Good lord, I can't believe I've spent my weekend here. I am leaving now. Someone else feel free to finish this off.
Wes drives by to say:
"I find it ironic that the Left--which I'm sure is represented by a solid portion of this thread's commenters--prides itself as being the 'tolerant' end of the political spectrum; yet you find no vexation in diving for the jugular over a sentence or two, after admirably demonstrating your dearth of knowledge of the man's actual beliefs."
Incorrect assumptions in the following paragraph:
1. That every one here is "left."
2. That 'tolerance' requires rolling over for stupidity.
3. That one must factor in someone's total set of beliefs in order to disprove a factually demonstrably false statement that have written.
We've gone over this before, Wes. Either Vox meant what he wrote, in which case he deserves his thumping on the grounds he's a sexist pig. Or he didn't mean what he wrote, in which case he deserves a thumping on the grounds he's an unfathomably poor writer. Either way he deserves a thumping, and a thumping is what he's getting.
Vox:
To restate, yet again:
1. In context, your statement is clearly not hyperbolic; indeed, it's a supporting strut of your larger argument. Attempting to redefine it now only accentuates the weakness of the argument.
2. Citing other columnists' use of hyperbole does not mean a) that your statement was hyperbole; b) that you are competent to use hyperbole.
3. None of the above renders your demand for the names of female hard SF writers at all logically relevant -- and indeed, if, as you claim, your comment was hyperbole, why are you fishing for evidence to confirm your own hyperbolic statement? Whoops, tripped up yet again by your own lack of logic.
4. Make fun of me all you want, but the fact remains your argument is weak and stupid. Attempting to make fun of the people who point out you have no argument worth considering does not invalidate the fact that your arguments are not worth considering.
Now, run back to your comment monkeys and declare victory, Vox. I'm sure they'll pat down your fur for you.
Can't stay away, can you, Vox?
Your question of how many women do write Hard SF is logically irrelevant to your assertion that they can't write Hard SF because they can't hack the physics. As has been pointed out to you time and again, women certainly are capable of writing hard SF regardless of their personal expertise in high end physics, and do, thereby disproving your assertion. Indeed, the existence of one hard SF-writing female is enough to disprove your assertion, and as had been noted by Elizabeth Bear among others, there are more than that in this thread alone. Likewise, your attempt to assert that 9 = 0 in the "normal" world is so laughably stupid that we'll spend no more time on it here.
You are incapable of proving your assertion factually, and must therefore appear to want to "prove"it by backing into it -- i.e., "the fact that so few women write hard sf proves that they can't (as a general class)." Unfortunately for you, the fact there are relatively few women writing hard sf does not and can not prove that they can't write hard SF, merely that they don't. As to why they don't, well, who can say? Why do so many men not write hard SF?
The reason no one sees fit to answer your question, Vox, is that it's utterly, completely and totally irrelevant, and had you any ability to argue logically you would understand this to be so. Sadly, you do not, and all you can do is to attempt to muddy the rhetorical waters in an attempt to draw attention away from the failures of your own argument.
You just can't or won't grasp the concept that you've been outthought and therefore wail again and again for people to play your game by your rules. Well, Vox, your rules are stupid, they're illogical, and it makes no sense to play them that way. You have your own Website for that; go back there if you want to control the game.
Actually, it was Vox who started it.
It's worth noting Vox is now back over on his site, repeating the same silly lines that got his ass handed to him here to a rather more congenial crowd. It's nice to have sycophants.
PiscusFische: He did actually mention something like that upthread.
I'd be surprised if men didn't write genre romance fiction, personally, although for marketing reasons they probably have female pseudonyms.
But if not many men are not writing genre romance fiction, it's not because of their sex. The most successful romance novel of the last couple of decades was Bridges of Madison County, written by a man; author Nicholas Sparks also writes romances in a best-selling fashion, to name but two.
Basically, it would be a position no more tenable than "women can't write hard SF because they can't hack the physics."
"Which has what to do with anything?"
Silly Tracina. Expecting a logical argument from Vox. If he couldn't try to change the subject, he wouldn't be able to argue at all.
VD says:
"Do let me know when someone gets an official hard SF-writing head count together."
Well, and once again, Vox: You need to prove your thesis first, since it's your statement that got the ball rolling. Demanding supporting arguments of others when you can't or won't do so yourself is pretty lame.
Poor, deluded Vox. He's under the impression he's come out ahead.
Jodi Meadows:
"Please don't mistake this guy's words and thoughts for that of the majority of Christians (and Christian writers). Judging by the other Christian writers I know (myself included), this is not the popular opinion and, frankly, I'm embarrassed."
No worries, Jodi. I think everyone's aware Vox speaks for himself and not for the general body of Christ.
Laura J. Mixon:
"That one line may have been a throwaway for you, Vox..."
Let's not cede the idea that it's a "throwaway line," since in context it's clearly meant to support Vox's larger argument (go back and read the column). Vox is trying to reposition it as a "throwaway" mostly so he can feel free to suggest that this is another example of certain hysterical people (and if you know the Greek root of "hysteria" you'll know what I mean) getting worked up over some silly little line. It's not silly, and in the context of his larger column, it's not little, either.
I submit that while Vox may not be a particularly good writer, he did write what he intended to write, and his writhing around the point now, and his attempt to downgrade the rhetorical importance of the line, is simply an attempt to escape the consequences of his own actions.
Vox Day writes:
"If the root problem is that you believe total precision of language is required in editorial commentary, do feel free to join John in taking Ms Dowd and Mr. Friedman to task."
Your problem, Vox, is that Ms. Dowd and Mr. Friedman, irrespective of their politics, are rather more competent columnists than you, and it's rather more clear when they're using rhetorical devices for effect (one can also name right-leaning columnista who are also more competent than you with their rhetorical usage, if it will immunize one from claims of political bias).
Point is: If you have to spend this much time explaining to a group of intelligent readers and writers your vast palette of mad rhetorical skillz, chances are reasonably good you're not using those rhetorical skills with any sort of facility.
But then, as you confuse the comment "you have your head up your ass" as an argument, this isn't entirely surprising.
Vox wrote:
"Four science fiction novels sold, John? Yet your web site claims only one 'conventionally published', plus a sequel is on the way. Actually... I think print is dying anyhow, so congratulations on steering your way around the gatekeepers."
Yeah, I gotta update the site. What can I say. To be brief: Three books sold to Tor (Old Man's War, The Android's Dream, The Ghost Brigades) and one to Subterranean Press (Agent to the Stars).
"You do seem to be under the impression that repeatedly insisting that individuals have their heads inserted in bodily orifices is equivalent to making an argument."
No, I'm just pointing out the obvious, and there's no U of C training required for that. And for the record, I don't insist. Indeed, I wish you would pull your head out.
Also, suggesting that "you've got your head up your ass" is the whole of my argument rather conveniently elides the rather more formal dismantling of your argument upthread from here. But neither is this surprising, since in the main your primary display of rhetorical facility consists of various attempts at obfuscation. When one's point is unsupportable, the obvious tactic is to try to change the subject.
Nemo Ignatus:
"Why is his claim invalid on its face? I think it's invalid, but not on its face."
Well, to review the infamous statement: "Women do not write hard science fiction today because so few can hack the physics." It's invalid on its face because, of course, women do write Hard SF (including at least a couple in this thread), which is enough to invalidate the statement. Further, since the physics involved in writing recognizably "hard" SF is not so esoteric as to be beyond the layman or laywoman (and here I speak from experience), neither is this supportable. And as also noted upthread, one can still write "hard" SF without the benefit of formal physics training simply by having a physicist check the writing for logical flaws.
All of this is evident without any real digging; the argument is invalid on its face, and Vox is left trying to suggest he was trying to employ sarcasm and irony, which doesn't really seem to be supported in the larger text of the column.
What is true is that Hard SF is largely a man's field, and it's perfectly legitimate to question why that is, and even to suggest that schooling and cultural environment play a role. If Vox had said something like "Women don't seem to write much hard SF -- could it be because so few have formal training in higher-end physics?" then the statement would be non-controversial and indeed a good starting point for conversation and would have dovetailed quite nicely into the larger point he was trying to make with his column -- and it would also appear to be closer to what he seems now to be saying he meant.
That he didn't suggests that he's a not very clear writer and/or needs an editor to help him better frame his thoughts, or that he feels the audience for his column will like it better if he makes hyperbolic, sexist and unsupportable statements. Which, if is the case, says quite a bit about who Vox sees as his home audience, in that rank and unsupportable sexism is merely a "throwaway line."
PiscusFische wrote:
"Presupposing that people would bar you somehow from said organisation because of a difference of opinion says more about you, I think, than the organisation."
Well, in Vox's defense, there were indeed some folks further up the comment stream who seemed to imply a politics check re: SFWA's Nebula juries would not be a bad thing, and in fact, it would, and very much so. Vox has got his publication credits, and that's all he needs, so he should quite obviously be able to participate in all SFWA activities.
To massacre Voltaire's sentiment, Vox may have indefensibly stupid opinions, but I for one would fight for the right for him to be an SFWA member with indefensibly stupid opinions. Lord knows he wouldn't be the first, or the last.
Damn, I was going to stay away, but there's still candy on the floor.
Nick B:
"Do you know ANYTHING at ALL about SF?"
Hmmm. Let's see:
Four science fiction novels sold? Check.
Upcoming book on the history of science fiction film, which includes a general overview of the entire genre? Check.
Research into the field going back several hundred years: Check.
Need to pathologically dismiss women's abilities to write Hard SF for unfathomable but asshattedly stupid reasons of my own: Oops. Guess I missed that one, Nick. You can have that one.
Now, since I do in fact know quite a bit about science fiction, both as a writer and a researcher, Nick, allow me to give you my informed, expert opinion on your position: You have your head so far up your ass that you can see your epiglottis from the other side.
For the further demolishment of your dumbass opinion, feel free to scroll upwards in the thread and see all the way "Women can't write hard SF because they don't have the science" has been smashed into bitty pieces by people who, by dint of also being SF writers, actually do know what they're talking about, which, alas for you, doesn't appear to be a condition you are very much burdened with.
Nemo Ignatus:
"But he is making a broader argument than a claim that women can't hack physics."
Well, and so what? The fact he's making a larger argument does not mean that "Women do not write hard science fiction today because so few can hack the physics" is not invalid on its face and should not be noted as such -- and since this comment thread happens to be populated by science fiction writers and readers, it's not surprising they would focus on that particular, wrong statement. Writers don't get to choose what their readers focus upon, and in this case, focusing on this statement is not an irrational activity.
And it's also worth noting that because his women/physics/hard sf position is an invalid argument, his overall argument is also substantially weakened -- one of the pillars of his argument has been smashed, making the entire rhetorical edifice that much more shaky than it was. In all, not a good showing on Vox's part.
But... there's still more candy inside him!
Oh, all right. I'm done too.
To avoid confusion here: The thesis statement under examination is:
"Women do not write hard science fiction today because so few can hack the physics."
Vox, I understand you're using this as a supporting argument for your larger broadside at Estrich. However, again, this statement is not supportable in itself. That being the case, it's also not very useful making a case against Estrich, and the other various arguments you'd choose to make.
Vox writes:
"And John, at least you're admitting that you're not making a case."
Would that you would do the same, Vox. I don't have to make a case because you are obviously unable to adequately support your own, and -- to remind you yet again -- it's your dumbass statement that got the ball rolling.
"John, you think it makes more sense to postulate that despite my obvious familiarity with the hard SF works of various women, I am dedicated to a theory of genetic female inferiority while simultaneously being in denial of the existence of books I own, than to admit you failed to grasp an obvious rhetorical device."
It's possible, Vox. On the other hand, I have a degree in philosophy from the University of Chicago (specializing in the philosophy of language), and therefore have ample training in rhetoric, so I doubt that rhetorical deficiencies on this end are the issue.
I read your column Vox, and I grasped your obvious rhetorical device. It doesn't impress me. As continually stated, your rhetorical device is obviously bad: Poorly stated, poorly supported, and rheorically incoherent. To restate: Your thesis is wrong and you lack the rhetorical skills to present your thesis in a coherent fashion. Your latter-day attempt to brush off your sexist and ignorant statement as sarcasm is baldly transparent as backtracking; even if it were true, it shows that your use of such devices is appallingly clumsy. Again one wonders how you got your columnist gig, or, alternately, if anyone bothers to edit you, as you so clearly need.
However, your statement does seem to confirm that you have settled into the "bad writer" excuse for your dumbass and sexist statement. Wonderful! Glad to have that settled.
Vox writes:
"This is known as irony, or sarcasm"
Or, alternately, as poor writing, and subsequent attempts to explain away same.
People who do not well employ sarcasm and irony should not use them as rhetorical devices, Vox. That's a free writing tip for you.
Vox writes:
"Would it have been more accurate to write 'of the few published writers of hard SF, even fewer are women, possibly because college girls prefer to study fields other than those mathematically rigorous programs required to provide an author with a suitable background preparatory to his, (or her), career as a science fiction author?' Yes. Would I ever write that in column? Never."
Which shows that you are a rather poor rhetorician, as you seem incapable of making words say what you want them to.
However it does suggest awareness of another rhetorical trick, which is: When getting your ass kicked because of a foolish, stupid statement, try to reframe the statement to say something else entirely. I am disinclined to let you get away with that.
Even if you wrote those words above, your thesis would still be incorrect, for the reasons that have been amply detailed in this thread (among them, that a good writer can compensate for lack of knowledge in a particular field by availing him or herself of expert help).
So: Your thesis is wrong and you lack the rhetorical skills to present your thesis in a coherent fashion. And if your thesis statement doesn't match the details and intent of your column, then it would appear you're not a very competent columnist. That's 0 for 3 for you, Vox. How did you get your column gig?
Vox writes:
"Beaten like a pinata, John? You still haven't answered a single question."
As I said, Vox -- you first, since it is your rhetorically idiotic statement that started this whole ball rolling. You appear to be unable to, which is why you continue to choose to try to shift the focus off yourself. But again -- why would we want that? Look: Either you meant what you wrote, in which case you're an ignorant sexist, or you didn't mean what you wrote, in which case, you're a bad writer. Which is it?
Based on your backtracking comments here, it appears that you're leaning toward the "bad writer" camp, although given some of the material of yours that I've read, "ignorant sexist" is not out of the question. And of course, it may be a tantalizing combination of the two.
Either way, you still haven't provided factual material backing your ridiculous and bigoted claim. Nor, in my opinion, does it appear likely that you ever will. And again, we're back to you having (to put another spin on use my new favorite phrase) a sphincto-cranial event of monumental proportions.
Although I do take back the pinata comment. Pinatas don't get beaten as hard or for as long.
Vox says:
"Don't blame Mr. Stross for my high opinion of him..."
No worries on that score. Charlie rocks.
However, rather than reliving presumed past victories, or trying to bait Bellatrys so you can again attempt to steer the conversation away from the fact you're being beaten like a pinata on the "women/physics/hard SF" front, you should either put up some factual evidence for your assertion, or admit you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 38 |
| 2004 | 5 |
| 2003 | 4 |
Total: 47 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by John Scalzi:
Show all comments by John Scalzi.