From: "Madeleine Yeh" <myeh at wap.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Worldcon news
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:13:47 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

     I look in my crystal ball.

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:19:06 -0400
  "Michael Walsh" <mjw at press.jhu.edu> 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.
>>
>