Five Minute Rant

[TomKnighton]

They definitely live up to their name. They get through stories at the speed of light it seems.

At least, they seem to reject mine at the speed of light

[LDWriter2]

They definitely live up to their name. They get through stories at the speed of light it seems.

At least, they seem to reject mine at the speed of light

Mine too. I have had a rejection in two hours. Which leaves doubt that he read the whole thing.....

[TomKnighton]

Possibly not. They have to get a lot of submissions, and they reject pretty quickly, so I suspect they start it off, and if it doesn't grab him, it's gone.

All the more reason to make it work in the first couple of paragraphs

[LDWriter2]

Possibly not. They have to get a lot of submissions, and they reject pretty quickly, so I suspect they start it off, and if it doesn't grab him, it's gone.

All the more reason to make it work in the first couple of paragraphs

Actually that was what I tried to imply.


But I finally sent in a story to Lightspeed. Actually one Fantasy and one SF. I decided to procrastinate writing on my Q2 story by sending out stories while looking for the Daily SF listing on ralan.com I noticed Lightspeed. Hey, I need to send them one so I did. Finally got that story to Daily too.

[TomKnighton]

I've got that same story at Daily Science Fiction as well. Who knows how that's going to work out. The more I read of what they publish, the less it reads like the kind of stuff I write. Or like to read, for that matter. Still, we'll see what we see.

[Ishmael]

I wrote a reply on the Blog thread to Bob's blog article on the Bechdel Test. Then I thought my reply sounded like a rant, so I moved it here.

As a prescriptive test to detect one form of discrimination the Bechdel Test cannot stand alone as an analytical tool.

It does not pretend to detect any other form of discrimination than misogyny and thus it would fail to detect misandry. I have recently come across a fair amount of misandry from female authors who apparently consider that two wrongs make a right. I can imagine that women find repugnant the description of stereotypical female-in-relation-to-male roles, but the portrayal of, or uncritical praise for, the stereotypical portrayal of male-in-relation-to-female roles just alienates men who already understand the problem. 'Men' are not 'all the same' any more than women are.

It automatically fails any story of human isolation; hence Robinson Crusoe is a sexist story.

It automatically fails any close study of a heterosexual couple, even when not in a relationship with each other.
A great example is 'The Cold Equations' by Tom Godwin.

It has a tendency to fail on superficialities a story that actually examines stereotypical relationships in an innovative way, such as 'The Taming of the Shrew'.

I don't like prescriptivism about what stories must or must not include. I really don't like the modern taking-offence industry. I really really don't like the taking-offence-on-behalf-of-others-who-might-be-offended industry. This last regularly causes disharmony by ignorant stereotyping of the very people upon whose behalf offence is taken. Usually they are stereotyped as the sort of people who take unnecessary offence.

Taking offence leads to anger and retaliation. Constructive engagement is better. I may be wrong, but I doubt that any liberal reformer would mean to be taken so literally as to result in 'Newspeak' rules.

Descends from soapbox. Mops brow. Goes off to hide from the wrath to come.

[E.CaimanSands]

Oh no no nooo. This isn't the spirit behind the Five Minute Rant thread. Here we're meant to vent about our rejections/inevitable failures. For instance:

Swampslush Magazine rejected my story. How dare they. My story was a work of genius. Their magazine must be a pile of steaming gator dung. All their first readers must be fungal spores ejected by the Great Mushroom of the Deeper Bayou. All their editors must be horse fly larvae that will never hatch. All their subscribers must be poisonous toads whose taste for fiction extends to said gator dung. I shall never submit to them again. They are not worthy of my brilliance.

[Isto]

Oh no no nooo. This isn't the spirit behind the Five Minute Rant thread. Here we're meant to vent about our rejections/inevitable failures. For instance:

Swampslush Magazine rejected my story. How dare they. My story was a work of genius. Their magazine must be a pile of steaming gator dung. All their first readers must be fungal spores ejected by the Great Mushroom of the Deeper Bayou. All their editors must be horse fly larvae that will never hatch. All their subscribers must be poisonous toads whose taste for fiction extends to said gator dung. I shall never submit to them again. They are not worthy of my brilliance.

Oh, I do admire you from afar!

[Isto]

I wrote a reply on the Blog thread to Bob's blog article on the Bechdel Test. Then I thought my reply sounded like a rant, so I moved it here.

As a prescriptive test to detect one form of discrimination the Bechdel Test cannot stand alone as an analytical tool.

It does not pretend to detect any other form of discrimination than misogyny and thus it would fail to detect misandry. I have recently come across a fair amount of misandry from female authors who apparently consider that two wrongs make a right. I can imagine that women find repugnant the description of stereotypical female-in-relation-to-male roles, but the portrayal of, or uncritical praise for, the stereotypical portrayal of male-in-relation-to-female roles just alienates men who already understand the problem. 'Men' are not 'all the same' any more than women are.

It automatically fails any story of human isolation; hence Robinson Crusoe is a sexist story.

It automatically fails any close study of a heterosexual couple, even when not in a relationship with each other.
A great example is 'The Cold Equations' by Tom Godwin.

It has a tendency to fail on superficialities a story that actually examines stereotypical relationships in an innovative way, such as 'The Taming of the Shrew'.

I don't like prescriptivism about what stories must or must not include. I really don't like the modern taking-offence industry. I really really don't like the taking-offence-on-behalf-of-others-who-might-be-offended industry. This last regularly causes disharmony by ignorant stereotyping of the very people upon whose behalf offence is taken. Usually they are stereotyped as the sort of people who take unnecessary offence.

Taking offence leads to anger and retaliation. Constructive engagement is better. I may be wrong, but I doubt that any liberal reformer would mean to be taken so literally as to result in 'Newspeak' rules.

Descends from soapbox. Mops brow. Goes off to hide from the wrath to come.

I reread this with my fake British accent saying the word "offence". Love that accent. No one can be more
justly outraged than the Brits. That being said, I really don't know what you're on about. I suppose I should take
a look at this Bechdel test thing before I voice my opinion. But, generally speaking, taking automatic offence because a person has this or that point of view doesn't promote good listening. No one is 100 percent wrong or
right. That's kinda what's wrong with our Congress and no one learns a thing. I seem to have a gift for causing offence (quite unintentionally, I assure you), so have some experience with outraged people.

[E.CaimanSands]

Oh no no nooo. This isn't the spirit behind the Five Minute Rant thread. Here we're meant to vent about our rejections/inevitable failures. For instance:

Swampslush Magazine rejected my story. How dare they. My story was a work of genius. Their magazine must be a pile of steaming gator dung. All their first readers must be fungal spores ejected by the Great Mushroom of the Deeper Bayou. All their editors must be horse fly larvae that will never hatch. All their subscribers must be poisonous toads whose taste for fiction extends to said gator dung. I shall never submit to them again. They are not worthy of my brilliance.

Oh, I do admire you from afar!

Why thank you. I believe Gator was doing her best Douglas Adams impression.

[Ishmael]

That being said, I really don't know what you're on about. I suppose I should take
a look at this Bechdel test thing before I voice my opinion. But, generally speaking, taking automatic offence because a person has this or that point of view doesn't promote good listening.

That is pretty much what I'm on about.

Of course it is always tricky to criticise offence-takers, because they tend to respond with reflex accusations of bigotry. In fact the prejudice is their own.

[Martin L. Shoemaker]

That being said, I really don't know what you're on about. I suppose I should take
a look at this Bechdel test thing before I voice my opinion. But, generally speaking, taking automatic offence because a person has this or that point of view doesn't promote good listening.

That is pretty much what I'm on about.

Of course it is always tricky to criticise offence-takers, because they tend to respond with reflex accusations of bigotry. In fact the prejudice is their own.

Hey! I thought I was the troublemaker around here!

[Lin]

I wrote a reply on the Blog thread to Bob's blog article on the Bechdel Test. Then I thought my reply sounded like a rant, so I moved it here.

As a prescriptive test to detect one form of discrimination the Bechdel Test cannot stand alone as an analytical tool.

It does not pretend to detect any other form of discrimination than misogyny and thus it would fail to detect misandry. I have recently come across a fair amount of misandry from female authors who apparently consider that two wrongs make a right. I can imagine that women find repugnant the description of stereotypical female-in-relation-to-male roles, but the portrayal of, or uncritical praise for, the stereotypical portrayal of male-in-relation-to-female roles just alienates men who already understand the problem. 'Men' are not 'all the same' any more than women are.

It automatically fails any story of human isolation; hence Robinson Crusoe is a sexist story.

It automatically fails any close study of a heterosexual couple, even when not in a relationship with each other.
A great example is 'The Cold Equations' by Tom Godwin.

It has a tendency to fail on superficialities a story that actually examines stereotypical relationships in an innovative way, such as 'The Taming of the Shrew'.

I think you're missing the point of the Bechdel test (and not just you--I think that this is something many people on both sides of the issue misconstrue). It was never intended to be an actual test used on all works to diagnose whether or not the work is sexist. It was created by a cartoonist as a humorous way to illustrate how many movies neglect to give their women characters any interests beyond the men characters. Of course it fails as a prescriptive tool. It's useful as a critique of a larger issue, not necessarily individual works.

Food for thought, though: movies that passed the Bechdel test turned more of a profit on average than those that didn't. So it has some practical implications as well.

[Isto]

That being said, I really don't know what you're on about. I suppose I should take
a look at this Bechdel test thing before I voice my opinion. But, generally speaking, taking automatic offence because a person has this or that point of view doesn't promote good listening.

That is pretty much what I'm on about.

Of course it is always tricky to criticise offence-takers, because they tend to respond with reflex accusations of bigotry. In fact the prejudice is their own.

Ok. I looked it up. I consider myself a feminist of sorts. And, because of that, I totally fail the 'test' time and time again. One of my stories never names my female protagonist. Nor does she talk to another woman (or really anyone else after the first page) which is quite the point. She is socially invisible. She dissolves before our eyes. She is every woman you pass in the hallway, grocery store, sidewalk that is seen as an obstacle but not a person. In another of my stories, a woman disrespects herself, acts in a very stereotypical way, until she's forced to realize that she's better than that. She grows into a very strong character if one is patient enough to watch it happen. Not the main plot, but important for the world-building. Now for MY rant. I am SOOOO frustrated by the arbitrary rules of fiction. One person says we need X, Y, and Z within a specific number of pages. Not too many. Not too few. Stop and paint the scene. Name and describe the people. What are they wearing? Do I care? Oh, it's moving too slowly. Where's the chase scene? The violence? What the...? It's fiction. Aren't the twists and turns... the mystery, the unfolding ... part of the joy of reading? Are we so impatient that we can't kick back and enjoy the ride? whew.
Almost done. When a publisher holds a story for so long that a personal apology is enclosed with the rejection, I just wish they'd toss a crumb as to why. Is this 5 minute rant supposed to make me feel better? Can't say it did.

[Ishmael]

Food for thought, though: movies that passed the Bechdel test turned more of a profit on average than those that didn't. So it has some practical implications as well.

I would suggest that a way of making sure people realise that something is not a test is not to call it a test and not to draw conclusions from what passes or fails it.

It might be that male writers hesitate to draw detailed female characters because they are not sure of their ability to understand a woman's psyche. This is especially true if one's early stories contain autobiographical elements. The first thing a male learns about women (other than immediate family) tends to be how women react to one specific male, viz. himself. What his friends say about women will depend largely upon what the peer group expects them to say; hence stereotyping. To get past that stage and develop genuine understanding is beyond a lot of people, including some writers. It does not make them misogynists, or even bad writers, just shallow in this particular respect.

I have greatly valued the advice that female members of this forum have been willing to give me. I have been encouraged to introduce more rounded female characters into my work and now I feel able to write about female protagonists. I still tend to worry until I've run the story past one or two female reviewers though.

It can work the other way. A suggested explanation for boys being discouraged from reading in the UK is that children's literature is dominated by female editors and reviewers who tend to exclude technical issues and other traditional interests of boys as well as of girls who share such interests.

[LDWriter2]

That being said, I really don't know what you're on about. I suppose I should take
a look at this Bechdel test thing before I voice my opinion. But, generally speaking, taking automatic offence because a person has this or that point of view doesn't promote good listening.

That is pretty much what I'm on about.

Of course it is always tricky to criticise offence-takers, because they tend to respond with reflex accusations of bigotry. In fact the prejudice is their own.

Ok. I looked it up. I consider myself a feminist of sorts. And, because of that, I totally fail the 'test' time and time again. One of my stories never names my female protagonist. Nor does she talk to another woman (or really anyone else after the first page) which is quite the point. She is socially invisible. She dissolves before our eyes. She is every woman you pass in the hallway, grocery store, sidewalk that is seen as an obstacle but not a person. In another of my stories, a woman disrespects herself, acts in a very stereotypical way, until she's forced to realize that she's better than that. She grows into a very strong character if one is patient enough to watch it happen. Not the main plot, but important for the world-building. Now for MY rant. I am SOOOO frustrated by the arbitrary rules of fiction. One person says we need X, Y, and Z within a specific number of pages. Not too many. Not too few. Stop and paint the scene. Name and describe the people. What are they wearing? Do I care? Oh, it's moving too slowly. Where's the chase scene? The violence? What the...? It's fiction. Aren't the twists and turns... the mystery, the unfolding ... part of the joy of reading? Are we so impatient that we can't kick back and enjoy the ride? whew.
Almost done. When a publisher holds a story for so long that a personal apology is enclosed with the rejection, I just wish they'd toss a crumb as to why. Is this 5 minute rant supposed to make me feel better? Can't say it did.

I have been thinking on this since it first came up. I pretty much agree with the sentiments stated in these posts. In fact I have been thinking of doing a rant on my blog about Political Correctness in writing. I read one writer--as far as I could figure it's someone who doesn't have many stories or novels published--who stated it is our responsibility to include all typed of minorities in our writing. No, it's not. I have done a story where the MC is deaf and yet saves the day and I have included racial groups in some of my tale but that's because there are racial groups, so in any fairly large size group there would be people of different races.

I have even ran into that with one story for WotF, where two or three people thought Dave would reject the story just because of how I did the female MC.

There is more I could say but it's late tonight.

[george nik.]

Now for MY rant. I am SOOOO frustrated by the arbitrary rules of fiction. One person says we need X, Y, and Z within a specific number of pages. Not too many. Not too few. Stop and paint the scene. Name and describe the people. What are they wearing? Do I care? Oh, it's moving too slowly. Where's the chase scene? The violence? What the...? It's fiction. Aren't the twists and turns... the mystery, the unfolding ... part of the joy of reading? Are we so impatient that we can't kick back and enjoy the ride? whew.

I totally agree. I think most editors of the top pro magazines are completely out of touch with what the readers like to read.

Anyway, when people advise you to follow all these rules to have better chances of getting accepted by WOTF or the top mags, that's very nice of them because it's true and they're really helpful. But when someone tells you that following all these rules makes you write better, I don't believe that's true, it's just their subjective opinion. Most of the best stories I've ever read break a lot of those rules.

[s_c_baker]

I think you're missing the point of the Bechdel test (and not just you--I think that this is something many people on both sides of the issue misconstrue). It was never intended to be an actual test used on all works to diagnose whether or not the work is sexist. It was created by a cartoonist as a humorous way to illustrate how many movies neglect to give their women characters any interests beyond the men characters. Of course it fails as a prescriptive tool. It's useful as a critique of a larger issue, not necessarily individual works.

Yes, this.

In fact I have been thinking of doing a rant on my blog about Political Correctness in writing. I read one writer--as far as I could figure it's someone who doesn't have many stories or novels published--who stated it is our responsibility to include all typed of minorities in our writing. No, it's not. I have done a story where the MC is deaf and yet saves the day and I have included racial groups in some of my tale but that's because there are racial groups, so in any fairly large size group there would be people of different races.

As for "political correctness," the term kind of makes me cringe, since it's so often used by the dominant cultural group (i.e. straight white males) to mean "how come I can't be racist/sexist/homophobic in public any more?" (see this excellent post: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/homepage.html)

Clearly, writers shouldn't just include non-straight-white-males out of some sort of weird mandate (and I don't think anybody expects them to), but at the same time that realization that "reality is made up of more than straight white males" is important. Gay men, lesbians, transgendered persons, Africans, atheists, women, Chinese, Indians, and (God help us) even the French all exist in reality, and are in fact real people with real lives and real personal beings. Good fiction has to recognize that or it runs the risk of perpetuating the fallacy that "white straight male" is the default human being, and everyone else is an aberrant weirdo and/or less important.

Note I don't think this is what you are arguing. But I'd discourage you from ranting about "Political Correctness" (especially in caps like that) unless you want to be thought to be a bigot who is tired of not being able to be a bigot.

A suggested explanation for boys being discouraged from reading in the UK is that children's literature is dominated by female editors and reviewers who tend to exclude technical issues and other traditional interests of boys as well as of girls who share such interests.

This sounds like anti-feminist crap to me. Where did you hear it? I would suspect that boys are "discouraged" from reading not because of the actions of women, but because alpha-male culture in the UK is much like alpha-male culture in the US: all about being strong, "cool," violent, and angry. Reading, unfortunately, just isn't cool.

[s_c_baker]

I would suggest that a way of making sure people realise that something is not a test is not to call it a test and not to draw conclusions from what passes or fails it.

Have you seen the context of the original? It was pretty clearly not supposed to be a prescriptive thing:


Points two and three are more important anyway. The idea behind the "test" is whether or not the film-makers are treating women like people or whether they're treating women like love/lust objects. You don't have to be able to write OMG THE MOST CONVINCING FEMALE CHARACTER EVARRR to write good fiction, surely. But it's sure much more interesting to realize that 50% of the world exists as more than a convenient repository for sperm and/or romantic feelings, and that that part of the world can do things other than 1) have a baby or 2) be raped or 3) be pursued with points 1 and/or 2 in mind.

Here's another sarcastic comic strip (by Ferrett Steinmetz, whose name might sound familiar) that gets the point across in an over-the-top manner:

[Ishmael]

A study reported in The Times pointed out that in the past two years all the judges of the UK's most prestigious children's book awards were women. Of reviews of children's books in national newspapers around two thirds to four fifths were by women, depending on genre. A parliamentary commission has found that boys' reading ages lag girls by a year.

Now I don't reason post hoc ergo propter hoc but neither would I dismiss the theory as irrelevant. I understand perfectly that in the vast majority of cases discrimination will flow the other way. I would rather it didn't flow either way.

[s_c_baker]

A study reported in The Times pointed out that in the past two years all the judges of the UK's most prestigious children's book awards were women. Of reviews of children's books in national newspapers around two thirds to four fifths were by women, depending on genre. A parliamentary commission has found that boys' reading ages lag girls by a year.

Now I don't reason post hoc ergo propter hoc but neither would I dismiss the theory as irrelevant. I understand perfectly that in the vast majority of cases discrimination will flow the other way. I would rather it didn't flow either way.

Unless there's actual data to support any correlation, it seems pretty irrelevant to me. I also think it's kind of dangerous to say that women being more successful in winning children's book awards than men equals discrimination. (Although it is pretty odd to see that all the judges were women, for the two CILIP awards there was fairly equal gender representation, so I'm not sure it's the Feminazi-invasion some people may think anyway. Also, I guess it'd depend on which awards are defined as "the most prestigious." I found children's book awards with male judges.)

For a data point, all the super-high-profile children's book authors in the US I can think of off the top of my head are male (Lemony Snicket, Eric Carle, Mo Willems), and there's a similar gap in boys' and girls' reading habits over here. Although I may just be unaware of the female writers in the children's book range--all the ones I can think of are middle grade or higher.

While it's certainly possible that the prevalence of female authors and "girl-targeted" books play some sort of role, I'd find it hard to believe that that and that alone would account for boys not reading as much, as early, or as easily.



Err, wasn't this area of the forum supposed to be for ranting about getting stories rejected, at some point?

[LDWriter2]

Boy has this opened a discussion....

As for "political correctness," the term kind of makes me cringe, since it's so often used by the dominant cultural group (i.e. straight white males) to mean "how come I can't be racist/sexist/homophobic in public any more?" (see this excellent post: http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/homepage.html)

There is a lot to say here but I don't want to get too much into something that is probably political. Perhaps I should say thank you for the benefit of the doubt.

Just enough to say that your observation of the term Political Correct probably depends on which way the person who thinks it leans. I hang-at least voluntarily-with people who believe it is a way to stifle debate. A group no longer want to debate-discuss or even argue about certain items so they just yell until the other side leaves. And that PC apology part of which is contradictory they put out. It's happened literally on collage campuses and in a recent case to the guy over at Mozilla. And PC people tend to not like offending certain groups of people while not caring if certain other groups are offended.


As to the rest of what you said about the various racial groups as I said in my last post I agree with that sentiment.


It's the demand to include all races and such that I don't like.

But on another level I see variety in the books I read. Maybe I pick the right books and short stories but there are strong women heroes and even gays and hispanics as well as asians. Not every race is represented I see more than some people want to credit.

Oh, I mentioned I had a story about a deaf girl. In my book two of what I hope is a series I will introduce a mage in a wheel chair--she will end up helping my MC. A hispanic I mentioned in the first book will be around more. I do that because they are around not to be fair or because I have to. In the first book I use a stereotype white guy as one of three villains. The other two I don't say what race they are even though it will be probably assumed they are white. But to me it doesn't matter to the story. They are bad people and the color of their skin has nothing to with that.

Even though I must admit that I have given in to PCness a time or two. I have wanted to make certain bad guys a different race but decided I didn't want certain readers to think I thought all of that race are bad. It didn't really matter to the story all that much so I decided to leave them alone.

[Ishmael]

This sounds like anti-feminist crap to me.

Unless there's actual data to support any correlation, it seems pretty irrelevant to me.

While it's certainly possible that the prevalence of female authors and "girl-targeted" books play some sort of role, I'd find it hard to believe that that and that alone would account for boys not reading as much, as early, or as easily.

Welcome back.

The careful reader will have noted that I never even said that this certainly was an explanation, let alone the only explanation. I am sure the thirteen female judges of the CILIP panel selected what they believed were the best works. It is entirely possible that male judges would have made similar choices if given the chance.

It is also possible that those putting forward works for consideration have some regard to who will be doing the judging. That does seem to be a feature of WotF.

I am as wary of the potential for gender bias in this field as in any other. It is a truism, given the pyramidal ability distribution, that if you confine your candidate selection to one sex you are forced to accept candidates from further down the ability scale than if you were to select from both sexes. The same applies to racial, religious etc. discrimination. Apart from being immoral it is inefficient.

Now if you don't like a particular outcome you investigate each and every possible cause. You don't begin by excluding some possible causes on arbitrary grounds. There is a correlation. Some correlations are quite spurious. The birth rate in Lapland is well correlated with the incidence of storks, I was once told. Some correlations however are not spurious. The point of the article was that a study needs to be done.

[Martin L. Shoemaker]

My new time travel story (formerly "Variation on a Theme from Bradbury", but I thought better of it) just got bounced by those cruel fiends from Clarkesworld!

RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT!

Oh, well, off to Duotrope...

(FYI: I was advised by Mike Resnick to never publicly announce rejections OR submissions, only sales. So the only place you'll hear this news from me is here among the writer crowd, not out in public. I offer this in the spirit of sharing what we have learned. Follow it or ignore it, only you can decide.)

[E.CaimanSands]

My new time travel story (formerly "Variation on a Theme from Bradbury", but I thought better of it) just got bounced by those cruel fiends from Clarkesworld!

RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT!

...their first readers must be fungal spores ejected by the Great Mushroom of the Deeper Bayou.... ...their editors must be horse fly larvae that will never hatch. ...their subscribers...

Er, yes, we get it, Gator.

[s_c_baker]

My new time travel story (formerly "Variation on a Theme from Bradbury", but I thought better of it) just got bounced by those cruel fiends from Clarkesworld!

RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT!

Oh, well, off to Duotrope...

(FYI: I was advised by Mike Resnick to never publicly announce rejections OR submissions, only sales. So the only place you'll hear this news from me is here among the writer crowd, not out in public. I offer this in the spirit of sharing what we have learned. Follow it or ignore it, only you can decide.)

Quick, Martin! To Crossed Genres! (Time travel theme submission window ends April 30th)

[s_c_baker]

Welcome back.

The careful reader will have noted that I never even said that this certainly was an explanation, let alone the only explanation. I am sure the thirteen female judges of the CILIP panel selected what they believed were the best works. It is entirely possible that male judges would have made similar choices if given the chance.

It is also possible that those putting forward works for consideration have some regard to who will be doing the judging. That does seem to be a feature of WotF.

I am as wary of the potential for gender bias in this field as in any other. It is a truism, given the pyramidal ability distribution, that if you confine your candidate selection to one sex you are forced to accept candidates from further down the ability scale than if you were to select from both sexes. The same applies to racial, religious etc. discrimination. Apart from being immoral it is inefficient.

Now if you don't like a particular outcome you investigate each and every possible cause. You don't begin by excluding some possible causes on arbitrary grounds. There is a correlation. Some correlations are quite spurious. The birth rate in Lapland is well correlated with the incidence of storks, I was once told. Some correlations however are not spurious. The point of the article was that a study needs to be done.

Fair enough. I thought we were just arguing for the sake of argument.

(For what it's worth, I didn't mean to imply that you were spouting "anti-feminist crap," just that the article you referenced was.)

[Ishmael]

Fair enough. I thought we were just arguing for the sake of argument.

Moi?!!!???!!!!

[s_c_baker]

Fair enough. I thought we were just arguing for the sake of argument.

Moi?!!!???!!!!

Well, you are a trained philosopher!

[LDWriter2]

My new time travel story (formerly "Variation on a Theme from Bradbury", but I thought better of it) just got bounced by those cruel fiends from Clarkesworld!

RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT! RANT!

Oh, well, off to Duotrope...

(FYI: I was advised by Mike Resnick to never publicly announce rejections OR submissions, only sales. So the only place you'll hear this news from me is here among the writer crowd, not out in public. I offer this in the spirit of sharing what we have learned. Follow it or ignore it, only you can decide.)

Actually not much of a rant--maybe a minutes worth


But I can relate.