editorial sexism

[realthog]

Among many great ones, there are some abominably stupid editors out there (I just hope too many people don’t too often regard me as one of the latter), but the experience related here by writer Bev Vincent must surely take the biscuit. It seems the editor concerned has a peculiarly ignorant, myopic and dimwittedly simplistic take on the range of human behaviour and is busily stamping it -- or attempting to stamp it -- on the rest of the world.

All power to Bev Vincent's elbow for refusing to allow such crap.

[[48-page thoggish rant omitted]]

Thanks to cussedness for posting the link I followed.

Comments

[realthog.livejournal.com]

"Bloody hell, Shakespeare wrote believable women, and, for that matter, I have no trouble with, say, Ursula Le Guin's men."

To be fair, I don't think the editor's saying people can't write their opposite gender. Rather, the editor's crime is (a) having an incredibly simplistic, halfwitted view of gender differences and (b) attempting aggressively to impose that view on others.

The fact that Bev Vincent is in fact male merely serves to spotlight the editor's folly; but the folly itself is the editor's assumption that all males are jockrot-scratching insensitive dumbbells-on-legs ("walking dildoes", in Valerie Solanas's immortal phrase), and the insistence that others accept this illusion.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

One wonders how the editor manages to put one foot after the other.