Late last night, links and fiery tweets went around about Romance Writers, Ink, an Oklahome-based chapter of the RWA. They've stated that for the 2012 “More than Magic” competition for published writers, they will “no longer accept same-sex entries in any category.”
Way to be bigoted!
Heidi Cullinan has a blog entry about the problem and cites an unnamed individual who may have received a response from the chapter saying that the reason was some discomfort in reading same-sex romance.
Courtney Milan found links to the specific individuals:
On Kari Gregg’s blog, Cathy Pegau notes that she e-mailed them and was told that they decided not to accept same-sex entries because the majority of the chapter felt uncomfortable with them. Apparently, it’s possible for the MTM contest to get entrants’ books in the hands of diverse judges from multiple RWA chapters who are comfortable with all types of romances and heat levels. You can write M/F erotica. You can write M/M/F. You can write about aliens from another planet who have tentacles, or barbed sexual organs. You can write degrading rapes. None of those things are barred from entry in the More than Magic contest, and if you write them, they’ll try to find judges who are predisposed to like your books.
But they won’t do that if you write same sex romance–even if it’s a sweet romance with no sexual contact whatsoever. No–when it comes to same sex romance, the fact that they might be able to identify judges in their chapter or outside of it who would be willing to read same sex entries and judge them fairly somehow becomes irrelevant. In that instance, the majority gets to say that those entries don’t belong.
I have to wonder if Romance Writers Ink didn't think anyone would notice, or say anything. It's appalling that a chapter would limit their contest in such a way, and send a message that homophobia and discrimination is acceptable.
And it's rather awesome that all the comments to their contest rules page are from ping backs from other writers expressing their outrage about Romance Writers Ink's discriminatory rule.
If Romance Writers Ink wants to be a bigoted chapter, they can have that title. But there's a lot justified outrage and questions of how to respond to their decision.
Milan outlines a course of action that I think is entirely awesome: Romance Writers, Ink's decision is wrong, we should say that it's wrong, and we should discourage anyone from entering their contests:
I’m also asking that unpublished writers refuse to enter their contest for unpublished writers when it’s announced–the “Where the Magic Begins” contest. I’m asking editors and agents to refuse to act as final judges for the “Where the Magic Begins” contest. If you have already entered, please write to them and withdraw your entry. Editors and agents, if you’ve already agreed to serve as final judges, please withdraw. And for everyone–when the final judges–if the final judges are announced for the unpublished contest, please contact any editors and agents you know to inform them of the fact that the chapter discriminates, and ask them to withdraw.
I don’t know if we can change RWA’s policies, but we can make it costly–extremely costly–for chapters to choose to discriminate. It may be their right to choose intolerance. But it’s our right to refuse to tolerate it, and to make them feel the cost of their decision. This is not acceptable.
My understanding is that for some chapters, contests are a very lucrative enterprise. Judges are usually volunteers, and the entry fees more than cover the costs of distributing the manuscripts to the judges. I agree with Milan's strategy: their discrimination should be costly.
But I also think that Romance Writers, Ink's decision comes with a larger consequence. As a wise person on Twitter said about the Komen foundation fiasco this week, just because you take the turd out the punchbowl doesn't mean we forget the turd was there to begin with. Same applies here: even if they change their policy, I know that the members of Romance Writers Ink are “comfortable” with discrimination, and I know that theirs is not a chapter I'd recommend for an aspiring writer of romance.
ETA: The Romance Writers Ink has cancelled their contest, posting the following:
After much consideration, RWI regretfully announces the MTM Published Author Contest has been cancelled. All monies received from entrants will be returned as soon as possible. We have heard and understood the issues raised, and will take those concerns into consideration should the chapter elect to hold contests in the future. Please note: our contest coordinator, Jackie, is a chapter member who graciously volunteered to collect entries and sort by category. It is unfortunate that she has become the object of personal ridicule and abuse. We recognize the decision to disallow same-sex entries is highly charged. We also opted not to accept YA entries. We do not condone discrimination against individuals of any sort.
I call bullshit. It's one thing to not include YA, as it could be argued that it is a different genre. Same-sex romance is still romance, and disallowing it is discrimination, especially when you openly respond to several people inquiring about the decision by saying that same-sex romance made people “uncomfortable.”
I suggest that if RWI offers chapter-taught courses in PR and social media crisis management, no one sign up for those, either.
ETA II: As noted by Laura Vivanco below, RWA National has released a statement:
RWA members are served by 145 local and special interest chapters, and those chapters are individually incorporated and governed. So long as chapters fulfill their obligations under state law, as well as RWA and chapter bylaws, and their programs and services support the professional interests of career focused romance writers, policy affords them rather broad latitude in determining which programs and services to offer. Absent policy governing chapter-level contests, RWA's board cannot intervene in the decisions of individual chapters.
Romance Writers of America does not condone discrimination of any kind. RWA's policies regarding chapter programs and services will be discussed when the board reconvenes in March.
Board of Directors
Romance Writers of America
Although I’m not comfortable reading same gender romances, but I don’t feel its right for them to discriminate. What next? Interracial romance forbidden because it makes them uncomfortable? People have a right to read romance to where they can relate and identify with protagonists and their decisions. Many times I wish I could find books that will include a Jewish immigrant woman coming over to America during 21st century, but alas no luck so far. (A reason I’m writing my own stories is so I won’t feel alone.) And taking that choice away isn’t right. If judges aren’t comfortable, then find ones that are, but don’t ban things you aren’t comfortable with! (aside from pedophilia, rape and murder in my view.)
http://sveta-randomblog.blogsp…
OMg I’m so disgusted with this kind of discrimination that i’m molting. If you aren’t comfortable judging gay romance don’t be a judge where gay romance is submitted…duh Grow the fuck up. I’m sick of this petty political bs from those that don’t know the difference between political and personal views. It’s business…if you can’t hang get out.
The chapter was free to seek judges from outside the chapter. They refuse to accept LGBT entries because the *membership* (not the judges) were homophobes (let’s stop using the “uncomfortable” euphemism, shall we?).
I’m not a member of RWA. I haven’t been a member of RWA for about three years because I was getting nothing out of the organization. That’s a personal choice and certainly not one I would’ve recommended to others in the past because I believed that RWA was an organization dedicated to supporting their members and their goals for publication. Apparently, though I’m loathe to ever admit it—I was wrong.
There are gay romance authors IN the RWA. They pay their dues, they attend meetings, they receive that ineffectual pseudo-magazine in the mail. What they want, expect, and deserve in return is support and respect. Unfortunately, they are receiving neither from an organization that is more than happy to take their money on a regular basis.
Exactly how many times are we, as an industry, supposed to overlook and condone the behavior of the RWA? When will this dinosaur wake up and realize that the year is 2012 and not 1950?
When Sable and I opened Cobblestone Press it never once crossed our minds not to include Gay Romance in our catalog because we understood the market and the industry for what it is. We wish we had a market for lesbian romance and have offered such titles in the past. In the future, we’ll try again because it’s our goal to provide our readers with the content they want to read. There is no place at CP for discriminatory or bigoted behavior or ideals not because it’s politically correct because it is the right thing to do.
On a personal note, I quite fond of gay romance. In fact, I read more gay romance these days for personal pleasure than I do any other genre. As a reader, I am insulted and genuinely perplexed that the RWA would allow gay romance writers to be discriminated against by a chapter in their organization. It’s just bad business and really inappropriate.
I expect they’re feeling all noble and persecuted. Ever see that cartoon where some bible-banger keeps hitting a gay guy over the head, calling him names, and after several panels the gay guy says, “Please stop that,” and the attacker yowls, “You’re Attacking My Faith!!” Reminds me of the way my sister used to pester my brother until he hit her, and then she’d start screaming. Childish.
I beta read for a writer that might suit what you’re looking for in books. If you would like an intro, let me know. I’d bet she would be interested in your input.
Reply here and I will shoot you my email.
I think the lack of objectivity for a quality story is…unprofessional. On the other hand, if you know you can’t rise above your personal preferences (read: prejudices), probably more fair to warn the entrants before they pay the entry fee.
I can’t come up with an explanation for not finding judges who are not turned off by non-straight romance, though.
On her Twitter feed, Larissa Ione says she and others volunteered as judges, but “Yeah…was told judges weren’t the issue. Members being uncomfortable being contest that allows GLBT is.”
So it’s definitely not an issue with not enough judges. The chapter is upset that their contest is being associated with GLBT entries (by which I mean winners).
I suggest you look for novel by Radcliffe, one of the leading authors of f/f romance.
Speaking of F/F romances, I find it interesting that among the RWA chapter contests, some that allow same-sex entries only allow M/M or M/M/F (and then only in the erotica category). So…does F/F give too many female judges the willies or something?
So “Let The Magic Begin” now has a hex on it. Even if they change their minds, they’ve left a black mark on the soul of the contest. Oh, my.
Which Radcliffe? Ann Radcliffe doesn’t have f/f romances…
I don’t know why anyone’s surprised. RWA is just following the lead of NY publishing, which is RWA’s hallowed ground and Holy Land. Agents, editors, publishers, the whole of NY publishing has the very same “No Same Sex Romance Need Apply” sign hanging on its doors.
I think Carolyn meant Radclyffe.
And on the topics of RWA and Radclyffe, just a few days ago I was pleased to learn that:
When I’m a judge, I judge the books in genres I’m familiar with. What’s the friggin’ difference here? Bigots. Or maybe that’s too strong a word. How about…stupid? Stupid because they thought no one would notice. Thank you, Heidi Cullen and SBTB.
And I love the turd and punchbowl analogy…
Thanks for pointing this out, Lucy. I’m wondering if there would have been any backlash if this contest had excluded f/f, rather than all same-sex romance. Somehow I doubt it. Many romance readers say they are uncomfortable with f/f. I don’t know if it’s fair to equate discomfort with homophobia.
To my knowledge, there has never been an f/f or lesbian review posted here. Ahem.
Now that RWA has changed its definition of romance to include same-sex (right?), the chapters should follow suit. My advice for any uncomfortable judges/readers is to try to keep an open mind and remember that same-sex romance doesn’t = erotica.
Wow I find that this contest makes me uncomfortable. Seriously, at the root of story telling is the need to make people uncomfortable so they are challenged. Harriet Beecher Stowe made folks uncomfortable, Guess Whose Coming to Dinner probably made a lot of people really uncomfortable. Lady Chatterley’s Lover, Born on the Fourth of July: anything that challenges the status quo, that says, “Hey, let’s stop not talking about this elephant n the room.”
I have friends who find ANY sex in a book makes them uncomfortable. So, you know what? They don’t read them. I think love, sex and romance are just that. Love is a rare commodity and should be celebrated regardless of who is sticking what where.
If something makes me uncomfortable (outside of violent behavior) I know that I need to look at it. Especially bigotry.
Lots of readers express dismay about rape scenes or infidelity or suggestions of incest or pedophilia or great differences in age between H/h in romance fiction, and refuse to read romances in which they think those scenes occur or might occur. Aficianados of romance fiction have even coined a phrase—forced seduction—to more or less excuse rape scenes. Most readers who express no dismay over those kinds of scenes would nonetheless say of those who do—well, that’s a matter of personal taste and nobody can dispute matters of personal taste.
When it comes right down to it, though, all those matters which keep some readers from reading particular books are prejudices; those readers have pre-judged and based on that prejudgement know that those books are not to their taste.
If the Oklahoma chapter had decided to no longer accept romances which depict rape, would there have been this great outcry?
The problem in this instance is that it’s politically incorrect to express, in any way, a distaste for homosexual relationships or interracial relationships or any relationship which is at all different. It’s OK to have that distaste, because, of course, tastes of that sort can no more be disputed than a preference for a flavor of ice cream.
In my own thinking, as my previous post suggested, I think I ought to have the right to express a distaste for same-sex romance as those who don’t have a distaste for it. And isn’t that what the Oklahoma chapter did? Doesn’t the chapter—evidently a majority of it anyway—have a right to express a dis-taste as well as a taste?
dick
@ Aztec #39—
Oklahoma is branding itself. Outlawing Sharia Law (an obvious immediate threat to the mere survival of the state) and working to ban fried fetuses. My dad is from Oklahoma and he says, whaddya expect when we discuss this stuff. Then he quotes the immortal Will Rogers who maintained that the Oakies fleeing Oklahoma during the dust bowl to California raised the IQ of both states.
Oklahoma is digging their own grave and they need to put the shovels down.
(I posted this over on Heidi’s page 1st)
Our published contest created a new category for 2012: GLBT. It was hard to get people in the chapter to accept it, but we created it. I found judges. We got new judges this year who only wanted to read GLBT. And guess what? I didn’t get entries.
We advertised, I sent out notices that GLBT didn’t have enough entries. We’re a well respected contest – but I got 3 entries. Not enough for it’s own category. I couldn’t have handled dozens of entries, but I wanted so badly to make this viable. Now, I expect the members of my chapter to want to delete this category for next year as we didn’t get enough entries this year.
This whole thing makes me sad.
Late to the party, as usual. Just wanted to say though, @Keri, I don’t know if it’s exactly the sort of thing you’re looking for, but I read The Scorpion by Gerri Hill a couple of years ago for the RRW contest. It’s a f/f romance/mystery/suspense and I thought it was excellent. It’s from Bella Books.
On the subject at hand, I never heard of this contest before it was brought up on the RRW loop and never would’ve entered it anyway, most likely, but I can’t see the exclusion of same-sex couples from the contest as anything but blatant discrimination against real-life GLBT human beings. I know RWA moves slowly on things like this out of necessity, so I’m trying to be hopeful and not to judge, but it’s difficult not to see their response thus far as tacit approval. I realize this is an emotional reaction on my part, but it can’t be anything else. Real people are affected when their deepest, most intimate relationships are casually dismissed as making faceless strangers “uncomfortable”. It makes me angry in a particularly helpless way, because if people don’t understand that they’re being bigoted and hurtful it’s almost impossible to explain to them why they are.
Dick, I see where you’re coming from, and I’m going to grossly oversimplify because I haven’t clearly defined all my thoughts about this, and what I do have could fill several volumes.
Mostly, it’s about context. People’s discomfort with homosexuality is tied up with religion. In the world right now, there are people who think that children committing suicide as a result of anti-gay bullying are acceptable losses. People who think that, if gay people can’t overcome their gayness, then they’re better off dead.
http://www.rollingstone.com/po…
I think that it goes beyond political correctness. It isn’t RIGHT that people be “uncomfortable” with the existence of homosexual relationships. It wasn’t RIGHT that white people were uncomfortable sharing a drinking fountain with blacks a few decades ago. What made that (for the most part) change was that people got in their faces about it and forced them to examine their discomfort.
I think that dismissing people’s outrage over RWI’s decision as “pc” is unjust.
@dick
you keep defending discrimination as “taste.” No, it is not. This contest has, in the past, had winners that were same-sex romances. It’s very clear that this was yet another case of a small group of homophobes in a position of power attempting to present the preferences of their membership as identical to their own.
Rape is in no way equivalent to same-sex love. Rape is a criminal act, and the gender of perp and victim makes no difference to that definition. Presenting it as romantic is farcical, yet the romance industry has supported this damaging lie for decades.
RWA has a clot of religious conservatives at its base, and they never miss a chance to try to impose their own beliefs on the readership. If you find this acceptable… well, I find that distasteful, but the bottom line is that if this organization is willing to take membership dues from writers and then ban their work—at any level—then they are hypocrites.
And if a chapter insists on operating on a basis of homophobia, it ought to withdraw from the national organization and just call itself the “Heterosexual Romance Writers of America.” Because love doesn’t recognize such restrictions.
Laurel, that would be awesome. I’m so thrilled with how many awesome recommendations I’ve gotten because of this thread.
I don’t support homophobia in my private life. I won’t support it in my professional life. It is astounding to me that RWA, which will act quickly on anything under the sun that affects their profitability, (yeah, I said it,) is turning a blind eye to this by NOT having the typical anti-discrimination verbiage as part of their stated policies.
Thank you, Sarah, for bringing this to everyone’s attention.
Well discriminatory actions are definitely NOT like my family and friends living in OK. Anymore than everyone living in LA is a Cajun or everyone in KY marries their cousin or everyone in TN are born again right wing fundamentalists. Maybe some are, but not all. Sweeping generalizations about the entire populace living in a state do not add to the protest, and in fact propagate the sort of attitudes that only leads to more discrimination and prejudice. Got to clear our minds from pre-judging based on any and all stereotypes.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I enter a lot of contests. I’m disgusted by this new rule, and I’ll make sure I never submit anything to a contest sponsored by RWI.
My mean streak just kicked in: I notice the rules don’t ban zoophilia/zooerasty, so as long as it’s a stallion riding the heroine I guess it’s just peachy keen.
As an author who was named GLBT Author of the Year and whose book, Hard as Teak, won GLBT Book of the Year at Loves Romances Cafe, I couldn’t let this drop. I wrote to them and they unabashedly replied it was difficult but the chapter as a whole made the decision. This is such a slap in the face to all of us who write gay romances. Our work has less or no value to readers and therefore unworthy of being in this contest. In addition, I asked whether they thought the love stories we write are morally wrong. I challenged them to tell me whether BDSM romances would be next since they are fraught with uncomfortable scenarios. I asked what incentive did I have to enter the other 2 books I wrote that qualified. I got dead air. I am aware of one male author who was refused membership at his RWA chapter in Tennessee because of his gender. RWA is the group that used to say that eBook authors weren’t on-par with authors who’d been published by traditional publishers. This archaic organization seems destined to fail by its own hand and I will not encourage any author to join them when they embrace these kinds of practices.
This is a time when you find judges who are comfortable with certain categories. In our local chapter, we always ask if some judges are uncomfortable with erotia of any kind. Those people are not asked to judge those categories, but I don’t think you can discriminate against a whole genre. It reminds me of the problems a friend of mine is having with publishing her young adult novel. The topic is a young girl’s coming out, and I think publishers are uncomfortable with it.
@Unimaginative: That it isn’t RIGHT that some are uncomfortable with same-sex relationships doesn’t change that some people ARE uncomfortable with them. And I don’t see how it is WRONG that they are, in the same way it wouldn’t be WRONG if they were uncomfortable with a m/f relationship in which the male were 50 and the female were 18. How can one state that a feeling of discomfort, from whatever source or because of whatever situation is wrong? I certainly don’t think it would be RIGHT to say that persons of the same sex could not have a romantic relationship if they chose. But I certainly don’t think it’s RIGHT to insist that other people can’‘t be uncomfortable about it and choose not to read about it.
@Lee Rowan: I don’t think I stated that taste was equivalent to discrimination in the sense in which I think you are using the word, except as discrimination plays a role in taste. Every time we choose one thing over another, we discriminate. I can see how the sense of the word as you are using it would apply were someone forbidden to write about a same sex relationship or denied a legal right, but I don’t think that’s what happened here. I can’t agree though that the political or legal sense of the word applies to choosing what to read or what not to read.
dick
Keri, have a look at Loveyoudivine Alterotica. They have a good selection of f/f novels and anthologies. Maybe you’ll find something there to your liking.
Good luck!
This is a bit late, but I’m so excited to see folks talking about LGBT romances here!
Karin Kallmaker is consistently good and has a long backlist. I’ve noticed that her book One Degree of Separation pops up in libraries quite a bit, probably b/c the main character is Marian the librarian. I’m always looking for interracial lesbian romances, and she has several.
Lesbrary does lots f/f romance reviews: http://lesbrary.wordpress.com/
Gerri Hill and Radclyffe are both good writers, so if the story line of a particular book is interesting and the character’s don’t sounds like you’ll be irritated they’re a good bet. Beverly Shearer has some good western romances. Ash by Melinda Lo is an nontraditional romance/fairy tale, but great. I Can’t Think Straight, by Shamin Sharif is adorable (and also a movie).
Dick, the problem isn’t that some people are uncomfortable reading same-sex romance and shouldn’t be forced to read same-sex romance. The problem is that some people, those who make the decisions in RWI, are apparently “uncomfortable” with other people choosing to write and read about same-sex romantic relationships.
Apparently, more “uncomfortable” with it than they are about people choosing to write and read about subjects such as rape or bestiality, which are not banned.
The RWI decision is completely disrespectful of the lived experience of a proportion of human beings on this planet, and treats that lived experience as being lesser than that of heterosexual human beings. It is that which makes the decision of RWI discriminatory. It will be easy for you to find resources elsewhere on the internet if you wish to educate yourself in discrimination issues such as these.
Dick, one point:
Please don’t compare the same sort of romance as I’ve experienced in my eighteen year monogamous marriage to rape. It gives people the strange impression you might be a wee bit bigoted on this issue. Thank you.
For the record, not all Oklahomans are like this. I’m ashamed of their behavior, but I don’t care for the assumption that I’m like them because I live here.
The RWI web page just pulled their ‘published authors’ list. I guess those authors don’t want to be known as homophobic, why else would they take it down unless they have something to hide?
I really should have expected that this would be catching ALL sorts of attention in this corner of the internet. I actually first heard about this on a completely different forum that had nothing to do with professional writing – the reaction was puzzled shock. Not shock that some people might be ‘uncomfortable reading about same sex pairings’ – that’s a familiar concept. But shock and puzzlement that because some people are ‘uncomfortable’ the rules are being changed after multiple years of same-sex stories being permitted. And so close to the time for entries (at least, that was the impression given).
I completely understand that some people may not care to read same sex pairings. If you don’t like it (whatever the ‘it’ in question is this time), then there are still a bazillion other books/stories to read. Some people don’t like same-sex pairings. Some don’t like futuristic settings. Some don’t like historical settings. Some don’t like very passive characters. Fine – read what you like, and let everyone else do the same.
But they aren’t just stopping at ‘some people might prefer not to read ‘that’ (again, whichever ‘that’ you mean at the moment)’ – they are saying ‘some people might not want to read ‘that’, so we won’t let ANYONE read ‘that’. At all. Even if they might like ‘that’.
anyway, my point… where was it? Right – I can understand saying – ‘this makes me uncomfortable, I’d rather not read or judge it’. That’s fine. But I don’t like them saying ‘this makes me uncomfortable, nobody else should read it either’ for a matter that doesn’t involve a favorable portrayal of illegal events (and if the story involved a heterosexual couple where one character was a professional killer and the other was a drug dealer, would THAT be okay?). Promoting a favorable portrayal of illegal events (even if it is a social issue such as cross-racial couples or multiples) can lead to legal troubles for the organizers, so that would make sense. But I doubt those laws would have changed in the last couple years. And I’d expect that to be explained as ‘for the protection of organizers and participants, we do not accept stories that have a favorable portrayal of illegal activities. Thank you for your understanding.’ – not ‘someone might be uncomfortable with this, you can’t do it.’
The RWI should realize that NOTHING is ever erased from the Internet. Google Cache is a wonderful thing. http://tinypic.com/r/sn2fsm/5
Now, on the other hand, Suzanne Brockmann’s FB post against this discrimination was utterly brilliant.
Should they reverse their decision on the no same-sex rule, they’ve still shown themselves as bigots. Knowing their bias, I’d be damned to support the RWI contest with my time, money, and talents. Surely, there are better (and non-bigoted) contests open to enter?
Is there a list of writers who’ve removed their entries for consideration because of this? I’ve got cash wanting to be spent on awesome writers with principles.