Links of Great Interest: WisCon Finally Makes Decision

SkywardProdigal, whose work deeply impacted anti-racist fandom, died last week.

More on the WisCon fiasco. Nojojojo has some kick-ass thoughts here. Quote from the post!

This is no longer about Elizabeth Moon. She’s just the trigger. Even if she recants and apologizes at this point, or resigns as Guest of Honor, the damage has been done. What this incident has exposed is a serious, and possibly fatal, flaw in WisCon itself. The decision to keep a bigot as Guest of Honor — and the decision to delay or avoid reconsidering that decision — means that WisCon isn’t actually committed to the principles of intersectionality, social justice for all, equality, or respect, which are all ostensibly part and parcel of the modern feminist movement. They talk a good game, in other words, but when the chips are down, they’re not willing to put their money, or actions, where their mouths are.

In conclusion: WisConComm: You are fucking it up. Seriously? WE ARE NOT FRIENDS. :-/ TboneJenkins, though? <3 We’re friends and if I go to WisCon I share with you some cookies. Timmi Duchamp from Aqueduct Press also breaks it down here, highlighting that this issue mirrors ongoing conversations in the US, where the right is able to determine the scope of the conversation, and cut out the moderate and far left. SF3 has withdrawn Moon’s invitation, but goddamn I still got a lot of feelings. So does NK Jemisin — she’s got a clear outline for why this disinvitation is not enough.

Echo, the elephant who kicked ass and took names in order to rescue her baby, died last week at the age of 65.

Let’s make condoms sexy! Also, how do you define safe(r) sex?

Meet Princess Boy, a five year old who loves to dress up. Also, meet his AWESOME family.

Muslim cleric says rape is impossible in a marriage. I’m a little troubled by the way the reporting of this has been handled in terms of comments and stuff, because this isn’t a Muslim/ free world issue. I mean, after all, rape in a marriage has been only been a prosecuteable offense in Germany for the last 13 years.

Krystal Bell talks about how politics is a game of slut-shaming when you are a woman running for office. WIN.

From Scarlett:

Found this article about a man who was jailed for three years for raping his housemate when he was drunk. The judge said he had shown remorse and demonstrated that ‘a person of otherwise good character can resort to crimes under the influence of alcohol’. I’d love to see this as the start of a cultural belief that that drugs, while sometimes a mitigating circumstance, are not a free pass. First one is from Yahoo, second is from the Sydney Morning Herald.

Earlier this week, we celebrated the 81st anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to consider women persons.

The Doll Rag talks about sexual slavery.

BTW 9/11 = abortions! YOU READ IT HERE FIRST.

DADT is definitely on the way out — military recruiters will now be encouraging gay youth to enlist.

Breaking down the frat chant: No means YES, YES means anal.

…Slut-shaming much? Ginny Thomas asks Anita Hill to apologize for accusing her husband of sexual harassment. Maybe Ginny’s trying to distract people from her “grass roots” activism.

REALLY, PETA? “Breasts, Not Animal Tests.”

From The Other Patrick:

Zinnia Jones is awesome anyway, but her public service announcement “spoof” makes it clear how simple the rules actually are – just don’t grope people unless you asked and they’re okay with it.

BLAST FROM THE PAST! Jezebel talks about the MIT Fuck List from the 70s. Heh. I guess the publicly available fuck lists about female students are less controversial, and easier to see as just plain wrong — I don’t see people working to dig up the one from Amherst back in the mid-2000s, or the one from UMass. I imagine it’d be harder to recover them because they were on the Daily Jolt, which doesn’t even exist anymore. Then again… women often receive harsher punishments for less serious crimes so who knows — even if it was accessible it might be more business as usual.

Here’s some extra reading: top 10 underrated SF stories from BEFORE 1864.

HS Cheerleader FORCED to cheer for her rapist.



  1. says

    It would probably be more accurate to say the Persons Case decided some women were persons. First Nations women in Canada, for example, didn’t even get the vote until the 1960s.

    Would you consider putting ?format=light at the end of livejournal links? It’s not as difficult if you’re linking to DW since they tend to have a link at the top allowing someone to change it, but it’s a bit more difficult with LJ.

  2. says

    After reading the comments on the official WisCon announcement, I have concluded the following:

    1. People who use the word “sisterhood” to lambast women for not supporting idiocy just because the idiots are also women are not people I will ever listen to again. In fact, I’m not really sure about people who use “sisterhood” to describe anything other than, y’know, having a sister.

    2. Also, the words “politically correct” are basically shorthand for “I am about to justify my own stupid-ass bigotry, please feel free to ignore anything I say.”

    3. Clearly we need some kind of Schoolhouse Rock style program to break down What Censorship And Fascism Are, And Aren’t, For The Very Fucking Stupid.

    4. I hate everyone.

    • Charles RB says

      I’m sure noticing a lot of comments which seem to think that someone not being a guest at an event is the same as suppressing all discussion on anything.

      (And I’m thinking “oh wait, SHE was the woman I saw at the D*C Politics In Sci-Fi panel making some good points? And then she went on to do THAT? Christ, what a disappointment.”)

      • says

        For fucking serious. Can *I* claim that I’m being censored by the fascist liberal whatever because nobody’s putting me up at a Sheraton somewhere? Does my lack of free hotel towels and room service make me oppressed? I’ve written a book and everything…

        And yeah. I don’t know what the hell is up with SF writers being faily on the Internet these days, but.

          • Charles RB says

            Which, if you’re a PRO WRITER, I’d have thought was obvious: surely you have to think about what you write for a living? And you should really think before you say an entire religion thinks things that don’t fit a country’s citizenship, especially if you’re politically liberal. (You’re kinda meant to think the opposite under liberal thinking and all)

          • The Other Patrick says

            I disagree: I think it is important for any writer nowadays to have a public profile that fans can attach themselves to. That need not include political ideas, but almost anything can be construed as political, anyway. And yes, that means that some people will invariably be turned off as well, but the loyal fanbase is so important nowadays – people who will buy your stuff because it’s your stuff, who will tell their friends, etc.

            And if that means bigotry and cluelessness are uncovered, well, I regard that as a bonus :)

  3. says

    Wiscon is feeling like a replay of what went wrong with Second Wave feminism. As a POOR white woman, I never felt I benefited from feminism and adamantly refused the label until I got to working on this site and had some interesting perspectives put to me. But I still sometimes think it’s a mistake. So many people think feminism failed because it didn’t succeed. But where it really failed was in ignoring the contributions a large number of Other women could’ve made. Just as all patriarchies eventually fall because they ignored the contributions of half their populace, second wave fell because it ignored much of its populace.

    As for marital rape: it’s still very controversial here in many US states. In some states, for example, it has to be at weapon-point, or it’s not rape. And some Christian ministers have made similar arguments recently enough. So no, totally not a Muslim/free world OR Muslim/other religion issue. And I would hope even if there is a nation or creed somewhere that’s 100% anti-marital-rape, they still wouldn’t frame it in superior/inferior terms. It is simply yet another instance of male entitlement to something as trivial as fucking trumping a woman’s right to live like a human being.

    • Maria says

      With a healthy chunk of displacement, meaning “we” don’t have to think critically about “our” attitudes because “they’re” the bad people.

    • Scarlett says

      I *think* marital rape in Australia has been banned completely, but only in the last ten-fifteen years or so. It existed in some form in my lifetime, I know that much. Which I think is a reflection of how short a period of time ago it was that marital rape was still considered acceptable. Hell, I think many people still *do*.

      Regarding the frat boys: it boggles my mind that there are till people out there that would behave like that. *THINK* like it, yes, I get that, but I would have hoped that anyone smart enough to get into university in the first place also had the intelligence to realised that’s not something you do. But then, I suppose *I* should have learnt by now that there can be a HUGE gap between intelligence and maturity/compassion.

  4. says

    I admit to being disappointed that her invitation was retracted, but only because I happened to find a nest with some very old chicken eggs in it and was hoping to put them to a good use.

    I am willing to provide them, free of charge and with my blessing, to anyone who promises to fling them at the folks who think disinviting Moon is ‘censorship’ or ‘violation of free speech’.

    No one is making Moon shut up, as much as some of us wish she would. No one is censoring her. No one has taken her blogs down or her books from the shelves.

    But freedom of speech does not entitle you to a forum for that speech. Write whatever book you want, no one is obligated to purchase or read your words. Preach whatever you want, but we are not obligated to provide a pulpit for you.

    Moon can say what she pleases. She is not entitled, however, to be heard.

    • Brand Robins says

      I have no idea what you’re talking about.

      I have the right to say anything I want to you, and to tell you that you are wrong and should shut up. I can tell you that you are ruining my country, your country, your life, my life, your body, or your soul. This is my right to free speech.

      But if you say anything you want to in such a way that it is at all possible for me to infer from what you said that I am a bad person, then you are censoring me. You don’t have a right to talk back, or make me think about what I said. This is my right to free speech.


      In other news, I loved Duchamp’s article. While there is always a place for open debate with everyone, not every place is that place.

      It was never until I was able to find communities where discourse was allowed to flourish and advance without always having to do ISM101 courses for the new, the angry, and the denying that I was able to really grow and understand the points being made.

      I see a lot of young feminist and anti-racist activists who need that. Their understanding of the deeper structures of problems is limited, not through fault of their own, but simply because they’ve never had a chance to grow them, study them, or expand them. They’ve been working at fighting the “why shouldn’t men be able to have sex with their wives even if the wife doesn’t want it” fight so many times that they’ve never actually been able to have a conversation about the structural dynamics of individual choice. And without that* it can be difficult to move forward.

      Which is the biggest reason I’m glad for the new aggressiveness in the “it isn’t my job to teach you” among a lot of my friends and those whose ideas I read. So long as we’re always trying to talk to the Moon and train the untrainable we’re just always trying to reinvent the wheel.

      *And I don’t mean it in terms of the highly academic way I phrased it. Really, it doesn’t give a shit if people can’t talk about the “structuration and intersectionality” — it does matter if a lot of young feminists have never had a chance to really think about or talk about how being black and female is not always the same as being white and female.

      • The Other Patrick says

        But if you say anything you want to in such a way that it is at all possible for me to infer from what you said that I am a bad person, then you are censoring me. You don’t have a right to talk back, or make me think about what I said. This is my right to free speech.

        I’m not sure if I understood your post correctly – are you serious here? Because if so, not only do I disagree, I think you are wrong.

        • Brand Robins says

          So not serious.

          I’m simply, as Garden Goblin says, trying to post the logic of the tea party folks. And many, many others.

          Cause its all a privilege issue, really. For a lot of people “freedom of speech” means “I can say anything I want and you can say anything I want.”

          • The Other Patrick says

            Phew. Thanks for clearing that up, and yes, that does sound like Dr. Laura or one of the many Tea Party / Glenn Beck rhetorics around.

  5. says

    I’m not sure whether the frat-rape-chant OR the treatment of the cheerleader disgusts me more. I think there needs to be a serious examination/discussion of male groups in schools (sports teams and frats), and the kind of misogyny that often seem inherent to them.

    • Scarlett says

      Exactly. Not only that the boys/men in question thought they were entitled to do it, but that there was an attitude of ‘meh, they’re just letting off steam’ or ‘until proven guilty, everything has to be done to make the accused comfortable and the accusee can just lump it for saying stuff in the first place’. Which I think perpetuates the idea that that kind of behaviour is OK. I think even if we, as a culture, DO tighten what’s acceptable both legally and socially, there will always be people who think they *ought* to have the right to do abc to xyz groups, but that have tough penalties legally and society will educate a lot of people and discourage more simply because they don’t fancy jail/social outcast.

      That’s why the SMH story interested me, because even though the judge addressed the fact that the guy was deeply remorseful and drugs had been a contributing factor, he didn’t get a full pass on those grounds.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *