A Few Thoughts on the Sad Puppies

“Don’t say that he’s hypocritical. Rather, say that he’s apolitical.” -Tom Lehrer

Let me start by saying: I don’t have any role in the Hugo Awards, other than as one of thousands of other voters. But I do have friends who are far more involved, including folks on the Sad Puppy and Rabid Puppy awards slates that dominated this year. I’m not going to summarize the controversy here; it’s pretty easy to find the news if you Google a bit. Thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of words have been written on the topic since the awards slates were announced– many written by folks far more eloquent than me. I suggest George R. R. Martin’s blog as a possible starting point.

But I did want to chime in on a few things I haven’t heard anywhere else, and hopefully by writing them out, to at least satisfy myself, even if no one else reads or cares.

If I look at the recent Hugo Awards from my limited perspective, I do actually think some of the Sad Puppies might have a point, in terms of desiring a wider list of names on the Hugo ballot. Several names show up over and over again, year after year, and I can’t help but wonder– is it because they’re writing the best fiction, or just established and popular in the community? Probably some of both. The Hugo Awards, like every other award, is very much a popularity contest, and I can sympathize with some of the Sad Puppies who may feel like they’re never part of that “in crowd” that gets consistently nominated for awards. It’s easy to feel excluded, and I even felt it on behalf of some of my friends, of all political stripes, who lost nominations (or lost the awards) in favor of the same familiar faces.

Personally, I’d love to see more diversity on the Hugo ballot, but I’d probably disagree with them on what nature that diversity should take. The Sad Puppies want more works that are entertaining, rollicking adventures, regardless of who wrote them or what their politics are, and I’m actually inclined to believe them on that– or, at least, I believe that they believe it. But where they see a conspiracy of SJWs keeping people out, I simply… don’t. I just see the basic tendency of folks to nominate well-known, popular names who are (through their own efforts, by virtue of their audience, or their general involvement in the community) good at getting some buzz going around their stories. And I’m all for getting some lesser-known names recognized amidst the buzz.

But I heartily disagree with the SPs on how and why that should be done. I am, likely, one of those dirty SJWs that Torgersen and his compatriots consider to have contaminated the Hugos, and apparently, society in general. (I never got my membership invite to the secret cabal meetings– maybe I just wasn’t important enough.) You can review my recent blog posts to see that social justice is something I think about a lot, both because it’s an intellectually interesting subject and because it directly affects a lot of people I care about.

So needless to say, I can’t help but take some personal umbrage when the Sad Puppies rant against the evil SJWs destroying the world… and for all that Torgersen claims to be apolitical, he’s sure willing to accept the help of the far right Rabid Puppies in getting his way. He even nominated some of their works himself. But hey, it’s all about being apolitical, right?

Torgersen has certainly claimed so. In his various posts on the subject, he yearns for a time in which science fiction wasn’t so darn political and full of messaging. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out by many people, that time didn’t really exist– the best works in the science fiction & fantasy field have usually had something to say about the state of the real world. For all its adventure-y talk about “where no man has gone before,” Star Trek was also quite progressive for its time– it portrayed a futuristic utopia in which humanity had largely solved its social problems and had united to explore the stars. It portrayed a mixed-race crew who treated each other as equals, and even occasionally kissed on-screen.

Those of us who view such messages and commentary as an important part of the genre are likely to reward and vote for works that we see as doing it well– which may be where some of the Sad Puppies’ beef comes in. For them, they don’t want messaging, but a lack of it (or a conservative message), and are disappointed to be in the minority. But even a lack of message is still a message– as I will get to shortly.

For all the SPs claim that they merely want a world where works are judged on merit, not the views of the author or what they say on society, there are a few major problems with that:

-For all of SF&F history, the merit of a work has been inextricably linked to whether or not it has anything to say about the reality of the human condition– be it social, cultural, political, historical, or otherwise.

-Even if we get past that, the ability to focus purely on the work and ignore the motivations of the author is undeniably a factor of privilege. Is a queer or trans person really supposed to read John C. Wright’s work and ignore the fact that he has called for their extermination? Is a black person supposed to read Vox Day’s work and ignore the fact that he clearly thinks of black people as subhuman? On a slightly milder level, should a gay man in a happy marriage read Orson Scott Card and not worry about his politics?

I don’t know– sometimes it’s a tough call. I will say that I’ve read several of Larry Correia’s books, including the first Monster Hunter novel and Hard Times, and enjoyed them both. But I think there’s a difference between someone whose politics you disagree with and someone who attacks your very identity, calls for your extermination, says you shouldn’t be educated, or actively works to deny your legal rights. That crosses the line from the political to the personal. I don’t have a problem with reading books by people whose politics I disagree with. I do have a problem reading books by people who actively hate my good friends– and yes, I would lump Vox Day, John C. Wright, and possibly even OSC in that category.

Brad Torgersen will never have to read anyone’s work who has called for the extermination of straight white males. Even if someone who’s seriously said such a thing is out there, I suspect he wouldn’t touch their work with a ten foot pole. In fact, even among people who’ve said much milder things about straight white males (like John Scalzi, who suggests they have a bit of privilege in life, or K. Tempest Bradford, who suggested not reading their books for a while) the reaction from the right-wing has been a huge amount of vitriol and reactionary screaming about SJWs. And I’ve seen countless comments and posts promising never to buy Scalzi’s books– just for a few relatively mild progressive politics. And then many of those same folks turn around and expect LGBT folk and their allies to give John C. Wright’s work a fair and impartial reading? What a fucking joke.

My biggest issue with the Sad Puppies (the moderate ones, anyway) is they have no ability or desire to see or understand the privileged positions they’re operating from, a position in which their cultural identity, and world view, and nostalgia, is very much the mainstream default. Note, I’m not saying their politics– that’s clearly far more contentious– I’m saying cultural identity. Brad Torgersen yearns for those good ol’ apolitical thrillers in which dashing heroes rescued beautiful damsels in distress– which seemingly NO CLUE AT ALL how much those books really do say, culturally and politically, to anyone with even the slightest bit of awareness about the effect of gender stereotypes in the real world.

But this is symptomatic of something else I see a lot from the sad puppies and their like– a steadfast, almost pathological refusal to deal with (or even acknowledge the existence of) any of the larger forces that still affect minorities in our culture and society. Someone can put together a concrete list of 15 Reasons We Still Need Feminism in 2015, but any talk about sexism in society or SF&F will be met by the Sad Puppies with fingers in the ears and a cry of “Stop calling me sexist!” It’s as if they cannot differentiate between conscious sexism/racism/homophobia in individual interactions, and sexism/racism/homophobia as larger (and often unconscious) forces at play in society (for examples of this re: sexism, see the link in the previous sentence, particularly items #5, 6, 9, 11, and 16).

So a nice pulpy novel in which the strong masculine hero rescues the beautiful damsel in distress may be seen as apolitical, or message-less, by folks like Torgersen, who see it as fluffy entertainment (largely because it fits their cultural norm), but for those of us for whom it doesn’t fit our cultural norm, it’s not message-less at all. Torgersen doesn’t yearn for the days of apolitical sci-fi; he yearns for fiction that fits his cultural worldview, that doesn’t challenge him. And while there’s certainly room for escapist fun, what is escapist fun to Torgersen may be deeply sexist to someone who’s fought against those gender roles all their life.

But wait, a Sad Puppy might cry, there are women and socialists on the slate, too! Yes there are… and they’re all either Torgersen’s friends, or people who wrote & edited stories that don’t challenge his cultural default. In Torgersen’s world, and the Sad Puppies’ world, there is of course room for stories by minorities! As long as they conform to a particular worldview or are at least “apolitical” (i.e. subscribe to Torgersen’s cultural default)– anything else would likely be considered too preachy or literary for his and his followers’ tastes.

In this affair, I feel sorriest for the innocent people Torgersen dragged into this– folks like Annie Bellet, who agreed to be on Torgersen’s slate, after accepting his word that Vox Day was not involved. Only wait– it turns out that Vox Day is very heavily involved, and I suspect Torgersen is happy to have the man’s help. After all, the presence of VD in both editing categories– and three John C. Wright stories in the Best Novella category– suggest it wasn’t the Sad Puppies at all, but their uber-right wing compatriots the Rabid Puppies, who provided the bulk of the numbers to make Sad Puppies such a successful campaign. Torgersen and Correia’s handling of the reactionary right wing reminds me of politicians trying to harness the strength of the Tea Party without being contaminated by them in the general elections– it’s morally dubious, insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved, and usually a failure.

The ringleaders are happy to drag in women and other minorities into their little Sad Puppies campaign, using them as human shields to insulate themselves from charges of bigotry while tapping the strength of the rabid reactionaries who are openly bigoted and proud of it– that, possibly more than anything else, is my biggest complaint about the Sad Puppies. It’s not just hypocritical, it insults our intelligence, and is deeply unfair to the people you claim to be supporting and certainly never asked to be human shields. You can’t just sweep politics under the rug by claiming that it doesn’t matter to your effort– clearly it matters to a major portion of your base.

The mere fact that Torgersen and Correia can even pretend to ignore the politics of people like Vox Day, John C. Wright, and their ilk is a factor of their own privilege– namely, that they’re not the target of those racist and homophobic rants. For those of us who are, or care deeply about those of our friends who are, it’s not just about their politics, it’s about their hatred of the people we love.

Maybe the Sad Puppies should have a new slogan, in the vein of Fox News on the Simpsons: “Not bigoted, but #1 with bigots.”


15 Reasons We Still Need Feminism in 2015






















5) Women are Drastically Under-Represented in STEM Fields



















This has destructive effects on both men and women.


























14) Because Mothers Don’t Get Enough Respect and Support.













Dear Fellow Men, Your Masculinity is Not Under Attack.














































Insert Default Title Here… Or Better Yet, Don’t

I’d like to share with you a comic strip I saw on Facebook today. It’s worth a chuckle, and I suspect more than a few gamers will relate to it:

We all know analyzing humor supposedly ruins it, right? If that bothers you, I’d suggest you go read something else, because I’m about to spend a thousand words doing just that. More accurately, I’m going to analyze larger issues that the comic unintentionally brings up. If that bothers you– if you’d rather have your quick chuckle and move on, because Internet– you’re welcome to do so. But I hope you’re willing to stick around, because even the most innocuous comic, or story, or TV commercial, can be the springboard for some more interesting thoughts.

Still with me? Good.

On the Facebook thread, someone commented that the comic portrayed tired stereotypes– men with poor impulse control, women mothering their husbands– and expressed a desire that artists do more to quash that particular gender stereotype.

Hmm, my brain went, it’s just a comic, but y’know, she’s not wrong. Even if it sometimes reflects real life, it’s still a stereotype on display. Still, it’s just a comic. Worth a chuckle, a moment’s reflection, and time to move on, right?

I was prepared to let it go at that, get on with my day, when I noticed a reply from the person who posted the comic: “That’s odd, [name redacted]. I didn’t ‘see’ the gender aspect when I read this. Perhaps you’re reading too much into a joke.”

Oh, snap, my brain went. Oh, now it’s on. Because it’s one thing to disagree with someone, and it’s another to dismiss their argument out of hand.

You’re reading too much into it.

It’s just a joke. Lighten up.

Why are people such crybabies? Get a sense of humor.

Any of these responses (all of which were in the thread, at various points) will get my hackles up faster than a shitty call in a Seahawks playoff game. Every single one is just a way of saying, I don’t want to have this discussion, and I don’t want you to have it either. Go away. Occasionally (as in this case) there’s the bonus, not-subtle implication that the person who brought it up is really the sexist one, for pointing it out. Which is, of course, bullshit.

I’ve blogged about this before, but just because you personally didn’t find something offensive, doesn’t mean that other people are wrong for doing so. In this particular case, the commenter hadn’t even taken offense, just pointed out an old stereotype! The reactions I read were far more disturbing than the initial comic. Which is usually how these debates go, and how an innocuous comment ends up turning the Internet upside down.

It’s just a joke offers the suggestion that humor is not worthy of such discussion– that funny things should get a free pass, because hey, it’s just a joke, right? But that’s insulting in its own way– it belittles the incredible power that humor and satire have in this world. It’s just a joke, right? Tell that to Jonathan Swift. Tell that to critics (and fans) of George Carlin, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert. It’s just a joke!

Bullshit. Jokes are powerful things, even when they’re not trying to be. As someone who’s written his fair share of humor stories, I wouldn’t want it any other way.

But what about this particular comic? It’s just a cheap Facebook laugh, right? Well, yes.. but maybe not, if you view it in the larger context of our culture.

You see, the artist’s intent was just to tell a lighthearted joke, so most other aspects of the comic got set to “default.” The default assumption in our society is that males are more obsessed with games (and more “childish”) than women are, so that’s what got portrayed.

We’re focusing on the “women in gaming” default, because that’s what the comic is about– but it’s the not the only way the comic portrays the standard cultural default. The woman herself is pretty and blonde, the Star Wars obsessed kid is a boy, and the family’s skin color is white. Basically, everything about this comic that isn’t directly relevant to the punchline is just society’s default assumption.

Switching everything to “default,” when it’s not relevant to what you’re trying to do (or the punchline you’re trying to tell), isn’t necessarily a problem. But a lot of people are sensitive to this particular default right now because it’s one that many people are trying to change. Even if it wasn’t the person’s intent, it’s a default that still subtly encourages the dismissal of women gamers, because it’s not “the norm.” Does the comic by itself do that? No. Is this comic strip one tiny, infinitesimal part of a larger culture that does? Yes.

Like I said, there’s nothing wrong with any of those defaults when viewed on their own– they became the defaults partly because they’re very common in our society, but they also became the defaults because the vast, vast, vast majority of people producing media and pulling the strings of the industry were white men with certain norms and expectations. What was their default became our default. Even in media that isn’t intentionally sexist, those defaults pervade.

Another example where this dynamic is even more obvious is TV and print advertising. It’s the default to have women cleaning the house and taking care of the kids, while men drive trucks, play games and drink beer. When an ad breaks the default, it usually makes the news– for example, the recent Cheerios ad that portrayed an interracial couple, or the Coca-Cola ad that sung America the Beautiful in languages besides English. Those things don’t, on the face of it, seem all that controversial (especially the interracial couple… this is 2014!). Yet it was newsworthy, because it wasn’t the norm.

For an example of a comic strip that avoids defaults well, I’d point to Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, which portrays a wide variety of relationships and people, even when “the default” would be good enough to get the punchline across.

As a writer, I’m not saying you have to studiously avoid the default– I’m saying make your choices deliberately. Don’t create your characters in default mode just because you’re lazy. You’re taught to avoid cliches in your sentences, so why use cliches in your characters and their motivations?

And for those of you who think that this is a lot to pull from a single comic– well, yes it is. But it seems to me a discussion worth having, or at least, a discussion worth not shutting down.

Also, for the record, the comic itself is from direman.com (Yay for attribution– but that’s a whole other blog post.) It’s a long-running comic with a variety of characters, and seems to do a pretty good job of representing women in gaming overall, and does a fair amount of satirizing stereotypes. So perhaps it’s unfair to take this comic out of context– but that is how it was posted on Facebook (not by the artists, I should add). And I think it’s worse to try to shut down a worthy discussion by belittling people who bring it up, or dismissing their larger concerns with it’s just a joke.

Let’s be clear. It’s not just a joke. It’s never just a joke, even if that’s how it was intended. Context –cultural and personal– is everything. And just because someone does see a slight that you’re privileged enough to be able to ignore– please, try to put yourself in their shoes, if only for a moment. Maybe a day will come when we don’t have to talk about defaults, and when stereotypes aren’t so overused as to be worth noting– but until that day comes, don’t be surprised if you see these discussions crop up in places where you might not expect them to. When that happens, remember Wheaton’s Law.

And if you’re a content creator– be it a writer, artist, video producer, or otherwise– remember, don’t be lazy and pick the default, just because you can.

GeekGirlCon: Fandom, The Next Generation

I spent Saturday hanging out at the Washington State Convention Center, enjoying GeekGirlCon. This was my first time attending GGC since its debut year in 2011, and I was blown away by how much it’s grown. In 2011, it was in a tiny suite of rooms in the northwest corner of the Seattle Center; this year, it took up most of the Conference Center at the WSCC.

I loved the atmosphere at GeekGirlCon. The place was busy without being jam-packed, and there were wide-open lobby spaces for easy photography, meeting friends, and even concerts, courtesy of Molly Lewis and The Doubleclicks.

But of course, “atmosphere” means more than the physical surroundings. I got the distinct but hard-to-define sense that GeekGirlCon was a much safer space than usual cons. Maybe it was the prevalence of gender-bending cosplay, and people taking risks with their cosplay that they might not at a usual con. I don’t mean risque cosplay– although there was some of that, too– I mean cosplay that involves stepping out of your comfort zone, to play someone who’s not like you, either in gender, or body shape, or personality. People seemed more willing to open up, try something different, even potentially embarrassing, because of the friendly atmosphere that permeated the con. I suspect that just the name and theme of the con attracted a more open, welcoming, and socially aware crowd, and that was reflected in people’s comfort, and also in the overall atmosphere.

The crowd at GeekGirlCon was an all-ages crowd, but trended toward the young side. It felt like most of the adults I saw were in their 20s and 30s, and there were also a lot of families with young kids. That second part in particular was nice to see– I truly did feel like I was seeing a lot of next-generation fans. And kids at GGC got a chance not just to indulge in the typical range of media properties that are classified as “geek,” but also to kindle the love of creativity and science that to me, more than anything, defines what is at the heart of geekdom.

One of the coolest features at the con was the DIY Science Zone, where panelists and volunteers helped kids do various science experiments. Apparently one of the panelists even brought a small piece of the Chelyabinsk meteor for show-and-tell. I think one of the bigger challenges facing not just geekdom but society in general is how to bring more inclusiveness and diversity to the Science and Technology fields, not just for this generation’s sake but for the next, and so I’m always glad to see GGC maintain such a strong focus on real-life science and tech.

The exhibition hall, meanwhile, was full of local artists and small craft folk; most dealer’s rooms generally are, but I got the sense at GeekGirlCon that there was a much larger portion of artists just starting out, maybe even folks operating a booth for the first time. And I don’t mean that in a bad way; there was a charming, almost homespun feel about the exhibition/dealer area that I liked a lot.


Occasionally during and after cons, I hear people fretting about how fandom is aging, or dying out, or withering away, but having been to GGC I’m quite confident in saying it’s doing just fine. Sure, it’s changing, but all in all, I’m pretty sure that’s a good thing.

Free Speech in the Era of Political Correctness: A Helpful Guide

Over the past few weeks, the speculative fiction writing community (in particular, the writers’ organization SFWA) has been embroiled in a seemingly unending string of controversies as a series of dubious blog posts and magazine columns have garnered a huge amount of attention. Lots of people have called them out for seemingly sexist, racist, or just plain angry language. (I won’t recap the whole debate; it’s easy enough to Google.) There’s been a strong reaction against such speech, but amidst the reaction, there’s also been a counter-reaction: Many folks, while not necessarily agreeing with the original posts, have nevertheless expressed concern that free speech will be damaged in this rush to be “politically correct.”

Luckily, for these folks, I have good news. Political correctness does not actually infringe on free speech at all! So as a public service, I thought I would provide some helpful tips for any folks with such concerns. Rest assured, my friends, you can indeed continue to express your full and colorful free speech rights in this newfound era of rampant political correctness.

First, it’s helpful to define what “the right to free speech” actually is. The United States Constitution defines it thusly: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I think it’s quite clear that the literal right to free speech is not being violated; no one is threatening to throw Theodore Beale in jail, and Mary Robinette Kowal’s jackbooted thugs have not yet (to my knowledge) kicked down the door of his house and dragged him off to a hard labor camp. Please leave a comment if that situation changes so I can update this post accordingly.

Nevertheless, when most people talk about the “Right to Free Speech” or the “Right to Free Expression” they are talking about something broader than the First Amendment. Rather, they are referring to a general belief that in any society, it is important to allow people to express themselves, to promote the exchange of ideas and rational dialogue. This is a noble idea and one I heartily endorse. Unfortunately, this can lead to the mistaken notion that there should be no consequences to speech; that someone should, for example, be able to be an asshole online and not have to deal with the inevitable reaction.

This, unfortunately, is a paradox, akin to going back in time for a little patricidal adventure. You see, if you don’t want to face consequences for your speech, you necessarily have to stifle the people who disagree with you, thus denying them their own freedom of speech. Freedom of speech must, by necessity, include consequences.

Which, ultimately, brings me to the point of this guide: in this era of political correctness, the right to free speech is, I am pleased to report, as intact and healthy as ever. What is relatively new is that people, all people, feel increasingly free to exercise that right.

What this leads to, however, is the reality that more people are having to take responsibility for their speech. This can unfortunately cause misunderstandings with folks who did not previously realize– or at least appreciate– that free speech applied to everybody, even previously marginalized groups who may have previously been reluctant to call out various flavors of bullshit when they saw it.

Let’s play out an example of this in action, shall we? Here’s one of Mike Resnick and Barry Malzberg’s columns in the Official SFWA Bulletin. Here they praise a female colleague, Bea Mahaffey, by relaying a secondhand story (source):

Another story is from nonagenarian Margaret Keiffer, who lives just a couple of miles from us. She’s the widow of super-fan Don Ford, who ran the 1949 Worldcon, and founded both Midwestcon and First Fandom. Don also created CFG (the Cincinnati Fantasy Group), the venerable local club to which Carol and I belong. According to Margaret, during its first few years of existence CFG was populated exclusively by men. Then Bea joined. Then the members’ wives got a look at Bea in her swimsuit at the 1950 Midwestcon. Then the club’s makeup changed to the 50% men and 50% women that has existed ever since.

This drew a great deal of outrage from people due to the non-subtle implication that the only reason women joined the fan group was that they were jealous of Bea… and, of course, the focus on Bea’s looks as opposed to, say, her editing. Note that it doesn’t actually matter whether the story originated with a women (Margaret Keiffer) or with one of the authors– the source of the outrage was in the story itself, not the person who told it.

A few decades ago, such a tale would have probably been elicited more chuckles than controversy– but today, it’s seen as emblematic of an outdated “Old Boys’ Club” view of SFF. Is this just because people are more easily offended? Or do more people just have the temerity to speak out against sexism in this day and age, whereas previously it was just par for the course?

Here’s a pro-tip, if you find yourself in Resnick/Malzberg’s shoes: it doesn’t matter whether your audience is easily offended or not. Being angry is an emotional reaction, and someone cannot be wrong in their reaction to something. To deny someone their outrage is to deny them their freedom of speech– and that is exactly what we’re trying to avoid.

This is where “taking responsibility for your speech” comes in. To help folks with this, I’ve outlined Andrew’s Helpful Three-Step Process:

1) Take a deep breath. Acknowledge that the person you offended is indeed a human being, with all the thoughts, desires, and emotions thereof. This is crucial. Say it aloud to yourself if needed: “I am dealing with a human being.”

2) Ask yourself: why were they offended?
-Is it because they misunderstood something you said?
-Did they see an insult you did not intend?
-Is it because you accidentally marginalized them in some way?
-Do they simply disagree with one of your opinions?

Any of these are legitimate and can be addressed or followed up on.

3) If you experience an urge to post a rant about how their outrage is actually victimizing you, slam your laptop closed on your fingers. (Repeat this step as needed until urge passes.)

The reason Step 3 is so vital is it prevents you from shirking the responsibility incurred upon you by free speech. And that, more than anything else, is what marks this era of “political correctness” as different from the past– at least, for certain groups of people.

Most people have always had to face consequences for their speech, particularly if you were a less powerful person who offended a more powerful person. Now, as society pushes for equality, the playing field grows more level. Previously privileged people, who were once able to be cavalier with their speech, or say things (even just supposedly funny stories) without fully considering the possible reaction, may now find themselves facing consequences they did not expect– even if their intention was benign.

But, I have more good news! Dealing with unforeseen consequences is not actually all that scary, if you know how. First, sticking with the helpful three-step process outlined above is an important start. Barry Malzberg and Mike Resnick neglected to follow Step 3: rather than slamming their hands in their laptops, they published a vitriolic response accusing their critics of fascism. Whoops! They shirked responsibility!

For another example, let’s look back at Hugh Howey, who once posted a sexist rant on his blog. He described an encounter with a disagreeable person at WorldCon, who argued with him over various aspects of writing, and who happened to be female. His post was perhaps best summarized in its ending sentence: “Suck it, bitch.”

That sentence can be seen as carrying numerous problematic aspects– it denigrates her as a woman, and it’s suggestive of sexual violence: a command, given from a man to a woman, to suck it.

In the initial response, he argued that he had been misinterpreted. His goal had been to express the sentiment: “Ha ha, I’m a successful real-life counterexample to your negative opinion of self-publishing.” Which may very well have been true, however, the people angered by his language weren’t satisfied: their problem wasn’t with his opinion, it was with his graphic usage of sexual language to denigrate a woman he disagreed with. Finally, he issued a mea culpa and apologized. Hugh Howey has largely been forgiven, and his successful career continues.

This brings up a few things we can learn from:

1) Even if you didn’t personally find Hugh Howey’s post offensive, the people who did were not wrong. As stated earlier, it is literally impossible for someone to be wrong in their reaction to something– they can lie about what their reaction is, but their reaction is their reaction, and how they feel is how they feel. If you belittle someone’s reaction, you are unavoidably belittling them as a person.

Moreover, by doing so, you are actually less likely to win the argument. To quote The Art of War, which talks about enemies but could apply equally well to critics:


When you dismiss your critics by ascribing false motivations (i.e. “they’re fascists who hate free speech”, or “they just love causing drama”), you are willfully failing to know them. If you can truthfully understand why they’re outraged, you’ll be in a much better position, even if you still disagree with them.

2) Apologies do not diminish you. This seems to be a problem that men in particular struggle with, as though an apology weakens their manhood. I assure you, this is not the case. Apologies are merely suggestive of empathy, that you are capable of understanding another person’s viewpoint. This is something people of both genders should be learning to do by the time their age hits double digits, and the fact that many otherwise-functional adults apparently cannot– or refuse to do so– never ceases to be a source of amazement for me.

Another pro-tip: it is possible to apologize without conceding your argument. Many people are apparently unaware of this, perhaps having stayed home sick during that day in kindergarten when they explained how apologies worked. An apology does require that you treat your critic like an actual human being, but– and I suspect this will also come as a surprise to some– it is possible to disagree with someone and treat them like a human being at the same time.

Take Hugh Howey’s situation, for example. In his situation, it was entirely possible to apologize for using crass and offensive language without apologizing for his opinion on self-publishing, which I suspect was the part of the argument that he actually cared about. (And I suspect if he had focused his point on self-publishing without suggesting that she suck his dick, he may have been even better off in the first place. More on this in a moment.)

One of the best apologies ever was from Matthew Inman of The Oatmeal, who once posted a comic poking fun at girl gamers. In the wake of that, he didn’t whine about how he was being victimized and shouted down. He seriously made an attempt to understand his critics’ perspective, and acknowledged that (1)his personal experience did not appear to be representative; (2)his critics’ own stories and experiences and feelings were also valid (as pointed out earlier, such is the nature of human emotion); and (3)made a substantial gesture of a $1,000 donation to the Women Against Abuse foundation. Apologizing did not make Matthew Inman any less of a man. If anything, it made him a better human being, and elevated his stature in many people’s eyes.

You see, folks, we’re in an era where Macho Bullshit no longer rules. People are judged by the respect they show for their fellow human beings, not by the size of their cojones. Actually, the latter isn’t quite true– if you want to interpret size of their cojones metaphorically, I would humbly suggest that someone who steps up and takes responsibility for their words and their actions has far, far bigger cojones than someone who runs around screaming “fascist!” or “PC police!” when other people call them out. (For further reading on this subject, I suggest the Wikipedia entry on Ad Hominem.)

3) Target your language. The biggest problem with Hugh Howey’s post was not his opinion, but the collateral damage his language caused. If you want to avoid offending an entire gender, avoid using historically loaded or broad terms (no pun intended). This may require you to be more creative in your language, but as creative writers, you should welcome the challenge, not cower from it. Hugh Howey used a lot of sexist language, and overly dwelt on his opponent’s gender, for no reason.

As a starting point, I suggest the term “asshole.” It’s nice and generic– everyone has one, after all, and any human being, regardless of class, gender, race, or sexuality, can sometimes be a gigantic raging asshole. Think of it as a way of insulting someone who deserves it while also celebrating this unifying aspect of humanity.

Try to avoid using gender-specific terms– bitch, pussy, dick— unless the person’s gender is somehow relevant to the argument. (Pro-tip: it isn’t.) For similar reasons, avoid using the words faggot, nigger, kike, and so on. Identity-based slurs do not aid your argument, ever.* (*One would think, in 2013, that this wouldn’t need to be explicity stated, but as mentioned, it’s a new era, and this Helpful Guide is for folks who are having difficulties adapting.)

4) When you’re going to be a jerk, do it on purpose. Hey, sometimes you’re angry and you feel like being an asshole. It happens to everyone, and sometimes a little righteous profanity-laden smackdown is a good thing. But, in correlation with number 3, go in with both eyes open. If you want to, for example, call someone a humongous turdmunch with the brain of a half-rotten baked potato (which happens to roughly coincidence with my opinion of Theodore Beale), be aware of how folks may react, and what you might need to take responsibility for. Luckily, as described earlier, taking responsibility isn’t actually all that hard. And if you feel like you’re in the right, by all means, defend yourself– but be sure to follow my Helpful Three-Step Process outlined above.

One Final Note: Sometimes it is possible to say something that is so uncivil, and so out of bounds, that consequences go beyond getting yelled at and actually verge into things like getting banned from a professional organization (i.e. SFWA), or being socially ostracized. That is, unfortunately, also a consequence of free speech, and I’d suggest that it happened not so much because of your viewpoint, but because you failed to treat your critics/opponents like actual human beings. Please see the parts above where I talked about apologizing, and also about slamming your fingers into your laptop– I suspect you may have missed a piece of advice in there somewhere.

But if you do follow my advice, it turns out you can still say pretty much anything you want! If not in an officially-sanctioned SFWA bulletin, then on your blog, or your Twitter, or by yelling on a street corner. As long as you aren’t facing punishment from the government, you do still have your free speech rights– and if you’re upset that everyone thinks you’re a raging douchebag, well, I would once again refer you to my Helpful Three Step Process.

Hopefully this post helps you continue your free speechifying in an age of rampant “political correctness,” aka “treating other people like actual human beings.” Good luck!