A Sense-Free Opinion Piece


I posted this fisk earlier at the Zelman Partisans, but I kept it PG-rated. I’m posting it here as well, because we all need a good laugh at this dumbass’ expense.

The Washington Post editorial page editor tripped and his dick fell into a bout of honesty about the gun grabbers’ true intentions when it comes to our rights. This authoritarian swine named Fred Hiatt vomited forth this bit of douchebaggery entitled “A Gun-Free Society.” Given the fact that this beta male has seen it fit to at least be honest about the gun grabbers’ ultimate goal, I figured he deserved a fisk, so here we go.

Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

Here we go. A progtard “courageously” challenging the big, bad NRA and America’s gun owners from the safety and comfort of his computer. Because doing so in person would make him soil his unmentionables.


Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?

No. It sounds stupid, irrational, cowardly, and tyrannical.

Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

You mean the countries that experienced increases in violent crime subsequent to banning firearms? No.

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

Glad you can ascertain the emotions of millions of American gun owners. You must be psychic! Hell, personally, I’m just happy you’ve stopped being disingenuous invertebrates and have finally stated your final goal. It’s much easier to fight the enemy you know.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Considering that gun ownership is on the rise and more Americans than ever support the right to keep and bear arms, how are you planning to implement this cultural shift, Freddie?

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

It’s not succeeding, because we can see right through you. We can see through your lies, and we’ve discredited your duplicitous statistics. The fact that you don’t want to admit how badly you suck at this promoting gun control thingy doesn’t negate the sad reality that you do.

In response, a few states have tightened restrictions, a few states have loosened them. But as a nation — in Congress — we are stuck.

That’s because there’s this little document called the Constitution, and Congressleeches are a bit afraid to tread on it with too heavy a boot, lest the Great Unwashed figure out what they’re doing and kick them out of ofice.

Meanwhile the strategy of modest reform has its own vulnerabilities.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

Why, indeed? I’m sure you’ll tell us, Fredster.

To be clear, I believe the NRA is wrong on this, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is right.

Well, no shit! You don’t say! I couldn’t have guessed that from your irrational squawking that a gun-free utopia sounds oh-so logical.

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime. The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. Every gun in a home with children should have a trigger lock.

I note the deceptive wording here. “The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.” CAN? But it hasn’t. Even the majority of law enforcement officials believe that law is useless, and there has been zero evidence that these handgun purchase limits reduce crime. Nice try at obfuscation, Freddie.

And how long will you continue beating the “gun show loophole” strawman before you acknowledge that it does not exist and that your real aim is to eliminate private sales writ large? Fact is that gun show regulations are no different than other firearm laws.

Come on, Fred. You were doing so well at being honest! Why stop now?

And while you’re sniveling aimlessly that closing the nonexistent “loophole” will stop criminals from obtaining weapons, tell us why you think that your average thug will just walk away dejectedly after failing a background check at a gun show and not get a cheap pistol from a drug dealer down the street? “Darn, I thought I could get a gun at a gun show. I guess I won’t go rob that liquor store at gun point. Darn those laws closing the gun show loophole!” Go ahead! Try!

Fact is that less than one percent of guns used in criminal activity come from gun shows, but you need to blame something. You need to do something. You keep playing with your flaccid pee pee in hopes that something will come out of it, but fact is you’re impotent, so you have to pretend to be doing something to make yourself feel better.

But how many members of Congress will risk their jobs for modest, incremental reform that may or may not show up as a blip on the following year’s murder statistics? We’ve learned the answer to that question.

“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And repeating it again and again won’t make it any more true. And by the way, thanks for admitting that your proposed reforms are meaningless.

Fine, you say, but then why would those same members commit political suicide by embracing something bigger?

They won’t, of course. Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.

Oh, this ought to be good.

As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers — I get all that. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns. Societies change, populations evolve.

I guess Fred hasn’t noticed that the cultural shift that’s been going on has headed in the direction of both gay rights and gun rights? And that Americans are beginning to realize in bigger numbers that giving up their rights to tyrannical, self-absorbed narcissists in Washington may not be the way to go?  And maybe giving up your rights for no appreciable decrease in crime is not the way to go? And maybe, just maybe, Australians didn’t give up as many guns as Fred thinks they did.

And people are not immune, over time, to reason.

That’s why the cultural shift over time has been in favor of the Second Amendment. That gives me a warm fuzzy, while it makes Freddie here shit himself in rage and fear.

Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Wait! A progtard actually admits that black communities are decimated by violence? Oh, I shouldn’t get too excited. After all, it wold be politically incorrect to blame the actual people in those black communities for shooting one another! They’re not responsible! It’s those evil guns that are violating the civil rights of those black people who apparently aren’t shooting one another. /sarcasm

Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue.

Small children… According to the CDC, 147 children ages 0-9 died by firearm in 2013. It’s tragic, and it sucks. A lot. Know now many drowned? 568. Know how many died in fires? 266. These are small children, and yet, I don’t see you soiling your unmentionables at these tragic, preventable deaths.

Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue.

Is that why gun-free Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do?

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Oh, this is rich! Apparently a reporter, who cannot comprehend the plain language of the Second Amendment, feels himself qualified to accuse people whose job it is to actually interpret the Constitution of misinterpreting said plain language. Well… alrighty, then. How pedantically quaint.

I suppose Freddie considers himself an even bigger language expert than the late Roy Copperud, and would arrogantly announce that Mr. Copperud, who was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, who wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, who was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and was the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award, was also wrong on the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.

He was wrong because Fred FEELZ he was wrong! And GUNS ARE BAD! Because TEH FEELZ!

It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.

We’re certainly glad you’ve exhibited this bout of honesty, Freddie, and I hate to tell you this (not really), but we already knew what your long-term goal was. And guess what! The trend is still in favor of gun rights.

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

Hmmm, I assess with high confidence that 2.5 million annual armed self defense instances > 100,000 shot each year. But Fred must have taken common core math in school.

Plus, see above about Japan’s suicide rates, genius.

Without guns — with only kitchen knives at hand — some of those people would die. Most would still be living.

Really? See again about that high suicide rate in gun-free Japan. And if you’re trying to claim that violent criminals will cease being violent because guns are illegal, I have this beachfront property… in Nevada.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

That would require you to sit out of the conversation while adults are talking. Logic ain’t your strong suit.

The Virtue of Victimhood


The talented Cedar Sanderson and I got into a discussion this morning as she was writing this post. I’ll post a snippet here, but I urge you to go read her full article. She talks about message fiction and her refusal to conform to those who would pressure the reader to consume and enjoy miserable dark stories, merely because they’re miserable and dark.

Yes, this. This is the problem I’ve had with what we’ve dubbed message fiction. It’s not that there’s a message, because there is a message in most fiction, even if it is superficial. No, it’s that the message becomes a sermon, and the story a mere vehicle to convey the thoughts you are supposed to think. I want fiction that ignites my imagination, and not fiction that smothers it.

Mostly, I want fiction that conveys hope. We all know we’re not getting out of this alive. Life is a one-way street.

But life doesn’t have to be a dark and rainy street, filled with so much fog you’re lost and wandering aimlessly. Hope lights the way, and joy fills the paths with sunshine even when the going gets rough. This is what a story can bring to us, a firefly glimmer of hope in a dark time. Many good stories become a cloud of fireflies that can light the path all night long.

This led us to a discussion about why it is that the SJW crowd insists on promoting misery, suffering without hope or light as value, while blasting positive, entertaining stories as shallow and not worthy.

And dog forbid you disagree! They will chide, chastise, and denounce you. They will call you unspeakable names and accuse you of everything from racism to misogyny, because you fail to love and admire their contrived suffering and condemn their wrongdoings without issuing apologies for said wrongdoing by sticking the oozing sores of their victimhood in others’ faces.

The problem with these miserable mediocrities is that they equate suffering with value, and when they can’t find value within themselves, they make up suffering to substitute for that value and demand that we all worship their contrived wounds.

Yes, overcoming challenges is a part of life, and a noble one at that. The problem is that’s not what these people want to do. They want recognition without working for it. They want to be admired without actually having put the effort into overcoming their suffering. They want to be viewed as noble without being noble. And when they can’t find anything worthy within themselves to put out into the world, they contrive their victim status, stick that into the world’s face, and demand their oozing sores be admired.

They want to drown in their victimhood. Their ennui is their virtue, and anything else – anything happy, hopeful, or light – is just not up to their high standards. These are the same people who think that only ugly art is worth being called art, exactly because it’s ugly, because anything beautiful is too easy to admire. You must work to love something hideous. You must make an effort to admire something horrible. They put the onus on you – you must work to admire them – you must work to see their virtue – but they don’t need to work to make something you might admire.

It’s the lazy way out.

When I visited New Orleans in 2009, I saw some incredibly beautiful transgender women! They put a lot of effort into looking like women. Beautiful clothing, hair, makeup that was flawless. They felt like women, and they made a huge effort to BE women. I looked at them as women, because this is what they were.

Compare and contrast this with the SJW set who claim to be transgender, and demand that you refer to them by the gender of their choice, but look like train wrecks with 5 o’clock shadow and outlandish hair. They don’t want to do the work. It’s apparently too hard to be women, so they simply demand to be treated like women, and if you dare notice their flaws, you’re a transgender hater, you’re a misogynist, and you need to be destroyed.

That’s why they promote suffering as a virtue.

See, it’s too hard to overcome actual challenges, to work through your pain, to bust through those barriers and become a functioning, achieving human being. So instead, they choose to put that responsibility on their audiences. You must find beauty in their ugliness. You must find virtue in their misery. You must see the light in their gloom. They need not do the work to show it to you. Hell, they don’t need to make any effort to overcome it. You must love their oozing sores simply because they’re oozing sores and pretend they’re virtuous and good, while they rub that pus in your face. And if you can’t or won’t, you’re a hater and must be exposed as such.

I know many people who have suffered. Sexual abuse in the home. Rape, assault, discrimination… Hell, on rare occasions, I’ve opened the curtain and talked about my own experiences. But here’s the thing, real rape victims don’t rub that rape in others’ faces and demand you admire them for being victims. Real victims of abuse don’t hang that dirty laundry for others to gawk at and demand you admire it. They work to overcome it. They don’t whip out the victim card and tell you they’re better and more valuable than you because they’ve suffered. They simply work to make it better, to see hope, to take in as much joy and radiate as much positive energy as they can.

But no… work is a four-letter word in the SJW parlance.

phil work

It’s much easier to simply excrete an oozing sore, demand you worship it, and if you don’t, you’re a despicable misogynist, racist hater.

It’s much easier to demand that you find virtue in their victimhood than to actually overcome it and show strength, positivity, and the ability to overcome adversity. And if you don’t find that righteousness in their contrived anguish, you must not be profound enough to understand it, because of your privileged upbringing and those antiquated values that society has imprinted on your simplistic brain.

But it’s not enough to turn suffering into virtue. No, they need to turn the concept of suffering upside down as well!

You make yourself into a freak show and parade yourself all over the internet, complaining about how you can’t afford to do the things you want to do, because no one will buy your substandard work? It must be because people don’t like you because of your gender identity, sexual orientation, or looks.

You admit to having sexual feelings about little kids? You’re obviously a victim, because you’re a trans woman, and people must hate you for your gender identity rather than the fact that you’re a disgusting, twisted pedo who harbors sexual feelings for little kids.

Your mediocre work doesn’t get any play or sales? Must be because you’re transgender, don’t conform, non-binary gender, different, not because your work really sucks, and since you’re obviously reviled because of your gender choices, you’re a victim, and therefore virtuous, and therefore everyone must love your work – without even reading it.

No thanks, boys, girls, and those of you who aren’t sure. I would rather read literature that uplifts me and that is interesting and insightful. I’d rather not be throttled with a “message,” but find it on my own. I’d rather find virtue in the work’s merit, instead of sifting through the maggots of the author’s alleged “suffering” to find some semblance of quality. I will think and feel, using my own mind and my own values, and I will not conform to your rotting ideas that don’t just replace beauty with decay, but try to change the very nature of beauty and pass putrefaction off as joy!

And I certainly won’t allow you to lambaste me for it.

Interesting observation


I blogged about two things yesterday: the Davis toad and guns.

Now, granted the gun article was what I considered to be interesting media treatment of a hoplophobe in an apocalyptic environment, but I thought it was relevant, considering what a huge following “The Walking Dead” and its companion series, “Fear the Walking Dead” have. I find the media’s and the entertainment industries portrayal of a complete societal breakdown and its effects on numerous types of people (including those who refuse to acknowledge what’s happening, those who hate guns, those who are willing to victimize others, etc.) fascinating.

Politics is downstream from culture, and I think it’s vital that we understand how popular culture eventually impacts policy, as well as the political views of the public writ large.

And yet, the most heated discussion is taking place on a much more micro level. It’s Kim Davis that is getting all the press. It’s Kim Davis that’s getting all the hits on this blog. It’s the Kim Davis issue that’s getting the debate and the conversation.

Maybe the Davis issue is also a cultural one and deserves the debate. But she’s one person. One intransigent zealot, whose only claim to fame is the refusal to do her job, and brief imprisonment for contempt of court. And yet, she is the one that is causing contention in people who are otherwise allies on the majority of issues.

I don’t know about you guys, but I find this interesting. While this case will eventually have implications nationwide, I find social issues to be generally less critical to the survival of the republic. And frankly, had this case not been littering every news report, my Facebook timeline, my Twitter feed, and every other website I visit, I doubt I would have given it the time of day.

Maybe it’s just me, but Kim Davis just never interested me all that much. And yet, even though I published both posts around the same time of day, the Davis post is the one with scores of comments, while the post I, personally, find more interesting is barely getting a glance.

What I really hate about the Davis issue is that it has become so contentious, it’s causing a rift between people who generally otherwise are allies. There are some good, intelligent comments in response to that entry, but at the same time, I’m frustrated that someone whose only claim to fame is using the cover of religion to discriminate against people at least some of whom ostensibly put her in power and pay her salary, is causing said split when there are bigger, more important issues we face as a country.

The economy.

Resurgent Russia.

ISIL and terrorism writ large.

Soaring debt levels.

Possible government shutdown without a continuing resolution to keep the doors open, so to speak.

And never forget, we still have troops in Afghanistan. We still have service members dying in the war against terror. We still have security issues with which we must deal. But here we are… discussing Kim Davis. At least a good chunk of my distaste for this woman comes from this fact. It’s a micro issue in a world where macro problems are, by definition, much more significant.

Anyway, if anyone has a good analysis of the reason why this Davis woman is so much more interesting to discuss than issues such as gun control, foreign policy, national security, etc., please let me know. I’d love to get some insight.

Because, frankly, I’m a bit flummoxed.

Fear the Walking… gun


After initial resistance, because I’m generally not a fan of the zombie genre, I became one of the biggest fans of the show “The Walking Dead.” It’s not because I’ve suddenly become a zombie fan, but because the show portrays in very gritty, realistic detail how various personalities deal with an apocalyptic event. What I previously wrote about the original, I strongly echo in the AMC spinoff “Fear the Walking Dead.”

“The Walking Dead” is one of the best written shows out there. It injects gritty realism into what is an otherwise unlikely scenario about zombies stumbling around the countryside and feasting on flesh. Yes, children would die. Yes, a mother could conceivably be forced to deliver a child via Cesarian section with no anesthesia. Yes, that mother would die in the process, and her son could very well be forced to put a bullet in her head to prevent reanimation. Yes, there would be people who turn to cannibalism to survive. And yes, there could be individuals – youngsters even – who cannot comprehend the danger the dead represent when they reanimate, and without thought or malice kill their younger sister to “prove” that zombies represent no danger. And yes, there would be individuals strong enough to have to take out the threat – whether it’s a non-comprehending child murderer or an individual infected with the flu.

Even more realistic are the characters and their disparate ways of dealing with the situation.

“Fear the Walking Dead” deals with the tribulations of one family on the West Coast at the start of the outbreak. There’s the bratty, annoying, whining teenage daughter (Alicia). There’s the heroin addicted son (Nick). There’s the widowed mom (Madison) and her divorced boyfriend (Travis), who has an ex wife(Liza) and an annoying SJW caricature of a son (Chris).

They’re joined by an immigrant from El Salvador (Daniel) and his family (Griselda and Ofelia), who initially provide shelter for Travis and his ex and their son in their barber shop during LA riots where savages start destroying property due to what they claim to be a bogus police shooting. Mix the rioting savages with some already reanimated walkers, and you have chaos.

It is quite obvious that Daniel has come from some nasty shit in El Salvador. He knows and understands what needs to be done, and doesn’t hesitate to do it. While Travis tries to reason with his zombie neighbor, after seeing what should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain when he finds him chowing down on a dog, Daniel simply takes a shotgun and pulls the trigger, killing the walker. Griselda seems a very much old fashioned type of wife, who is all “Anything my husband says, I will do, because I trust him.” I don’t think it’s just the cultural subservience of women, but I think she’s definitely seen some trauma, and Daniel has been able to protect her in the past.

Madison has potential. She appears willing to do what needs to be done to protect her family. When their neighbor and close friend Susan turns and tries to eat Alicia (I really wish she had. That whining teenage angst drama got old after five minutes into the pilot episode), Madison fully intends to take out the zombie threat – this after she took out the principal of the school where she worked, her friend Arnie. You’ve got to have some intestinal fortitude to take out your friends, and more than that to tell your boyfriend’s ex wife that if you ever become a zombie, you want her to take you out and not Travis, because it would destroy him. That’s some grit right there. I think if there’s one criticism I would make of Madison is that she’s too much of a protective mom. Geeze, just be honest with your kids and tell them what is going on! It’s not like they’re too young to hear it, and maybe it will actually wake them up. Maybe Nick will find survival much more important than his drugs – and he’s already showing potential and understanding of the situation much more than the whining bitch of a boyfriend. And maybe Alicia will stop with the teenage drama queen act and actually contribute to the defense of her family. Madison is a typical mama bear, I think. She’s willing to do what it takes to survive.

The neighbor: Susan the neigbor was among the walking dead

Surprisingly, it’s Travis that whines that she shouldn’t. It’s Travis that refuses to neutralize the threat despite having seen it almost destroy his family. It’s Travis that whines, “You know how I feel about guns!” in protest when he finds Daniel teaching his commie kid Chris how to use a shotgun to defend himself. It’s Travis that prevents Madison from taking a hammer to Zombie Susan’s head, choosing instead to allow her to be trapped in her garden where her unsuspecting husband who returns from a business trip finds her and nearly becomes dinner until the military steps in.

Is Travis the kind of person you want on your team in the event of a zombie apocalypse? A panty-soiling coward, whose emotions prevent him from neutralizing obvious threats to his loved ones, and worse yet… whose hoplophobia is so severe, he does not see the utility of having firearms during a zombie apocalypse?

Sorry, but in any realistic world, Travis would be the first one to be come a Scooby snack for the Walkers. He’s such a pathetic hipster douche, that Daniel refuses to go with the family, because he’s so weak! How much of a clueless prog do you have to be that a guy would rather stay and defend his injured wife against zombies himself, rather than accompany you on a jaunt out of the city to avoid the chaos?

I realize that on the left coast, the realistic scenario would show all types of people – from the most clueless leftist, to the most hardened conservative – dealing with the chaos. But I also realize that in a realistic scenario, those whose political views prevent them from doing what it takes to protect themselves and their families, will be the first to be eliminated. So Travis had better man up and grow a pair, because right now, this dude is too stupid to live and will become a liability right quick. He needs to get over his intense dislike of those evil guns and learn how to use them right quick, if he wants to survive in this new reality. And he’d better quickly get it through his thick skull that there’s no reasoning with zombies.

Phil Sandifer: Doubling down on the stupid


So apparently Phildo, instead of backing slowly away from the Sarah Nyberg pedophilia fiasco or at the very least advocating some mental help for that particular burning dumpster, is now doubling down on the Teh Stoopid™. Because according to PedoPhil, exposing Sarah Nyberg’s twisted urges is much more reprehensible than her actually having them and having admitted to them publicly.

What. The. Hell.


My response to Phildo is above.

“@Nero” refers to the awesome Milo Yiannopoulos on Twitter, the Breitbart writer who pulls no punches in telling it like it is and does it in such a way as to make SJW heads explode all over the Interwebz. Phildo doesn’t like Milo much, because Milo is a gay man who refuses to conform to Phildo’s “gay people are victims of society and privilege” narrative. That makes me like Milo even more, but that’s beside the point. This is about Phildo, who doesn’t seem to think that finding children sexually appealing is an issue, but writing about it and exposing it is.

You know, I really hope Phildo continues down this road of assbaggery. All it’s going to do is is damage his side even more.


Sad Puppies 4 Rebloggery


Sad Puppies 4. It’s ON, bitches!

The beautiful and talented Sarah Hoyt, Kate Paulk, and Amanda S. Green are running this year’s Sad Puppies 4.  If you’re wondering how it will be run, here’s a snip:

The Hugo awards has entirely too small a voting and nominating pool. Five thousand votes is the largest number ever received? Two thousand nomination ballots? That’s piddly. For a field loved by millions, it’s nowhere near enough, and makes it easy for any small clique to corrupt the idea of awarding great SF and start giving themselves awards.

We want at least ten thousand nomination ballots. Tens of thousands of votes (which means tens of thousands of Hugo memberships, either supporting or attending). So many votes and voters that it’s almost impossible for any one group – and yes, that includes the Sad Puppies – to dominate anything.

So, SP4 is all about MOAR! More voters. More votes. More people. We want to make the Hugos bigger and more representative of fandom as a whole, to bring people in rather than give them an asterisk that looks kind of wrong (especially beside the rocket) to try to drive the “interlopers” out. SF is a big tent: we don’t want to kick out anyone, even writers of bad message fiction that makes puppies sad.

To that end, this thread will be the first of several to collect recommendations. There will also be multiple permanent threads (one per category) on the SP4 website where people can make comments. The tireless, wonderful volunteer Puppy Pack will be collating recommendations.

Notice nothing is said about politics. Nothing is said about race, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else. The goal – and you see it here and at Kate’s site in writing – is to bring more people to sci-fi fandom. Period. There will be no “slate.” There will be a list of recommendations hopefully from all walks of life and all sides of the political and social spectrum. This is the mission.

I accept.

Sarah’s Interview with Cathy Young (Part 2)

Comments Off on Sarah’s Interview with Cathy Young (Part 2)

This is the second part to the interview about which I blogged yesterday. 

Here’s a snippet. 

(5) Is there any merit to feminist critiques of how sci-fi/fantasy has traditionally portrayed women? Any thoughts on Kameron Hurley’s Hugo-winning “We Have Always Fought” essay?

Will I be penalized if I roll my eyes? There is this strange tendency among the Social Justice Warriors to behave as though they were fighting a “straw science fiction” that never existed. The truth is that, given the restrictions on women’s lives before being freed from some of our biological constraints by contraceptives, science fiction was one of the more accepting/enlightened fields ever for a woman to work in.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: