Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:21:27 -0400
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Worldcon news
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Well, if they fly to the con, you could ask the airport strip-searchers...

-- Mike B.

Michael Walsh wrote:
> & how do you know the gender of the author?
>
> Two words:  James Tiptree.
>
> mjw
>
>>>> Madeleine Yeh <myeh at wap.org> 08/10/09 9:39 AM >>>
>    What about a category for the short story by the best
> male author and if there are no good  stories by a male
> authors give it to the most tolerable story by a male
> author.
>      Madeleine
>
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 23:07:03 -0400
>   "Mike B." <yahoo at omniphile.com> wrote:
>> Michael Walsh wrote:
>>> The WSFS Business Meeting had a last minute
>>> constitutional admendment =
>>> proposal that the meeting declined to consider, hence
>>> there was no debate: =
>>>
>>> "We've received one piece of late new business for the
>>> WSFS Business =
>>> Meeting, submitted just before the deadline:  A proposal
>>> that would =
>>> require that in each of the written-fiction Hugo award
>>> categories, if no =
>>> selected nominee has a female author or co-author, the
>>> highest-ranked work =
>>> with a female author or co-author from the "top 15
>>> nominees" list would be =
>>> added to the nominations in that category."
>> What a stupid proposal!  It manages, in one short
>> paragraph, to be
>> sexist, condescending, and incompetent!
>>
>> Sexist should be obvious.
>>
>> Condescending in that it presumes that female authors
>> need a quota
>> system to win a Hugo.  They've done it before without
>> such help, and I
>> doubt they need it now.  C.J. Cheryh, for example, has 5
>> of them I
>> think, and was nominated for at last one more.  Seems
>> all you have to be
>> is good.
>>
>> Incompetent in that it doesn't deal with the situation
>> where there are
>> no female-authored or co-authored nominees in the "top
>> 15 nominees" list.
>>
>> I'm not surprised that they declined to consider it.  If
>> they had, I'd
>> consider putting one in requiring that there be at least
>> one deaf
>> author, one blind author, one lame author, one
>> illiterate author and one
>> author over 6'5" tall (hey, I might write something
>> someday...).
>>
>> -- Mike B.
>>
>