Is SF institutionally xenophobic?

So over the last couple of weeks a huge debate has been raging, hither and yon, across numerous blogs and forums about whether or not women are under-represented in the SF field.  As the debate has raged on it has prompted people to say some quite extraordinary things that have prompted me to wonder how progressive and open the SF field actually is.

The row started with THIS post by Adrienne Martini at Bookslut who complained, not unreasonably about how under-represented women are on this year's Hugo best novel short list.  She then went on to talk about the "bastards" organising Worldcon.  Somewhat predictably, a sizable chunk of the audience ruthlessly hunted down the red-herring that is the fact that Martini referred to the people behind Worldcon as "bastards", for which she apologised.  Quite rightly so... it's not the people organising Worldcon that are bastards, it's the bulk of SF fans.

Martini's column then prompted THIS response from Dave Truesdale.

For the past couple of weeks the debate has raged and the conclusion seems to be that while Martini was a trifle unfair to the people at Worldcon, Dave Truesdale is a deeply unpleasant and pompous imbecile.  The reason for this is that, regardless of the actual content of his opinions, Truesdale decided to respond to Martini's arguments by patronisingly mocking her.  However, the problem is that if SF is indeed institutionally misogynistic then mocking a female columnist for speaking out is pretty much the worst thing a male commentator can possibly do.  This is because of power dynamics.

Indeed, if a person on the bottom of the social ladder mocks the people around him or the people above him then he is effectively attacking himself and the people that oppress him.  This is seen as acceptable because it is free speech as a means of affecting social change by drawing attention to imbalances within society.  That is why THIS is okay, Chris Rock can talk about hating "niggers" because he is talking about his own community.  However, if a person further up the social ladder mocks the people below him then he is, in effect, using his free speech to sustain existing social inequalities.  That is why THIS isn't okay, Michael Richards screams about throwing someone out because he is a "nigger"... he is not mocking unacceptable attitudes or challenging them, he is actually voicing them.

Truesdale's lengthy defence of himself HERE  and his admission that he agrees with noted right wing demagogue and drug addict Rush Limbaugh "60% of the time" have made it clear quite how hideous Truesdale's politics really are.  If any confirmation of this were needed, look no further than his moaning about how politically correct and metro-sexual SF has become.  What's sort of scary is that Truesdale is clearly not alone, in fact Andrew Wheeler even suggests that if women are under-represented in SF it's because they spend their time complaining about sexism instead of baking pies and making babies writing stories.  In fact, he also seems to suggest some kind of link between magazines thinking about their demographics and their falling circulation numbers.  Clearly such views are beneath contempt and do not even bear responding to (in fact, Andrew has since modified his original posts, having clearly realised what he came across as saying).  However, they do raise an interesting question.

Should Dave Truesdale speak for this field?

F&SF is an American magazine and as such its editorial staff are bound to be influenced by American politics.  In America, opinions such as those of Dave Truesdale are so mainstream that their champions become internationally known political commentators.  As such, it does not seem outlandish for a man with politics reminiscent of Alabamian talk radio to be given a position of influence and prominence in a magazine read the entire world over.

Let us make no mistakes here.  By giving Truesdale a position as columnist, F&SF are effectively saying that not only is it acceptable to mock feminists and complain about GLBT issues, but that such actions are worthy of a paid columnist and that such views a liable to interest people with an interest in the SF field.  By giving Truesdale a position as columnist, F&SF is helping to make the SF field that little bit more uncomfortable for people that aren’t white middle class straight males and that little less likely that such people might want to try their hand at writing SF.

If you look through my criticism on this site you’ll see me frequently praise films and books that are “challenging” or “different”.  However, with respect to inclusiveness I do not want SF to be “different” I want it to be at the very least as inclusive as the mainstream literature scene where it’s impossible to list ten great living authors without also mentioning women, GLBTs and non-white people.  Martini was right, this year’s Hugo shortlist is unrepresentative, in fact it’s unrepresentative pretty much every year because it is genuinely difficult to find a voice in the SFF field that does not belong to a white male.

I do not believe in inclusiveness for inclusiveness’ sake, nor do I particularly buy into the politics of presence and the idea of quotas applied to award bodies fills me with dread.  However, I do think that it is important for SF to reach out to as many different backgrounds and communities as possible because the more voices we have in our art, the better it will be.  By mocking feminists and complaining about metro-sexuals, Truesdale is making this field that tiny bit more of a boy’s club.

Comments

[Andrew Wheeler]

Actually, my post wasn't a reaction to this particular hoo-hah; it was caused by a vituperative essay by the self-professed spokesperson for some other group entirely.

And the fact that you could make that mistake proves my point -- SF is currently obsessed with its own political correctness, rather than with actually telling good stories.

Maybe I should be clearer: if all of the stories in the slush pile suck, it doesn't matter who wrote them. Good fiction comes first. Period.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

If all the stories in the slushpile suck then it doesn't matter whether or not people are concerned about how inclusive SF is.

The only way in which political correctness could have any impact upon SF is if good stories are being turned down out of a desire to be politically correct.

Seeing as Truesdale has his own column in one of the leading SF magazines in the field, I'm pretty sure that political correctness doesn't figure that heavily when people decide what to put into their magazine.

[Ben Seeberger]

After reading through all those links and discussions, I can honestly say...

I know nothing.

Jeez, that's humbling.

I think I'm going to stick with trying to write good stories. That's always the trick, isn't it?

[Jonathan McCalmont]

That tends to work yeah :-)

[A.R.Yngve]

I have replied to Andrew Wheeler HERE.

I read some statistics that showed the SF readership, until very recently, was mostly male -- much different from the female dominance in other genre readerships.

But this has changed. SF stopped being a "white boys' club" years ago.

And -- hey! The genre is a big tent. There's room for all kinds of people. Write what YOU want to write -- not what people are telling you to write.

Doing so can even, sometimes, be commercially successful.