Actually, Paula, the winds do get pretty fierce in Manhattan. Which is why they really need to get that thing down before someone gets hurt.
Oh Jeez. "...and in the darkness, bind them!"
-l.
I love pulp. There's some great stuff there. Trouble is, the field just has so much, now, it's hard to winnow through the stuff that isn't what you're looking for.
'Specially for us grownups. I still read a few books a month, but with job and raising kids and writing books on the side, I don't have time to network and learn about the good stuff (i.e., the stuff that I like). It can be frustrating.
So I make do with what I stumble across.
-l.
Xopher, I love you, dude. You totally crack me up.
-l.
Wes, I did (check out his articles in some depth). I found plenty of objectionable stuff regarding women.
If I get time tomorrow I'll post some links for people's edification, and then perhaps we can have a discussion about how kneejerk we were being about his opinion of women. No promises, though -- I have a 60 hr work week coming up and may decide to do something enjoyable instead.
-l.
Well put, Anne.
Folks might be interested in this review of a book regarding women, ambition, and recognition.
http://www.broaduniverse.org/broadsheet/0502njm.html
The author's basic thesis is that one of the reasons women don't succeed in fields in as large a percentage as men do is that recognition of one's mastery is a fundamental component of achieving success. And according to the author, study after study (after study after study) demonstrates that at every single level, the achievements of girls and women are not given the same level of recognition as those of their male colleagues.
Iow, without sufficient reinforcement of their efforts, people -- male or female -- stop trying. And apparently, in general, women get a good deal less recognition than men.
-l.
That one line may have been a throwaway for you, Vox, and I don't have much to say about Estrich, not having followed that conflict -- but your statement wasn't just a trivial sidebar as far as I'm concerned. Trust me, as a woman in the sciences, I've seen those kinds of statements over and over my whole life.
I'm a chemical engineer who was in the top of my class in math, who taught myself to program back before it was the thing everyone was doing, and you have no idea how many times I was told I couldn't be an engineer because I'm a woman and women aren't good at math.
I'm not saying I'm Nobel material, but I'm no slouch. And I love technology and science, and its promise to enrich people's lives. I enjoy being a part of that process and making a small contribution. I'm willing to fight my own battles and take my lumps when I'm not performing up to snuff. But I do expect to be given a level playing field to work on. When people presuppose who I am and what I'm capable of, and make decisions based not on my merits but on some mythical female template they try to squeeze me into, it pisses me off.
Yes, these are anecdotes, not statistics -- but just about every woman you talk to in the sciences will tell you similar stories. A strong strain of inhospitability toward women is present throughout the field.
I think there are a number of reasons for it -- and there are plenty of welcoming types in the field -- but the fact remains that a significant number of those in positions of authority don't think women can "hack it" and don't want women coming in, messing up their scene. And then people scratch their heads and wonder why women stay away from the sciences.
Fewer women than men may be at the top of that math/ science/ analytical curve -- I have some theories about why that is that have less to do with native ability and more to do with societal and genetic reproductive pressures -- but so what? Let those with the interest and the capability pursue their dreams.
Stereotyping isn't just harmful to the person who encounters it; it also harms the system, by reducing the number of qualified people making contributions, performing at their peak.
-l.
I agree with John and others that Vox/ Beale has every right to be in SFWA.
Vox, let's try this again.
1. You first said women can't hack the physics.
2. When called on it, you said you didn't mean women _couldn't_ do the physics but that they chose not to.
3. I provided a definition demonstrating that "can't hack it" means someone is _unable_ to do something -- not that they choose not to.
4. You provided a similar definition and then seemed to think (from your "can't front me" comment) that you had disproved something I said, when in fact you were merely reinforcing my point, that you'd tried to rework your original statement without having to own your shift in position.
This is merely one example of why your reasoning is so flawed, it's impossible to resolve anything.
-l.
You're right, Tracina -- he was making a joke about KSR. Vox, I apologize for missing that.
-l.
Hmmm. OK.
In my church, we are taught that all human beings have inherent worth, and deserve to be treated with dignity. As angry as I am about your disingenuous postings and insulting attitudes, I'm not going to stoop to further sarcasm.
But I will say, Theodore/ Vox, that it's pretty obvious what the source of your attitude toward women is, and you're not doing yourself any favors by laying your personal dirty laundry out there for the world to see.
-l.
Vox, the least you could do is have the backbone to own your opinions, instead of backpedalling and pretending you meant something you clearly did not.
Can't hack it = 5. unable to cope with successfully or manage. (emphasis mine)
Unable = 1. Lacking the necessary power, authority, or means; not able; incapable. 2. Lacking mental or physical capability or efficiency; incompetent.
(American Heritage Dictionary 4th edition, 2000)
Your opinion of women is amply clear in context of your many posts on the subject.
(I'd link to a couple of your more egregious examples, such as your column on why women should not be allowed to vote, and your how-to column coaching well-educated women to tell men on their first date that they're planning to quit their high-paying job and go back to being an aerobics instructors, but I'm not interested in giving you any more bandwidth, so let others look them up if they'd like.)
Why pretend otherwise?
-l.
Actually, John, being a jerkwad may not hurt one's sales once the work is out there, but it can and does affect one's ability to sell the work to begin with, even if one is perceived as having a saleable name. I've seen it happen, more than once.
Why should editors and publishers give themselves the headache of dealing with a jerkwad when there are plenty of talented writers around who aren't jerkwads they can buy from?
-l.
(PS- Stan Robinson is male. You'd buy more credibility with your audience if you'd at least get your facts right.)
Vox, I find it interesting that you are so focused on a question that has nothing to do with the merits of the works themselves.
Frankly, it seems far more likely you perpetuate the stereotype of women not being capable of handling hard SF because it serves your own interests in some way. Maybe you should give some thought as to why that is.
-l.
Ray, (a) Your post is a non sequitir. (b) You don't own their courage.
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_01_30_atrios_archive.html#110735770480268543
Also, there's this kind of echo chamber that tends to happen in a linear thread.
Imagine standing with a group of people at a party -- say, twenty or thirty. You have had a rotten day, and someone says something that really gets up your nose. You vent.
Most of those twenty or thirty people might react very negatively to what you said, and murmur and frown at you. A few really sound off and tell you off in return. After a moment or two to ponder, you realize that you spoke too harshly, and apologize, and one or two might not let go right away, but after a moment or two, things blow over and your buddy buys you a drink.
In realspace, those people who got annoyed, all got to react to you at the same time, and it was all over in a few minutes.
Online, people come to a post over a period of time, and while others might have reacted already, they feel the need to throw their own two cents in, before your apology may have fully registered (or even been read yet by that particular poster).
Also, because it's written down, people are more likely to home in on a particular phrase or phrases, and want to make their point as clearly as they can about what set them off in the first place.
Because of all this, online forms of communication have this reverb effect that is not present in face to face communication.
-l.
Greg, Kerry's message was pretty clear to me: "This administration has hurt America, and we can do better."
To me, the Democrats are the party of fair play.
-l.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 18 |
| 2004 | 52 |
| 2003 | 62 |
Total: 132 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by LauraJMixon:
Show all comments by LauraJMixon.