I just looked through the articles you linked to and haven’t noticed anything that disagrees with my summary (I have also looked through many others you did not link to before posting my comment). Perhaps you could describe what specific additional information you think my summary is missing.
I’m not interested in having a discussion of the incident; I’m interested in directing readers of your comment to where they can find out more. Any particular sources you suggest?
Well, the sources you side are as decent as any in conveying the facts once one gets past the fact that they’re written as insane troll logic diatribes (or rather two are such diatribes and one was written by someone begging for mercy from said insane trolls). As for sources I’d recommend well Andrew Fox’s and Sarah Hoyt’s accounts are more reasonable, but they may come off as alarmist exaggeration until one realizes how common the insane trolls are.
One of the more obvious details noted in fubarobfusco’s articles is the complaints about how the articles about the female authors had much attention to female authors’ physical appearances. That was a major source of the complaints, especially in the context that one would not see similar such remarks about male authors. This isn’t the only difference, only one of the ones that jumps out.
One of the more obvious details noted in fubarobfusco’s articles is the complaints about how the articles about the female authors had much attention w [sic] to female authors’ physical appearances.
There’s a severe scale difference here in description. This wasn’t just complements but more strong language. Frankly, I’m inclined to think the whole thing did get blown out of proportion, although I suspect that the primary reasons for it had as much to do with the never ending internal politics of SFWA which seems to spend more of its time as a drama factory than anything else, as much as it had to do with feminism. But even given that, it still seemed like your summary downplayed the concerns.
Incidentally, I’m slightly curious if you downvoted my comment and fubarobfusco’s comment; both comments were downvoted within a few seconds of your replies. I don’t particular care much about karma one way or another, but it probably isn’t a great idea to downvote people one is having a discussion with if one is going to have any minimal hope of caring out a productive conversation. Among other issues, it can easily increase cognitive dissonance levels and make it substantially harder to accept an argument from the person one is talking to.
I just looked through the articles you linked to and haven’t noticed anything that disagrees with my summary (I have also looked through many others you did not link to before posting my comment). Perhaps you could describe what specific additional information you think my summary is missing.
I’m not interested in having a discussion of the incident; I’m interested in directing readers of your comment to where they can find out more. Any particular sources you suggest?
Well, the sources you side are as decent as any in conveying the facts once one gets past the fact that they’re written as insane troll logic diatribes (or rather two are such diatribes and one was written by someone begging for mercy from said insane trolls). As for sources I’d recommend well Andrew Fox’s and Sarah Hoyt’s accounts are more reasonable, but they may come off as alarmist exaggeration until one realizes how common the insane trolls are.
One of the more obvious details noted in fubarobfusco’s articles is the complaints about how the articles about the female authors had much attention to female authors’ physical appearances. That was a major source of the complaints, especially in the context that one would not see similar such remarks about male authors. This isn’t the only difference, only one of the ones that jumps out.
Um, I noted that in my summary.
There’s a severe scale difference here in description. This wasn’t just complements but more strong language. Frankly, I’m inclined to think the whole thing did get blown out of proportion, although I suspect that the primary reasons for it had as much to do with the never ending internal politics of SFWA which seems to spend more of its time as a drama factory than anything else, as much as it had to do with feminism. But even given that, it still seemed like your summary downplayed the concerns.
Incidentally, I’m slightly curious if you downvoted my comment and fubarobfusco’s comment; both comments were downvoted within a few seconds of your replies. I don’t particular care much about karma one way or another, but it probably isn’t a great idea to downvote people one is having a discussion with if one is going to have any minimal hope of caring out a productive conversation. Among other issues, it can easily increase cognitive dissonance levels and make it substantially harder to accept an argument from the person one is talking to.