The War on Science Fiction and Marvin Minsky

Interesting angle. Hadn’t thought of this before. Good piece.

I love FireFly as well. In that show the former browncoats, such as Captain Mal, who reject the tyrant authority of the central planets exemplify the MGTOW spirit.

I cannot speak to the British shows mentioned, but I find it rather ridiculous to say that the new BSG promoted some kind of liberal feminist agenda.

The new BSG should be lauded by the MGTOW movement for portraying incredibly capable (though imperfect) men and women who rise to positions of power in difficult circumstances through being smart, courageous, and exceptional. Those are the kind of role models we need to see in popular culture. Makes a counterweight to the Sex and the City/sitcom/Oprah drivel, that claims women deserve more respect and rewards than men because they have a hole between their legs.

I really doubt that the author even watched the new BSG, as the claim the men are whiney, clueless, and incapable is a blatant mischaracterization. The male and the female characters in BSG are BOTH, at times, whiney and imperfect but are BOTH exceptional. There are courageous men and women. There are promiscuous men and women. There are smart men and women. There are emotional men and women. You get the idea…

There is a wrongheaded trend in the MGTOW movement that i’ve picked up, that seems to maintain the only “true” portrayal of womanhood is barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. This is immature and the most pathetic form of reactionary male whining.

If we want to rebuild society to a better place, we need to promote working hard, being smart, being adaptable, and striving towards excellence, no matter what the gender.

As an aside, the Dune novels by Frank Herbert also offer exceptional role models for men and women….

An interesting alternative take on the wrong turn Battlestar Galactica took from a conservative magazine https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/how-politics-destroyed-a-great-tv-show-15245?page=all

[Marvin] Minsky has said, “General fiction is pretty much about ways that people get into problems and screw their lives up. Science fiction is about everything else.” and “But aside from the science fiction, I find it tedious to read any ordinary writing at all. It all seems so conventional and repetitive.”

Good Lord. I respect Minsky’s strictly scientific contributions, but saying things like this indicates either incredible stupidity or a near-autistic level of nerdiness. Since it’s obviously not the former, the conclusion seems clear.

This is of course not the only such thing I ever read from him. The loony (and incredibly creepy) views of transhumanists like Minsky (e.g. Kurzweil, Moravec, Bostrom, Yudkowsky…) serves as just another reductio ad absurdum of the idea that reason alone can lead people to a sensible worldview.

>There is a wrongheaded trend in the MGTOW movement that i’ve picked up, that seems to maintain the only “true” portrayal of womanhood is barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. This is immature and the most pathetic form of reactionary male whining.
>>

Too bad. What are you gonna do about it, Luko.. er I meant Peanut Gallery? (giggle)

the general point about the gradual feminization of Sci-Fi on TV is true, because TV is always going for the largest audience, whereas and sci-fi writers can and do always play to their niche. but the specific criticisms of the new BSG are really off-base. first of all, it was *WAY* better than the original BSG from the 70s, which was a cheesy kid show with a look totally ripped off from “Star Wars” the previous year. (Lucas actually sued Larson over that – lost, though.) Remember the robot dog? Groan. More like “Lost in Space”, a cheesy 60s western set in space. (Lorne Greene kinda reinforced that.) The new version salvaged the most interesting aspects of BSG – the human-cylon relationship and the “chariots of fire” mythology – and updated everything around them for the ’00s, with a fairly serious set of themes relating to war, terrorism, occupation, etc. the fact that starbuck and boomer became women is irrelevant to this: it mistakenly assumes that good sci-fi is about male archetypes and not ideas. (Also: the new Baltar sucked – “reimagined” the least successfully even though the sex was the same.)

also, Minsky is wrong, because even the best classic Sci-Fi writers were aware of other literature and often used literary/historical analogies to make a point about contemporary society, usually wrt some failure to understand science or technology. In other words, the boundaries between sci-fi and all other literature/fiction have always been porous. There are always common themes or narratives that enter into great writing of any kind. Foundation – the fall of the Roman empire, more or less. Childhood’s End: life after death, or rather the collective afterlife of a sentient species. even Firefly above – they’re basically outlaw former Confederates, who, having lost their war, live a bandit-like existence. the otherwise incoherent mashup of western and sci-fi elements are held together somewhat by this theme. And yeah, Captain Mal was awesome. (The writing was actually above average on that show as well – so it wasn’t just the great ensemble cast that made it work.)

” Considerably more men than women are interested in reading and watching science fiction than women. ”

I’ve reread this sentence five times and cannot understand what it means.

I agree with many of the points made in the article, but I feel that such a claim about the feminization of modern sci-fi, while relevant and pertinent, is an argument both oversimplified and overextended. Taken as a whole, sci-fi has long been a minority attraction, separated from the mainstream and relegated to an alternative, cult-like status followed largely by a stereotyped group of fans (chief among these being the male “geek”). Until recently, most sci-fi fell on the deaf (and uninterested) ears of any who weren’t already scientifically-inclined. As sci-fi has become more relevant and relatable to the mainstream in recent years, we’ve seen a number of organizations mobilize to capture the emerging markets and capitalize on the newfound interest in the genre by putting out a diluted, less-traditional form of sci-fi – sci-fi “lite”, you could say – marketed toward everybody who wouldn’t have originally been a fan or given “authentic”, truly science-oriented sci-fi a chance. Women comprise just one of these demographics, and cannot alone be blamed for the modifications to the genre as we once knew it. This typical dumb-down effect occurs when any subject is processed by the giant pop-culture machine, and, additionally, like most entertainment of our time, sci-fi, too, has simply become an unfortunate victim of the Stewards of the Politically Correct, be they feminists, multiculturalists, omnisexuals, or whomever.

Also, traditional sci-fi has long and often been plagued by the problematic “gadget fetish”, where works are fixated on displaying or describing fantastical, out-of-this-world technology to the detriment and exclusion of plot or narrative, thus alienating a large portion of a potential fan base. Imagining a perfectly-detailed futuristic world is cool, but it loses purpose and perspective if it doesn’t find a way to relate to society and the human condition in general, such as what piercedhead said. I think part of the reason sci-fi has become more popular in recent years is because, as we move forward as a complex technological society, it is the medium most relevant to and descriptive of the modern and future social condition, and anticipates some of the deeper philosophical quandaries to come. Regardless, as much as I love classic sci-fi with all its tech-worship, I also have a love for the art of storytelling, and I feel that the truly great works of sci-fi are generally a synthesis of speculative science and the traditional narrative, of which Minsky appears to detest, simply because, perhaps, he cannot relate.

FWIW, I’m a big fan of the re-imagined BSG. While I did feel that it went a bit “liberal” on me once or twice (these occasions were very rare, however), I felt the overall tone of the show was relatively politically mild, as it preferred instead to cultivate a story that was more weighted philosophically than mired in ideology. The gritty realism of the show, one of the elements that made it great, kept it on an even keel and left little room for the feminist agenda. Of course, there were features that were a bit conspicuous – the President of the Colonies is a woman, after all – but in the end, there was little, if anything, preachy about it. The idea was simply to create a hypothetical study of the human condition, in all its imperfection, when placed in an extremely trying situation. The interpersonal relationships, while certainly playing a key role, were not the single centerpiece to the series; plenty of adrenalized action and political intrigue were concentrated on, as well. Certainly, much of the narrative drama and exploration of social issues could not have been had without the web of relationships the show spun. The show also had several strong male leads, the prime example being Cmdr. Adama (excellently portrayed by Edward James Olmos), who represented the most distilled of strong, stoic, traditionally masculine values. Even the female president was an excellently developed character; her role had less to do with espousing sentiments of “girl power” than with analyzing the transformation of a person, after being burdened with great responsibility, from unlikely politician to steel-hearted, iron-fisted, sure-footed leader. Heck, I’d even vote for a woman who had the balls to run a government like she was portrayed doing on the show.

FWIW, I’m a big fan of the re-imagined BSG. While I did feel that it went a bit “liberal” on me once or twice (these occasions were very rare, however), I felt the overall tone of the show was relatively politically mild, as it preferred instead to cultivate a story that was more weighted philosophically than mired in ideology. The gritty realism of the show, one of the elements that made it great, kept it on an even keel and left little room for the feminist agenda. Of course, there were features that were a bit conspicuous – the President of the Colonies is a woman, after all – but in the end, there was little, if anything, preachy about it. The idea was simply to create a hypothetical study of the human condition, in all its imperfection, when placed in an extremely trying situation. The interpersonal relationships, while certainly playing a key role, were not the single centerpiece to the series; plenty of adrenalized action and political intrigue were concentrated on, as well. Certainly, much of the narrative drama and exploration of social issues could not have been had without the web of relationships the show spun. The show also had several strong male leads, the prime example being Cmdr. Adama (excellently portrayed by Edward James Olmos), who represented the most distilled of strong, stoic, traditionally masculine values. Even the female president was an excellently developed character; her role had less to do with espousing sentiments of “girl power” than with analyzing the transformation of a person, after being burdened with great responsibility, from unlikely politician to steel-hearted, iron-fisted, sure-footed leader. Heck, I’d even vote for a woman who had the balls to run a government like it was portrayed on the show.

Still, I agree: while it is nice to see an expanded interest in the genre at large, it is sad to see the fading and “out-phasing” of some of the more traditional components that made great sci-fi what it is.

An interesting, well written and argued article.

Pity its all total bollocks, but we can’t have everything can we?

The poster above seems to be a troll.

“Anyway, sometimes men ought to be able to enjoy the company of other men without women being involved from time to time.”

Congratulations, you have that! It’s called “most of the world.” But thanks for letting me, a woman, know that I’m not welcome in the world of sci-fi.

I am genuinely confused how you can say in your first paragraph that old school Sci-Fi, such as Star Trek, was the province of men and boys and then in your second paragraph admit that there was an entire subculture of female fans who wrote stories about the characters back in those days. It seems to me like female (and queer) viewers have always been around, now they’re just being acknowledged.

I also don’t understand your reasoning that adapting shows for a female audience has to lesson them; in saying so you’re as good as implying that the things women enjoy are lesser than those men do. I enjoy LEXX, Farscape and ST:TOS, and my favourite book is 1984. I also enjoy Joss Whedon’s sci-fi, the new BSG and the Star Trek “reboot” film. As do many of my female friends. Why do these things have to be exclusionary? All genres have changed as society has changed, and there are more and more women who are inspired to go into the fields of science and technology by these fields and are capable of holding their own there.

It’s time to let go of the Boys Own club idea that themes of dystopia, technology and action are somehow the providence of the straight white male. To assume anyone else is going to ruin it for the rest of you is bigoted and demeaning.

I personally don’t mind having sci-fi books suddenly populated by women as real characters. I like sci-fi. I like having people doing more than sitting at a coffee house, brooding about in my books. I like people working to build futures. When SyFy and others try to make sci-fi more ‘interesting’, by giving if more ‘human interaction’, what they are doing is turning sci-fi into mainstream. Science ceases to be important. It becomes fiction. I will not go get my sci-fi in the Fy channel.

Awww, poor baby. Sorry to hear about your dick falling off because women are reading (and writing!) good science fiction. But that’s okay — there’s plenty of Perry Rhodan left out there for you.

“As we know science fiction has inspired boys to pursue careers in science, engineering, and technology as men. With women killing science fiction on television, the current generation of boys won’t have this opportunity to be inspired to work in these fields.”

Speaking as an engineer, I would be thrilled out of my mind if science fiction inspired more women and less men to enter technical fields. There is one woman in the fifteen-person group working on my current project and she was already married before she finished undergrad. Please don’t worry about encouraging any more men to become engineers.

Not only do women have plenty of exclusive clubs for their own benefit, but they actively attack and destroy male exclusive clubs.

Don’t men do the same? If “moronic romantic drama in space” is a club just for women, then isn’t degrading it hypocritical of you?

Also, I personally find the idea that being told “you spend too much time on the internet” is gender-exclusive really hilarious; in my experience women get socially rejected for spending time online too.

Nerdiness is despised by the ignorant masses because it’s seen as elitist and exclusionary, and rants like this don’t do much to help matters.

This is a bunch of sexist, masochistic filth designed written and supported by people who are so insecure about their sexuality and identity.

Let’s keep this simple.

Why limit what anyone can enjoy.

You want a certain kind of story write it the way you want it.

Other people have the write to produce things anyway they want. If you don’t like it, read old books, there are always the reruns. If we are in a culture where people besides the macho guy, get the stage, oh darn I hate it when writers try to be more open to new ideas.

Mike Griffiths

Dee October 12, 2009 at 5:20 pm

“Anyway, sometimes men ought to be able to enjoy the company of other men without women being involved from time to time.”

Congratulations, you have that! It’s called “most of the world.” But thanks for letting me, a woman, know that I’m not welcome in the world of sci-fi.
>>>>>>

Is there anything in your world, dee and amber et al, that is just for boys?

Mike Griffiths October 12, 2009 at 10:29 pm

Let’s keep this simple.

Why limit what anyone can enjoy.

You want a certain kind of story write it the way you want it.

Other people have the write to produce things anyway they want. If you don’t like it, read old books, there are always the reruns. If we are in a culture where people besides the macho guy, get the stage, oh darn I hate it when writers try to be more open to new ideas.

Mike Griffiths
>>>>>>>>

Not the salient feature of the article mike.

But liberals have always been bad at finding the point and that’s why they all –like mike– do so badly at the color in the circle with the number two pencil tests (hence they attack those tests as “arbitrary constructs” of some dark force called patriarchy).

The point was the TV and movie SCIFI stories have been taken over by a distorted delusional PC vibe. Further the groups doing this PC take over are jerks.

This salient feature –which you missed mike–wasn’t that hard to see.

———-
Tests before voting.

Sterilize the dumb.

Tracey demonstrates a female’s ability to discern point (and make strawmen) once again.

From Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech: “Men are employed at good jobs doing useful work. Wasn’t the mancession supposed to put a stop to men being gainfully employed? We need a manpression (man + depression) where men lose all gainful employement and only women have good jobs. We need engineering to go overseas completely. Anything less is hating women.”

Er, I wasn’t implying anything like that. I am a little confused why you conclude any of that. I was bringing up the point that my field is quite overwhelmingly male and not likely to be threatened by a mild parity of women, let alone a vast majority. You may not be very familiar with engineering. We certainly do not have the problem of hordes of women wanting to take away our “good jobs”.

I think this is one of the most stupid, ill-founded, and nonsensical commentaries I’ve read this year. From your inisial assumptions (sci-fi is about men, for instance, when, in fact, sci-fi has always been one of the most egalitarian genres of fiction) to ridiculous positions like being a man cause you to run in terror (pointedly like a little *girl*) in terror of anything that has to do with women. Eeeek! Run! Seriously, this is stupid lazy writing. You should see if Rush Limbaugh needs another fiction writer for his show.

Sorry to break this to you, but women have been in the scifi fanbase/community all along — it’s one of the reason that so many Aspies have been able to breed successfully since the 1970s (thank you, Star Trek conventions!) Science fiction has always been the most egalitarian of genres, be it visual or print. Perhaps socially impaired (Aspies, PDD-NOS, or others) folks have been a more significant part of the fanbase than in other genres (mystery, for example), but that doesn’t mean they represent the whole of fandom. Women have always been there (being inspired to pursue *gasp* scientific fields of study, too). Maybe you just didn’t recognize them as such because they looked different than on scifi book covers?
I’ve never read a romance novel (and I was frustrated by the boring ‘romance’ bits of many scifi movies, like, say, Starship Troopers — Less Kissing, More Bugs!), but scifi has been a part of my life since before I could read. Most of my girlfriends are the same. So your argument that women are getting their cooties on your genre doesn’t at all fit my experience. SciFi’s had the cooties for a good forty years.

This post is amazing. I didn’t realize that patriarchy was the same as “SF is written by men for men.” SF isn’t male-centric because, as a genre, that’s how it was intended, it’s male-centric because EVERYTHING was geared towards men in the past. The majority of SF writers aren’t sitting hunched over their work thinking “This is for men, it’s all for men! Screw you women!” People write what they know and I don’t think there were a lot of female sensitive/equal rights supporting men writing in ’78 (for example). I’m glad that it is changing. I LOVE SF and I like that there is more to it then “Fly around-blow that up.”

Perhaps this evolution of SF will encourage woman to go in to science based employment, but you wouldn’t want that would you?

I am going to point out that your fear of SF having gay relationships in SF probably has less to do with what you indicate is the “demasculinization” of SF and more do do with homophobia.

“Scripts were rewritten to have ‘more relationships’ (more relationship drama) and less ‘space battles.’” Oh my goodness, this is hilarious. You’ve basically said that man only like when stuff blows up! I’m sorry men I didn’t know that your intelligence was so low that you can only get entertainment for explosions.

I’m not saying anything else because when someone is, for example sexist as this person clearly is, it’s almost impossible to get them to see another perspective. It’s a waist of everyone’s energy.

Much love to SF, progress and those who support it.

If you’re looking for the real culprit in the so-called “feminization” of science fiction, don’t blame us women. The real culprit here is the market. Men have been turning away from television and books en masse to embrace a newer more exciting media format–VIDEO GAMES.

All the hard male-oriented science fiction out there is now in the form of adult-oriented video games, and men are eating them up. If you forced a group of men and a group of women to choose between TV and video games if they could only have one or the other I would be surprised if even 10% of the women would choose video games. While with the men I suspect 50% or more would give up TV in favor of video games.

What does all this mean in terms of the market? Writers and developers of male-oriented scifi are now working in the game-development industry instead of TV or books. And women are now the dominant consumers of TV and books. Ergo, tv shows and novels are being written and marketed with women in mind.

It’s all market economics, and it all started with the advent of adult-oriented video games.

LMAO.

Funny. Get back into the 1950s, man.

I don’t have much more to say than what has been highlighted by others above, but allow me to add my voice to those who believe that women have as much a right to and as much of a history in science fiction as men. Sure, many early science fiction stories were male-focused, but they were also being targeted to thirteen-year-old boys who were into pulp magazines. Is it so shocking that, as the audience for science fiction grew more diverse, more diverse writing was incorporated into the genre to appeal to the new, wider fan-base? This article reeks of sexism (as do many of the comments) , to such an extent that it frankly saddens me that there are still people out there with such out-dated views of male-female interaction. Even in the eighteenth century Edward Gibbon was smart enough to know that “all that is human must retrograde if it does not advance.” The history of ideas rarely makes note of those individuals stolidly clinging to the past and reminiscing about how good things used to be, which is exactly what this article is doing.

The current generation of boys will not have this inspiration from science fiction, at least from science fiction on television and in movies.

If that means we have fewer men with your attitudes in the future, so much the better.

There’s a point to be made about there being less scientific content in science fiction (though, lets be honest, most Science Fiction was a little light on the actual science, I’ve watched Star Trek, TOS), or that it’s less optimistic and more fearful. But that’s not your argument. Your argument is that Science Fiction is no longer about men doing and accomplishing things. Well, newer science fiction is more realistic regarding human beings and human relationships. If we ever do have intergalactic spaceflight, it’s not going to make people any different. Watch a little less Battlestar Gallactica (the 70s version) and a little more of The Day the Earth Stood Still. The latter is better anyway.

In reality, there are human relationships, women “doing and accomplishing things”, and people with different sexualities. The fact that there’s more of that in science fiction now is not a “feminization” of science fiction, that’s just a reflection of reality. I’m sorry you’re having difficulty processing that.

Cutting out the bits about gender entirely, I see the following complaint, with which I can agree:

In an attempt to capture a perceived demographic, the artist formerly known as SyFy has been dumbing itself down horribly, and the other networks are not much better. (The fact that the members of the imaginary demographic are insulted and turned off by being stereotyped is a separate issue.)

It’s very difficult to find hard SF that makes any attempt to come up with a coherent and believable technology setup, which is one of the appeals that gets young people into science. I like hard SF, I feel like there used to be more of it, and I’d like it to come back, because the soap operas are winning.

The above complaint can be expressed just fine without discussing the fact that casting has been diversified. As a queer woman who started watching Classic Trek and vintage Dr. Who at the age of three, yes, I cheer when I see characters that represent more of the world. That has nothing to do with the fact that the soap operas are winning and writers can’t be bothered to check their science once in a while. (The latter is just as annoying to female fans as to male ones.)

Aaah, so women are NOT scientists. Women are NOT military leaders. Women have NOT been inspired by science fiction to pursue their dreams of scientific discovery. Women have not been influenced by role models in science fiction to fight (literally) for causes.

You’re pathetic.

Clearly, your mommy issues have prevented you from accepting the fact that women are part of society, women are intelligent, women do more than just flirt and breed, and that women have been following science fiction since the genre began. They’ve also been inspired by it. Sadly, many of them hid under masculine fandom names, but at least they don’t have to do that anymore.

Also, the BEST science fiction ALWAYS had a human element. The original Star Wars and Star Trek are classic examples of this. Hard-hitting space battles, hand-to-hand combat, dangerous alien races – the good, the bad, and the ugly. But there was ALWAYS the human element, and that’s why those genres have stuck around. You clearly don’t know much about the genre you claim to love. You also don’t know much about reality, so that’s not surprising.

I had the privilege of listening to a young women who is about to start working on the Mars Mission with NASA. She was inspired by Star Trek to get her advanced degrees in aeronautical engineering. Oh yeah, that’s squishy, touchy-feely, girly shit. I believe her words were, “We’re going to Mars, and I’m going to take us there.” Oh yeah, group hug.

A female friend of mine is an ER doctor. She was inspired by Dr. McCoy. Somehow, I don’t think being up to your elbows in blood is such a weak thing, is it?

I was an Army Officer in a combat arms branch. I was inspired by Captain Kirk. I’ve had artillery shells explode just outside my window. I’ve led troops. I know what it’s like to look down the barrel of a loaded automatic weapon being aimed at my head, and I didn’t blink. But part of what made me a good officer wasn’t just the bravado and physical strength (which I had in spades), but the compassion I had for my men, which I also learned from Kirk and other science-fiction military leaders.

I’m so sorry for you that you can’t comprehend that. You must lead a very limited existence.

Mijan, will you marry me?

The only redeeming quality of this article is the superb pwnage it elicited from John Scalzi. Well done.

Dammit PM/AFT, you’re the first one of us to be targeted by a fem-troll invasion? I’m jealous.

Wow. Yeah, so, I looked around and checked my calendar, and guess what? It’s 2009. Why don’t you grow up a little and get out of the 1950′s?

Mijan said just about everything else I could say.

“WELL HERE IS WHY:…”

Fascinating. It took a woman’s writing skill to make Lucas’s screenplay dialogue palatable.

And Ferdinand, just be glad that you and your friends can hide behind your computers like the little pansy-ass crybabies that you are. Men who need to come to sites like this and beat their chests and bleat and moan are men who don’t have much to back up their words. I’ve probably done more and seen more “manly” shit than you ever will.

I believe the appropriate statement would be: “I’m more of a woman than you’ll ever get, and more of a man than you’ll ever be.”

LOL. Hysterical. The only valid point you make is that most of the TV science-fiction (not “sci-fi”! I hate that term!) shows are crap. Of course, they are, but not for the idiotic reasons you propound (hint: it’s commercialization and attmept to serve the lowest common denominator, not “feminization”). But your type of arguments are precisely the reason so many of the early female science-fiction authors felt that they had to use male pseudonyms. Luckily, those days are over, and attitudes like yours are going to go the way all garbage goes. Also, luckily, it was last year I believe that female graduates have finally outnumbered men in my field (astrophysics). Many (most?) of them read (and write) science-fiction (something you show no indication of having ever done). And I am quite glad they did…:)

This is just asking to be reposted:

“I’m more of a woman than you’ll ever get, and more of a man than you’ll ever be.”

Cut out any reference to your retarded and wrong definitions of what men and woman tend to prefer, and you’d have an article that touches on how the Sy Fy channel has been dumbing down for the general masses.

Of course, then you get into the whole is it really dumbing down? Or is it just employing good storytelling elements. And how much of this is due to personal taste.

I mean, yes, I did not like always like the new BSG because of all the relationship drama, but it was still a good show about men and women preserving through hardship. I also loved Stargate SG-1, which is full of random bad science techno-babble and little relationship drama, however the biggest appeal of SG-1 is its cast of characters. The characters are appealing because of their faults and strengths.

Also, what’s up with your random homophobia in the article? You obviously don’t know what women like, how the hell would you know what gays like? Your only complaint is that they appear at all. What the fuck is wrong with gay people appearing on a Sci-Fi show? It’s not like they don’t exist, and have always existed. Sort of like how skin colors other than white exist and have always existed, so they now appear on Sci-Fi shows once people got over their racism.

Oh right. It’s homophobia. It’s not LOGICAL.

Actually, your entire article is full of false assumptive statements. I’m not sure there’s a point to listening to someone who cannot look at a trend in a logical and detached matter, especially about a subject that depends on those two traits.

Let me get this straight: You’re complaining about women ruining a genre that was invented by a woman. Somehow, the fact that women have a tiny slice of a genre still dominated by men offends your sensibilities. Because clearly there’s not enough for you to read and watch that hasn’t been contaminated by Girl Cooties. Or something.

For the record, most women (this one included) think that the whole “SyFy” thing is monumentally stupid and condescending.

I’ve been enjoying SF for over thirty years. Too bad if this offends you. I will continue to enjoy reading what I like reading and write what I like writing. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to read it. However, dismissing what I write out of hand simply because I’m a woman is monstrously unfair.

I don’t get it. I like hard Sci-Fi as much as all you boys do, I have a degree in theoretical astrophysics, I like talking geek and I’m cute and single.
Why wouldn’t you want me in your club?

Julie:

That was so cute and cliched I could have written it myself.

No, “you” (meaning women who like sci-fi) are not ruining scifi, because you appreciate both the geeky male, manly, and other wordly aspects of it. That and perhaps its thought provoking.

Women can write good sci- fi? Sure, there are some who write well. There are also quite a few who write boring political or romantic dramas disguised as sci-fi.

The female /feminist cultural warriors who have invaded science fiction aren’t really interested in the science part OR the fiction part. What they really care about is that there is a genre of literature that males find pretty much uniquely their own due to female disinterest/disdain and rather than join the clubhouse as an equal because they are “tomboys” and really enjoy the boys game, they want to come in and change things. The clubhouse needs redecorated to fit female tastes in other words.

It won’t work, and it is unwanted. If you like science fiction write your own, join a club, whatever. But don’t claim to enjoy something mostly done by boys and then claim the boys clubhouse doesn’t suit you.

GOOD female science fiction? Check out the webcomic or graphic novels “Girl Genius”. Created by a guy and girl husband and wife. I can’t recommend it enough even though it is over the top quite often

Aw, I’m sorry you’re so threatened by strong female figures in your science fiction. I guess I’ll go get knocked up, take my shoes off, and return to the kitchen now before your masculine pride does a complete wash out.

Or maybe you can find a time machine and go back to the 50′s where your sexist views were more the norm. Then we’d all be happy.

When I was directed to this site by a friend, with no explanation, for a moment I thought it was a spoof, like something the people at The Onion might put together. “The Spearhead” header particularly cracked me up. Sadly, I quickly figured out that the whole she-bang (pardon me, “he”-bang) was in earnest.

I’ve been reading Science Fiction since the mid-60s. I read “Planet of the Apes” when I was nine because there was a movie coming out and I wanted to read the book before I saw it (my mom took me to see it.) By the time I hit high school, I had this thing going where I’d read every single story and novel I could get my hands on that an author had written up to that point — Asimov, Ellison, Tiptree, Vonnegut, Clarke, Heinlein, Schmitz, Bradbury, and more. True, sometimes there were stories that seemed to be rather corny and childish — those were the stories that were aimed at boys. I’d usually give them a nod and a patronizing smile and read on, but I remember being terribly offended by something in A Pebble In The Sky, and never picking up another book by Asimov again after that. His loss, not mine; there were plenty of other writers in the genre. Luckily for me, by the time I was born, there were plenty of stories to inspire everyone, stories for every taste and hope and dream of the future. I suggest you take a look at the tales of the Hub written by of James H. Schmitz, a writer of the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

Very early Sci-fi was aimed almost specifically at boys… not men, boys. It was written by men who were afraid of women; either they wrote stories with no women in them — much in the way that young boys prefer the company of other boys, no girls allowed — or they wrote adolescent fantasy, with girls (not women, girls) as their fantasy object. I heard Asimov joke once that he didn’t even look a real, live girl in the eye until he was 19; I smiled and thought to myself, “Sweetie, it shows in your fic.” Then I realized he was staring at my breasts and I wondered if he’d ever really looked a real, live girl in the face at all.

Clarence, the links have hit LiveJournal. There are enough sci-fi fandom communities there to sink a battlecruiser. If anything, I’m surprised that there aren’t more comments already.

That’s the thing about the internet – when someone creates an article dripping with this level of stupidity, it’s only a matter of time before it gets shredded by a more educated crowd. I’m sure he’s also having a hard time stomaching the fact that so many women are educated professionals. I’ve got to wonder what he does for a living, if he’s ever been in a healthy relationship with a woman, or if he’s some pathetic teenager spouting rhetoric to make himself feel better about his sad station in life.

For the record:

I grew up reading science fiction. Classic science fiction: Asimov, Heinlein, Poul Anderson, Philip K. Dick, et al. Books from my MOTHER’S collection, to be specific.

Women have always been interested in science fiction, be it hard SF, space opera, juvenile, or whatever other sub-genre has come along through the years. Don’t blame US for television networks pandering to the lowest common denominator, which is all they do no matter what the genre and why I don’t even watch television any more, thanks very much.

Oh, and so sorry I took away a place at M.I.T. for my undergraduate degree in Chemical Engineering from some man who was OBVIOUSLY so much more qualified for the slot simply for his gender. And graduate school for my doctorate in the field at U. Penn. Clearly actual merit and intelligence had nothing to do with it!

Julie:

The clubhouse isn’t getting bigger.
If it was, then there’d be shows of all types to watch that appealed to all types of science fiction fans from those who love military science fiction to those that love political dramas among multiple species.

There’s a minority of women who like the themes that men who tend like “old style” science fiction like. The new stuff is trying to appeal to more normal women, and it’s not succeeding very well as the ratings of most of the shows on “syfy” should tell you. Also, I’ve just noted that I don’t mind gays on screen or in literature, hell, one of my personal fascinations is with Alexander the Great and he was bi, at minimum. However does EVERY new show on ‘syfy’ this year have to have gay characters in it , when they make up perhaps five percent of the population at most? I don’t really care: if the shows were otherwise excellent I’d watch them, but it does make one wonder if this isn’t some sort of political “flavor of the month” type of thing.

So long as women and men can make rules for their clubs and interactions that satisfy the needs of both I’ve no problem with that. It’s when one comes in with accusations of this and that and wants to change all the cultural fixtures that make the genre what it is that I say “ENOUGH”.

Wow. This article definitely provided some entertainment. However, there is something I wanted to clarify:

Boys have always been the cootie carriers, c’mon now! “Circle, circle, dot, dot, now I got my cooties shot?” You know a boy did not invent the cootie vaccine. We know what you did with your hands in those treehouses!

Two words : Mary Shelley.

Clarence:

I think the mistake that “SyFy” *throws up a little in my mouth* is making is that they’re trying (badly) to appeal to ALL women, rather than the Geek Woman (of whom I am a proud denizen) demographic. Thus they end up appealing to NO ONE. EveryWoman doesn’t care for the genre no matter how much you LifeTime-Channel it, and GeekWoman doesn’t care for the LifeTime-Channeling of her chosen genre. GeekWoman likes it because of the explosions, not in spite of them.

But surely you’re not pretending that SyFy is the only outlet out there? I can think of four network TV shows I’m currently watching with an SF twist to them (Flash Forward, Dollhouse, Heroes, Fringe), and none of them strike me as being particularly “girly.” Although, being a girl, I guess I come to the table wearing my own Special Goggles–but my husband also watches and enjoys the shows too, if that signifies, and he’s a CCW-holding, race-car driving, jeeping, airplane-flying guy, so…not girly.

SyFy is going to fail, and fail hard, because it’s abandoned its base. And that’s a problem. But it’s not because a bunch of PC girly girls have invaded our genre–it’s because a bunch of marketing dweebs who don’t understand us have.

Clarence:

I’ve worked in a bookstore for almost a decade. Let me tell you about about what women typically read: EVERYTHING. Maybe your mother read primarily romance, but that does not prove the generality.

30 years of propaganda insisting that women are interested in hard sciences. Really? Propaganda? Like what? Like Marie Curie winning 2 Nobel Prizes in the sciences (being the first person ever to possess two)? Or Bessie Coleman being the first person to hold an international pilot’s license?

Why are you so insistent on this “us vs them” approach? Why is it so hard to reconcile the fact that women have diverse interests, just as men do? Why are our interests and perspectives less valuable? Because you think we all only like romance novels and are trying to change science fiction to reflect these fluffy ideals which, because, as we’re just wimmen durr, are the only ideals we could possibly possess?

How about this. WOMEN LIKE SCIENCE FICTION BECAUSE IT’S SCIENCE FICTION.

Here are some other fields men used to insist women “just weren’t that into”: Everything but home making, secretary work, teaching or nursing.

Funny how that’s changed. Funny how it’s still changing. Why do you think that is? Oh right, propaganda. Sure.

…

…

… You’re scared of women, aren’t you?

Not to mention talking about emotions, personal interrelationships, and other aspects of being human.

I apologize if I’m reading you wrong, but that’s certainly the way it sounds. Quoting Minsky (an AI programmer who has problems with fiction about real peoples’ emotions, gee, that’s not a slightly loaded POV) to back up your thesis only seems to show that you have some problems socializing. I recommend hitting a few SF/F conventions and not going to the computer room or gaming areas.

Ha hah ha ha ha – oh god I can’t stop laughing – this is so funny.

*Points at the website and laughs again*

This guy is serious? Does he know what a laughing stock he has become? I would put in effort to respond if I thought there was a point but since there isn’t, and this is just such unbelievable rubbish all I can do is laugh.

Thanks for that. I needed to be cheered up.

*cough* Your misogyny’s showing, dude. May want to fix that.

Hey Goober:

Do you eat your boogers? Ha, ha ha ha, your name is funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnie.

There, now my post is as intelligent as yours. Shaming language to a guy you don’t know? Tsk.

This is a point I forgot to make — most women don’t like sci-fi, okay. NEITHER DO MOST MEN. The die-hard Trekkie fanboy we all think of when we think “geek” is representative of a minority of men.

Maybe we think more men like science fiction because modern sci-fi has become more violent, and real men are supposed to like real violence. A lot of it could be the shaping effect of expectation instead of some kind of in-born need for lasers in your entertainment. After all, female viewership of the Bond series (including purchase rates for the older films) is increasing at a prodigious rate, and women turned out in huge numbers to see 300 and the new Star Trek movie — as violence is becoming decodified, so is the fanbase for violent movies. Maybe the same is in store for science.

Charlotte:

That’s true, but there’s still a greater percentage of male “geeks and nerds” than female geeks and nerds. Which is partly why many geeks and nerds don’t get lots of experience with women when they are younger. Also while most men aren’t really interested in hard science fiction, they usually aren’t overtly disdainful about it.

Clarence dear – that was my point.

” Considerably more men than women are interested in reading and watching science fiction than women. ”

CRAP! I’d better go tell my husband this. Apparently he married a guy.

*checks self* Well I have boobies … now I’m all confused, darn it.

…apparently, women who read science fiction are STILL subject to being patronized terribly. I never knew that my possession of ovaries meant that I wasn’t supposed to enjoy SF. Nor did I know that said ovaries meant I shouldn’t be writing stories filled with blood, pain, and death. Seriously, every single thing I’ve ever written, someone or something ends up bleeding or dying. Even the “funny” stuff.

I’d better fix that, STAT. I guess.

This post has been endlessly entertaining. Thanks for flying your ignorant flag for all the world to see, oh-so-manly and yet strangely Anonymous Author.

Besides all the name-calling and back and forth, I do think there is one valid point made here – fantasy and science fiction (not *gag* SyFy) are, in fact, two different genres of fictional writing. Piers Anthony, J.R.R. Tolkein, Neil Gaiman, etc. are fantasy authors. Isaac Asimov, Jules Verne, Robert Heinlein, etc. are science fiction authors. Of course, there is some intermeshing between the two genres, but generally I’ve found books fall into one of the two categories, rather than both. Vampire novels, such as (*gag* again) Twilight, are fantasy, not sci-fi. So what I see happening is more of a proliferation of the fantasy genre, rather than the disappearance or dumbing-down of the science fiction genre.

And I also see the “SyFy” network going all to hell by pandering to the wrong audience, but that really has nothing to do with the science fiction genre as a whole and everything to do with (misguided) marketing and (unnecessary) trademark protection.

“Seems like alot of those replying to this thread are ages 50 plus and all there experiences came from a time when women readers of science fiction were patronized terribly.”

Well, I’m 29. Happily married, for what it’s worth. Got the house, the yard, the career (civilian now), the two pets and a yard with a fence. I run and weight-lift regularly. Still fit my high school prom gown. And still a sci-fi geek who would gladly kill a few hours debating the merit of new!Kirk’s field promotion to Captain, discussing the subsections of the Stargate universe, or arguing for the need to pretend that the Star Wars prequels were never made. Warp theory, time-travel nuances, and teleportation devices are also great discussion topics.

Anyway, Gina is correct – this is a proliferation of fantasy, not a weakening of science fiction. The PROBLEM is that this new variety of fantasy gets barrel-rolled together with sci-fi, and it’s annoying as all hell. No sparkly vampires for me, k thx bai.

I’m 20 and pursuing two degrees in writing and gender studies. Yes, I am still called a tomboy when I start talking about science fiction. And yes, right now, right here, by you, I and women like me are being patronized for trying to put our own faces and voices into science fiction.

Oh, also, for the feminists in the audience, there’s a great book called How To Suppress Women’s Writing by Joanna Russ that everyone should read — it’s less than a hundred pages and hits a lot of the points that have been under discussion here.

frankie:

Do you even know what you are babbling about?
There was a story written about a voyage to the moon back in the time of the ancient greeks. If I really wanted to I could go dig it up.
Shelley was hardly the first writer of science fiction. It may also surprise you that I know she was also one of the early pioneers of the women’s movement. Like the first wavers, she was part of the movement when it was still sane.

Clarence:

My point about the Nobel Prize winners was not a pissing contest on which gender has won more. You said the only reason women are thought to be interested in the hard sciences is because of “propaganda”. I was saying they are thought to be interested in the hard sciences because they actually are interested.

Also I should think that the vast majority of people, not just women, could care less about Quantum Physics and the like. I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make. Could we agree that both genders have some interest in these fields? Is the point we’re arguing here that more men than women like a certain brand of science, so that means only men’s opinions on that subject should be valued? Majority = entitlement to ownership? Because I find that indefensible.

Also, please answer my question why women are now present in so many fields in which they were thought (by men) not to have any interest in?

I’ll do you one better regarding romance novels. Women are the only ones (in my experience) who buy them. Men are the only ones who buy crap like Maxim though. Why? Because they are fantasies specifically created to cater to each respective gender, and so are purchased almost exclusively by those people. Both fantasy styles are fluffy crap (imo) and do not adequately represent the interests of either gender.

Science, on the other hand, was not specifically created to cater to men and neither was science fiction. Men are not genetically designed to be superior at them or women would not be able to compete at all.
I do not believe women have less of an interest because they are women. I think it is much, much more complicated than that, and I think you are ignorant to suggest otherwise.

And no, I don’t sell the easy textbooks to women and the hard textbooks to men. They each buy both. Obviously.

Interestingly enough, the vast majority of young adults buying science fiction/fantasy for their age (and I’m talking Orson Scott Card and Ursula K. Leguin, not that Twilight nonsense) are girls.

There is an asymetrical distribution of interest among genders, but I don’t believe it’s quite as deep or static as you think. In any case, we are obviously going to disagree on this, we have both made our points and I need to study for my midterm, so ciao dude. Good luck with stuff.

Alevai:

I’ll answer your questions even though asking and running is rude. After all, there’s always a use in injecting information to threads like these.

The propoganda I am referring to is the absolute bullcrap that career interests are exactly evenly distributed among the sexes and the only reason why there are not more women engineers, for example, is sexism.

It is my contention that these days women are present in science and engineering fields very close to the full extent that such interest exists among the population of women. Obviously, when they were barred from entry or not allowed to be educated this wasn’t the case.

I’m also of the opinion that there are indeed differences between male and female brains that manifest in averages in interests and abilities between the population of males and females. There are always of course, exceptions and it is morally right that such people should be free to pursue their interests, but it most be noted that the voice of what I regard “real” science fiction to be..hard science, dealing with ideas more so than characterizations – is going to be overwhelmingly male no matter what the “syfy” channel does. More males equals more editors, authors, etc, and there is no conspiracy in this anymore than the fact that the vast majority of quilting mags are run and stafffed by women.

Insofar as you sale graduate level textbooks in the sciences to people you probably sell them overwhelmingly to males because those fields, such as Physics at the MA level and above tend to be 95 plus percent male.

Lastly, women read more than men. A whole generation of young males has practically given up casual reading and fiction of any type, particularily in the inner cities. So in that case, it’s not surprising that the majority of readers of fiction of all types among the younger (30 and under set) would be women.

I love that women are ruining Scifi for you because you sir are the moron. Do you talk to your mother like you talk to folks here? I bet you don’t. I bet you suck up to her because you never wanted to leave the womb. You have uterus envy.

My 10 year-old niece is gonna kick your ass with her knowledge and LOVE of Science. Just saying. I encourage her and will continue to encourage her in that since it so obviously distresses such a manly, man as yourself. Get the hell over yourself.

*points, laughs and walks away*

I’ve never seen a bigger collection of losers who got beat up one too many times back in high school by the jocks. Were you jealous of those hot cheerleaders that hung off their shoulders and laughed at you when their man wailed on you? Don’t hate on the ladies that none of you will ever be able to get in your entire lives lol.

Clarence, it wasn’t Mary Shelley who wrote on feminism. It was her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, who wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Women. She died at 38, giving birth to her daughter, Mary Shelley. Before she wrote The Rights of Women, she wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Man, in which she argued the merits of the French Revolution.

165 comments. – wow!

Talk about baiting traffic. Evil but Genius.

Why keep your daughter around, also?

The “Spearhead”?

… So this’s like a newsletter for closet fags? You mention queers and feminism a lot for dudes who claim to be “straight”….

So your daughter gets to pay for the sins of her mother?! Awesome! And all other women get to be generalised as feminazi man-haters as well, just because you had a relationship go wrong.

This has been an interesting read. I think the “assumption” that more men buy/read hard-core science fiction than women might hold up better if there were actual figures to show for it. As it is, it seems more of a rant than a logical argument. Spock and Sarek would both ask for figures.

Another point someone made was about K-12 in the US not well-versed in the sciences. It’s true and a shame because the US is out sourcing or bringing in talent from other countries because its own student population isn’t moving up the education ladder to be leaders in the sciences. I’m fortunate that my 12-year-old has wanted to be an engineer since she first watched ST-DS9 (the more gritty, realistic look at political, religious and social cultures – IMHO). Ok, ok, Xena Warrior Princess has always been a fav of mine as well. What can I say I collect swords, much to the DH’s financial dismay.

Do I think reading science-fiction would improve the state of interest in the sciences? Absolutely, but first kids have to know HOW to read, then they have to be required to read instead of parents planting them in front of a TV or computer screen.

Clarence:
<>

An interesting quote, and forgive me if I misunderstand it. I’m not a rocket scientist, but most of the hard-core science fiction I’ve read has always had a strong political component to it. Heinlein, Bradbury, etc. F54 was a pretty strong statement against censorship, unless I’m remembering the wrong book. There are other examples, but I tend to get authors/titles and storylines mixed up regularly, so I won’t humiliate myself. However, I would suggest that good science fiction has to balance the technology with the politics and tell one hell of a story to boot. I don’t think one or the other (tech/pol) should weigh heavier if it’s going to stand the test of time.

Personally, I don’t give a rip what genre or fictional book I read, I read to be entertained. If the book doesn’t entertain, I move on. But there’s a lot of science fiction I’ve read over the years that I’ve thoroughly enjoyed. But I have to say that I’m thoroughly sick of hearing, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.” And the original post seems rather misogynistic, but that’s the poster’s right to free speech. I don’t agree, but I’ll support his right to rant.

Rats – Clarence I screwed up quoting you.
This is your quote I was referring too
However, you’ve got to be willing to do science fiction and let the science fiction dominate your politics rather than your politics dominate the science fiction parts.

Your homophobia and misogyny is showing, basement dweller.

Die.

The golden rule of “man”inism : Always, always blame the woman for anything that has happened or ever could happen in the future.

Men are experts at avoiding responsibility that adults would normally have to bear. Reasoning with them is futile, as we can see here.

See what I did there? You’re doing precisely what you’re accusing me of. I see a lot of blaming women, feminists, around here & some of the blogs linked to, with a smattering of homophobia.

And while it’s quite sad that Welmer is now divorced (and maybe his ex is a horrible person) it appears that a negative experience with her is a basis for his judgement of “most” women. I question the extent to which it affects the relationship he has with his own daughter.

Welmer,

Kind of sad reading the dissenting “arguments.” Lot of personal attacks and shaming going on in this post. Kind of why I stopped reading comments in general…just was surprised at the sheer volume being left these past couple days.

Joel = Feminist sock puppet. Check the IP address.

For what it’s worth:

Cyrano de Bergerac (the real person) wrote The Other World: The Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon (1657) which described a method of space travel based on known scientific principles.

Much of the “relationship drama” I’ve seen on TV sci-fi IS “moronic”. Not because it’s “chick” stuff, but because it’s simply AWFUL writing. (The “re-delusioned” Battlestar Galactica’s “Quadrangle of Doom” anyone?)

A key element in the state of today’s science fiction is Marxist Critical Theory applied to it which pushed it into the “social commentary is paramount over science-based stories” territory. (“But what I want to maintain here is that critical theory itself – especially in its most central, Marxian version – does implicitly privilege a certain genre, and that this genre is SF. ” Carl Freedman, “Science Fiction and Critical Theory” Science Fiction Studies, Volume 14 (1987), page 185.)

In addition to the critical theory, the serious literature crowd encouraged the belief that science fiction was “trash” if it didn’t aspire to the higher ideas of social commentary on contemporary issues. “Magical realism” (a literary genre that originated in South America) was so much more acceptable than U.S. “science fiction” written in the mid-20th century. Anything that reflected the traditional U.S. ideals of “rugged individualism” or self-determination was disparaged. “Happy endings” were also deemed “unrealistic”.

This all resulted in loads of science fiction that is endlessly tedious as characters sit around and deliver long politically correct speeches, only pausing to bicker and engage in rather meaningless sex.

And since Moore and Eick’s “re-delusion” (I like that. It’s appropriate.) was mentioned, I prefer the original. The men were men, the women were women, and Baltar was eee-vil.

This thread is invaluable as an exhibit of the breathless, shaming, shrieking way that feminists and their enablers viscerally react to dissent from their ideological hegemony. In that sense, it’s rather useful as an artifact.

I agree, to a certain extent.

I’ve actually been meaning to peruse feminist sites like feministing and make some “opposing” (yet tasteful) comments there, to get a more authentic reaction from the crowd. Also, I’ve read solely MRA stuff in the past year, so I’m curious if my opinions/thoughts/mindset will change some, or be further strengthened, should I read feminist written articles.

Obviously, this particular article has been linked to from some weirdo b-board.

————
Testing before voting…

What a bunch of sexist, homophobic garbage. You no more have a perspective about science fiction than you do about women and men.

Fifth -

It appears you have yet to experience how horridly anti-male these people are.

No matter how polite and reasonable you are, you will get banned in very short order. Try it, and see. Their intolerance is really lightyears worse than any supposed bias on our part.

Yeah, I don’t really know how the REAL feminist writers/bloggers operate.

My closest was in speaking to an old college acquaintance about feminism and MRA (note: she admitted being a “former feminist”). After about 10-15 minutes of talking she said I “had not studied as long as she had in these matters” and thus don’t really deserve an opinion. Sort of a, “go research more and then come talk to me” attitude. Needless to say I was pretty shocked, she’s actually one of the most level headed (so I thought) and intelligent girl I’ve met at college. Of course, I never bothered talking about gender issues with her prior.

No kidding, Thursday. I’m quite skeptical of the whole MRA thing, as men operate best in scaling hierarchies where application of direct force is involved.

An untapped genre of sci-fi might be one that incorporates insights of ev-bio/ev-psy, exposing the sexual natures of men and women. Of course, the good guys would need to be the enemies of democracy ….

Wow this post is full of the most misogynistic crap I have ever read. You know, most men aren’t so insecure that they have to pull this kind of crap to get attention. Luckily there are many more girls and guys who think scifi shouldn’t be limited to gender.

I think I’ll continue to watch the scifi that has both strong female and strong female characters thanks. I’ll also stay the hell away from this blog in the future.

My man Denis has something to say to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl2NKZtl07c

“Asshole” – Denis Leary

Check out his wisdom…DUDE.

I dunno, I kind of got over the whole “girls have cooties, ewww!” thing right around the time the first pubes spouted. Before that, in fact. I guess some people love their developmental ruts.

The cat’s out of the bag.

Yeah! And I am never going back in!

Re: Robert / The Cyber Sisters:

Holy Shit! They know everything!

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/bigcat.htm

[Interviewer]: “There’s a great deal of writing in the Star Trek movement which compares the relationship between Alexander and Hephaistion to the relationship between Kirk and Spock – focusing on the closeness of the friendship, the feeling that they would die for one another…”

[Roddenberry]: “Yes, there’s certainly some of that – certainly with love overtones. Deep love. The only difference being, the Greek ideal – we never suggested in the series – physical love between the two. But it’s the – we certainly had the feeling that the affection was sufficient for that, if that were the particular style of the 23rd century.”

[From: Shatner: Where No Man...: The Authorized Biography of William Shatner (Chapter 7 - Page 145, 147-8)]

Excelsior: Y’all can let go of your dicks now, boys.

I don’t have an opposable thumb to hold mine. Can you help?

Puma you do realize that’s a Cheetah on your user icon?

Well, this article was pretty fucking ridiculous. And here I thought women bawwed more over this kind of thing than men did.

On the off chance that some of the army of the offended that has landed aren’t all high-school girls doing what they are most famous for, a few points of interest:

As for Mary Shelley inventing science-fiction, that’s more a claim of desire than a substantive fact. Frankenstein was published in 1818. Cyrano de Bergerac published “Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon” in 1656. Voltaire wrote “Micromégas” in 1752, a short story in which an alien from another planet visits Earth. There are numerous other claims to the ‘first work of science-fiction’ that predate Mary Shelley by centuries, right back into antiquity. If you’re sticking with Mary Shelley regardless, it’s probably more because you want to than anything else.

While we’re with Mary Shelley, she distinguishes herself from the thousands of other female writers of the 19th century by writing about something that is more of a ‘what-if’ than ‘here’s-how-life-is’, and then considering the moral questions that arise from that conjecture. The ‘what-if’ may have been outside of human experience, but it wasn’t implausible – and that makes her quite unlike even the best of the other women writers of her time. I believe that she was able to distinguish herself in this way because she was only 20-21 when she wrote it, she grew up without a mother and she had the benefit of an upbringing under an educated and liberal father (liberal in the older sense, as in free-thinking). As she got older and the cloud of feminine cynicism descended that usually becomes the guiding influence in an older woman’s outlook, her writing took on more directly that very typical feminine theme – the moral supremacism of the female and the necessity for more feminism. Yawn.

The fact that a woman could write an enduring work of science-fiction is less remarkable than the fact that so few other women did.

As for their ‘positive’ influence of women in modern science-fiction, a brief recount of a recent episode of Battlestar Galactica:

The female Starbuck tortures one of the enemy, in the form of a normal human man. She has him beaten (she uses another man for this), repeatedly head-dunked for long spells in water and thrown to the floor, where he is too weak to rise under his own strength. She eats in front of him, knowing that he’s starving. After hours of this, the female president makes an entrance and feigns horror at his treatment. She apologizes to the man, orders his manacles removed, for which he thanks her. She then asks him quietly and civilly for the answer to the same question he was being tortured for, and this time he offers it up freely. Having got what she came for, the female president then orders the man executed (which is done immediately).

Now how many of you seriously think the writers of this show would have allowed a woman to be cast in this same role as the tortured man? Imagine the howls of outrage if a male torturer and a male president had done exactly this to a female prisoner, and the moral messaging was that no outrage had been committed – this was just the harsh reality of war?

We all know that in the current cultural climate, such a scene is verboten. Females are not being presented in science-fiction in a way that is equal to the way men once were. They are being show-cased as the officer class, and are monopolizing the hero roles. No male viewer can watch this and take it seriously. It would be like asking black people to watch shows in which all the villains were black, and all pardonable outrages were committed solely against blacks.

This rubbish is impacting on men’s lives and causing huge harm to their welfare, and you women who refuse to even acknowledge this, and go out of your way to bury it under a storm of emotionalism identify yourselves as unbelievably vapid, supremely self-serving or downright malicious. This rubbish has got to stop.

A) Who’s sending the flash mobs here?

B) Mary Shelley didn’t write Frankenstein.

Vina: “Doctor Who are your big examples of “femminized science fiction”? Really? I don’t know if you actually remember either of the originals, but they were half-a-step up from Flash Gordon serials with about as much intellectual depth”

May the ghost of Jon Pertwee haunt you unto repentance.

I’m not so sure that we’re encountering feminists, so much as people with an average third-grade reading comprehension.

Have you met a feminist with higher reading comprehension than that?

Who wants anything to do with average women?

They’re AVERAGE.

Seconded. Men with GAME need only concern ourselves with 8s, 9s, and 10s. And we get them.

Kevin K: “There might be people who go into science (or engineering) because of Spock or whatever…”

No. Star Trek doesn’t send people into science, actual hard SF sends people into science. Obviously not too many, though, or we’d have an anarcho-libertarian rebellion of ass-kicking physicists by now. And we’d all be saying “kool beans” as we navigated Janatpour space.

“The inclusion of women in some sci-fi books is in no way mutually exclusive with a body of male-oriented works, if that is what you are after.”

A) The OP is about television.
B) Where are the male-oriented SF shows?

Case in point regarding written SF: I have gotten to the point where I automatically skip any story in F&SF that is written by a woman. Almost every one has teh ghey in more or less overt form. If they don’t have teh ghey, they have teh emotional drama. I DO NOT READ SF TO GET MY FEELINGS TWINGED.

You also have to watch out for writers who use only initials for their first names, because they are almost always women. I’m looking at you, M. Rickert.

As a note, you folks respond really fast. So some of my comments may appearto ignore your points, when really you just happened to post before I hit “submit” on my last response.

Counterpoint, at least in fantasy. Robin Hobb/Megan Lindholm is totally worth reading. Even her worst stuff is better than any other woman in F/SF. She seems to grok the honor thing.

Eumaois’ post represents another assumption here.

There is more than one way to be “masculine”. The one supported here seems to consist of “honor and boom!” I’m all for supporting young men from childhood through adolescence and into adult-hood, but to present the proper man as following only one very strict set of principles is not the best way to go about this.

Hobb is better than other women because she address honor? What? Plenty of male writers don’t address and stress honor. Does that mean they are bad writers, too?

“Everyone” but you, huh?

I think feminism goes too far in some places, too; but to argue that our entire society is being “indoctrinated” is a bit much.

There is more than one way to be “masculine”.

I am totally prepared to believe there’s more than one way to be “masculine”, but there’s only one way to be masculine.

The one supported here seems to consist of “honor and boom!”

No, you’ve failed to understand. The model supported here finds the progressive absence of honor and boom a menacing development.

I’m all for supporting young men from childhood through adolescence and into adult-hood,

What the hell does this even mean?

but to present the proper man as following only one very strict set of principles is not the best way to go about this.

This way you speak of, it is called transmission of civilization.

Hobb is better than other women because she address honor? What?

I used the word “grok”. Not “address”. Do you grok it?

Plenty of male writers don’t address and stress honor. Does that mean they are bad writers, too?

If they don’t understand it, then yes. They are not only bad writers, but poor men.

I don’t really care what any guy here agreeing with him says… I like SciFi. I like the aliens, the technology and the experimentation or theories that writers explore when they come up with these shows. The one thing that I really love SciFi for was how it symbolized to me hope for the future–that somewhere in the future–women, homosexuals, non-Whites would have a respectable place (read: NOT stereotypes like comedic relief or romantic subplots (blegh!)) in these fictionalized worlds and the same for real life. It was a symbol that discrimination would kindly die and people would free to pursue what they liked regardless of their gender, race, sexuality or hell, age.

I guess there’s no hope or future in SciFi…

I expect some of this attitude may be coming from a perceived lack of hard sci-fi media in general. While we occasionally still get a “Primer” or “Sunshine” or “Moon” in theaters, I’m hard pressed to think of any on television.

I’d be curious as to how the OP would categorize the like of “Lost,” “Fringe,” and the endless iterations of “Stargate.” Probably the hardest sci-fi show currently running is Joss Whedon’s “Dollhouse,” which despite the female lead is fairly light on the relationships so far.

And your one way is basically borrowed from a few thousand years ago. “Cultural transmission” sounds great before you remember that you are picking and choosing elements that suit your agenda. The cultural climate in which “honor” developed is very different from the one we live in today, ad in many ways it was much more negative.

To Heh:

Science and Science Fiction are two different things. Your comment is fucking stupid, and you should have your posting privileges revoked for your juvenile attacks and either deliberate misunderstanding or immense lack of anything even vaguely resembling literacy.

Shut the fuck up.

Hey, neat!

I never knew neanderthals read science fiction!

Hmmm… I don’t agree with the OP on everything, but I do agree that SyFy has gone down the wrong path. But, let’s be fair. They’ve ALWAYS been going down the wrong path.

They canceled Farscape for Black Scorpion, which in my mind was supposed to be eye candy for the dudes but was so badly written and acted that no one watched. Same thing with The Invisible Man getting canceled for Tremors: The Series.

My guess for both of those choices was that the second show was cheaper to make and TPTB felt that the pretty on the screen or the violence would be enough to draw people in. They were, obviously, wrong.

What science fiction fans want, no matter the gender, is a good story. In my mind, this means an intriguing plot, action that sucks you in, characterization that makes you want to follow these people on their journey and an ending that really pops. This can include such a wide variety of stories that it amazes me that people and networks are so limiting in what they will watch and what they will create.

When I worked at a video rental store, there was a huge debate about the show Lost, the first season of which had just come out on DVD at the time. There were people who would readily admit that they hated science fiction but were totally in to Lost. They refused to admit that the show was, in fact, science fiction. No aliens, they said. No space ship. It can’t possibly be sci-fi because I like it (someone actually said this to me- it wasn’t sci-fi because they thought it was good *eyeroll*).

I saw this as a general dislike and lack of understanding of sci-fi in general, by most of the population. Look at the number of people who will rent or go see a horror movie like Nightmare on Elm Street and enjoy it but will still talk total smack about sci-fi and fantasy. Horror can be a part of either genre and most of the time *is* a part of those genres (the recent wave of torture porn doesn’t fit here, I readily admit).

So, I think that the real killer of good sci-fi is not that the marketing peeps are going after women (and gays) and watering it down- no, it’s that they’re going after the “main stream” TV viewer who watches, lets say, CSI or 24. They want to get the viewers that help bring in numbers like “20 million” for something like NCIS. What do we have to do, they seem to say, to get those people to come over here and watch OUR network?

It’s the general population that needs it dumbed down (men and women both). People who don’t want to think to hard about the TV they watch. And that’s cool- I get it. TV and books for some people are about escape from the real world and from the hard facts of that world. After a long day, some people don’t want to have to think about their entertainmaint. And that’s fine. That’s what Grey’s Anatomy and CSI: Miami are for. But CSI: Miami is no Farscape. It’s not even Fringe. If you have to think about it even a little bit to understand your show, it will never get the kind of numbers that a network wants to see. Even the X-Files in it’s heyday didn’t get CSI-type numbers. Just isn’t going to happen.

There are certainly devoted fans of both genders that are already watching & reading, as well as devoted gay viewers and readers who are just as troubled by the poor storytelling and cheap pandering that’s happening currently but the networks already have that money. Those people are already THERE, butts in the seat or standing in line to buy the book. It’s like they no longer really count because they’re the sure deal. And there aren’t enough of them to make the suits happy. It’s **everyone else** they’re trying to court.

“You know,” they seem to be saying, “there are a lot of women out there. If we have a woman like Carrie from Sex and the City on the spaceship, we’ll get those viewers. (NO, you won’t, just FYI). And if we make her GAY, then we’ll get the gay viewers too. (Again, NO, you won’t). And maybe, if we throw in some lesbian sex action, we’ll get men to come back and watch, too (maybe, but not a strong enough maybe to bet a network on, you giant bunch of toolboxes).”

*sigh* As a woman and a sci-fi fan, I would like to state for the record that sparkly vampires are the dumbest things EVER. EVER. Also, not sci-fi, actually fantasy but no one bothers to actually make the distinction anymore outside of those genres, which makes it even worse. Please go away, ok? You are ruining vampires FOREVER and you suck (hah- but only animals, as you’re “vegetarian”- excuse me while I PUKE). DIE IN A FIRE. *ahem*

So, yeah, OP? I’m sorry that you’re so angry. I don’t know what I can do to help. I think you’re coming at this from a slightly off center position and I don’t think I can say or do anything to change that. I hope that perhaps my above points could open up your view a bit but whatever, it is what it is. I just love sci-fi and have always hoped that there was room for everyone here. It’s a big universe, you know? Lots of room for all types, if they want to come along.

Awwwww, is someone mad because he hasn’t had a date in twenty years?

Seriously, its people like you who are ruining it for those of us who a) not only enjoy the company of women, but would like to see more women join sf fandom in a greater role than just wearing a steel bikini and b) are not pathetic losers who spend all their time complaining that affirmative action ruins everything for men when, in fact, this could not be further from the truth. You have not made a single valid point; in fact, all you have done is whine about how what you view to be an exclusive boys club is being “ruined” by women, when, in fact, those of us who have fully functioning brains and have also had a relationship with a woman that has lasted for more than five minutes and didn’t cost $3.99 a minute realize that including women in SF can only make the genre better. Perhaps all you want is a re-tread of the same old crap like the ’70s BSG, which, let us be honest, was pretty horrible and derivative, but the rest of us realize that SF is not about EXPLOSIONS!!!!!!!!! it is about the progress (or lack thereof, in your case) of the human race. So please do us all a favor and save your misogynist rants for when you are in the basement with your other overweight friends with Cheeto-stained fingers, and then right afterward you can all complain about how you are all middle-aged men who can count your sexual encounters on one hand.

Also, just for the record, the female Starbuck could whup the living shit out of the male Starbuck any day of the week, just like most female SF fans could whup the shit out of your sorry ass with very little effort. Now that’s something I’d pay to see.

Of course it does; your comment, however, does not.

Let’s be clear about something that you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding:

1 – Men do write science fiction.
2 – The article primarily deals with television, where I think the point is that men who do not read more science fiction personally will be less inclined to go into the sciences (in particular, I’d suspect computer science); likewise, it will be encouraging women to go into a field where their contributions thus far have been pretty minimal.
3 – Given that we are essentially fishing for outliers in fields like science, and that men produce more outliers, I think this is actually a pretty salient concern if we like the march of technology.

Or are you a Luddite along with an internet troll?

… Bromentum.

…

…

I am torn between crying and laughter. Sounds like a keeper.

@Reinholt

Er… I wonder why female conributions have been minimal… Oh, because there haven’t been a lot of women involved in science.

So, basically, it’s looking at statistics. Men are more likely to produce geniuses, so it’s a waste of resources to bother with women?

I don’t recall saying that anywhere.

It is, however, a waste of resources to induce women into the field with incentives. The good ones will do it anyways (I don’t believe Curie was an affirmative action hire), and the ones who shouldn’t be doing it won’t.

I am for a completely level playing field judged on one thing alone: ability.

“So, basically, it’s looking at statistics. Men are more likely to produce geniuses, so it’s a waste of resources to bother with women?”

That sounds like it might be a good economic study. Under what conditions is it a waste of resources to allow women to enter the sciences?

The problem is not the allowance, it is the subsidy, Eumaios.

There are lots of women in chemistry, bio-anything and medicine. There aren’t many in physics, computer science and electrical engineering. I’ve met some amazing women physicists there just aren’t very many of them.

The physics community works very hard to recruit women into physics and gives them massive support the whole way. Of the grad students who had “outside” money to supplement their grad student stipend (a big deal if you are making $15k/yr), 2 were women and the other a minority, specifically because of their gender/race. But they can’t get the numbers up above 20% of total PhDs.

Of any era.

And I’d hardy categorize exas as maority honorable.

I can’t believe we just had a 300-post thread about Who is the Bigger Nerd: Boys or Girls?

… that and some guy calls my mom a Cheetah-fucker.

@Eumaios

Good grief. Yes, there are relationships in Dollhouse. But the fun stuff is all about the Build-a-Bear workshop : defining the boundaries of the ego, artificially generated “imprint” personalities built from pieces of other people, commodification of traits and memories, spontaneous generation of personalities in the absence of the original, the psychosomatic effect of a different personality on the physical body, a dozen different variations of mind control, and the whole dystopian can of worms that “Epitaph One” opened.

Well, that’s what I’M watching it for.

“Good grief. Yes, there are relationships in Dollhouse. But the fun stuff is all about the Build-a-Bear workshop … Well, that’s what I’M watching it for.”

Those are the parts that make hard-SF fans cringe and look away. It’s just awful. Like at the end of Being John Malkovich: “Look away. Look away!”

I don’t particularly mind that you like the parts that make me cringe. Every second of every episode of Seinfeld makes me cringe. The problem is that you are so unaware of the history and body of SF that you could call Dollhouse hard SF. The concept of mind-transfer has been used in great hard SF. See John C. Wright’s The Golden Age. But mind-transfer is, to Joss Whedon, just a McGuffin that allows him to drag us through more of his obsession with sexual violence. I blame Marti Noxon.

That Ellen Ripley was such a presumptuous bitch. She really ought to have waited for a man to save her ass. A spanking is what she needs, and I’m just the girl to do it. Stupid uppity cow taking a good job in deep space cargo transport away from a deserving man, when deep down we all know she’d rather be back on earth birthing babies and taking care of her hubby.

As for the girlypantsifying of the genre, I have one thing to say.

All your book are belong to us. You have no chance to survive make your time.

Atsikos: “And I’d hardy categorize Texas as majority honorable.”

You’re equivocating here. I would not categorize the inhabitants of any state as majority honorable. An intrinsic motivation is not the same as a habit of behavior.

@E:

What is your evidence for this intrinsic motivation?

@Eumaios cont.

[i]Episode 1-1: “Echo’s new personality incorporates memories from another woman who was molested as a child”[/i]

Pilot episode introducing the concept of “imprinted personalities.”

[i]Episode 1-8: “Sierra discovers that she was forced to become a Doll after turning down sexual advances from a well-connected man”[/i]

Spoiler: The discovery is part of a larger experiment run by the resident doctor that temporarily frees the minds of several Dollhouse denizens so they can resolve some of the psychological issues that are making them difficult to control. In the end, they all go back in the box.

[i]Episode 1-11: “Echo helps a young girl deal with her traumatic past, using the fairy tale of Briar Rose as a vehicle”[/i]

Spoiler: Only peripherally. This is the one where we’re introduced to Alpha, the prodigal psychopath of the Dollhouse family who is plagued with a massive number of personalities active in his head at once.

[i]Episode 2-2: “Echo is imprinted with the personality of a mother with a newborn baby”[/i]

And more importantly, the techies give her the physical state to match, which can’t be shut off even after the imprint is removed.

As for the cougar episode, the entire premise of that one was the dead woman extending her life by renting out Echo’s body to take care of unfinished business.

Tarl: “Can you name some compelling counterexamples of female-authored science fiction that is NOT moronic relationship drama?”

Atsiko: “One that youre sexist attitude will allow you to accept, probably not.”

That’s a cop-out. If you think you have an answer, offer the answer or go away. Or try this: name a science fiction short story by a woman that does not hinge on relationship drama, published in a major magazine in the last year. You can find short fiction reviews at IROSF. I haven’t looked yet with this in mind, and I would be happily surprised to learn of a good writer.

Tarl, I very much liked Megan Lindholm’s Alien Earth. It is her only science fiction novel and has flaws, but no more than, say, anything by James Blish.

[i]Episode 1-1: “Echo’s new personality incorporates memories from another woman who was molested as a child”[/i]

Pilot episode introducing the concept of “imprinted personalities.”

Any show can throw around poorly understood old SF tropes. The point I make here is that the very first episode goes straight for the molested child trauma-drama. This is girl-bait. Men. Don’t. Care.

[i]Episode 1-8: “Sierra discovers that she was forced to become a Doll after turning down sexual advances from a well-connected man”[/i]

Spoiler: The discovery is part of a larger experiment run by the resident doctor that temporarily frees the minds of several Dollhouse denizens so they can resolve some of the psychological issues that are making them difficult to control. In the end, they all go back in the box.

Right. Yes. This is what I’m talking about: “so they can resolve some of the psychological issues”. Psychological issues do not exist in this dojo.

[i]Episode 1-11: “Echo helps a young girl deal with her traumatic past, using the fairy tale of Briar Rose as a vehicle”[/i]

Spoiler: Only peripherally. This is the one where we’re introduced to Alpha, the prodigal psychopath of the Dollhouse family who is plagued with a massive number of personalities active in his head at once.

A) It was Echo’s major plotline. That it happened at all is a fail for your theory that Dollhouse is hard sf.

B) Alan Tudyk is awesome.

[i]Episode 2-2: “Echo is imprinted with the personality of a mother with a newborn baby”[/i]

And more importantly, the techies give her the physical state to match, which can’t be shut off even after the imprint is removed.

As for the cougar episode, the entire premise of that one was the dead woman extending her life by renting out Echo’s body to take care of unfinished business.

That you don’t see how you are strengthening MY case shows how incorrigibly corrupted and weakened are the minds of modern women. I do not blame you, personally.

Anti-You: “why does is matter whether a man or a women writes a piece of sci-fi, be it prose, movies, tv or any other media as long as that work is GOOD?”

It wouldn’t matter, if women wrote good SF. The contention is that they don’t. Try addressing that.

Anti:

Because I like fucking with people, to answer your first question.

As to the others: no, what is on is NOT good sci-fi. It might be a good soap opera (I confess I am unqualified to judge those). And, since I rather like science and all it has given to us (else we’d not be having this conversation), I’d like to continue to encourage it to those that have an aptitude for it.

Consider it enlightened self-interest.

“DIAF, asshole.”

You make a well-reasoned case. I concede and withdraw.

Gentlemen,
On a serious note, the girls that are duking it out with the boys on this thread … they are not the problem. I bet that an overwhelming majority of the science fiction book reading ladies (I am not talking about the vampire teenie-pop crowd) are really are the educated, economically productive, financially self sufficient ones.

These are neither the entitlement princess bridezillas in the making, nor the family-law legal-reform cockblocking pantsuit mafia. I bet a lot of these chicks work in science, engineering, software type jobs and wear jeans/khakis/polo-shirts to work. The operative word here being *work*.

So I say we call a truce with these ladies. Do give credit where credit is due with their participation-in and production-of real science fiction, and then focus on more imporant matters. Shall we?

Cheers,
Puma

Puma, you are ruining my fun with your reasoned discourse! Knock it the fuck off.

@Eumaios

“That you don’t see how you are strengthening MY case shows how incorrigibly corrupted and weakened are the minds of modern women. I do not blame you, personally.”

Devalue empathy and compassion at your own peril. You might miss them one day.

Atsiko: “Your definition of “good”, and other people’s definition are not necessarily the same. Defend the “goodness” of your definition.”

Again, a cop-out. This is an attempt to weasel out of an answer with sophomoric relativism. If you tell me the name of an SF novel by a female that in your opinion is good and is not founded on relationship drama, one of a few, finite things will happen:

* If I have already read the novel, and I think it is poor, I will explain why. Discussion will progress.
* If I have not read the novel, I will look for a description of its subject matter to see if it is founded on relationship drama. If not, then I will find a copy and read it.
* If I have read the novel, think it is good, and it is not a relationship drama, I will cop to forgetting about it. Then I will say, now you’ve only got dozens to go before you catch up with the boys.

My sisters and I were raised by parents a Male & Female who were BOTH sci-fi fans, and both met in college where they both got their degrees in Chemistry. I was raised to see that men and women are equal, and to not believe in sterotypes. It’s the sterotyping and closed minded views that told my mother she should have been a secretary instead of a scientist. It’s the same closed mindedness that told my sisters and I not to go into the sciences. (Which didn’t stop us). And it’s sad that 50+ years later and it’s the same BS that is trying to keep the next generation of girls out of the sciences. Well guess what, there are plenty of jobs in the secretarial field for the boys who can’t hack it as a scientist and feel threatened by the reversing of the sterotyping. I’ll also be sure to let my sister know that she should stop her cancer research because it requires a penis to actually be able to have a scientific discovery.

“I’ll also be sure to let my sister know that she should stop her cancer research because it requires a penis to actually be able to have a scientific discovery.”

It’s not the penis, it’s the lack of ovaries. Oh crap, I shouldn’t have said that. Now Opus Dei will have me killed.

Is it more gauche to forget to close the I tag, or to comment about it later?

@Eumaios

So what was that dig about “incorrigibly corrupted” modern women about? You don’t think the story would have worked if the character in that scenario was male? Or was this about female audience members being sympathetic to the cougar?

And yes, we all love Alan Tudyk. And that episode was Ballard-centric.

@E:

You are arguing that a sci-fi novel that addresses relationships is “bad” sci-fi. I disagree. This is, however, a discussion unrelated to the one we were having before.

Back to the issue of women who have written “hard sci-fi” (which honestly, does not apply at all to the contents of the article we are supposed to be discussing):

I’ve already nominated CJ Cherryh as my example.

@E:

Honestly, I am not a big fan of Austen. Not that she is a bad writer. I liked Pride and Prejudice well enough. That’s just not my genre of choice… whether written by a man or a woman.

@Eumaios

Great, now with the patronizing. Yes, I’m fully aware Dollhouse is commercial television based on cannibalized bits of work from far more austere and elevated minds than Joss Whedon. And yes, he’s fairly transparent about having a social agenda. Nonetheless I’m giving him credit where it’s due on the sci-fi elements in the show. I don’t see anyone else doing anything like it, and we bloody well have to start somewhere.

Ahaha! This is getting better all the time.

I’ve got popcorn. Anybody want some?

looks like the Spearhead opened a breach in the Femfortress

. . . a comment thread so typical of the arrogant, presumptive misandry of american/western P. C. sheeple

what you hear are the squeals of bullies just realizing they’re in for a fight

I cannot stop giggling. Oh man, I hope you’re having as good a time as I am.

I see where you are coming from. Sometimes society grants more rights to women (“spoiling” them) because they didn’t have rights for so long. So yes, truly, I understand why you would object. It’s not exactly fair when a woman is accidentally bumped into and she calls sexual harassment in the work place. I’m not here to point fingers and call names, just — observing.

I’m a girl. Not even a woman. I’m eighteen years old and tentatively studying everything I can at college. I’ve loved science fiction for a long, long time, but I’ve also loved fantasy and magic too. I like to wear make-up and do my hair. I also like to watch action movies and play lazer tag. (Or laser tag, if you will.) I fast forward through romantic speeches and roll my eyes at unnecessarily dramatic kissing scenes.

I just think that the author (I’m afraid I didn’t check who actually wrote the article) is being a little narrow-minded in his view of ‘what women like.’ I like big space action. Alien viruses, Klingon war vessels, epic shoot-em-ups with lots of explosions and action and quick thinking. I really don’t like episodes that linger on ‘does she like me, doesn’t she, can I kiss him, should I?’ I understand (and therein lies my maturity and patience) and accept that these ‘interludes’ are vital to creating a realistic and ever-changing dynamic. I don’t have to like them, but maybe someone else does.

I don’t want to stifle men like women were once stifled. And it’s a very fine line to walk between protesting your own masculine rights (and I recognize these, you have them, I swear) and being a misogynistic pig.

In case you were wondering, I am more of a Stargate fan. There is a fun and humorous dynamic, with plenty of strong male characters as well as female. There is some dubious science involved, plenty of ass-kicking, and lots of stuff exploding. I expect you will now dismantle and decimate the show(s) I adore so much, but that’s why I told you.

So yeah, I don’t even know if any of that made sense. My main point? Don’t judge every woman (or girl, because the age of science fiction fans is getting younger, and that’s nothing to be bitter about) by one simple stereotype. I hope you’ll find that it isn’t an ‘us verses you’ argument. Um. Chew on that, I suppose. And have a nice day! (By the way, sorry about the influx of livejournal users; most of us belong to a lovely community about Star Trek, and your article happened to pop up. Naturally, we can’t keep our mouths shut. Another woman-stereotype. ;D )

From your misogynistic language and your blatant fear of women in power (or is it fear of rejection by women obviously too smart for you, I wonder), I can’t imagine you’ve ever spent much time around women who devote their lives to the sciences, nor around any of the women who happen to love this genre, like I and many others. Or really read a history book that was written after the 1950′s, for that matter!

The internet has allowed men to talk directly to each other, bypassing women, communicating the truth about women. What this shaming language attempts to do is put a stop to the dissemination of truth about women on the internet. This is why we have angry women when it comes to this sort of thing.

The most ironic part of your diatribe is that without the fundamental contribution of Ada Lovelace, you probably wouldn’t be able to share your misguided thoughts with other like minded “men” in this manner.

I for one am highly glad that the majority of people in science and scifi entertainment are moving away from your short-sighted, fearful, and reactionary ways, which was never true to the spirit of scifi in the first place. One day you’ll look around and realize your Boys Club is empty of anyone worth note.

@Eumaios

I’m trying to figure out why you don’t think Dollhouse should be considered “hard science fiction.” Apparently by your definition emphasis on interpersonal relationships of any kind are verboten – I’m not sure whether this includes socio-political interaction (which is essentially interpersonal dynamics on a larger scale) or non-sexual male/male relationships (Save the parent/child one, all the Dollhouse relationships you list are male/female).

Frankly, I’m not sure if there’s ever been any televised sci-fi show that would meet your criteria, and certainly not any version of Doctor Who or Battlestar Galactica that I’ve ever encountered.

Oooooh, we’re in your sci-fi, putting doilies on your primary buffer panel.

a. HAHAHAHAAHA, yes.

b. We were already there, and have been, for years. Mary Shelly to Shirley Jackson to tv & film writers, directors, and editors.

c. On a side note, how do you like the new James Bond series? Is the reverse-exploitation camera work and emotionally toxic storyline making you uncomfortable? Well, the good news is that it made repulsive heaps of money so we’ll soon be doing the same to the rest of genre entertainment too.

Are you going to eat that popcorn, or can I keep it for my Buffy mobile?

Reading this post, I am reminded of the sort of horror movie that fails in a spectacular and unfortunate way. It has all the bells and whistles. It tries so earnestly to put fear into the hearts of its viewers. And the seriousness just flops, and at the moments that are supposed to somehow be blood-pumping, heart-pounding thrills, the audience giggles, because the monster is so clearly made of cardboard and operated by a drunk fellow they hired out of the community college drama club.

I am also reminded very much of the way in which directors and actors who have made such movies will try to defend their creations by saying, “The public just doesn’t understand my art!”

Enjoy your indulgence in this defense, poor misunderstood blog-author. You may build up your ego enough that someday you will actually be courageous enough to come out and join the world, instead of selectively digesting only those parts which please you – or so one can hope.

“On a side note, how do you like the new James Bond series?”

Daniel Craig’s Bond is an excellent example of alpha. Except when he gets all schmaltzy over a woman. But then he learns his lesson.

Great.

But comparatively, do you see anything on television that’s approaches this definition? Or anything that comes closer than “Dollhouse”?

Vina: But comparatively, do you see anything on television that’s approaches this definition? Or anything that comes closer than “Dollhouse”?

Sadly, the closest thing I can think of on TV is Firefly, and that only because I’ve never seen another SF show where space is silent. The deceleration turnover in the pilot episode is also unprecedented, to my knowledge.

But this isn’t surprising. Hard SF isn’t for most people. I only like it on Tuesdays when the moon is right, myself.

Case in (sort of on-topic) point: Lem’s Solaris. It’s not precisely hard SF, but Lem was uncontrovertibly a hard SF writer. Look at what Soderberg turned it into.

I love Tarkovsky’s version, which Soderbergh remade. It’s closer to Lem, but you’ll probably still have some issues with it.

For my part, the only sci-fi shows I can think of that meet your criteria are anime like “Planetes,” (space travel) “Ghost in the Shell,” (cyborgs) and “Denno Coil,” (augmented reality) and those all emphasize an awful lot of character interaction.

As for “Dollhouse,” I reiterate my initial claim that the show is hardest sci-fi currently running. Thank you for the debate and good night.

What’s with all the man-hating dykes spouting off around here? Did somebody bust out a “feminists welcome” mat or something?

Real original gals (and manginas,too), small penis jokes, gay jokes, can’t get laid jokes, and whiny bullshit. Yeah, we’ve never heard THAT crap before. Get the fuck back to Dyketown,you carpet-licking cunts.

O. M. G.
I had (what I thought) was the perfect reply to this, but then I read what this guy said and all I can say is – he said ever so much better. I kow-tow

“Ladies, when you get tired of whining about how you’re sooooooo oppressed and how one article on an obscure website is doing you so much harm, give me a call. I’ll give you what you really need to relax.”

I take that back. I wouldn’t let one of these dog-faced cumbuckets lick my sweaty balls. Just get the fuck out,bitches.

Hey Dan,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU4fqfVZikw&feature=related

“Not so obscure anymore.”

Haha,good point. Thanks,feminists!

Probably a razor to shave that fucking underarm air, you filthy troglodyte.

Dave, I already shaved my underarm hair this afternoon, so you’re too late. Better luck next time!

This whole thing really is that you feel your manhood threatened by strong female characters. If a female Starbuck can save the world, then why are men needed? You don’t know where you belong in the world if women are capable of doing everything a man can.

The problem is that you don’t know what a real man is, so let me set you straight.

A real man goes downstairs at 3:00 am with a baseball bat because he heard something in the living room.

A real man works hard for his family whether that is at home with the kids, building skyscrappers, or flipping burgers at burger king.

A real man comes home from work exhausted but still wrestles with the kids for an hour because they are so delighted to see him.

A real man does the dishes for his wife every so often just because he loves her.

A real man takes care of those he loves in anyway he can.

Manhood cannot be threatened by shifts in the culture. Real men have always existed, and they will always exist. Because nothing can keep a real man down.

“The problem is that you don’t know what a real man is, so let me set you straight.”

*giggle*

Oh, happy day! Anon’s gonna set us straight,you guys!

“A real man goes downstairs at 3:00 am with a baseball bat because he heard something in the living room.”

Ok, a “real man” gets shot to death so the woman in his life can spend his life insurance check on her new boyfriend while taking her SO’s sacrifices for granted. Gotcha.

“A real man works hard for his family whether that is at home with the kids, building skyscrappers, or flipping burgers at burger king.”

Uh huh, this real man busts his ass to feed a woman so she can complain to her female friends that he’s never home and fuck around while he’s at work,wasting the best years of his life on an ingrate who will hate him for it. Wow, thanks for enlightening me.

“A real man does the dishes for his wife every so often just because he loves her.” So the “real man” does his job and HERS too!? Wow.
If he’s already doing everything, what use is a woman?

“Manhood cannot be threatened by shifts in the culture. Real men have always existed, and they will always exist. Because nothing can keep a real man down.”

So glad you were here to set the record straight,anon. Yeah, pussies like the “real man” you describe probably will always exist, just like those dudes who like to get spanked by women or have sex wearing a diaper and call their wife “mommy”. Fortunately, these people are a very small, very fringe minority among men.

The rest of us have realized that we’re the ones getting fucked and have found a better arrangement.

Go be a real man and kill yourself for an ungrateful bitch who’ll laugh at what a pussy you were after you’re dead.

OI! Do not generalise. Women have just as much, if not more, to contribute to science. It was a woman who invented Kevlar, for a start. If a male has a problem with watching “fluffy” sci-fi, that’s his problem. Sci-fi isn’t changing just because a woman runs the Sci-fi channel, it’s changing because the world at large is changing, and sci-fi has always been a reflection of the larger world. If you can’t handle this, build a time machine and go back in time, otherwise, learn to deal with the world.

It was a woman who invented Kevlar, for a start.

Wow, I must say that that statement alone proved your point! Cuz like, you know, that’s some hardcore stuff right there! Its too bad men have never invented anything really cool like that!

“BB, now you only prove you’ve never actually met a real woman when you use stereotypes like that.”

By “real woman” I assume you mean “fat woman”?

“Fat, balding and with a micropenis. KISSES!”

Oh, and she graces us with the ever-popular “small penis” shaming tactic.

Hey, this is a new one! Oh no, wait, the 200 women who commented before you said that to various other people. Oh well, you’ll just have to try again.

“I rather like the word micopenis. ”

You’d probably like any kind of penis you can get,wouldn’t you Porky?

“Because I’m not sure I feel morally in the right to try to tease someone with a handicap.”

Oh come now, a woman with morals? Surely you jest.

piercedhead October 13, 2009 at 7:30 pm

said:

“As for their ‘positive’ influence of women in modern science-fiction, a brief recount of a recent episode of Battlestar Galactica:

The female Starbuck tortures one of the enemy, in the form of a normal human man. She has him beaten (she uses another man for this), repeatedly head-dunked for long spells in water and thrown to the floor, where he is too weak to rise under his own strength. She eats in front of him, knowing that he’s starving. After hours of this, the female president makes an entrance and feigns horror at his treatment. She apologizes to the man, orders his manacles removed, for which he thanks her. She then asks him quietly and civilly for the answer to the same question he was being tortured for, and this time he offers it up freely. Having got what she came for, the female president then orders the man executed (which is done immediately).

Now how many of you seriously think the writers of this show would have allowed a woman to be cast in this same role as the tortured man? Imagine the howls of outrage if a male torturer and a male president had done exactly this to a female prisoner, and the moral messaging was that no outrage had been committed – this was just the harsh reality of war?

We all know that in the current cultural climate, such a scene is verboten. Females are not being presented in science-fiction in a way that is equal to the way men once were. They are being show-cased as the officer class, and are monopolizing the hero roles. No male viewer can watch this and take it seriously. It would be like asking black people to watch shows in which all the villains were black, and all pardonable outrages were committed solely against blacks.

This rubbish is impacting on men’s lives and causing huge harm to their welfare, and you women who refuse to even acknowledge this, and go out of your way to bury it under a storm of emotionalism identify yourselves as unbelievably vapid, supremely self-serving or downright malicious. This rubbish has got to stop.”

———
Yap yap yap in this thread (idocy actually) but people have nothing to say about the very good above, by PiercedHead.

I think Puma’s approach is best: point and laugh.

……….
Oh and testing before voting!!

TL;DR

Aww, that’s not what we do bb and you know it We’d never try to spread or install a sense of hatred for all men, we DO NOT generalise. Besides many of the women have sons with them, and how would that seem? Making them hate the very gender their own child belongs too. Not very humane.

And actually no, I am a translator. I have never taken any gender studies in my life.

“We’d never try to spread or install a sense of hatred for all men, we DO NOT generalise.”

A pig’s ass,you don’t.

I’ve been inside women’s shelters before. Don’t bullshit me.

“Making them hate the very gender their own child belongs too. Not very humane. ”

Since when has that stopped you?

“I hate based on personality, not whether you have a penis or a vagina.”

*cough* BULLSHIT *cough*

“I know you won’t change your mind, and I will not change mine, so let’s part on semi-good terms. ”

Whatever you say. I’m not an unreasonable man. I’d like you to apologize to the OP,but then we can part on semi-good terms if you want.

“As for their ‘positive’ influence of women in modern science-fiction, a brief recount of a recent episode of Battlestar Galactica:

The female Starbuck tortures one of the enemy, in the form of a normal human man. She has him beaten (she uses another man for this), repeatedly head-dunked for long spells in water and thrown to the floor, where he is too weak to rise under his own strength. She eats in front of him, knowing that he’s starving. After hours of this, the female president makes an entrance and feigns horror at his treatment. She apologizes to the man, orders his manacles removed, for which he thanks her. She then asks him quietly and civilly for the answer to the same question he was being tortured for, and this time he offers it up freely. Having got what she came for, the female president then orders the man executed (which is done immediately).

Now how many of you seriously think the writers of this show would have allowed a woman to be cast in this same role as the tortured man? Imagine the howls of outrage if a male torturer and a male president had done exactly this to a female prisoner, and the moral messaging was that no outrage had been committed – this was just the harsh reality of war?

We all know that in the current cultural climate, such a scene is verboten. Females are not being presented in science-fiction in a way that is equal to the way men once were. They are being show-cased as the officer class, and are monopolizing the hero roles. No male viewer can watch this and take it seriously. It would be like asking black people to watch shows in which all the villains were black, and all pardonable outrages were committed solely against blacks.

This rubbish is impacting on men’s lives and causing huge harm to their welfare, and you women who refuse to even acknowledge this, and go out of your way to bury it under a storm of emotionalism identify yourselves as unbelievably vapid, supremely self-serving or downright malicious. This rubbish has got to stop.”

Guys, just to set the record straight you are ALL real men and real women.

Feminine men, stupid men, skinny men, men who are in the NRA, men who work at florists, men who are misogynists, men who read sci-fi, men who are firefighters, any type of man you can think of. They’re all real men.

Masculine women, fat women, skinny women, women who are nurses, women who play video games, women who have no children, women who are escape artists, any type of woman you can think of. They’re all real women.

So cut out this “real man” and “real woman” bullshit. You’re all people.

This applies to sci-fi too. Sci-fi is about the possibilities of the future and it definitely isn’t caught in the battle of the sexes. Why? Because the battle of the sexes is fucking stupid.

Man, it’s like someone handed all of the feminist commentators here a quick flyer on what to say before they showed up. Political talking points and then some.

I have an official suggestion for this site:

We should start games of Feminist Bullshit Bingo for our comment threads. I think that might be a constructive way to use their idiotic, constantly repeating commentary.

( As an aside, it’s pretty amazing to see person after person march in with the exact same objection, having clearly not read the initial subject matter, and prove many of the points people make on this site; irony, thy name is feminism. )

TB,

Yea, the latest business numbers from the MSM and movie industry have been great this year. declining DVD sales, plunging profit margins and companies changing their CEO more often than a woman changes her mind. Ofcourse I’m sure that’s all to blame on piracy, and not on the quality of the product. You keep telling yourself that.

Also, nobody here is asking for censorship or oppression, you only show your ignorance with that statement.
The critique is that, in order to attract a female audience, sci fi writers have turned most science fiction into a “relationship disaster 101 in space” show. And most men don’t like that kind of TV.

” Science fiction traditionally is about men doing things, inventing new technologies, exploring new worlds, making new scientific discoveries, terraforming planets, etc.”

the WORLD traditionally is about men doing things and inventing and exploring, and that was because women are traditionally inferior to men.

lots of traditions are/were uncivil and wrong and so the free world is trying to do away with unequal civil liberties, and women can vote now, did you know?

so you’re going to have to get used to women doing things outside of making babies and cooking and cleaning, because unlike the nineteenth century, women have equal rights now, so if a woman wanted to be an engineer, SHE COULD, and if a man decided to be a stay-at-home-dad, guess what? he could do that! it’s completely acceptable now! oh, and get used to women being allowed to write television shows and books and starring in films, because, unlike Elizabethan times, women are allowed to be actors now. doesn’t that just blow your mind? it’s really too bad, because the oh-so-manly traditional all-man-on-man manly science man-fiction is being ruined by cooties.

@ wtf

How about you reply to my argument rather than repeat your previous post which is so far off the mark it makes you look like an ignorant idiot.

this post is NOT about keeping women down, its about bringing sci fi back up to a higher standard.

@O: I’m sure all my male friends who loved BSG and read “soft sci-fi” (which is incidentally, _not_ what the article was about, since hard sci-fi has basically _never_ been present on tv) will be happy to know that you know them better than they know themselves.

@ Oekedulleke

Actually, this post IS about keeping women down. did you read the author’s nom de plume? or the bibliography? You may have pulled a different argument from between the lines, but the words are very clear.

@Sean_MacCloud

“Tests before voting. Sterilize the dumb.”

I’ve been pushing this for a few years and honestly, if I didn’t value freedom so much, I’d be heading that campaign already.

My maps and programs have been deleted from sourceforge at the behest of a woman named Beth Lynn Eicher.

http://whatwillweuse.com/2009/10/13/not-in-my-neighborhood-mikeeusa-removed-from-sourceforge/
Apparently my free/opensource code and media contributions have been removed from sourceforge.com (note: I never remeber claiming that I was an “open source rock star” or that my “contributions” were of any great value (or, really, much value at all))

All my maps, and programs are gone from there. Only crossfire-extended remains.

The women’s rights activists do this in every industry they decide to conqure: they gain administrative positions and then kick out the men who’s ideas/beliefs are opposed to them.

The woman who got my contributions to the free software movement deleted is
Beth Lynn Eicher. She is presumably from ohio as she is involved in the ohio Linux convention. An email address of hers is bethlynn@ohiolinux.org

The other geek feminists that are after me have their weblog at geekfeminism.org
Another one has hers at ubuntulinuxtipstricks.blogspot.com

Pro Male,

Excellent post, and I read the hundreds of comments with great interest (whew!). I actually agree with you, and read Bendict’s article when it firt came out dealing with the new defunct “new” BSG.

I grew up on BSG, Star Wars, Star Trek, etc et al, and loved them ALL, and without question they were undeniably Male. And, we can include The Incredible Hulk, Spider-Man and Iron Man as “science fiction” as well, since all of them employ high tech in one form or another as an important element of the story, and of course, all of these stories are unabashedly Male as well.

My own take on the whole thing is very simple – in a free market society, people vote with their dollars and their feet. the new BSG didn’t appeal to me in the least, and as a result, I simply found something else to do with my time. Same deal with the new roster of “Syfy” shows and the like. I don’t watch Heroes, Fringe, etc either, because I don’t see them in the same mold as the afore-mentioned shows/stories/movies I spoke of above. At the heart of each of the aforementioned, a young Man has to come to grips with an asweome ability or power, and how he will use it. This is hugely important, and something the vast majority of Women simply cannot relate to – for Men and boys, powers are not “on board” in the same way that it is for Women, but rather, they are SKILLS THAT ARE EARNED. Eevn Kal-El, aka Superman, which also would qualify as science fiction, has to learn how to use his powers correctly. All of these stories rest on the role and prime importance of an older, wiser Male in these Men’s lives: Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben, Tony Stark’s Yensen, Kal-El’s father Jor-El, Luke (and Anakin) Skywalker’s Obiwan Kenobi, Bruce Wayne’s Alfred. A big part of storytelling for young boys and Men, is the mentor-student dynamic.

By all that I’ve been able to tell of the new BSG, Twilight and the like, that isn’t the case with the ladies. As you’ve mentioned among others, they seem more interested with interpersonal relationships and the drama that results. This makes perfect sense, since Women are inherently more socially and group oriented than are Men, by and large.

Also, if there is a “power” element at work in these shows/films, its that the main protagonist female somehow learns to control much more powerful forces than herself, usually in the form of a Male, like a vampire, etc. It is her feminine wiles that somehow keeps these larger and utterly destructive forces in check.

You also make a grand point about more female oriented media to focus on the paranormal, whereas straightahead sci-fi focuses on high tech. Again, Evo-Pysch informs our understanding as to why this is; for Women, their menses is something that just “happens”, and is an event loaded with all kinds of implications, including those approaching the metaphysical.

For us guys though, Life doesn’t work that way. We actually have to figure things out. By and large, Women ain’t too interested in seeing how the sausage is made.

Again, I’m not knocking these more female oriented shows/films per se, because again I say, let the Market sort it all out. Just making the point that Pro Male, you’re right, and there IS a difference at work here.

So, while they don’t appeal to me, I don’t really have any interest in knocking em either, for the reasons already indicated; if they can stand the test of time like Star Wars, Star Trek, Spider-Man or the Dark Knight (Batman) can, all well and good. Thus far, the early returns don’t look encouraging.

As for “Guy Media”, don’t be troubled; it and we, will do just fine. You have to keep in mind that, when it comes to Hollywood’s bread and butter – the Summer Blockbuster – it was, is, and will be for the foreseeable future, a Guy Thing. Last year’s Iron Man was a huge hit, as was The Dark Knight; Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (definitely Sci-Fi) made what, four times its money back? District 9, made on a shoestring budget and shot in I think, SAFR, was a huge commerical success, as was the sci fi hit Cloverfield; and handsdown, the sleeper hit of 2009 was a little film out of France called “Taken” starring a middle aged Liam Neeson, doing the Jason Bourne-thing in Paris trying to save his daughter from the European Sex Trade (they’re making a sequel). In fact, just about every Marvel comic-turned flick has been hugely successful, and they all are sci-fi based.

So, again and in closing: you make some very good points. But I think we already have a mechanism in place to deal with that. It’s called the Free Market. If we guys don’t like the new Syfy, we don’t have to watch it, I certainly don’t. And haven’t lost any sleep over it.

On the other hand, Guy Media will do just fine, and as I’ve shown above, we continue to do the heavy lifting when it comes to actually paying everyone’s salaries and keeping their lights on. The numbers don’t lie.

So let the gals have their ray guns. No big whup. We all know the Real Deal.

Holla back

The Obsidian

PS: In case Welmer’s reading this: I wanna be down. Got some things I have to say, will be ready to roll next month. How about it?

I just love the attitudes of the guys on this site. Any criticism of a man by a woman is just “shaming language” designed to castrate them en masse, never actual, um, criticism that might be justified. And any woman who doesn’t accept this assertion is a feminazi.

Look, dudes, I was choked when the fire department in my area lowered physical fitness standards so more women would qualify. Because frankly, I don’t give a shit if all the firefighters are men–all I care about is whether they can carry my ass out of a burning building. I was choked when the last bastion of “no girls allowed” in my city was ordered to start admitting women–because I think if men want a lounge where they can drink and fart and belch and scratch themselves without women around, that’s cool. I’ve never taken a “good job” away from a deserving man. I work in the service industry, in a job no sane man wants to do (and make 30 bucks an hour doing it, ha!).

But according to you guys, the very act of me fixing a doorknob or building a fence or laying a new floor was done solely to emasculate my ex husband? Because despite the fact that he would rather play WoW for 14 hours a day than actually, you know, take care of shit–including the kids he wanted us to have–I’m the one who made him irrelevant in his own family. Because asking him to log off his fucking game and, I don’t know, cut the fucking grass or, hmmm, maybe get a full time job, would be shaming him.

I see it all so clearly now! His assertion weeks before I kicked his ass out that I was “becoming too independent”, and we “had to get back to the way things were” (i.e., me carrying the whole load, but feeling worthless and dependent on him for…um…something, I’m sure I’ll think of it at some point), was all TRUE! Because me picking up a screwdriver and fixing the damn dryer when he couldn’t be bothered, so I could keep him and the kids in clean socks, SHAMED and EMASCULATED him! And it was totally my fault, getting that part time job that let us save a little money. Because you see, I was enabling him to quit job after job after job until he was working barely 20 hours a week, and the fact that I never just let us, you know, lose our house to the bank, well…that was totally selfish of me because it made him feel like less of a man.

I see the light. Hallelujah! He can barely take care of himself, despite the fact that I haven’t asked him for one thin dime of child support, because I’m an eeeebil woman with a row of amputated, mummified testicles on my nightstand. And the fact that I pay the travel expenses to send his kids to see him? That’s not my own sense that kids need a dad in their life. Nope. It’s all part of my plot to make him feel even more inadequate as a man! Bwahahahaha!!!

The really sad thing is, he’d agree with every single article on this site. In fact, he might even be a regular here. *waving*

@Oekedulleke

a) The first episode of TNG was about Picard & crew liberating an energy creature from the humans holding it in slavery and then reuniting it with its mate. So…some silly pseudo-science and a possible analogy to civil rights issues.
TNG, as a series, also had a decent balance of strong male to female characters, and, if I remember, its fair share of interpersonal/romantic drama/tension.

And funny that you reference the new Star Trek movie, seeing as it parallels Star Wars: A New Hope pretty closely. Two different eras of sci-fi (one “male,” one “female,” if you believe the premise of the above article), and the archetypes and themes are the same.

b) I was asking for evidence to support OP’s assertion that men were no longer being inspired to pursue the sciences. Google that, and you’ll see that there’s still an overwhelming gender gap in EECS (which I can personally attest to, if you’re looking for anecdotal evidence, as the only female CS major among 31 male colleagues). Most articles you’ll see on the first page of hits claim that the gender gap is not only still tipped in men’s favor, but it’s widening. More men than women are still being inspired to go into these fields, apparently, so either science fiction plays less of a role than OP thinks, or today’s “feminized” programming still strikes an inspirational chord.

I’m late to this conversation and I apologize if what I’m about to say has already been addressed but I’m not wading through the responses.

I’m a 50 year-old woman who has loved science fiction since grade school. As such, I find the statement that science fiction is written for men and only for men a bit ridiculous.

Do you really want to return to the days when a brilliant woman author had to write under a male name in order to get published? That’s truly sad.

Publishers are in the business of making money. They publish what sells. Tastes change. Styles change. Get use to it.

In the case of 5 month old Cantrell…. James, you are NOT the father,

“See, bitch. I told you. I told you I wasn’t the father! What? What now.”

***cue to chubby woman running backstage in tears and Maury comforting her before commercial break***

WTF wrote:
“oh, and get used to women being allowed to write television shows and books and starring in films, because, unlike Elizabethan times, women are allowed to be actors now. doesn’t that just blow your mind? it’s really too bad, because the oh-so-manly traditional all-man-on-man manly science man-fiction is being ruined by cooties.”

I don’t think anyone would mind if not fact that stuff these chicks write is f-ing terrible. It’s the samething with anything else women jump into, they generally don’t live up to the same standard as guys so they spend most of their time trying change the standard.

@Oekedulleke

“Blaming certain people for this is hardly an attack on all women though, like you and Jay would like to believe.”

As I quoted in my previous comment, the OP says, “With women killing science fiction on television…”. It’s not what I would like to believe. It’s what was written in the article.

I see a few problems here. First of all, if Bonnie Hunt was really so intent on attracting female viewers, why did she bring in wrestling, a form of entertainment that skews much more male than television science fiction? Why her association with “Who Wants to Be A Superhero” when superhero comics skew similarly male? Lip service aside, looks to me like she was less concerned with gender appeal than she was with cutting costs.

Marisa B:

Have you read any of the other comments before you decided to lower yourself to third grade level and make yours?

Attacking the person and not the idea, being a grammer nazi, and utilizing MOAR (originated in 4chan I believe) does make you look like nothing so much as a bored tenth grader and doesn’t help your argument whatsoever. If it’s that “time of the month” dear, please go back to bed.

Marisa B,
Please see my comments upthread, and then feel free to respond. I’d very much like to hear what you have to say. Thanks.

The Obsidian

@Obsidian
“You have to keep in mind that, when it comes to Hollywood’s bread and butter – the Summer Blockbuster – it was, is, and will be for the foreseeable future, a Guy Thing.”

If you really do have legitimate numbers on the male/female ratio of attendees to summer blockbusters, I’d love to see them. I’ve seen all the movies you mentioned in theatres, some of them multiple times, and I haven’t noticed attendance being skewed toward males.

Jay,
There’s a very well written blog called Whiskey’s Place. He focuses on Hollywood issues almost exclusively, and has devoted considerable time to these issues. A quick Google should suffice.

But let me just ask you right now-do you agree or disagree that the following big Summer blockbuster films were targetted primarily at the Male demographic:

The Dark Knight
Iron Man
Transformers 1 & 2
All three Spider-Mans
The Incredible Hulk

These were big movies aimed at guys and boys.

Agree or disagree?

The Obsidian

@Obsidian

Thanks for the blog rec – I’ll check it out.

As for your question, I would maybe agree that the Transformers movies were primarily targeted at boys/men, but as for the others? I really don’t think so. I think Dark Knight in particular is targeted at sci-fi & comic geeks of either gender and it happened to pull in a crapload of “normals” because it a) was a summer blockbuster and b) had an outstanding cast of mainstream and character actors and lots of explosions and c) was Ledger’s last big performance. But I really don’t recall seeing any advertising that made me think, “Oh, it’s about a guy superhero. Must be a guy’s movie.”

What is it about those movies that makes you think they’re primarily for guys?

Dude, I think you have a bit of a logical fallacy here… if your menfolk are going to be out doing manly things on other planets, you’re either going to need women, or the gay is going to happen.

Or do you imagine that men will have evolved beyond sex drives in the future?

kis:

It could just perhaps..maybe..possibly..be that men and women TEND as a GROUP to like different things. Our lovely geek chicks excepted in this particular case, of course.

So yeah it might be harder for your average male writer to push out a good romance novel, and it might be tough for your average “chic lit” writer to push out a good hard science fiction one. So? There’s always outliers and when the population of the world is in the billions and the population of the US is 300 million, those “outliers” will be great in number. What is NOT acceptable of your argument above is that if women tend to produce a form of lit that most male science fiction readers/viewers whatever don’t like they are sexist pigs for not having the same tastes as your average woman.

Very open minded of you “all”. Really? I didn’t know all the men on this site had the same beliefs nor did I know that all the men on this thread had the same beliefs. For the record:
A. Most of the nasty posts on here have been written by the visitors not the occupants and most of the visitors have been female. And lets not forget chickenshits who spout off from afar and don’t allow any linking or “talk back”.
B. The poster “Grim” does not speak for me, nor all men here, though I will say that yes, some nasty women will find any excuse to cover the fact that they don’t “measure up”. It must be stated that PLENTY of women do “measure up”.

It is interesting that;

This blog was written anonymously. What is the matter, afraid that you’ll be hunted down by the women in your life and castrated?

There isn’t a shred of EVIDENCE to prove the writer’s point. Only chest beating platitudes and finger pointing.

If SyFy is soooooo estrogen driven then why are they still showing ECW? There doesn’t exist an intelligent, science fiction reading woman on earth that would watch this lame, fake and drivel.

The “feminization” of Science Fiction is really tied to GREED! Want more people to watch your Science Fiction movie or TV show? Take all the hard out of it.

On a side note I think it interesting that the “author” didn’t like Battlestar Galactica. All that sex. I thought men liked sex. Isn’t that a manly thing to do?

Renee:

If you , as a female as you say, “love something” f0r what it is, then why the hell would you want to change it? Why is it that I consider Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein good science fiction and so much of the stuff thats out today , esp on tv , crap?

Women bring “unique viewpoints” to the genre you say? So? If they want to produce “female science fiction” then they can do so, but don’t expect males to care or to watch enmasse. And that’s my whole problem. There’s been a downright push in feminism and lit crit to get women to write science fiction and to value their kinds of science fiction above those of the more traditional writers. That’s why you’ll get “Anthologies of the Best Women in Sci Fi” all day long, but if a single book compilation of science fiction EXCLUDES female authors they raise hypocritical holy hell.

Anyway, I think other posters, particularily countess Baltar have explained things better. You want to invade a Male Space (which, except for geekgirls god bless them science fiction has long been) you will RESPECT the traditions and expectations of that space. It’s bad enough what women have done to most work places with their affirmative action hires and stalinist sexual harrasment policies – which badly need reformed, though I’d not see them thrown out. The larger point is that Curves doesn’t allow males but I’m supposed to feel fucking bad because Augusta doesn’t allow females when pretty much every all male institution has been forced to. Tough luck, toots. Respect my shit, I’ll respect yours.

You know, this whole phenomenon (perceived or real) that women are “taking over” sci fi (and making it substandard, because anything female is by definition inferior to anything male), could be avoided if you all would, oh, I don’t know…encourage boys to read books and watch sci fi? Because you know how many men I know who read more than two novels a year? Uh…..maybe three. And 3/4 of my friends are men. You know how many men (or boys) I know who would choose TV over video games? Uh….zero.

While you’re at it, you could always encourage girls to play video games instead of reading and watching TV. Of course, that would mean another angry post here about how women are now feminizing video games and bringing standards down, and how men can’t have anything they like without us coming along and ruining the whole thing.

But don’t blame women because most men would rather play WoW or Gears of War or whatever the fuck than bother with what’s on the TV. Not our fucking problem. Wanna solve it? Be a demographic worth courting.

Imagine if these enraged females had to endure their competence being questioned in the main-stream media every hour, of every day for the last 40 years?

Portrayed as buffoons, dangers to children and humanity, criminals just waiting for their opportunity – having poorer communication skills, and being less competent managers.

For anyone who has any doubts as to why we men catch all this crap, the previous 400+ comments are all the answers you need. Some guy somewhere on a small obscure web-site opines that he thinks women are destroying the science fiction he likes, and an avalanche of insane outrage pours forth.

This is the far bigger story than the OP. This is the feminine modus operandi. Rabid, nonsensical emotionalism, designed to shut.you.up.

One of the primary objectives of men’s awareness sites like this is to expose the reasons for male disadvantage. Ladies, thank you for taking part.

Science Fiction has gone from being mostly cliched macho nonsense to being a major force in popular entertainment, and responsible for some of the most groundbreaking and challenging moments in film and television.

On behalf of all the swishy touchy-feely space queens and ball-breaking slash-writing feminists – YOU’RE WELCOME!

And piercedhead:

I can’t believe you even posted that. I’m pretty sure women have been striving for equal rights far longer than 40 years. I wonder if you know anything at all about the treatment of women in non-Western societies.

“Male disadvantage.” I’m chuckling.

Welmer:

That’s all well and good, but some consistency would be nice. A personal attack is a personal attack, and Clarence flung one, regardless of the actual semantics. Telling a woman she ought to go back to bed for expressing (justified) anger is personally offensive, wouldn’t you say? Vulgar language or not, it’s pretty misogynistic.

Marissa:

Go read some family and reproductive law, and get back to me.

Here I’ll even provide a helpful link straight from the mouth of the foremost lady in child support law. It’s about men’s “reproductive rights”. Basically, even if raped or defrauded, we don’t have any. Thus ruled the courts. Don’t believe me? Check it:
http://www.supportguidelines.com/articles/art199903.html

I suppose I could link you to the female privileges checklist, but at that point this would simply be too off topic. And of course I’m sure you’d try to link me to “Finally Feminism 101″. Tsk.

Marisa:

I’m not about to take responsibility as a Western US male for how women are treated in other countries. Indeed, much as I’d like to sometimes kill or castrate some of the males in other countries when a particular female suffers some outrage to her person (that poor little 12 year old that died recently in some arab country -the one who was involuntarily married at ten and managed to get a divorce) I remind myself of what a combination of toxic second and third wave “victim feminism” and old fashioned chivalry has done to men in my country and then I wish both the radical feminists who govern the movement today, the mangina enablers and the radical muslims would all kill each other off. I’m not lifting a finger to help women in some other country, until you lift a finger to help the males forced into the militaries or slavery in some other countries, and I’m certainly not sending commands to the patriarchs in those countries to oppress the women with my secret Male Power Decoder Ring.

Renee:

Two wrongs dont’ make a right. Esp when because of the combination of chivalry and feminist lawyering western females are the most priveliged people to ever walk the planet. Perhaps I’ll take women’s complaints about glass ceilings, for example, more seriously when they start trying to get some of the “ugly jobs” that men do to live, for often little pay and no societal respect.

Marisa:

You came in looking for a fight and got one. I’m sorry that I dont’ think Welmer is going to scold me for defending the house, and I certainly haven’t called you a name since.

On the other hand it’s noted that I can almost see you tearing up, trying to gain his sympathy, when I had to remind Renee that maybe trying to ask me questions after a totally unprovoked personal attack was launched my way – and she congratulated the poster that made the personal attack. Oh well, just have to “man up” I guess, because us men just don’t have feelings.

Welmer:

You sure didn’t carry out Commenting Policy Rule #1. At least, not in an unbiased manner. But thanks for reinforcing my point.

Welmer, if you are removing posts for obscene comments, how the hell are Dave’s first two comments (at the VERY least) still up?? They are the definition of obscene! Do you actually approve of those remarks???

Is Minsky’s quote original?

“General fiction is pretty much about ways that people get into problems and screw their lives up. Science fiction is about everything else.” [2007]

… sounds very close to the British theatre genius Ken Campbell’s “I read great literature and discovered it was the history of people going in and out of doors. Science fiction is the history of everything else”.

(Campbell founded the Science Fiction Theatre of Liverpool, staged ‘Illuminatus!’ and a version of Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy).

Minksy has made a career out of bold, Criswell-like predictions. So this patrician homily isn’t exactly a surprise…

The resistance to greater feminisation of SF seems to be more to do with a fraught generational handover in fandom than entrenched patriarchy.

Fandom is changing, fundamentally. The rift – between the older, more male hard SF fandom that is inward looking; and a more outward looking media fandom which is populated more by women fans – will follow demographic trends in genre-related media generally. This is towards women being the majority audience by a slight margin (about 60/40).

This means a shift towards a form of SF that is more interesting to a general audience of women will also be linked to a general dumbing down. There is no link besides the cultural coincidence.

This goes hand- in-hand with a visible female geek culture being allied with what you could loosely describe as the raunch culture. This is to do with a lowering of attention spans and visual information taking precedence over the written word.

However, if there’s a self publishing boom – triggered by ebooks becoming mainstream – it may be a passing phase, with a more pluralistic tomorrow glimmering on the horizon.

Here’s what’s really amusing: the OP seems to think that science fiction TV, of all things, is the most important and influential form of science fiction. Really? And science fiction TV shows are the only way that any kid will ever think of being a scientist? Really?

Dude, get off your ass, go to a library and GET A BOOK. Because if your idea of science fiction is TV shows, then you are not any kind of hard-core geek. You’re just a lazy couch potato.

Welmer:

LOL dude, come on. You’re not even TRYING to look non-partisan or objective. Generalizations and accusations abounds! Yeah, man, I’m sure every husband in the military has a cheating wife at home. I’m also pretty sure recent scientific evidence has shown that infidelity is gender neutral, and last time I checked, there were women in the military too.

Who, for the record, have to deal with their fair share of shit in the armed forces.

Marisa,
I see you’re not dealing with the points I’ve made. Your reply, please?

The Obsidian

Three words: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

You guys are complaining about how bad men have it? In AMERICA? Seriously????

Christ on a bike. I don’t even have words. You people need to go out to the clue store and buy one.

A question for one and all, though: What the hell’s wrong with romance? I’m seeing an awful lot of “oh I don’t like that ROMANCE stuff”. Why not? What’s wrong with it? And don’t give me any crap about bodice rippers or “fluff” or any of that, because that will prove that you haven’t even looked sideways at a romance novel since the 70s and therefore haven’t the slightest clue what you’re talking about. We all need love (at least the normal among us do) so I don’t see what’s so strange about wanting to read about it.

Kis,

“The pervasive feel here (pretty much everywhere, actually) is that that which is feminine is inferior, and that which is masculine is superior. ”

It’s called women finally getting a taste of their own medicine.

“The fact that you equate “pussy” with weakness is telling.”

Pussies are weak. Women are weaker than men. Cats are weaker than dogs.

These are all known facts. They can be easily proved.

Do you really want to argue with me on this? Because the facts are on my side here.What am I saying? You don’t argue with facts, feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings are all that matter. And of course you want to argue! You’re a woman.

“You guys are complaining about how bad men have it? In AMERICA? Seriously???? ”

What do you call being the only ones legally obligated to die for your country? Male privilege?

How about making up over 85% of the homeless? Do you think that means men “have it good”?

And would someone please step up and answer my question? Because I’m not here for the pissing contest. Dave, Clarence and the rest are easily ignored since they don’t recognize their own privilege (at least, as a female, I have experienced REAL prejudice and therefore recognize my own privilege as a white, straight person).

My question: what have all of you people got against romance? I really don’t get it,

@Ally

I’m a member of RWA and I can tell you that it isn’t just a male thing- there are a lot of **women** for whom romance novels and romance in general just isn’t their thing. And that’s cool- those who love it, love it. Those who don’t buy or read something else.

I don’t read a lot of what’s considered “literary” fiction because it just drives me INSANE. Paragraphs that go on for pages. Brooding and navel gazing over NOTHING. Blegh. But to lots of other people, those books are IT. Same with Tom Clancy style novels, Robert B. Parker mysteries (which I ADORE), Jane Austen, etc.

These guys are not interested in romance, for whatever personal reasons they have. They don’t want any peanut butter in their chocolate- not everyone likes reese’s cups. I can appreciate that, as well as the honesty to say that they don’t like those two things together.

Do I agree that romance ruins sci-fi? No. But I dig on romance in general and love the gritty interpersonal stuff so that makes sense for me. If your love of story centers on discovery, on the actual science, on the act of exploring and going to places no one has been before, romance may not fit your vision, which (please correct me if I’m wrong here) is what I think these guys are trying to say.

Ally,

I can tell you that of all the male privilege checklists I’ve ever seen I’ve never had at any one time more than two of the alleged privileges apply to me. Usually one or two others MIGHT have applied in certain special circumstances.

So yeah, they are pretty useless.

As is your silly disdain.
I kind of wish Welmer hadn’t bothered to answer your question. I suppose he did it in the off chance you really aren’t aware that men face legally encoded prejudices all the time.

But don’t worry. I’m a white male and I have all the Power. I’m going to snap my fingers this instant and fix all that. And all of you “uppity females” too.

I suggest you look into the concept of kyriarchy.

Ally:“… I’m not here for the pissing contest. Dave, Clarence and the rest are easily ignored since they don’t recognize their own privilege (at least, as a female, I have experienced REAL prejudice and therefore recognize my own privilege as a white, straight person).”

That’s a good one. Not here for the pissing contest, then immediately announce that the prejudice you experience is more REAL than that of others. Pissing contest much?

Sarapen:“Three words: Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.”

Interesting thing about Mary Shelley. Her mother died a few days after her birth, and she was brought up under the ideals of her father, who had strong views on educating women and encouraging them to participate in academia and the sciences. He ensured the young Mary got the widest education that could be got for her. In a sense, she was an experiment of her ‘mad-scientist’ father. That she wrote Frankenstein is almost prophetic.

But it was all lost on her eventually. Once her womanly experience took over from her youthful influences, she became that most dismal of creatures and devoted her writing more and more to feminist messages. It seems to be a given that no matter how well-informed a woman may be, the vast majority will increasingly employ their educations with passion in one particular direction as they age – the furtherance of their own self-interest.

Since so many feminists are reading this, I would like them to see this hilarious and provocative picture.

They will learn a lot about political science by seeing it.

Women are expected to go for custody of their kids in a divorce.

Why should SHE get custody if SHE is initiating the divorce on a no-fault basis? She should only get custody if she can prove significant wrongdoing on the man’s part.

In fact, the woman should get no money from the man is SHE chooses the leave the marriage in the absence of serious abuse or addiction on the man’s part.

This is where the utter lack of logic in the female mind becomes visible. SHE chose to leave, yet HE has to pay HER, without the burden of proof? Absurd. No wonder most women have priced themselves out of the marriage market.

Is it fair to say that every dude has a story where he believes, rightly or wrongly, that he was screwed over by a chick? And every chick has a story where she, rightly or wrongly, believes that she was screwed over by a dude? Can we agree on that much?

There’s a strong feeling of “grass is greener” here. Everyone thinks they’re getting the short end of the stick. What should that tell us? MAYBE the whole stick business is less about gender/race/age and more about individuals.

At some point, we’ve all felt like we’ve lost out due to “the system” and we might all be right but if we’re ALL right, then it means the system is after ALL of us, just in different ways. The fact that we divide ourselves and fight each other keeps us from fighting the greater big bad and that’s a problem.

I’ve got my own story that’s certainly changed how I look at certain kinds of individuals. But I know that it isn’t fair for me to lump everyone under one umbrella- not all men are dillholes and not all women are evil harpies, no matter how many of each I’ve run across. It just isn’t true.

I just wish it was easier to see that, on all sides. Man, this thread is depressing the hell out of me.

Al,

Is it fair to say that every dude has a story where he believes, rightly or wrongly, that he was screwed over by a chick? And every chick has a story where she, rightly or wrongly, believes that she was screwed over by a dude? Can we agree on that much?

If restricted to strictly dating, then yes, we can agree.

But in MARRIAGE, no. The woman overwhelmingly screwed the man over in 90% of the cases. The law is disgustingly biased against the man. If more men were made aware, they would not enter marriage.

@The Fifth Horseman

I’m sorry I wasn’t more clear- I was being incredibly general and talking about ALL of life, not just relationships/dating/marriage.

For example, you could have lost out a spot on the debate team to a girl you did not feel deserved it. I may feel like I lost out on a job because a man also interviewed and despite my belief that I was the better candidate, I was not hired. (FOR EXAMPLE PURPOSES ONLY)

My point is that in some aspect of everyone’s life, they feel that they were treated unfairly. It may be true and it may not but everyone has that one thing (at least one- some people have a LOT of these moments in their lives). They aren’t the same for everyone but they are there and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can move past “us vs. them”.

As a flippant aside, I wish the law had been more biased against my father when he ran off on my mom. Seriously, I hear you and I understand, really, I do, that there are a lot of men who get screwed over in a divorce but I have to tell you, there are some women who are getting the raw end of the stick pretty hardcore. NOT EVERYONE, but it happens.

See? My one thing, right there.

Thank you to the people who were kind enough to answer my question, I do appreciate it! Good to know it’s not just a “kick the dog” syndrome. Romance gets way too much of that already. I cut my teeth on Clarke, Simak, Asimov, Herbert and especially Heinlein — still read them regularly — but my reading isn’t limited to SF, and I do love a good romance.

Dave, Clarence, whoever else (I’ve lost track): You ARE privileged in this society. The fact that you can’t recognize it is just sad.

You ARE privileged in this society. The fact that you can’t recognize it is just sad.

The fact that you can’t recognize that your belief is a literal lie with no actual bearing on reality shows that your brainwashing and cultural conditioning is complete.

This is satire, right? Right?

Admittedly, the Sci-Fi channel has a lot of issues, the grammatically-cringe-inducing name-change not the least of them, but it seems hardly fair to blame fully half the human race for the mistakes of a few people who choose to run knock-off movies as Sci-Fi originals.

It seems… that the women’s rights activists… reign supreme, again.

It seems… that the women’s rights activists… have procured the deletion of most of my free/opensource software and media work from sourceforge.

As I said previously (in an “open letter” to them): women’s rights activists conquer an industry by collecting non-essential and non-active administrative roles in an industry and pushing-out/banning/bringing-sanctions-upon active men who do not obey their orders and do not toe their idealogical line.

The geek feminists who have targeted the men involved in the free software movement either use their administrative positions to outright ban anti-women’s-rights-men from participating in opensource collaboration, or they use their personal connections with sympathetic male admins to have those anti-feminist men banned from the opensource project hosts or websites that the geek feminists don’t admin themselves. If none of that works they attempt to involve the criminal legal system to remove those men from society (The geek feminists who have attached themselves to the opensource movement have been trying to procure my arrest for some time; for years.)

The geek feminists have had my GPL released perl programs (GPC-Slots 2, RPG1, etc, etc), my GPL released 3d Nexuiz maps (yes all ~40 of them), and my GPL and BSD released textures, deleted from sourceforge (and every other server they could find that hosts them.) They had these deleted because they do not want anything of mine to reach the public, because I am opposed to women’s rights and that offends them. They wish to set an example that resonates in the mind of every man that is involved in the free software movement.

To build those 40 maps for nexuiz it took me about three years of continious and constant effort. It was almost like a full time job. Now they have been deleted from the opensource repository (sourceforge) and are mostly unavailable. The same goes for the rest of the things I released under the GPL, especially the perl terminal games, I don’t know any other place that they were hosted.

What have the geek feminists released for the free software community? You tell me. I see that they package, bug hunt, and call for the exclusion of belligerent men from the free/opensource software community. Such is not a large contribution to free software: it is more a smoke screen of legitimacy (the ancillary tasks of bug hunting, packaging) under which to forward their goal (the removal and exclusion of anti-feminist men from the free software collaboration.) The free/opensource world is another land to conqure for womankind. Another place where men are NOT YET subject to the demands and requirements that women have placed upon polite society… but which soon will be.

How can men change this? How can men fight this exclusion? We cannot. We can only obey them: as long as they are able they and sympathetic men will collect non-essential but power-bearing administrative positions in whatever organizations happen to exist, they will appeal to the “white knight” that exists in many a lonely geek admin to vanquish evil “bad men” and save the poor innocent female feminists*. It will always be seen as good to delete a man’s contribution to the free and opensource world as a means to tell all the other men who wish to contribute where the “boundaries” of “good social discourse” are.

It seems that, in history, the only societies that were ever in existance that were able to contain this behavior of women (that of causing productive men to be thrown out of their industries, ejected from their jobs, and imprisoned for not supporting women’s rights or whatever it is that the women demanded) are those socieites that violently destroyed those non-productive women who indulged in said exclusionary and anti-industrious behavior against men. It seems that the only way men have ever found to contain women’s rights (or women’s supremacy) movements was the application of hard power against the imposition of the “soft power” that the women’s rights activists utilise. We are not such a society and that is why there is not one mile of unconquered territory that the banner of feminism has yet to fly over in the western world.

The geek feminists do not want more people to contribute to the free/opensource world. They want more women involved in its administration and process (more women in control.) They would be happy with less men being around in this “industry” and have, in the case at hand, pursued the ejectement of one of that class and the removal of his (my) free/opensource work from availability on the internet. That’s the same thing they have in-store for any man that does not obey their demands or who speaks against their held beliefs. You obey or you are gone. Does that sound like a good deal to you, men of the free software world? Do you want to have to obey the geek feminists; the administratrixs of the “community”?

*Note, these women also publically proclaim they don’t want anything (romantically or sexually) to do with the men of the opensource world. The white knights are not acting logically.

http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/ROSE-Blog-Rikki-s-Open-Source-Exchange/Color-of-the-Comments

http://whatwillweuse.com/2009/10/13/not-in-my-neighborhood-mikeeusa-removed-from-sourceforge/

Death To women’s Rights.
Viva Men’s Liberties.
Liberty (for Men). Equality (amongst Men). Fraternity

–MikeeUSA–

Has anyone stopped to think about WHY it’s become so toned down?

The vast majority of the TV watching audience is women. so of course the people in charge are going to cater to them.

Moral of the story? Men should watch more TV.

And it isn’t women, or feminists doing it. It’s TV executives trying to make a buck.

AT least put a little effort into trying to figure out who it is you’re actually supposed to be angry at.

JD:

I don’t think you understand what the tv executive in this case is trying to do, and what assumptions and philosophies drive her.

Dang. That’s what I did wrong. I married down. Silly me.

Too bad you learned that lesson the hard way. Based on your entire screed you wrote here, you seem to blame everything on your ex-husband. Care to accept some blame…since YOU were the person that decided to let a lazy, shiftless WOW bum knock you up?

You know, the more women out there who are self-sufficient, successful professionals making the same money for the same job, the less they’ll have to “marry up” for survival.

You mistake the reference to hypergamy here. Women don’t “marry up for survival.” Women “marry up” because they are attracted to dominance in males.

The more women who are successful professionals, the smaller their pool of suitable mates they will have to choose from to have a marriage that would actually work. Because, just as in you found out the hard way, when women marry down, it usually doesn’t last.

It’s hard for women in this day and age of no-fault divorce and automatic child custody to remain married to a man they do not respect.

kis:

You know, the more women out there who are self-sufficient, successful professionals making the same money for the same job, the less they’ll have to “marry up” for survival.

You couldn’t be more wrong. Female hypergamy is not a choice — it is inherent in femininity. A woman making more money only means her standards in a husband have been raised even further.

The only “females” who don’t react that way are physiologically different. We call these people “dominant” or “butch”

For an example of what happens to women who are successful and marry laterally or down, see this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/divorce

And don’t even dare tell me women still don’t make less than men often do for the same work.

That’s not what’s at issue here (even though that “factoid” is incorrect as well). What we are saying is that as women become more and more empowered, independent and economically successful, the more picky they become since there is little the average man can provide for them. Therefore, women go in one of two directions: they either strive to snag a man even HIGHER in socioeconomic status than them (sometimes with much difficulty and heartbreak), OR, since they don’t really need a man for money, they now select men for thrills and excitement, and end up fucking sociopathic bad-boys and ne’er-do-wells. With whom they often get pregant and become single mothers with.

Unfortunately, the nice women… usually end up with assholes and the nice guys end up with bitches. Way of the world. Sigh.

Translation: the hot and financially independent women end up with dominant alpha males, and the Mr. Average Beta Males end up with ball-busting fatties and single mothers.

The Fifth Horseman:

I wasn’t even gonna dignify your assertion that “men have it worse than women in the U.S.” with a response, but it’s so deluded I have to.

Women still on average earn less than equally qualified men, are subjected to workplace sexism (I have experienced it firsthand) or sexism in the armed forces. Not to mention sexism in politics. Basically, the list goes on. And for every poor man who has his bitch ex wife sue him for everything he’s got, or take everything from him post-divorce, there is also a single mother working three jobs to support her kids since their deadbeat father walked out on them for a younger woman.

All this hooting and hollering about custody laws is kinda funny, because custody laws are rooted in the fundamental (and sexist) belief that women are supposed to take care of the kids while men go out to be breadwinners. Wanna avoid them? Don’t get married. It’s that easy. Or, you know, campaign for gender neutral custody laws. That’s what I’d do. It is, after all, about EQUALITY — not being better.

Also, I dunno if this has been mentioned since I can’t be arsed to read all 400 or so comments, but in case anyone has brought up the “woman’s word over the man’s word” with regard to violent or sexual crimes: As far as women crying rape/sexual assault, there are statistically far more women who choose to REMAIN SILENT about their ordeal and attackers, or who elect to stay with abusive husbands/significant others, than press charges. When I was sexually assaulted, I didn’t say a damn thing to anyone about how it happened or who did it — ‘cos I was scared and embarrassed as hell.

1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. 60% of them never report it.

And I’m glad for every chauvinist like you, there are far more decent men who understand that the struggle for true female equality is far from over. We have it relatively easy in the U.S., all things considered, sure. But telling me I ought to “travel more” is kinda stupid when your entire argument is based on how things are here, in the U.S. — where I LIVE. FYI, women in Europe have it easier than women in the U.S, and much harder in non-Westernized nations. Just look at the Middle East.

“1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives. 60% of them never report it. ”

Or is it 1-in-3,or 1-in-4? It’s hard to tell because the feminists keep changing their story on that number. Anyway, it’s been debunked,repeatedly.

Also, how exactly does one figure up the amount of crimes that haven’t been reported? Think about it. They’re pulling these numbers out of their asses.

Marisa:

So… I take it you just want us not to become financially successful?

Not with the assistance of government largesse: alimony, custody rights, affirmative action, welfare, etc.

Otherwise, do as thou wilt — but don’t be surprised when men wake up and start to realize marriage has become a raw deal for them.

And then don’t be surprised when western civilization starts to crumble due to the traditional nuclear family disappearing.

It’s hard for women in this day and age of no-fault divorce and automatic child custody to remain married to a man they do not respect.

Certainly true. And yes, I did marry him. When I married him, he had a full time job (and no computer) and for the first several years pulled his weight. In fact, he was the sole breadwinner until our oldest was three. It was only after I got a part time job so we could save a bit, and he realized “OMG, I can quit this job and we won’t be out on the street” that his crappy behavior really started. And I’ll own that by taking up slack left and right, I enabled him to just keep letting it out. I learned too late that the first time I helped him out by doing one of his chores, he’d just figure “That’s the last time I ever have to check the oil in the car!”

But honestly, anyone who would expect me to stay married to him is insane.

I find it awfully telling that instead of being able to say, “Yeah, some men are selfish bums–probably as many men are bums as women are heinous bitches,” the response is, “I don’t buy it, and even if I did, it’s the woman’s fault” again.

You don’t have to “buy it”. The reality is, getting the kids over to see him is like pulling teeth. The reality is, I’m making payments on the line of credit he used to buy HIS car, because both our names are on it at the moment and I can’t have my credit fucked for seven years because he can’t afford the vehicle he drives. And several times, I’ve had to pay him to take his own kids overnight.

The only “females” who don’t react that way are physiologically different. We call these people “dominant” or “butch”

Not dominant–in fact, rather the opposite. Not precisely butch, either, despite the short hair. But I have learned the hard way that I can’t count on a man to support me. It’s possible I might find a single man who’s more…something (responsible, upstanding, competent) than he was, but I’m not betting my or my kids’ future on it.

So you really didn’t have it rough at all, Kis. You came out fine. Guys get it far, far harder than you could ever imagine, and if they can’t handle it, they get thrown in jail here in the US.

Yup, my ex certainly has it a lot harder than I do. There he is, working his part time job, playing his WoW, not paying a dime (and no jail, either, because support is based on HIS income) or seeing his kids unless I shove them down his throat, and getting to screw whatever woman he can talk into his bed. While I have it made here in my house with three kids to feed and look after and a mortgage to pay, with no help from him whatsoever, and can’t even find the privacy to watch a little porn and rub one off, let alone date. I feel sooooo sorry for him. As should you all.

Yes, truth is, if I took him to court, I could likely stick it to him good. Maybe I’m an anomaly, but I just don’t have the energy for that, and I’m not interested in nailing him (or anyone) to the wall.

Frankly, I have a hard time respecting women in general when some of them pull the shit you mention–and I have seen it happen. But for every evil sow out there, there’s someone like my ex, who doesn’t need your sympathy, and certainly doesn’t deserve your support as men.

“Real” men would know how to spot one who isn’t worthy of his own gonads, and they’d be brave enough to admit those men do exist. But that’s called owning your own shit, and no one seems to want to do that these days…

This article is hilarious. You forgot to mention one thing: the science fiction GENRE was first recognized by the publication of…Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. A woman, btw.

Your article has a major flaw in it. Science fiction is NOT about guys exploring things and then exploding the things they explore. Nor is science fiction about relationships. It’s about asking the questions about the human experience. Frankenstein did this by asking what made monsters, when did (or could) science go too far, etc.

I think even “male-centric” sci-fi with explosions and less relationships get away from the true purpose of the sci-fi genre. Anything that’s just pure cotton candy — be it too much “relationship drama” or too many explosions and “bromances” — isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Star Trek may have had James T. “we come in peace shoot to kill” Kirk who liked to schmooze with every alien chick (oh noes, Kirk was an omnisexual!), but they also had thought-provoking episodes that asked a lot of interesting questions about philosophy, the human condition, life, and yes, love. Also, saying that shows like Star Trek — or any sci-fi on TV back then — wasn’t affected by the political or social climate of the day is just naive.

Also, the argument that women just muck it all up with “Lifetime” and “Oprah” shit is a flawed and unreasonable argument. What about the Alien movies with Ripley? She was a woman and she kicked a whole load of ass. Another example would be Sarah Connor from Terminator (I’m not talking about the new TV show but Terminator 1 and 2). Women don’t only think about “relationship drama.” And, if you think about it, both female and male characters in the sci-fi genre are driven by the same things: staying alive, finding answers, protecting those they love, being happy.

Battlestar Galactica (the new one) may have had some really whiny relationship moments in it, but it also stayed true to the intent of the sci-fi genre: it explored deeper issues that are inherent in the human condition. What makes a person human? What makes humans “good” or cylons “evil”? Why do people fear what is different from themselves? Etc.

Having deeper themes is what makes a story good and worth a place in history. Declaring a piece of literature, a television show, or movie trash just because there’s relationship subplots in it (or, on the flip side, a lack thereof) isn’t giving it a chance. And saying that just because there’s relationship drama means a “real man” won’t like it (or won’t be inspired to go into scientific fields when they grow up) is also not giving the male gender enough credit.

Finally, I don’t quite understand your argument about how homosexuality and “women taking over sci-fi” is related. Unless the argument is that only women would want to see two guys getting it on, in which case I would have to laugh at the ignorance of such a claim. Your only complaint was that there were bisexual/gay/omnisexual characters on TV. Well, it’s there because it’s an issue in today’s world. And I’m not talking about whether it’s right or wrong, because that’s not the point. Star Trek had a famous moment in history because it showed an interracial kiss. Interracial relationships were an issue then. The sci-fi genre has always been there to discuss issues that were important to people. Plus, “omnisexuality” has always been in the sci-fi genre, I don’t understand what the big deal is.

kis:

While I’m sympathetic to your story , as you are Canadian it has limited value to us men here in the states. Yes, if you are in Canada you should be able to “nail his ass to the wall” quite well if you want to. However I must point out to you that you could have divorced him for no reason at all and gotten considerably more from him than you’ve gotten on pain of jail for him. You could also (at least in the states) play around with any court ordered visitation that he was owed with absolutely no penalty whatsoever. I’ll give you credit for trying to do neither of these things. That jerk former husband of yours better realize just how lucky he has it before its too late.

YOU own the kids. YOU own the house.

Because, WHATEVER I do, makes no goddamn difference.

His thought process was more like:

OMG, she can work the lawn mower–I never have to cut the grass again.

OMG, she’s willing to work a job she hates because I lost mine–hmm, maybe I can milk a few more months off out of this.

OMG, you want me to wash dishes? That’s women’s work!

I can’t believe all this shit she’s willing to do! I have it fucking made!

WoW is fun! Look at all these guys I killed and all this cool stuff I have!

I showered. Wake me up when you come to bed.

~

Sometimes it isn’t that a man poisoned by “society”. Sometimes he’s just a fucking lazy bum who’ll take as much as he can and give back only as much as you force him to.

I agree that boys (and men) have it harder these days. They do. It’s hard to grow up without a decent role model, and with all kinds of mixed signals about what it is to be a man. But I asked myself what I’d rather have my boys grow up seeing–a weekend dad who stands on his own two feet, or a slacker who lets his wife carry him.

And I find it so sad that I let my ex have all kinds of control–he can see the kids wherever and whenever he wants; he doesn’t have to pay me anything; I was generous with our separation agreement, and intend to be generous in the final divorce negotiations; and I have never, ever spoken to my kids about him the way I have here, because it’s no good for them to make him look like the bad guy–and yet he still has to be forced to be in their lives.

But don’t blame him. It was the feminists that made him an ass. And before feminism, it was something else that turned some good men into assholes. And before that, it was…

You know what? I learned long ago that it doesn’t matter what the assholes around me do. I do what I do. No amount of feminist propaganda is going to make me believe we should lower standards for firefighters, no amount of “OMG, you could so screw him in court!” is going to make me think it’s right to do it, and no amount of “wah wah wah, we’d be better men if only women would let us!” is going to make me feel sorry for every guy out there who can’t cut it in a marriage or in life. Because sometimes, just SOMETIMES, it’s not the woman’s fault.

@H

“Your only complaint was that there were bisexual/gay/omnisexual characters on TV. Well, it’s there because it’s an issue in today’s world. And I’m not talking about whether it’s right or wrong, because that’s not the point. Star Trek had a famous moment in history because it showed an interracial kiss. Interracial relationships were an issue then.”

Politics, continually driving fiction in the mainstream, is what communist countries do.

Note also that the Award Winners in books, films, TV, the ARTs etc are completely biased nowadays towards those who endorse politically-correct themes.

It isn’t ART that’s mostly driving the mainstream, its politics (and money). And the gullible public is falling for it.

They are being fed PROPAGANDA.

The BBC in the UK even once ADMITTED to this. For example, it admitted to coordinating various departments to promote awareness of domestic violence. Thus, over Valentines Day week, the BBC will jiggle the storylines of soaps and dramas to show domestic violence. The News programmes will highlight incidents of dv. They will show films wherein domestic violence is a major theme, and so on,

Yet the public is largely unaware that this is being CO-ORDINATED by the producers at the BBC.

The same thing is now happening over global warming. You will see it crop up everywhere; even in comedy sketches.

This is planned; e,g, see,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V75hHFGqcic

This is just propaganda orchestrated from on high. So please do not deceive yourself into thinking that these new Sci-Fi themes are just happening by chance.

I said “women earn less than men on average.” That is not a false statement.

http://www.businessweek.com/careers/workingparents/blog/archives/2009/02/will_the_recess.html

http://dayton.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/2009/04/27/daily29.html

Regardless of the kinds of jobs men and women may tend to seek, it is still UNEQUAL. And that was my point. I am not going into welfare/affirmative action, etc because that is irrelevant to my point. And regardless of the reasoning behind women filing for divorce — which is also irrelevant — you could still NOT MARRY. We’re not forcing you to get down on one knee, guys. If you’re so aware of the laws surrounding custody and whatnot, then just could just as easily do what plenty of other men out there do: impregnate your girlfriend, and run for it. The lot of you are awfully quick to condemn extant marriage laws, but A) no one is making you marry, and B) you’d be better off doing something to encourage gender neutrality than blaming everyone with a vagina for the existence of this sort of legislation.

All of you going off about women’s infidelity or “losing interest” or seeking other sexual partners: the biological imperative to “fool around” is gender neutral, and ingrained in our evolution as humans. Check out a book called The Red Queen by Matt Ridley. Good stuff.

Clarence,

Women bring “unique viewpoints” to the genre you say? So? If they want to produce “female science fiction” then they can do so, but don’t expect males to care or to watch enmasse.

Why does it have to be “female science fiction”? Who determined that SciFi had to be only “male” and that females should just accept such a narrow definition of it.

And that’s my whole problem. There’s been a downright push in feminism and lit crit to get women to write science fiction and to value their kinds of science fiction above those of the more traditional writers. That’s why you’ll get “Anthologies of the Best Women in Sci Fi” all day long, but if a single book compilation of science fiction EXCLUDES female authors they raise hypocritical holy hell.

Well considering that female SciFi writers aren’t a represented as male SciFi writers and are in the minority, I can see why they get their own anthologies and are included in book compilation. Especially considering some of viewpoints here about women and SciFi. And are they really put above the traditional writers or is that what you yourself perceive?

You want to invade a Male Space (which, except for geekgirls god bless them science fiction has long been) you will RESPECT the traditions and expectations of that space.

Once again, describing SciFi as a “male space”. IT’S BEYOND THAT! Who determined that SciFi must always be a “male space” and can’t incorporate things that perhaps would be considered feminine? And besides, what traditions and expectations are you talking about…that there would be no women in top commanding positions like captian; that they can’t also be the hero; that they can’t do things, invent new technologies, explor new worlds, mak new scientific discoveries, terraform planets, etc.?

It’s bad enough what women have done to most work places with their affirmative action hires and stalinist sexual harrasment policies – which badly need reformed, though I’d not see them thrown out. The larger point is that Curves doesn’t allow males but I’m supposed to feel fucking bad because Augusta doesn’t allow females when pretty much every all male institution has been forced to. Tough luck, toots. Respect my shit, I’ll respect yours.

I’m sorry but you seem to be projecting other issues that you feel strongly about onto something mudane as women becoming interested and participating in SciFi.

One of the first pieces of ‘evidence’ that I came across about politics corrupting the artistic process was an American Hollywood producer claiming that scripts had to be changed because they could not portray women in a ‘nasty’ light. If they did, there was no chance of making the film.

It was OK though if some serious matter had CAUSED her to behave this way.

I’ve written female villains and I personally try to do this with any character who acts like a bitch (or a dick), but I’ll admit that because my genre’s target demographic is women, I’m more careful to make those precipitating events very evident with my female villains. That said, I’d be pissed if my editor told me I HAD to do it. Some women are just bitches. Some men are just pricks. It doesn’t always have to be more complicated than that.

So yes, there is one more man off the market. What was that saying, again?

A man needs a woman like a bicycle needs a fish?

Bwahaha! I’m rich and all that, and aren’t all you bitches sorry now? That’s awesome.

Genuinely nice, huh? I am pleased for you. If you were as happy as you want us all to think, would you really need to use your…backward metaphor to tell us all what we’re missing?

Ahhh, good times.

Reinholt:

Me neither. Why bother getting married? I have every intention of settling down, but I’m an atheist, and marriage is just a piece of paper at that point.

Any woman who sees mankind as “a market” is fundamentally fucked, yeah. But that doesn’t mean men are guiltless when it comes to manipulating women. Both sexes do shitty things to each other; I think the main issue women are taking with this article is that it generalizes, and that it perverts the true feminist directive which is to seek EQUALITY, not superiority. I deserve to get drafted as much as someone with a Y chromosome, although I’m not going to get into my actual stance on the current war.

Women who are guilty of twisting feminism’s actual tenets into something self-serving are shitty, and there are plenty of them. But there are also plenty men who believe in their own superiority.

Kis – To paraphrase Vonnegut, I don’t give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what you think. Missing out or not missing out? You don’t know me beyond a few posts on the internet, and I don’t know you. Who the fuck even knows or cares? I mean, this is the INTERNET. We don’t know jack shit about fuck with regard to the other people posting most of the time.

My point is for the other men in the thread: don’t expose yourself to financial risk by getting married.

I can post the long finance description of it where marriage, essentially, gives the woman a put option on the contract and, if they are the lesser wage earner, the option is “in the money” from day one if anyone really wants to know. The key point is that normally, if I were to sell someone such an option, I’d charge a pretty fucking hefty premium for it and hedge it; in marriage you do not get paid up front and you cannot hedge. It’s a stupid fucking trade. Don’t make it.

Renee:

Produce all the fiction you want. More power to you. If it doesn’t comport to male geeks interests they will not watch it or read it, and you better hope you pick up enough “Twilight fans” or all the female geeks, or starvation lies in your future. Meanwhile I’ll laugh.
And yes, it’s “female science fiction” if the vast majority of viewers are women , although it may not really be “science fiction” if it includes unicorns and magic more so than transporters and technospeak.
“Well considering that female SciFi writers aren’t a represented as male SciFi writers and are in the minority, I can see why they get their own anthologies and are included in book compilation. Especially considering some of viewpoints here about women and SciFi. And are they really put above the traditional writers or is that what you yourself perceive?”

Gee willakers, golly, gosh! And you ask me why I called this a “male space”? I’m 38 , Ms. When I was TEN I was reading the exact same stuff you are asking me now. Nothing’s changed in 28 years, and since some of the comments I was reading were already ten years or 15 years old in the late 70′s , nothings changed in 44 ye ars. This gets tiring. I’m afraid after 30 to 40 some years of culturally bending backwards if women haven’t yet managed to get their long polished nails into a position of parity in science fiction it isn’t ever going to happen. Because. Women. As A Group. Aren’t. Interested. That doesn’t mean none of them write , compose or otherwise produce good, even occasionally GREAT science fiction that fully deserves the HUGO award, don’t mistake my argument.

“Once again, describing SciFi as a “male space”. IT’S BEYOND THAT! Who determined that SciFi must always be a “male space” and can’t incorporate things that perhaps would be considered feminine? And besides, what traditions and expectations are you talking about…that there would be no women in top commanding positions like captian; that they can’t also be the hero; that they can’t do things, invent new technologies, explor new worlds, mak new scientific discoveries, terraform planets, etc.?”

Nothing. And quite a few have and do, certainly I’ve grown up with 30 plus years of female captains, inventors, etc. However those THEMES do NOT tend to appeal to a majority of females and this whole post was about how “syfy” is dumbing itself down to try to appeal to an audience that traditionally has hated the geekboys and the few geekgirls out there, shunned them, and otherwise made their lives miserable.

You want an example of “female” science fiction? Well lets take a single technology. Never really explain it, use instead as plot prop. Cycle thru endless episodes of exploring the human ramifications of this single piece of technology. Be sure to make sure the protagonist is female, and make sure that most of the “exploration” of human themes encompasses childbirth and other things that mostly concern women. I wonder h ow many men you’d get to watch this show, even if you put the female protagonist in lots of sexy costumes?

Here’s a clue. The majority of people who liked Star Trek TOS where the male geeks (who tended to get beat up and otherwise have their lives made miserable alot) and the few female geeks. Of the non-geeks who would watch it, the majority of these people were, once again, men or boys. And the same for the original Battle Star Galactica and just about every science fiction movie or show up until recently when men have stopped watching pretty much everything altogether. Why? Because rather than having one show that appeals mostly to males, one that appeals mostly to females, and one that kinda appeals to both, cable and broadcast TV have largely abandoned male viewers except for sporting events. What’s currently showing on “SyFy” isn’t parity, nor is it representative of even what many if not most of the geekgirls want. Instead it’s pop culture trash masquerading as science fiction. I find it disgusting.

On the draft issue?

Confronted two different senators on the issue in person, one of whom blew me off (Norm Coleman) and one of whom told me directly that it would never fly and drafting women was too unpopular to even seriously consider (Lieberman).

I worked for years in a position involved with defense and the mitigation of damage from terrorist attacks in the US (both past and potential future); I’ve financed the legal representation of two different men who had their assets frozen during divorces, and I’ve provided pro bono financial planning advice to multiple men during / post divorces so they could put their lives back together.

So what have you done, again? Protested the Iraq war for one day?

This is what I mean; put your money where your mouth is on issues of egalitarianism and genuinely unfair or unjust conduct, and I’ll buy it. Protesting the Iraq war once (especially given how partisan that issue is in the US, and how little people know about the Middle East, our political meddling there, and the real situation on the ground) is about the same as throwing a marble into a football stadium and expecting to fill it up.

“I think the main issue women are taking with this article is that it generalizes, and that it perverts the true feminist directive which is to seek EQUALITY, not superiority.”

The feminist directive is female superiority,at any cost. I don’t give a fuck what you think the original feminists stood for, ever since the 1960′s it’s been all about “sticking it to the menz”.

If you are not for female supremacism, stop calling yourself a feminist and join the movement against them. Because if you subscribe to the feminism of today, you are a sexist who hates men. It’s that simple.

Dave:

And, no.

What Welmer says is true.

There is a strange sort of dance that goes on in the Middle East that most Americans are not familiar with, which is to say that people parrot the lines about social propriety when they feel certain official (or at least known) sources of power are watching, and then do the exact opposite when they are not. Witness the typical behavior the Saudi royal family members when they are in public in SA vs. when they are partying in Europe.

Well, I really don’t know for sure, but it seems that you might find some common ground with our contributor Female Maculinist. Feel free to check out her blog. She’s one opinionated (and sharp) lesbian!

So long as she doesn’t figure I’m a traitor to the cause, a half-closeted lesbian, or just pretending I’m bi to turn on my boyfriend. Because I get enough of that crap from lesbians without seeking it out.

“It’s really not. If you embrace the most militant forms of feminism today, you pretty much hate both men and women. But the problem is, most women who consider themselves feminists don’t subscribe to the militant brand of it. The ARE for equality, not matriarchy.”

It doesn’t matter what the feminist on the street believes, the feminists in the white house, in academia, in the house of representatives, THEY all believe that men are subhuman and don’t deserve equal treatment under the law,based solely on their sex.

I’m sure the average German in Nazi era Germany believed that Jews were people,just like them, and just wanted their country to be prosperous. Nevertheless, because they supported Hitler, they also supported death camps for Jews.

If you support feminism, you support sexism against men.

“I’ve had enough drivel for an evening.”

So have we,toots,so have we.

FM, to her immense credit, also seems to be very evidence driven, which is a good way to figure out what not to believe quickly.

You may not always find out what you should do by looking at the facts, but you almost always figure out who is wrong and/or trying to bullshit you when you do.

Her blog is particularly good with regard to compiling large amounts of evidence.

“I invoke Godwin’s Law! Does that mean this conversation is over? And I was having so much fun…”

I could have used a better example,but I don’t really feel like putting any effort into anything right now.

Sounds fair to me; in fact, I’d be interested to see just how the audience is split for Science Fiction on TV at this point between male/female groups.

Though I suspect, given how many people watch online, that’s going to be a Sisyphean ordeal to attempt to compile the numbers…

FM, to her immense credit, also seems to be very evidence driven, which is a good way to figure out what not to believe quickly.

Just hope that means she’s willing to entertain the notion that “my kind” actually exist is all. Very frustrating being “represented” by a group that largely refuses to acknowledge the possibility that bisexuals are anything but insincere or deluded. Sigh.

You may not always find out what you should do by looking at the facts, but you almost always figure out who is wrong and/or trying to bullshit you when you do.

Mostly I decide what to do by putting myself in the other person’s shoes and trying to consider points of view other than my own. Evidence does help separate the wheat from the chaff, but it isn’t the end-all and be-all, either. That whole “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics” thing.

There is a term out there for you: “equalist” or perhaps “ifeminist” though that’s Wendy McElroy and as she’s a libertarian feminist (most blog and “official” feminist don’t consider her a feminist at all) it may not apply to you. Equalism might be the way to go. Google it.

“Equalist” always makes me think of Edward Woodward. Bluh. Will Google it, though. Will look up Wendy McElroy, too.

I’ve gotta say, you guys have some points to make about some issues. But some of you do come off as misogynists. (The whole “women are all cheating bitches out to screw you” attitude is especially irksome to me, since I managed to remain faithful for fifteen years to the dickhead I married, and am still taking it up the ass from him.) And don’t go saying “some of my best friends are women” because if those women all agree with everything you say here, they don’t count.

Can’t say I’ll start hanging around here, because anything political is kind of anathema to a moderate. Don’t see many blogs out there with the heading “Progress at a Sane, Comfortable Pace” or “Same-Sex Marriage in Thirty Years, We Can Make it Happen” or “Why Piss Off the Baby Boomers, They’ll be Dead Soon and Then We’ll Control the Votes” or “Us and Them, No Versus Required”.

I will check out FM’s blog though, just out of curiosity.

Kis,
I truly do hope you are listening to what The Fifth Horseman’s saying w/rapt attention. It is real. And the big irony of the Women’s Movement in our time.

Women having high earning careers means, that there are fewer Men who can fit the bill in terms of “getting her back”. It’s a simple numbers game-both can’t be high wage earners, because the economic model simply won’t support it. And, because of Affirmative Action, which for Women, especially White, plays out long before they actually hit the workforce (think Title 9, for example), this means that only so many guys can even get the kinds of jobs that Women of a certain Class respects.

The Women’s Movement brought some wonderful things for Women, but what you and other Women have to realize and now accept, is that it also brought some not so nice things. Things that are at the least, enduring if not permanent. One of them is the simple fact that there will be fewer Men you can look up to, simply because there will be fewer Men who can “pull their own weight”.

While there’s a great deal to be said about Men abandoning their wives or girlfriends for the “newer model”, the flipside and often dirty little secret, is how often a Woman can and will leave her Man if he loses his job. Given the current Mancession-where the vast majority of those who have either lost their jobs outright or have been reduced to nothing in terms of actual work hours, have been Men-it will be shock if Marriage even survives in the next decade.

Kis, I don’t know you, and you seem to be a good person. I ain’t out to get into a mudfight with you, what’s the point of that. Nor do I carry an axe to grind with Women everywhere-unlike quite a few here, I personally don’t see any problem with SciFi taking a more feminine direction, because I believe in the Free Market-if the model works, it’ll last; if not, it won’t. And that same model affords me the greatest power known in modern times-I can vote with my feet, with my clicker, and with my wallet. I haven’t watched the SciFi network since they put out the new BSG, and haven’t looked back. Same deal with the VAST majority of stuff they put out in Hollywood. The only flicks I actually purchase are the big Summer blockbusters-just the other day I bought Terminator 2 and Cloverfield. Both guy flicks, when you really think about it.

Anyway, what TFH is saying, and I cosign him emphatically, is that while I’m sorrying things didn’t work out for you, you have to realize not only the big picture, but also the big role you played in all of that. Simply put, barring rape, in Nature, Males display, and Females choose-and if things don’t workout, the first place you should look, is in the mirror.

For what it’s worth, I’m sorry.

The Obsidian

Joss Whedon – “mangina”; hysterical, so can we include James Cameron under that banner?

Like most of the female posts here, I have also read much SF by male writers – why, well the answer is simple most of the female writers in the field tend to be more fantasy and that hasn’t rocked my SF world much. I’m sure that there are many women SF writers in the vein of Dick, Asimov, etc but unfortunately I’ve never come across them and I look to be educated.

Media SF is a totally different animal which is governed by a totally different and – arguably – devastating set of circumstances: ratings/box office and money. Together, those variables will skew towards the more feminine as creators/producers are making every attempt to make entertainment for all races, sex, creeds because that’s how the money is made and what keeps these people (creators as well as actors!) working. These issues are naturally more visible in product produced in the US primarily for the domestic market, but ultimately is seen globally. A much, much earlier post pointed out that any argument for the “over-feminizing” of SF is the fault of market forces and that’s something I personally agree with. Also, let’s not lose sight of the fact that film and tv producers are more likely to cast visually attractive people for their more traditionally “heroic” roles (of either sex!). While I’m on this subject, an earlier poster commented on how the Bond series are now attracting more female viewers, personally I want to argue that is simply due to casting rather than content. As I stated, we see a lot of very attractive men and women on our tv and cinema screens – there will always be the Zac Efrons and Megan Foxs of this world; however I feel that there is a subtle shift towards men like Clive Owen, Daniel Craig, and I’m going to include Nathan Fillion in this too – men who are unconventionally good-looking, there is “something” more to them than their physiogomy which reminds me of Clint Eastwood, Harrison Ford and Jack Nicholson. This “something” was what the Daniel Craig/Bond marketing machine capitalised on, the boy can’t help how he looks …

The thing which somewhat bangs nails in coffins is more with the writing of characters. There are some shows which have it not quite right; “Warehouse13″ is, for me, a current example, I think the male lead is written a little childish and the female a bit too self-righteous. Another slightly stereotyped set of characters can be found in “Chuck”. I like “Chuck” a lot but you can’t quite escape the cliches that surround the lead character. A lot of posters have cited “Firefly” as being an example of well-written male characters and that is something I also agree with. I still love that show and without shadow of doubt, the key to why it is still well thought of to present is because of it’s characters. Another show where I think the characters are well balanced is “NCIS”.

Hmm, the comments regarding “Dr Who” caused the most mirth for me. Obviously the writer of the original piece is not very familiar with the history of the show or he would have known that Russell T Davies is not the first gay producer of the show. That honour goes to John Nathan Turner. Yes, RTD brought in “feelings” (and believe me, I’ll not be sorry to see the back of the Doctor’s angst when the new series starts) and coupled with attractive actors in the main role, made women take notice, but at least RTD was allowed to create a character like Jack Harkness, in the longest running SF tv show in the world and through a system as somewhat institutionalized as the BBC. The closest equivalent I can see on current mainstream US television are Justin and Mark on “Ugly Betty”, but it’s about fashion so it won’t shock the neo-conservatives.

As a female SF fan, the genre showed me that I can personally achieve more and I don’t have to sacrifice my feminity to accomplish that; it showed me that women can be treated as something more than an image or a plaything to be used and then discarded. Who were the main instigators of presenting the genre to me like this: men and I give thanks that it happened.

So on one hand we have people accusing other people of being closeted homosexuals and/or unattractive and/or socially inadequate and/or unable to get laid.

Aaaaaand on the other hand, we have… people accusing other people of being closeted homosexuals and/or unattractive and/or socially inadequate and/or unable to get laid.

I don’t care what you’re packing, I don’t care how often you use it. I do care that most of the ‘debate’ here quickly devolved into mud-slinging and statistics wars. Why does it matter? Western culture- which is the context here- has been predominantly male for a very long time. Now it seems things are changing, and apparently that’s worrying or scary or evidence of “feminist agendas”. I don’t think a matriarchy is a better or worse idea than the patriarchy; I like the sound of equality, personally.

Pretty much everyone here has violated the Golden Rule, which in my household is: Try Not To Be A Jerk. Cultural conditioning is such that it’s impossible to truly assess who is intrinsically drawn to what, but I think it’s ludicrous Vegemite logic to assume that just because you and the people of your gender you know like something that everyone does. It’s not backed by any kind of evidence. I’d be happy to look at any provided, but all we’ve had so far is variations on ‘men like these things and girls like these things because they just do stop asking’.

I’m a woman. I like to fix computers, and knit, and read sci-fi, and watch TV shows set in space and about people doing each other in pretty much equal amounts, and I honestly don’t care if some dudes on the internet think that they’ve had a terribly raw deal because the cultural tables have turned in the latter half of this century.

Oh, and addressing one of the actual points of the article (if that’s okay): “omnisexual” does not mean what you think it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pansexuality

Gement,

“I see men here afraid that their way of life is going away, replaced by women holding the advantages historically accorded to men, and men oppressed, ignored, and marginalized. I don’t think that’s going to happen, and I don’t want that to happen.”

That already is happening. Full stop.

In specific, look at some of the posts about marriage and divorce laws, false rape issues, or harassment/discrimination bludgeoning of men in the workplace.

The exact situation you claim you doubt will happen already exists.

I always thought women were just being used in science fiction as objects to draw more men to a particular work. I never really saw any considerable character development- women in science fiction, especially televised sci-fi, seem to just be bodies or sex objects to draw additional male viewers. I didn’t really look at Six in BSG as anything other that a witty body in a red dress. I think it had less to do with women being involved and more to do with society becoming increasingly understanding of people over indulging in their emotions. I was honestly surprised at the amount of drama in BSG- don’t people in high stress situations [medical workers, military] tend to try and be humorous to lighten the situation? I hope my female bits are not sole cause of this new over emotional and expressive society [facebook, twitter]. It isn’t just science fiction that is being dramatized and reduced to merely human interaction- we’re social animals its what people like to see and read about. Disjointed thought stream- just curious. . .

Of course all we had around the house when I grew up was Poul Anderson and Robert Heinlein. Anyway- thoughts?

I have rarely seen a more misdirected letter.

I will start from the bottom, as that will be most illuminating, and work up:

1 – So your advice to men is to shut up and take it? This clearly shows you have empathy, understand that the other side is composed of people with ideas, feelings, and beliefs, and that you don’t have a double-standard when it comes to gender, doesn’t it? Ahem.

2 – Most of the second to last paragraph is hand waving and equivocation without putting any real meaning into your words. To paraphrase a critique of Gilbert and Sullivan, a lot of sound and fury signifying absolutely nothing. But I want to make a point, here. You are railing against things in in the past being censored and controlled by white men. Great! Most of us rail against that too. The problem is that the inverse situation (men with male interests are pushed out of sci-fi TV) is happening. Is that okay?

I’m with Obsidian in that, ultimately, the market will sort it out. If the decline of media tells you anything, it’s that the market is in the process of sorting it out, and the future doesn’t look promising.

3 – Much of traditional male behavior is not a matter of “cultural conditioning”, even as people would like to think otherwise. Some of it is, or more accurately, much of the how with regard to expressing male behavior is. Unfortunately, the foundations of those behaviors rest in biology. Men and women are not identical; they never have been, and they never will be. Biologically, there are fundamental differences in behavior that will not and cannot be eradicated. So don’t give me new age blank slate bullshit, and don’t reference Hume when you clearly don’t understand what he was saying in the first place.

4 – See above. Yes, like it or not, it is partially guided by biology. More so, male interests often diverge from female interests in science and biology as well (on average; there are exceptions, in both directions, to every rule, but they are just that – exceptions, not the majority).

5 – Knowing several people in the publishing business personally, at places ranging from Penguin to MacMillan, I can actually state that as a matter of factual correctness, writers in Science Fiction previously had more of a free hand than they do now. Do you know why Aasimov wasn’t heavily edited in comparison to modern authors, or why he wasn’t following a formula? At first nobody thought his stuff was interesting enough that it would sell, and so there wasn’t a lot of attention paid; later on, half the time people didn’t know what he was saying because he talked about actual science. There is much more “shaping” that goes on today, often in the submission process and the selection bias shown by publishers, and asserting otherwise merely tells me you probably don’t know a damned thing about publishing.

So, in closing, you are wrong on virtually all counts, and your open letter should be buried in your back yard so humanity will never be exposed to it again. Do some research on your claims next time rather than repeating them, realize that being polite does not also make you right, and lastly, realize that you should probably attack the actual point the article is making:

The Science Fiction on television no longer represents the interests of most men, and more so, the SF that did represent them has been pushed out; this state of affairs, by your own admission, is terrible, as you just spent a whole letter railing against women’s SF being forced out.

Ironic, no?

Spicy Hummus:

Ingredients
* 1 (14.5 ounce) can chickpeas (garbanzo beans), drained
* 2 rounded tablespoons tahini sesame paste, found in both dairy and dry specialty foods sections
* A drizzle extra-virgin olive oil
* 1/2 teaspoon crushed pepper flakes
* 1 teaspoon (1/3 palm full) ground cumin
* 1 teaspoon (1/3 palm full) ground coriander
* 1 clove garlic, crushed
* Coarse salt
* 1/2 lemon, juiced
* Pita breads, grilled and cut into wedges for dipping

Directions
Combine beans, tahini, oil, pepper flakes, cumin, coriander, garlic, salt, and lemon juice in food processor bowl and grind into a smooth paste. Transfer to a small dip dish and surround spread with warm pita wedges. This recipe makes a great appetizer, or anytime snack.

Tidbit: this is a fantastic dish to take to a pot luck or block party — it’s always a hit!

Anyway, what TFH is saying, and I cosign him emphatically, is that while I’m sorrying things didn’t work out for you, you have to realize not only the big picture, but also the big role you played in all of that. Simply put, barring rape, in Nature, Males display, and Females choose-and if things don’t workout, the first place you should look, is in the mirror.

Yup. I married a guy (older than me by quite a lot) who claimed to espouse “traditional values”. He wasn’t enormously ambitious as far as wanting a career for the earning potential, but he was good at and enthusiastic about what he did and got paid decently for it. We both agreed that if we married, we wouldn’t want our kids raised in a daycare–I would stay home and look after them and the house, and he would work and look after the money.

Where it all fell apart–I think–is when he suggested I go back to work (our older kids were two and three). We’d been struggling financially, unable to put any money away. There were things I wanted–a table saw, a biscuit joiner, staplegun, etc–that we couldn’t afford. Go waitress, he said. We can bank your paychecks, and use half your tips to buy that stuff you want.

We worked opposite shifts. I still carried 90% of the housework–including the blue jobs, which I tend to enjoy (his shifts at home were more like babysitting)–but I was young and had the energy. Within a couple months, I’d bought a bunch of stuff and he’d quit his job. And it all went to shit from there.

He was only a good provider–a good man–when he had no choice. The moment someone else “shared the pants”, he was quite happy to hand them right over. I never wanted to work outside the home, but suddenly I was in a position where I was the only stable breadwinner. When I asked him to help out more around the house (doing the typical man jobs, mind you, not washing clothes or vacuuming), he claimed he was bringing in unemployment insurance so he was “doing his part” already. Uh huh.

I honestly don’t know what I could have done differently. Refused to get a job in the first place? Been purposely helpless, or as unstable a wage-earner as he’d become?

If I’d had a magical viewing box and could see the kind of guy he’d morph into within 4 years of us marrying, I’d have run for the fucking hills. If I’d ever thought that me getting a job so we could get ahead would result in him thinking “Holy crap, this chick is willing to carry it all! I have it made!” I’d have happily gone without those things I wanted.

So yeah, I could have done a lot of things differently. But I didn’t, and I’m not prepared to shoulder the entire burden of blame for how it all went down. If I emasculated him, he’s the one who handed me the scissors and told me to start cutting.

Kis, I don’t know you, and you seem to be a good person. I ain’t out to get into a mudfight with you, what’s the point of that. Nor do I carry an axe to grind with Women everywhere-unlike quite a few here,

I’m pleased that you’re willing to admit quite a few men here do have an axe to grind with Women everywhere, because frankly, that’s what it sounds like to me. And that’s a shame, because I agree with a lot of what’s been said, about the ways feminism has fucked as well as helped both men and women, how men and women differ in behaviors, aptitudes and interests, about how equality is good, but not when some are more “equal” than others under the law, and about the shitty things some women do with the connivance of legal constructs that give them victim status and men perpetrator status from the moment they’re born with a vagina or a penis.

But reading some of the comments here, it feels like I’m looking for pearls of wisdom in a pile of dog shit. And as shiny as those pearls are, I can’t see myself being willing to wade into a mound of shit on a regular basis to find them.

I got fucked over by a man, and I’ll present my ass to him for further cornholing for as long as I deem it best for my kids, but that doesn’t mean I’m interested in being cornholed by you guys. Don’t much care to be told I’m stupid, can’t grasp a concept, or am a heartless bitch who’s out to screw over every man I can just because I possess a vagina–which is what some of the commentors here clearly think. And that’s a shame, really, because the few really rotten apples in your “movement” are interfering with your core message.

In other news, lol, Daniel Craig and Clive Owen are not “unconventionally good-looking”. They are, in fact, in evolutionary terms, the men most likely to get laid (especially when a woman is ovulating). They have symmetrical but rugged, square features, signs of health (OMG, DC’s body!), they’re large and deep-voiced and very, extremely, heart-thuddingly male. Add a scar or two–which possess their own evolutionary punch–and they’d be perfect specimens of maleness.

The metrosexual is a feminist construct, and we’re told we should adore him. And yes, there’s something to be said for a man who is at least aware of how he presents himself to the world. But on the whole, I think the vast majority of women over the age of 15 would probably rather get banged by Aragorn than by Legolas.

Me, I’m off to go ponder the appeal of a fantasy Aragorn/Me/Arwen sandwich. Soon as I wash off all this dog shit.

Clearly we should all bow before the wisdom of a teenager (and, as we all know, teens are well known for their superior maturity, reasoning, and life experience) and a mother who declines to address the material of this article.

Yes, clearly.

*Our military recruitment numbers indicate this is a lie, coincidentally. As do the number of women working coal mines, as lumberjacks, as fire fighters, as crab fishers, prisoners, janitors, and so on.*

I’m unclear as to your point. Women often do put themselves forward for such jobs – and fail the physical tests required for them.

Also several countries such as the UK do not allow female miners and active service soldiers. The reason given for the soldiers is that the UK has one of the heaviest bergins in the world. Females cannot physically carry the weight.

However, I know several female firefighters. Female plumbers at my brothers’ workplace are in heavy demand because women on their own prefer them over men.

I reiterate my point. The shape of ones’ genitals does not define ones’ career or interests.

Which seems to be exactly what this article is about.

Those who can, write. Those who can’t whine about it.

Nobody’s stopping you macho men from writing, you know. If there’s not enough of what you like out there, WRITE it. That’s what we women are doing.

Susan:

The post was about visual media more than anything else.

astrothsknot:

I don’t know about Britain but in America all the occupations listed that were of low status, low pay, or both (and contain physical danger) are overwhelmingly male in workforce. Surprisingly, I see no feminist organizations actively complaining about the number of women in these occupations. Of course when it comes to apex jobs with lots of comfort if there’s even a slight disecrepancy the amount of whining goes through the roof.

And no, the SHAPE of one’s genitilia is not an absolute predicter of one’s occupation. However it does tend to trend with career interests in a strong correlation. Different interests and different goals (child birth) lead to different jobs chosen which lead to differential amount of work time and different pay.

So you want sci-fi to be all men being manly and doing manly things and you want to be allowed to enjoy it with other men and men alone. And then you want to get on the internet and talk with men about it excluding the women entirely… sounds a bit gay to me (not that there is anything wrong with homosexuality of course).

As a female, I’m offended. As a lesbian, I’m also offended. As a science fiction fan since I was a little girl, I’m offended. Lastly, as someone who believes women can just just as well as men in the scientific and aeronautical fields, I’m offended.

I fail to see why it’s a bad thing that women are now being featured in bigger roles in these shows–men have had and still do have leading roles, it’s only fair that women do as well. As for your assertation that these new shows will fail to inspire a new generation of scientists, what about the female scientists that will be inspired? What about the men who won’t feel threatened by women that are inspired?

In all honesty, I find your article homophobic, misogynistic, ill-researched, and ignorant.

How dreadful for you, having to contend with such horrors as strong, prominent female characters and the possibility that relationships will still be happening in the distant future/within alien civilisations/in space/etc. What a shame that you’ll never become an engineer because you didn’t have any manly-man sci-fi characters to ~inspire~ you (because heterosexual males are so terribly under-represented in fiction. Oh, wait). Presumably all the women who work in the fields of science, engineering and technology pursued those careers because they actually seriously wanted to pursue them, not because they were clinging to pre-pubescent fantasies about terraforming a planet one day.

All these geeky, science and science fiction chicks getting all worked up…nice.

Sounds like a whole new crop for Racer X to harvest. Clearly, many of them are in need of a good fuck. I shall make that my mission as well my contribution to whatever futuristic world is out there.

It’s fascinating to see how many references to genitalia & various sexual proclivities can be made in a comment thread like this one. But, I suppose that’s what the ‘art’ of debate has devolved into in the modern era. Imagine how inspiring it would have been if — say — at the classic Lincoln-Douglas debates over the issue of slavery prior to the American Civil War: the participants had spiced up their speeches with speculative suggestions about their opponent’s private parts and sexual habits? Now *THAT’S* the way to win an argument! Forget talking about God and the rights that He has granted to all men to be free, without compromise, and other such wordy blather — nahhh, just say that Douglas can’t get a date, instead.

This is an inspired technique which all future national presidential debates should incorporate. After all, it works for the (insert politically incorrect, and now banned word describing mentally deficient individuals here) online. Make a schoolyard comment about your opponents inadequate size or insufficient performance — and bammo! — you’ve won the argument! Some of our esteemed politicians *are* taking on this chosen method of shoring up a weak point nowadays — so I suppose that it works for them.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28181.html

We are where we are. And it’s getting worse.

First off, I want to say that I’m a man. I study Computer Science at university. I like sci-fi. And I prefer sci-fi where there’s at least some some sort of science problem solving to how the problem is resolved.

But that doesn’t mean that it has to be men who do all the solving. I have loads of female friends and they’re doing degrees like maths, science, statistics, computer science, medicine, electrical engineering, etc. (I also know lots of men doing the same degrees, incase you’re worried I go to some “demascunalated” ladyversity.)

Heck, (as has already been mentioned) Ada Lovelace helped invent the difference engine, and wi-fi is based on a missile guidance technology invented by Hedy Lamarr.

I do agree that things like Star Wars and the new Doctor Who are more fantasy than science fiction. This isn’t to say that they aren’t good shows. I dearly love them both. But just because the new Doctor solves more problems by magic wand than hard science, doesnt make it less manly. It just makes it less sciency. But still cool. What I’m saying is, women and science are not mutualy exclusive, and manliness, science and sci-fi do not go hand in hand.

A book like Snow Crash, for example, isn’t the most “manly” book written, by your definition of manly. And not very sci-fi, by your definition of sci-fi. But it was very influential in the development of the Internet. And it managed to do this in between all the relationshipy stuff. And I love it.

So there you go. A man who loves science, science fiction, science based plot conclusions, relationship based plots and explosions along the way. And who entirely disagrees with most everything the OP said.

I like your whole post, but the above paragraph starts out hilarious.

Yeah, well, I try to find the humor in things. It’s either that or get a masonary bit and drill a hole in my head to let the angry out, and I don’t need another mess to clean up around here.

Few questions/points. What was his salary? His unemployment does count some. He’s paid into the system his whole life, and now its paying back. My wife is on disability for fibromyalgia and other stuff, but I count her monthly check like she is still working because she paid for disability insurance and deserves the money.

He wasn’t disabled. And he might have paid into the system, but damn was he content to overdraw on his savings. Sequence of events, as closely as I remember them:

He was working full time at a union hotel for $17/hour+benefits, and just barely covering our expenses (this is Canada, and we live in an isolated community where a gallon of milk costs $5 and a loaf of bread $2.50). I stayed at home, looked after the kids and house, did things like sew and fix up old furniture and stuff like that to save money (canning’s not my thing, gimme a pneumatic nailgun and I’m happy). Things were good. We’d been married about four years, were fairly equal partners, and he was a decent, considerate husband.

He suggested I come work at the hotel diner so we could save some money and I could buy some tools. I did–$8/hour+tips (works out to between $18 and $50/hour because yes, I’m just that charming). I continued to carry all the housework–even though I was working only 7 hours a week less than he was. He “babysat” (his words) our kids while I worked.

Winter hours began, shifts changed, and between seniority and the fact that we refused to pay for daycare, I lost my shift and got a part-time job at a hole-in-the-wall Chinese place for about the same hourly money. I’ve been at that job for over 11 years.

A month after I got that job, he quit his. He was pissed at his boss and didn’t even give them notice. He didn’t think about it, didn’t consider the ramifications, he just did it because I was there to fall back on.

He hung around the house for more than a month before he even started looking. During that time, I still carried 90% of the housework and child care–I freaking cooked dinner for him and the kids before I left for work each night, and washed dishes when I got home, ffs. He was unemployed for three months. We had to borrow money from my parents to pay the bills. I didn’t nag or harangue or shame him. If anything, I was his staunch apologist to my family, our friends, and everyone who asked if he was still out of work.

He got another job for less money ($12/hour, but what can you do) and not quite full time, kept that for a year, then quit the same way he’d done it before. No notice, no qualifying for unemployment insurance. He was out of work for 6 months, and not looking hard.

It’s hard for me to keep track of all the jobs he had, he quit so many. Maybe 9 jobs, with long periods of unemployment between them. He finally found a great job at a sawmill. Heavy work, but well-paid, full time. I was so optimistic about it, because not only was he putting his family before himself for the first time in ages, he was bringing in good money and was actually behaving like the man I married. After three months, he quit. Sigh.

The next job he stuck with for over a year–but then it was only 25 hours a week, and didn’t cut into his gaming time.

Despite these horrendous periods of un- and underemployment, he decided in 2006 that he deserved a new $2000 gaming computer. I got a $600 laptop to write on, got published and the money from that paid for my laptop within three months of the book’s release. He got laid off. Told me that so long as he was bringing in money, I shouldn’t bitch at him for not helping, and acted like I should pin a medal to his chest if he offered to wash dishes–which I think averaged out to about twice a year over fifteen years.

And you know, I think I’d have been fine with his seemingly willful failure as a provider if he’d been a caring, helpful partner. But it was as if the moment I went back to work, he lost the ability to view anyone’s needs but his own as important or relevant. He was often angry, emotionally distant, sexually selfish and extremely critical of everything and everyone around him. There were no blue jobs in our house–all the jobs were pink. Sex was something he termed “wifely duties”–his only obligation in that regard was letting me know to wake him up when I came to bed. It was as if he resented anything that made him have to think about, or make an effort for, anyone other than himself.

He got another job. Quit it, then went back, then quit again. The last summer we were together, his boys (21 and 18) were staying with us. They couldn’t believe how completely disconnected from responsibility he’d become. They were there to visit him, but he rarely left his WoW other than to grab a snack and chat for a few minutes a couple times a day.

After they heard we broke up (three months after the fact, from my oldest son, because their dad never bothered to tell them and I didn’t feel it was my place), his oldest emailed me to tell me how saddened he was at the thought that he might lose me–the only stable parent he’d ever really had–and how he’d always sort of figured I was his dad’s last shot at redemption. I told him that I’d always have room for him and his brother in my life, and that it sucks, but after more than ten years of trying, I was putting his dad’s redemption in his own hands where it belongs.

So far, he’s managed to get a full time job. But he waited until the $3000 I gave him (60% of our liquid assets, money my parents had given us to invest) was gone and he was $2000 into his overdraft before he did. So even now that he’s earning, it’s unlikely that he’ll be paying child support anytime soon. I pay all the travel expenses to get his kids over to him to visit, and sometimes send money so he can feed them, because I want them to have a dad. He agreed to pay our joint line of credit debt (used to buy his vehicle) when we separated, but I’ve been paying that since February so my credit won’t tank. And irony of ironies, he gets all the good credit for me paying it, because he’s the primary signor on it–I only get to share the bad credit if I don’t pay. But as they say, no good deed goes unpunished, right?

That’s the deal. That’s my story. So no, I don’t think he’s a guy who’s in any way deserving of any man’s sympathy here. Even his friends think he’s being a shit.

And I’m geeky and had a severe speech impediment up to college, so I saw the worst of female judgement and ridicule, where as I get the sense you had an easy time with men during much of your younger years. So what if I have issues with women for treating me like shit? Let me guess, I’m just supposed to take it like a man?

I did have an easy time with men. Men were for the most part my closest friends (until my ex-husband put an end to that). I had an easy time with everyone, in fact. I had friends in every clique and crowd at school and in the workplace–including the geeks–and often hung out with the “fat girls” and the “nerds” and any number of other misfits. In 13 years of waitressing, I can count the number of customers I’d deem “difficult” on two hands (because as I said before, I’m just that charming, lol), and in my small town of 3000 people, there are maybe five (including my ex) that I actively dislike.

I honestly don’t get people who ridicule anyone. It’s…just bizarre to me. I’ve occasionally baited people when they’re going out of their way to be dickheads, but for a speech impediment? Or for being fat, or having a big nose or whatever? Just does not compute. So I never really know how to deal with it when I come across it, other than to just give a pointed look and hope they get the message. It never happened to me much at all, despite my admitted weirdness (or maybe I’m just oblivious, heh).

It might be weird, I don’t know, but out of all the bad shit that’s gone down in my life, the stuff that keeps me awake at night, that has me fretting the most and often for years after, are the times I’ve wronged people. And if you ever want to make me cry, refusing to accept a heartfelt apology from me will do it.

I’m starting to become aware that I’m an oddity. Seems…sad that that’s the case. But whatev. As I said before, other people can do what they do. I do what I do.