I think perfect storm is a great way to describe this - though I think it's also what tends to happen in terms of events of social change, whether in large or small groups. There's a slow build on the side pushing for change, and then something finally comes in and ignites everyone. Which does leave the poor folks on the other side sort of flabbergasted, because they were just responding to events like they have in the past, and here's this radically different result staring them in the face.
As to SFWA as an organization, you're right. It's not their responsibility, for one thing, to create cultural norms in the SF community. They're there to protect writers, not set social norms at cons. But as flattened as SF is, in terms of status differences and author/fan mixing, the fact remains that authors, particulary the Big Names, do have much higher social status, which gives them power over the social landscape that others lack (witness the story about the girl who Ellison groped in an elevator whose was told by another fan that she should be honored to be groped by Harlan Ellison). It's human instinct to attend more to those with higher status.
Which is why, as wrong as reposting the stuff from the SFWA forums was, I think David Moles's title for those comments was perfect - they were depressing. Not because "SFWA" isn't saying anything, but because its members aren't saying anything. No one's obligated to make a stand for anything. But it's depressing when people who could be addressing the issue, people who are in a position of status, are saying nothing, and privately dismissing the behavior. If they were dismissing it somewhere public, then at least there could be conversation about differing points of view, but to remain silent publicly and privately dismiss... is just depressing. Because that's the behavior that enables the status quo to continue.
Which is where Ben Rosenbaum's comment on Chrononaut I think hits it right on the head - where one set of people is seeing this as a deeply set issue that needs to be dealt with at a wider level, others are tending to see it as an isolated incident. And that's what's creating a lot of the differences. The fact that those who saw it as an isolated incident were discussing it in the private SFWA forums while those who saw it as the tip of the iceberg were doing it publicly was a quality of the situation that exacerbated things.
Not because "SFWA" isn't saying anything, but because its members aren't saying anything. No one's obligated to make a stand for anything. But it's depressing when people who could be addressing the issue, people who are in a position of status, are saying nothing, and privately dismissing the behavior. If they were dismissing it somewhere public, then at least there could be conversation about differing points of view, but to remain silent publicly and privately dismiss... is just depressing. Because that's the behavior that enables the status quo to continue.
I read comments such as this and wonder what world the poster is living in, that is such an alternative reality from my own, where almost every member of SFWA has been discussing little else than this incident, publicly and privately, all over the internet.
The people that you mention: Ben Rosenbaum, David Moles, are SFWA members. Or don't they count? Are SFWA members just those other people who hang out in places where you can't go? Nick Mamatas, posting right here on this blog, is a SFWA member.
Have you gone to the public blogs of SFWA members to see what comments they have made on the subject?
And how do you know, if you have not seen their private posts, that they have privately been dismissing the incident? It would have to be hearsay. And that hearsay happens to be false, but nevertheless you will see the falsehood repeated over and over in these blogs - mostly based on misinformation and the distortion of what people actually said, as well as taking the opinions of one or two people to stand for an organization of over a thousand individuals, each with their own opinion.
But whoever says "SFWA members are dismissing the incident" or "SFWA members think groping women is OK" is repeating a malicious rumor and a damned lie.
As to SFWA as an organization, you're right. It's not their responsibility, for one thing, to create cultural norms in the SF community. They're there to protect writers, not set social norms at cons. But as flattened as SF is, in terms of status differences and author/fan mixing, the fact remains that authors, particulary the Big Names, do have much higher social status, which gives them power over the social landscape that others lack (witness the story about the girl who Ellison groped in an elevator whose was told by another fan that she should be honored to be groped by Harlan Ellison). It's human instinct to attend more to those with higher status.
Which is why, as wrong as reposting the stuff from the SFWA forums was, I think David Moles's title for those comments was perfect - they were depressing. Not because "SFWA" isn't saying anything, but because its members aren't saying anything. No one's obligated to make a stand for anything. But it's depressing when people who could be addressing the issue, people who are in a position of status, are saying nothing, and privately dismissing the behavior. If they were dismissing it somewhere public, then at least there could be conversation about differing points of view, but to remain silent publicly and privately dismiss... is just depressing. Because that's the behavior that enables the status quo to continue.
Which is where Ben Rosenbaum's comment on Chrononaut I think hits it right on the head - where one set of people is seeing this as a deeply set issue that needs to be dealt with at a wider level, others are tending to see it as an isolated incident. And that's what's creating a lot of the differences. The fact that those who saw it as an isolated incident were discussing it in the private SFWA forums while those who saw it as the tip of the iceberg were doing it publicly was a quality of the situation that exacerbated things.
Reply
I read comments such as this and wonder what world the poster is living in, that is such an alternative reality from my own, where almost every member of SFWA has been discussing little else than this incident, publicly and privately, all over the internet.
The people that you mention: Ben Rosenbaum, David Moles, are SFWA members. Or don't they count? Are SFWA members just those other people who hang out in places where you can't go? Nick Mamatas, posting right here on this blog, is a SFWA member.
Have you gone to the public blogs of SFWA members to see what comments they have made on the subject?
And how do you know, if you have not seen their private posts, that they have privately been dismissing the incident? It would have to be hearsay. And that hearsay happens to be false, but nevertheless you will see the falsehood repeated over and over in these blogs - mostly based on misinformation and the distortion of what people actually said, as well as taking the opinions of one or two people to stand for an organization of over a thousand individuals, each with their own opinion.
But whoever says "SFWA members are dismissing the incident" or "SFWA members think groping women is OK" is repeating a malicious rumor and a damned lie.
Lois Tilton, SFWA member
Reply
Leave a comment