connotations expressed using references to left handedness, and positive connotations reserved for the right?

    Writers, especially in fantasy, usually right-handed, should stop using these prejudicial terms and find terms that are non-handed specific.

    This is a worldwide issue.  Only about 15% of the population are left handed…. I’m sure most people have never thought of this.  They have right-handed privilege, in a world that caters to them.

    I’m sure some will dismiss this as a non-issue.  I challenge them to go into a store and ask for every household good in a left-handed model.  If the store has any, they will have a token one or two of each, not the dozens or hundreds of right handed options.  Buy them.  Go home and use them in your right hand so you’re using them backward. That’s what it’s like for left handed people every day of our lives.

    Politically, I’ve seen conservatives refer to the political right being “correct” and the political left being “wrong.”

    Then crack open a book and find the bad guy is “sinister” and the clueless guy is “gauche.”  Gee, thanks for that.

    “Right” is an acknowledgment of correctness.  One gets “left behind.”
    I expect there are a number of fantasy writers who are major offenders on this.  But if they’re taking steps with racially, culturally, gender and religiously sensitive terms, it would be fair to not use terms derogatory to the left handed minority as well.

    This moving missive has truly opened my eyes to my right-handed privilege.  Was it an accident that the handist and racist Ursula le Guin asserted it was the LEFT hand that was DARK?  Was it a coincidence that the handist and religious bigot Jerry Jenkins related the LEFT to the body part most associated with ordure, the BEHIND?  Truly, the evil is rife within the genre! I can only abase myself and hope Mr. Williamson will accept my humble apologies for my thoughtless handism.  I henceforth pledge to do my level best to excise this shameful scourge of handist privilege from science fiction, fantasy, and speculative fiction.

    Who doesn’t understand what?

    The current SFWA president provides a fascinating retweet from the previous SFWA president.

    John Scalzi ‏@scalzi 20 Jul
    As a general rule, a person too stupid to understand satire shouldn’t try to use it as an affirmative defense.
    Retweeted by Steven Gould

    Now, logic suggests that there are two possibilities here.  The first is that a member of Mensa doesn’t understand satire.  The second is that John Scalzi is a foolish ass who didn’t stop and think before he asserted his belief in a dimwitted reader’s interpretation of one of my posts.

    Whatever could the answer be?  Remember, leftist attacks often involve psychological projection of their own deficiencies.  Consider the similarities between McRapey’s claims that I don’t understand satire and his response to my explanation for the readily observable fact that women write very little hard science fiction more than eight years ago:

    “John, you think it makes more sense to postulate that despite my
    obvious familiarity with the hard SF works of various women, I am
    dedicated to a theory of genetic female inferiority while simultaneously
    being in denial of the existence of books I own, than to admit you
    failed to grasp an obvious rhetorical device.”

    It’s possible, Vox. On the other hand, I have a degree in philosophy
    from the University of Chicago (specializing in the philosophy of
    language), and therefore have ample training in rhetoric, so I doubt
    that rhetorical deficiencies on this end are the issue.

    McRapey can’t be wrong, you see, because credentials.  Credentials and ample training.

    There is no middle ground

    Season of the Red Wolf fails to note two vital things in his attempt to call a pox on both houses.  First, I am neither a conservative nor a reactionary.  My positions stand on their own from first principles, they are not formed in reaction to anything. Second, he does not, (and I suspect cannot), make a case against either my position on either gays or women beyond the usual pointing, shrieking, and not bothering to go into details because his position is self-evident:

    All this brings me to Theodore Beale aka Vox Day, the voice for ‘conservative sanity’ in the Science Fiction genre community. So he thinks. Yes Beale does have on occasion some sensible things to say, about the moral relativist and cultural relativist far Left insanity that pervades the SF genre community, and the odious liberal gate-keeping of the commercial and ‘artistic’ award circus. However Beale is – to put it as politely and diplomatically as possible – not the most reasonable alternative to the status quo. It’s not that he’s a little cranky, or odd, who isn’t in the genre community? Who isn’t period? It’s that his um opinions on women and homosexuality are simply eyebrow raising. There is no other way to put it.

    Now I don’t care for RationalWiki any more than I care for Wiki on controversial issues. RationalWiki’s bias to so-called enlightenment values that are not always such is apparent and in-your-face. It appears to have a clear anti-religious and scientific materialist agenda, an agenda that hews to the liberal status quo across the board, and RationalWiki may well suffer from moral and cultural relativist delusions that Western liberalism suffers from as a whole. I mention this because this is Beale’s page at RationalWiki. However there are some quotes there attributed to Beale – I am talking about what he has to say about women and homosexuality – that make one wonder if they are for real or at least intended to be tongue-in-cheek. Well they are for real and no they are not intended to be sarcastic.

    Here are some of his choice remarks on gays for example.

    I am not going to bother going into details on why the above is just misguided, disturbing and contradictory. Either you see it or you don’t. Homosexuality is “a combination of nature…” and yet it is “a birth defect”. And ‘civilized society’ needs to treat it as such. The path down which this kind of thinking leads is not one I care to go down… Beale appears to be sincere in that he intends no personal malice or hatred to homosexuals – he makes it clear he doesn’t see homosexuality as bad per se. And yet Beale does give comfort and justification to those who are hateful to homosexuals. However Beale may vociferously deny it and not intend it at all. This is why Beale’s self-deceptive thinking on this front is so dangerous and beyond the pale. [PS No I am not gay myself, although I know some people think so]

    On women in science and well, women, he is arguably misogynistic. And no I don’t take seriously the claims of militant feminists here at all, since the latter have no credibility whatsoever (witness the Malzberg and Resnick witch-hunt after all); but Beale’s more mainstream critics and his own *actual remarks* here speak for themselves (I mean one just needs to quote Beale without comment):

    Now if Beale were just reacting and mocking the idiotic extremes of far Left feminism (and militant feminism in the academy for that matter), and its anti-male prejudice and out-and-out imbecility (as exemplified by the Malzberg-Resnick kerfluffle), I would and do concur. The militant feminists are the flip side of the coin to old-fashioned misogyny and excessive patriarchy in our society. However the problem with Beale is that he appears to go further than that, and his remarks on women as a whole appear to be persistently and consistently troubling, a little over the top.

    The thing is Beale easily alienates or risks alienating (one assumes) half the genre community with his breezy, negative remarks on the female sex. One would think he would want as many readers as possible, as much support as he could get from SFFWA voters, when everything is rigged against you. Does Beale not realize that there are as likely to be as many genre females who are infuriated with moronic Leftism and its hold on the genre, as males? Or does Beale think that women are disproportionately in favor of selling the political status quo? Even if he does believe that, does he really want to alienate the women who don’t care for how feminism has lost its way (when it comes to militant feminism, plenty of women just roll their eyes); and women who don’t care for the Left’s and the genre Left’s love affair/apologetics for reactionary Islam? Well that’s the message Beale could easily be construed as sending out.

    More recently Beale has gotten into a spat with N K Jemisin, radical US feminist genre writer over the latter’s controversial speech in Australia (just google it if you can be bothered). One wonders when Jemisin will be visiting Egypt or the Sudan or any nation in the Persian Gulf to let us know about what she thinks of how women and girls are treated there by Sharia law, but as they say when hell freezes over…  Yet Beale’s response to Jemisin  in some parts falls into the same trap, the same mold, they are both reacting off one another with stereotypes, superficial finger-pointing and offensive generalizations that are fallacious. He is reactionary, she is well a far Leftist (enough said).

    Another thing that I cannot leave out, is that Beale is in bitter dispute with the SFWA given that he accuses the latter of unfair discrimination and negative attacks against Beale’s person at the latter’s (private) forums, and similar issues. Given the snakes’ nest and vile gossipy nature of the SFWA, and the latter’s odious far Left political bent on top of all that; well I’m not on the side of the SFWA here. However I don’t know what has gone on behind the scenes and thus I cannot comment on this with any real knowledge whatsoever, so will leave off. If anybody is so interested, Beale has quite a lot to say about it at his blog.

    The thing is conservatives who cheer him on either haven’t noticed his uh problematic side, or they don’t care to notice, or they simply share his reactionary tendencies. We have common enemies after all, and you know let’s not look to closely at our embarrassing relatives who are effective leaders and sell lots of books… The enemy of my enemy is my friend, goes the thinking on both sides of the Isle. And this is symptomatic of why there is no hope for conservative SF. And conservatism really. The same lack of concern of prejudice, that infects the Left like a cancer. Misogyny? Yawn. Well depends on how you look at it. Gays shmays. Whatever. The far Left are misogynistic too, horribly so. This is especially the case with far Left feminists, but who knows that? Given liberal militant feminists’ running cover for reactionary Islam (as liberals are wont to do as a whole), and the latter’s in-your-face misogyny; well this shows up a core of  self-loathing, of masochism, of a strong anti-female streak within the militant feminist Movement. The ironies with the Left are beyond compare. That’s a whole other thing, beyond this article’s general scope. Just read the authentic feminist Phyllis Chesler’s Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman and The Death of Feminism. Not that these feminists ever will. None of the Left’s misogyny and the genre Left’s misogyny (that they don’t begin to recognize at all, along with the anti-Semitism) excuse such misogyny if it comes from conservative circles, in and out of the genre community. And so partisans on both sides of the isle will point fingers at the other and close ranks. We have dragons to fight after all, and you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. So it goes. Yeah well count me out.

    In other words, Gould had no real competition. Although Fordham U prof Paul Levinson has served as president of the SFWA, and Levinson is a political crackpot. I’m sure there are plenty of genre pro writers and wannabe writers who don’t care for the status quo and the business-as-usual approach from Gould, but Beale as the alternative is no viable alternative.

    And as I make clear further up, Scalzi is guilty of PC identity politics and its explicit racism, and likewise doesn’t have the tiniest problem whatsoever with extreme Jew-hatred from the genre community. Ditto Scalzi’s successor, Court Jew Steven Gould. So how is Scalzi better than Beale? How is Gould? Other than the fact that Scalzi’s identity politics prejudice and enforcement of deafening silence to Jew-hatred from genre writers is just going along with the zeitgeist of our times; that is the genre Thought Police’s prejudices are respectable prejudices and Beale’s are not. Scalzi (and Gould) aren’t any better than Beale and neither are the formers’ supporters.

    The thing is though that Beale’s reactionary slant isn’t the way forward, heck by definition reactionary thinking is going back to the past and past mistakes. It’s answering the horrible prejudices of Scalzi and his ilk with Beale’s own neuroses. And it makes no sense to say that Beale’s prejudices are preferable to Scalzi’s or vice versa. Yet Scalzi’s race-baiting has its seal of approval from liberal America, from the White House itself, from a dumb media, the Ivy League. And it’s all branded as anti-racism, anti-prejudice. That’s what makes Scalzi and the genre Thought Police’s prejudices so very scary.

    What Season is missing here is that the truth is the truth, regardless of whom it might happen to give “aid and comfort”.  If science makes him uncomfortable because it proves that all humans are not equally homo sapiens sapiens or indicates it will be possible to genetically prevent fetuses from developing into homosexuals, that just means reality makes him uncomfortable, it doesn’t mean that the science doesn’t exist or must be incorrect.

    I am not saying that SF/F should go back and blindly imitate the masters of the past. Who among us can reasonably hope to equate the achievement of Tolkien, let alone surpass it?  But SF/F could do, and is doing, considerably worse than rejecting the lessons and examples set by the classics and embarking on a politically correct course that is neither scientific nor literary.  In fact, if one accepts the definition of art as that which is true to the artist’s feelings, most modern SF/F is manifestly not even artistic, being rife with cowardice, self-deceit, and derivation.

    I don’t pretend to be THE alternative to the status quo, I am merely one alternative to it.  And I would encourage Seasons to read A Throne of Bones before blithely dismissing that alternative; it is as foolish to judge my novels by my blog posts as it is to judge Neil Gaiman’s novels by his choice in female companions.  In answer to his questions:

    1. “Does Beale not realize that there are as likely to be as many genre
    females who are infuriated with moronic Leftism and its hold on the
    genre, as males?”

    I disagree.  That’s simply not true. Such women do exist.  But there are far fewer of them because they observably have not fled the SF/F genre in the same numbers as men.

    2.  “Or does Beale think that women are disproportionately
    in favor of selling the political status quo?” 

    Yes, I think women disproportionately lean politically left and tend to prefer fiction about romance to fiction about science or ideas.  So, naturally, they are more accepting of the current SF/F status quo than men; men don’t buy novels about necrobestial love triangles in space.  Women do.

    3. “Even if he does believe
    that, does he really want to alienate the women who don’t care for how
    feminism has lost its way (when it comes to militant feminism, plenty of
    women just roll their eyes); and women who don’t care for the Left’s
    and the genre Left’s love affair/apologetics for reactionary Islam?” 

    I don’t wish to alienate them, but I don’t care if I do.  I don’t believe feminism “lost its way”, I believe feminism, in all its forms, however, mild, is an ideology that is observably and materially more evil than Fascism or National Socialism.  If people refuse to read my fiction because they disagree with my politics or my ideology, that is certainly their prerogative.  I don’t care in the slightest so long as they don’t attempt to pronounce judgment upon it without actually reading it.

    I write what I write. Perhaps my blend of traditional high fantasy and modern “realistic” fantasy will prove influential, or perhaps it will not. Most of those who have read it have enjoyed it. Most of those who are negative about it have not.  In the end, a work of fiction must always stand on its own, without the benefit or the disadvantage of its author’s views.

    For the record

    I would like to thank everyone who helped with my response to the SFWA Board report, regardless of whether they helped publicly, privately, or anonymously.  I’ve now completed what turned out to be a mere 32-page response in the end, thanks to my need to avoid violating discussion forum confidentiality by providing links rather than direct quotes of various statements made in the forums.  Also, as per the formal process, I have sent some 200 or so statements relevant to the matter to the Canadian Regional Director to be entered into the official record.

    I also appreciate the staunch support that so many readers here have shown me in the face of the many false and absurd accusations contained in the report. As I’ve attempted to point out from the beginning, this affair is merely a microcosm of what can happen in nearly any organization in America today.  If your church, or your scout troop, or your neighborhood association, doesn’t deal firmly with the interlopers and busybodies who like nothing better than to invade organizations and “improve” it by constantly interfering with the other members, you may well find yourself on the business end of a similarly selective witch hunt.  If that happens, I hope my response here has provided you with a useful model with which to begin your own.

    Even though I have been denied access to the discussion forums, I am still obliged to respect their confidentiality. So, while I can’t present the evidence here, SFWA members who are interested may find the following links to be useful in deciding whether personal attacks made in SFWA spaces have historically been considered an offense meriting official sanction or are simply part of the normal intra-organizational discourse.