In case you’ve been living under a rock for the last week, our very own Kate stirred up more than a tempest in a B-cup with her post last Thursday. The glitter has been flying and outrage has been levelled. She and Sarah have been called two of the most evil persons ever, beating out – I guess – Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin. At least one woman – and I use that term loosely – has voice the wish that she could resign from her gender because of them. Golly, I had no idea two of my best friends were such evil, horrid persons.
Okay, now that I’ve finished laughing hysterically. . . .
It started with a fellow – note, I don’t say gentleman because he didn’t prove himself to be one – by the name of John Wesley Hardin. Yes, that JAH. He of the drive-by troll fame. He came swooping down on MGC after seeing a link to it on Facebook and left a comment that had nothing to do with the post. When he was called on it by several of us, he went running back to Facebook and made fun of Kate, including noting that she wasn’t a “pro” writer. His reasoning for this? Her bio lists that she work in QA. So that must mean that she isn’t a “real” writer.
Now, several of us responded to this on MGC and he tried to weasel around it and said weaseling once again had nothing to do with what he originally said or with the original comment. He was a troll. Worse, he was a SFWA-loving, glittery hoo-haa worshipping troll. Why? Because he came in with an agenda of leaving a snarky message and then going back to gloat about how he showed us.
Then came the GHHers. Except they didn’t have the balls to actually come to MGC to take on Kate or any of the rest of us. Oh, no. They took to their blogs and Facebook and Twitter. Now, we are nice folks. We’re even welcoming folks. We have no problem with opinions that differ from ours at MGC – as long as you discuss and don’t come in and name-call or leave one line diatribes and then flee. DISCUSS is the key here. Frankly, we have better things to do with our time than worry about what the GHHers and the apologists who side with them (men who think they need to apologize for having a penis and, gasp, testosterone) think. We smile when they accuse us of being disgruntled right wing writers (especially since I am probably the most conservative of the group and I’m anything but on most issues.)
But there are times when we just have to respond. This is one of those because another author, Cora Buhlert – I won’t insult her by saying she is a female author since I don’t know if she is a cis-female, a gay female, a pink-purple polka dot female or what – has taken it upon herself to try to castigate Kate for what she wrote.
I won’t go into the misrepresentation Buhlert has of why Vox got kicked out of SFWA. Nor will I talk – yet – about the double standard SFWA has been employing of late as evidenced by what happened with Vox. I won’t even go into the fact that I don’t always agree with what Vox says, much less with the way he says it. However, I will defend his right to say whatever he wants because, whether the politically correct crowd likes it or not, this is a free country and we do have a right to free speech within certain limits set forth by the courts.
However, let’s look at some of the rest of what she has to say.
“Next, her post is brimming with sexist language about “glittery hoo-haas” (“hoo-haa” is apparently a weird euphemism for “vagina” used to people who can’t bear to use the proper term, because they feel it’s a dirty word) and “storm in a B-cup”, while completely forgetting that many of those who criticised the petition are cisgender men and therefore not in possession of a vagina, glittery or otherwise.”
Okay, now everyone quit laughing. This is serious.
To start, I have serious concerns about Buhlert’s research skills if she can’t find out what a glittery hoo-haa is. A simple Google search brings up numerous links to sites using it, including the Urban Dictionary and the site where Kate first saw it. As for Kate not being able to bear to use the term “vagina” because she feels it’s a dirty word? Pardon me while I laugh again. (You know, I haven’t laughed this hard in a long time. Maybe I ought to thank Buhlert for being such good comic relief.) Kate’s Australian. She can swear with such vigor, fervor and inventiveness that a sailor would go to confession just because he heard her.
I guess that using alternatives to vagina and commenting on a bra size is sexist. At least according to Buhlert. So, does that mean she is going after every romance novel that uses every slang reference for a vagina, anus and penis because those are sexist? Or does her outrage only flow – oops, maybe I shouldn’t use that word either – to those who don’t agree with her perception of “right”?
Then we have Kate being basically accused of being insensitive because she didn’t take into account the number of cisgender men who don’t have a vagina.
Give me a break. Can this person not recognize saracasm? Yes, I’m rolling my eyes.
As if attacking Kate – which really is a foolish enterprise because Kate is more than capable of defending herself – wasn’t enough, Buhlert goes on a confusing rant about Cedar. I’m still trying to figure that one out but I think it comes down to the fact that Cedar dares identify herself as the Lady Writer (not bothering to discover that Cedar has long been known as the Lady Cedar by the ‘flies and others) and yet then identifies herself as white and – gasp – says she is gender and race blind as a reader. How dare she!?!
But she’s not done there. She tries to bring in Larry Correia, including figuring he’s still “too busy campaigning for Hugo nominations and getting his knickers in a twist about post-binary gender)” to speak up about this current kerfluffle. Then she accuses those of us here at MGC, and I assume this includes at least some of our commenters, of being Heinlein worshippers. Oh save me now! I didn’t know I was in the company of such . . . such . . . intelligent people. You see, we are bad because WE have message fiction. So how dare we bitch and moan about THEIR message fiction.
What she fails to take into account is that we don’t beat our readers over their heads with our message. We are more interested in telling a story our readers want to read. You know who I mean. The readers who want to pay money for our stories. Those who write us, demanding to know when we are going to get our next book out. That is what’s important, at least to me, as a writer.
When she finally gets to condemning Sarah, well, she proves her inability to read and comprehend in context. That’s too bad since she claims to be a writer. Or maybe it is just the politically correct blinders she has on. It certainly wouldn’t help her cause in condemning Sarah to note that the post in question was in response to a comment by the above-mentioned troll that Vox should not only have been kicked out of SFWA but out of the human race as well. The implication being that he shouldn’t be allowed to die. Sarah drew the comparison that is tantamount to saying that one group has the right to say who should live and who should die. I’m not sure where Buhlert got to Godwin’s Law.
What gets me is the double standard that has reared its ugly head in all this. No one on the other side gets upset when one of their own calls someone with a differing opinion names or suggests they should be hurt or killed. They don’t get upset when their own mock and make fun of those who aren’t of the “enlightened” set. But God forbid that the tables are turned and they get called on their BS or made fun of. Then they get full of righteous indignation.
Someone can’t disagree with them without them wanting to resign from their gender. We don’t lack empathy because we don’t fall in line with how they think. Funny, where is their empathy for us? I’m not asking them to sit down and have a drink with me. I’m just wondering if they remember the adage that respect is earned. You want to earn respect then you also need to treat that person with respect. You want to educate? Fine. But educating with a two-by-four, even a figurative one, doesn’t work. It creates resentment and causes rifts. Don’t believe me, look at SFWA. If there was ever an organization about to implode if something isn’t done soon, that’s it.
Finally, if you are going to condemn someone by saying they are “an American” and therefore can’t know what Marxism, etc., is, please do your research first. Kate is an Australian. Sarah was born and raised in Portugal. She lived there during who knows how many revolutions. She was there when it was Marxist, Maoist, etc., etc., etc. Dave Freer just immigrated to Flinders Island (Tasmania) after living in South Africa. Cedar and I are the only Americans, born and bred. Oh, and I’ve spend time as a student behind the Iron Curtain and in the Soviet Union before the Berlin Wall came down and Glasnost reined.
I won’t condemn Ms. Buhlert based on where she lives, what her politics are, or anything of the like. What I will question is why she couldn’t do even the most basic research into people she was going to attack. I also wonder why she feels it necessary to pull out the Nazi card in the comments. Oh, I know. She was looking for hot buttons she could use to prove how evil we are over here.
If anyone takes offense at what I’ve said, come discuss it with me. The comments section is open. In the five years or so MGC has been around, we’ve banned a grand total of five people and at least two of those bans are the same person trying to game the system. Bannings come after warnings and only when the commenter either refuses to address the post or comments or engages in nothing but personal attacks. So, if you want to discuss it, here I am.
Oh yeah, someone tell me how I managed not to make the list of evil folks? I can understand why they left Dave off. They’re afraid he’ll fling coconuts at them. But do they really think I’m the nice one here?