I had a friend who got high in Democrat circles. He was the kind of guy who actually owned a copy of Speaker of the House Jim Wright's book. The one he fraudulently published in a money laundering scheme
In recent days I've watched on with detachment at the sound and fury directed at people with good Democrat credentials. They are being mau-maued for remarks that have been spun into thought-crime. I'm not a fan of Paula Deen and I have never heard her utter a racist remark, yet I have heard accusations that she has done so in the past and that she botched her apology. Did she campaign for the white half of Barack Obama?
This should be good news for those fellas in white hoods with a penchant for carrying torches and lynching.
Then there's the flap I just learned about at the SFWA. I don't haunt those precincts very much and so I'm not the best guy to assess guilt. It turns out two old guys, Barry Malzberg and Mike Resnick, said some things that could be spun into anti-feminism.
Apparently, they wrote in the SFWA newsletters referring to females as "ladies" and their fetching appearance was noted in complimentary terms. This was spun into thought-crime most foul.
This should be good news to those fellas who make girls wear burqas and practice female genital mutilation.
For the record, when I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less. If you are a lady, you are a superior woman. Just as a gentleman is a superior man. I find humorless scolds abhorrent without regard to sex, creed or color.
What I found most appealing about the liberalism of the 1960s was its tolerance and acceptance of diversity. But today it seems the only diversity that can be tolerated is the kind that uses rainbow logos to tell religious people to shut up.
Anything can be interpreted maliciously by someone intent upon using the politics of personal destruction. Moreover, when charges of racism or sexism are trivialized as we've seen recently, our society has no moral outrage left over for the fellas in white hoods, etc.
Will you tolerate mau-mauing?
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Steve, your perspective is a rare one. I don't know many who can make the claims you do without caveats.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would like to make one small comment about the SWFA issue, since it's one I've been following for a time.
Consider rephrasing the statement to be:
"Artists Blah-Blah, Mm-hmm and male artist So-and-so, who looked really dapper that night, received awards last week for they're contributions to painting."
Sound absurd? It is. It's equally absurd to do the same for a woman who paints, when her clothing, hairstyle, make-up, etc. have nothing to do with the award or her painting.
It's also pretty rude to insinuate that male artist So-and-so is special and unique because he's a man (and we all know that men who can paint are rare and special).
Like female authors are...
Now, no one is telling these men that they can't talk about their views on women. No one is actually "censoring" them. People are, however, calling them idiots and sexist and saying that the publication their article was posted in was not meeting the expectations of the members who read it and pay dues to have it published.
The authors in question can publish their views elsewhere as they wish. They can pinch the bums of young women (who are aspiring to become writers) at SF conventions if they want to try (and some of them do). They can pooh-pooh women who are published SF writers as not being "real SF writers", playing the No True Scotsman card... all they want.
They cannot expect to do these things without getting some flack for it from people who are willing to speak out for the women and who expect authors to have a better understanding of how words work.
Anyway... Thank you for your post, Steve. Have a good day.
My note could have been stronger with all the usual caveats.
DeleteI think you are putting words/intentions into Mssrs. Resnick's & Malzberg's mouths that they did not say. This is my central complaint, that malicious interpretation can take relatively innocent remarks and spin them into thought crime that can be mau-mau-ed.
When the Savior admonished people not to judge, he warned that the same way people dispense judgement would be the same way they would be judged. For this reason I try to offer and hope for the benefit of the doubt.