The Spearhead on Sci-Fi: NO GIRLS ALLOWED!

Children of Men was written by P.D. James, not anyone named Lessing. Not only is he part of the reason so many women I know hate science fiction, he's also not checking his facts.

I am actually kind of boggling at the stupidity of the way he puts things.
<i>However, men know well that most young women, if presented a magic button that would make most men (average joes) “gay” they’d break their fingers pushing it.</li>
Seriously? I'm not sure if they get this from a) taking slashers at ff.net too seriously or b) by just having a really f*cking rigid idea of masculinity that makes everyone who isn't Conan potentially effeminate and thus gay, but it's such spectacular bull that I don't know where to start.

I think traditionally, in scifi, men has written more hard sf, and women have written more anthro sf; it sort of goes with what we're raised to value. But that's not a rigid rule at all, and even if it were, there have been women writing queer anthro scifi since the seventies; Whiskey started complaining thirty years too late.

Besides, I'm a nerd. I defend nerds whenever I can. But men (grown men, not prepubescent boys, but adult human being who really ought to know better) who use their nerddom as an excuse to be sexist pricks, heaping misogyny over the women unfortunate enough to cross their path, have absolutely none of my affection. Or patience, even.

What about the straight men who like their sci-fi more plot driven (including the exploration of "emotional" storylines involving characters that form bonds with each other)? I guess they don't count just like the gays, the lesbos, the bis and the stupid women. I'm so tired of homophobic and emotionally repressed men dictating to other people who don't fit into their category of acceptable human beings what we should like and how we should feel and what we should think. Life is bigger than you, people are not like you, and it's okay. There is more than enough room for all of us to get our sci-fi on, stop hatin!

I have to say, there's a big part of me that just... doesn't get it. Sci-Fi being overrun with emotional, relationship-and-domesticity oriented women? Is this the equivalent of a liberal who spends all his/her time buried in the conservative media and never realizes there is a whole lot more to the internet than that?

One warning: I view sci-fi as being a whole lot more than a rigidly defined set of books/tv shows/ movies -- there are also videogames with a sci-fi spin, enormous fan communities for a lot of stuff, and lots and lots of stuff that falls partly in sci-fi and partly in other stuff.

But even if I limit myself within that definition, I see lots of sci-fi that's "Big Idea" Based (though I'd love to argue his definition of "Big Ideas", because I get the feeling that something like Left Hand of Darkness wouldn't count for him, but certainly does for me), and also stuff that's more intimate and personal. How about: what if 'fabric of time' started ripping? Current answer: Primeval -- which has dinosaurs, lots of gunplay, and lots of men trudging around being manly and having girls swoon over them. And it's an awesome show. Doctor Who. Torchwood.

If you look at the lineup of shows that, say, Syfy runs (to make it American), we've got the Stargate Franchise, which has overall balanced pretty well between Ideas, Explosions, and Character Development. Warehouse 13, Sanctuary, Eureka: all shows that do a little bit of everything, or try to. Star Trek is coming to the fore again, and let's face it, Star Trek always had its episodic moments, but also played with a lot of ideas. Battlestar Galactica. 'Nough said on that one. Firefly/Serenity essentially pulled the "Empire Gone Mad" card, and then ran with it -- and that was a Big Idea (human experimentation, forced colonization, etc.) plot that ran with having strong female characters and interesting interpersonal relationships too. Does Whiskey discount the premise for the presence of girls with guns?

I just realized that I'm going on about the tv more than any other medium, so I'll stop. My point was supposed to be: If you can't find sci-fi you like out there, you aren't looking. The genre is still asking its all important "What If?" and it's doing it in so many different ways that it can satisfy almost anyone willing to do the digging to find writers/directors/producers they like.

Where would the alien franchise be without Ellen Ripley? How about the fact that the most iconic fight scenes in Serenity were performed by a young woman? Katherine Bigelow has made more big idea movies than many male directors and what about Elizabeth Moon's contributions to science fiction? It's so frustrating hearing from people like that who still imagine the genre is this boys club. I grew up on the genre looking up to women like Sigourney Weaver or Claudia Christian from B5. And does it ever occur to him that a lot of female fans roll their eyes at the whole tween Twilight thing as well? In fact, I have huge issues with Stephanie Meyer and her depiction of women. I also have huge issues with the syfy channel wanting to gear Caprica to female viewers by making it Dallas in space. That's just offensive. But that has nothing to do with how women relate to a genre. That's just one network's view on how to draw viewers in. They also show wrestling which has even less to do with scifi than Caprica.
http://www.igp-scifi.com/women-science-fiction.html

This Whiskey fool makes me quite angry. He doesn't deserve to use the name of such a lovely drink.

I'm so sick of men pandering their sexist little opinions under the name masculine solidarity. Just like any vast range of people, men are not a unified entity with hive minds. So yes, "Whiskey", I am a man, and no, I absolutely do not agree with you. I in fact hate the sterile "big idea" fictions that he seems to think speak to men. I like my scifi/fantasy (and I hate to clump them together, because they aren't actually that similar) to have a good premise, sure, but more than that I like it to be character driven. I like it to have strong and abundant women. I like the characters to have substance beyond an ability to simply react to big events in ways that drive the overall narrative forward. I like emotions. I like romance. When it comes down to it, I would much rather read a story about how substantial, believable characters are affected by extraordinary circumstances than some pretentious "What if..." scenario.
I think Whiskey is an example of a pathetic individual whose understanding of women is based almost entirely on the sexist depictions of his fiction of choice. He has admittedly chosen male-centric stories over any other type of narrative, and believes that actual women must act like the two dimensional drones in these stories.
In short, losers like this have got to stop assuming that I agree with them just because I have a penis.
P.S. Where the fuck does he get off claiming that all men are inherently homophobic? Many are, yes, but that's a disgusting generalization, and one I'm sick of people making. I have never once in my life turned away from a form of entertainment because some of its characters were gay men, and would be thrilled to see a stronger queer streak in all types of fiction. And nor should it be assumed that a straight author who chooses to write gay characters is expressing some kind fetishism!