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I’m also asking that unpublished writers refuse to enter their contest for unpublished writers when it’s announced–the “Where the Magic Begins” contest.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
@KzoeT I don’t know of anyone who has pulled their entry, but Suzanne Brockmann spoke out against the RWI policy on FaceBook in a brilliant post.
So, I just bought from her backlist on Amazon, books that were missing from my Troubleshooters collection. Plus, pre-ordered her new hardback, which from the blurb sounds amazing and has a LGBT sub-plot.
I wonder if it’s the membership, or the leadership of this chapter, which is actually uncomfortable, given how the readership of Romance Times made it clear in polling they wanted reviews of GLBT books, but the leadership simply ignored tham.
Be that as it may, if the members/leaders of this chapter are homophobic, you can’t force them towards acceptance, any more than you can force people to read what they simply don’t enjoy. However, RWA should pull its authorisation from the chapter and forbid to claim affiliation, all authors should boycott the chapter, and the non-homophobic members should leave and set up a new chapter.
I should live so long as to see *any* of that happen.
I happily volunteer to judge for The Rainbow Awards if someone decides to put that together.
This really is the week for this, isn’t it? I was heartened by the response to the Komen debacle, and I am heartened by the response to this as well. It is so important that voices be heard loud and clear saying this kind of discrimination is deplorable. The chapter may have the right to publicly indulge their homophobia. I am cheered seeing others exercise their right to voice a response. I love Courtney Milan’s suggestions. I would like to see RWA itself weigh in.
But they’re not simply choosing to not read same-sex romances, they’re barring same-sex romances from a contest that is open to every other romance out there. That’s potential prize money and exposure that is being denied to authors who pay just the same dues as every other author in the organization. And that is not right.
I haven’t read Brockmann, but now I must. Classy lady!
They cancelled the contest, I quote from their blog:
“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.”
Did you really just compare a same-sex romance to rape? Is this the new way of saying that gay relationships are like “man on dog”?
That is just offensive and disgusting comparison. Rape =/= to committed relationships between two consenting adults.
You have the right to express a distaste for same-sex romance and I have the right to think you’re a bigoted dick that doesn’t know jack about anything.
Someone was denied membership with RWA because he was a man? That is ridiculous. I don’t read male authors very often (mostly because there aren’t many in the romance section), but to exclude one simply because of his gender is just so wrong that there are no words.
I’ve been thinking about joining RWA when I have the money for membership dues, but based on everything i am learning about it this weekend i think i’ll be staying the hell away from it.
I wonder if other writer organizations (i.e. The Mystery Writers of America) have problems like this or if this is solely a RWA thing.
I honestly don’t think the problem is that anyone is uncomfortable with homosexual relationships (despite the fact that it is obvious that these people are more than uncomfortable with it). The problems lies in the idea that the chapter felt it was okay to eliminate a complete genre based on a few people’s biases. I may not like to read certain types of relationships, but I am not going to tell anyone else that they cannot read about them, which is what this chapter of RWA is doing. Essentially, what they are saying is that ‘Because I do not like something I am not going to give anyone else the chance to like it either,’ and that is wrong in so many ways that I cannot even count them.
I love that they felt the need to name the person collecting the entries. Sounds to me like they’re trying to say she is the reason for all of the problems. I wonder what will happen in the future.
Al, in some parts, the person you’re replying to is known as the ‘eponymous commenter’. There’s a reason for that.
Yeah throw her under the bus while they try and erase board members names from their web sites. (Personally, I think that move was to try and prevent some of the board members, aka published authors, from losing readers, and more importantly sales.)
“It is unfortunate that she has become the object of personal ridicule and abuse.”
They don’t seem to think it’s unfortunate that they have a bunch of homophobic idjits in their chapter, though.
Straight from the Offended Conservatives of America handbook.
I can’t believe they haven’t rethought their stance yet. The only thing worse than making a bad decision is clinging to a bad decision.
“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.”
Just quoting this in full as evidence why you should never be allowed to comment on the internet ever again, dick.
You think the problem is people’s disapproval of homophobia and racism, not homophobia and racism themselves. In a nutshell, you have just demonstrated the full depths of your ignorance and straight white privilege. We call that ‘showing your ass’ around here.
No, dick, the problem isn’t not being allowed to call people faggots and niggers without being told to shut your disgusting mouth. The problem is the mindset that thinks being gay or being brown is somehow (a) a problem that (b) only straight white people get to solve
Someone above mentioned the cartoon with the religious fanatic harping over the fact that gay people exist and then crying oppression when gay people tell them kindly to stfu. The comment about Jackie sounds so much like that to me that it isn’t funny. I can just see them sitting in their living rooms going ‘boy those gay-loving liberals are so mean.’ smfh
I don’t understand why people still feel the need to judge others based on sexual preference or by the color of their skin. It sickens me and it saddens me that in a country that once claimed “all men are created equal” that this has never been its reality. So many people have been judged inferior because a small majority of people were uncomfortable with them—Native Americans, African Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Irish, Italians, Hispanics/Latinos, Muslims, and homosexuals have all been told “You’re different, so you’re not good enough.”
In the SB book club chat last week, someone said that they did not like to read same-sex historical romances because there could not have been a happily ever after unless they went to some island where everyone was accepted. I really wish there was such an island today. People don’t realize how prejudiced other people still are today and in my mind that is why these types of biases still exist. So to paraphrase Dr. King, “I have a dream that one day [everyone] will live in a nation where [no one] is judged by the color of their skin [or for their sexual and religious preferences] but for the content of their character.”
Elisa Rolle has been running the Rainbow Awards for a few years now.
http://elisa-rolle.livejournal…
She usually puts out a call for volunteers in the summer. It’s a lot of fun, you can opt-out of genres you don’t care for, and you usually get a chance to find some really good books. (And occasionally some stinkers, but I’ve done it for 3 years now and there are always a few that make it worthwhile.)
Oh, the next step is going to be the poor misunderstood RWI chapter crying to the press about how their contest was hounded to death by the mean awful ho-mo-sekshuls. Count on it. That is their playbook.
Somebody hasn’t been reading enough gay historicals. The challenge and the fun of it is figuring out how to create a HEA within the restrictions. It can be done. It has been done, historically. Look at Gertrude and Alice B.
I Believe by Blessid Union of Souls
I just had to share this song. It was out when I was about 8 (I remember listening to it in the car with my dad and brother on our way home from visiting my mom in the hospital in 1995). Technically, it is about interracial romance, but it is just as appropriate for same sex relationships. The chorus says, “I believe that love is the answer. I believe love will find a way.”
So they’d rather marginalize people for their very nature than make people uncomfortable for their backward beliefs?
I read that in the comment above as well and wondered.
But I know several male authors in RWA. Several.
Hopefully this link comes through. I’m taking note of these small challenges to our freedom. It’s chilling.
http://news.yahoo.com/one-mill…
Jane Leopold Quinn
There’s a comment up at http://rwimagiccontests.wordpr… stating that the contest has been cancelled.
And now the RWA has put out a statement:
As a member of a Tennessee chapter, we’ve had dudes in our group. The people we turn down for membership are people who aren’t in RWA, because we have to. So I wondered about that too.
It may be that the RWI chapter bans men. Since the board and the published-author list are pretty much the same 8 or 10 ladies, it sounds like a rather closed little group. Oddly, though, one author’s HUSBAND was on the board as their ‘agent.’ (I looked it up before they decided to don their sheets.)
I’m not surprised that RWI chose to cancel their contest. Considering the number of people who were outraged (including me) and the bad publicity they’ve received this is very much a turd in the punchbowl moment for them.
I think it also hurt them when the contest coordinator Jackie found her email released onto the web for people to protest the actions of her chapter. I do find it funny that suddenly she’s just a harmless volunteer and the people who chose to protest are the bullies for telling her that what she chose to do as a contest coordinator was wrong. I guess RWI thought using the same tact as the Komen Foundation:we’re doing the right thing but only because you big mean liberal protestors forced us too.
“I Do Two” has a terrific story by Gillian Palmer, “Under the Shadow of Your Wings,” about a Jewish immigrant woman and her lover running an orphanage ini a tenement district in New York. I was one of the selection board for this project (with Alex Beecroft, Charlie Cochrane, and Sophia Deri-Bowen) and I’m plugging it here only because this anthology and the previous one, I DO!, are 100% profits to Lambda Legal to support the fight for marriage equality. The books can be found at most online booksellers, and MLR Press.
It’s especially annoying when people try to sweep evidence of prejudice under the rug by insisting that it’s all been fixed now.
While I appreciate the comments that are made so eloquently by so many, and the emotion that they feel, I do think some have to take a step back. Most of the comments are succinct and well expressed, but some are doing exactly what they are railing against. Discriminating and name calling of the population of Oklahoma and the state itself, as well as religious values. I am somewhat conservative and a Christian, but I view myself as a very tolerant person. I am not a “homaphobe” because I am a conservative, and people from Oklahoma should not be painted as such either because of the decision of a chapter of RWA. Most of those people probably have absolutely no idea what it is.
While I also don’t agree with this decision they made, I certainly don’t think we should start flaming the entire state of Oklahoma because of it.
Wow .So just shut the hell up, you racist homophobe. You wanna know why people hate liberals, this is why.
People do have serious religous objections to homosexuality. If you say anything about, you are deemed wrong and shreiked at and bullied. Expressing a religous opinion has become tantamount to joining the Klan.
Its a shame this chapter succombed to this bullying. Its a damn shame about Komen too.
I dislike how political this blog has become. I love romance but Sarah insists on tying romance in with the worst excesses of liberal secularism. If you don’t read/like/root for/ gay romance you are definitly not part of the intended audience here.
Sarah, its not so much the promotion of gay romance I object to. I mean who cares, really. People will read what they want to.Its the idea of judging my tastes and deeming them, well sinful. Its not enough that I don’t read gay romance, but I have committed a thought crime in my head, my thinking is faulty and unworthy, and I most atone for my sins.
You think I am overstating? Lookit at the shreiking Ann has displayed. No, I am not a homophobe. I am religous. They are not the same thing.
I think the next edict from RWA will be an insistence that every contest have a category for gay romance.
I’m sorry, but where did you get shrieking from what Ann Sommerville said? She just explained to Dick what the problem at hand was because he seems to have a problem understanding what that is. No one said that people who didn’t like to read same sex romances were evil and homophobic. (She may have called him that because he didn’t understand the difference between deciding for oneself what not to read and deciding for a whole population what they can read.) I don’t read them, either. I just think that it is wrong to tell others that they cannot read something based on my own tastes. There is nothing wrong with reader discretion. I don’t read books about vampires, books that glorify country living (because i don’t understand the draw of the country), books featuring same sex couples (although I have a same sex couple in the book i am writing), books with h/h that have big age differences, or books about sports. That doesn’t mean I have the right to tell other people that they cannot read any of those things. This is what RWI did and what most of the people here are angry about.
I understand your concern of the politicization of this blog, but you didn’t have to read this post or others like it if you didn’t want to. SB Sarah didn’t come to your home and hold a gun to your head, forcing you to read and then comment on this post.
Buh? Are we hanging out on the same blog?
Anyway, a professional association is not the place to be trotting out articles of religion. You do that in religious groups. If you’re not comfortable associating with people who don’t embrace your version of your religion, you’re going to have a very small, insular group of social contacts.
My writing group has members who are christian, muslim, pagan, and atheist. I think one of our former members was a buddhist, but I don’t know for sure. Know why? Because our writing group exists to talk about writing, not religion. The only time it comes up is when we’re planning to eat together, and make sure to clearly label anything containing pork, so that our muslim members know not to eat it.
Laura, I’m not a political liberal—not by a long-shot—and I don’t have a problem with individuals taking a stand for their religious beliefs by refusing to judge same-sex entries.
What I do have a problem with is the hypocrisy of refusing those entries while at the same time hosting an erotic romance category. In erotic romance books, the characters can (and usually do) indulge in all kinds of unbiblical acts, including, but not limited to, adultery, multiple partners, sodomy, atheism, and taking the Lord’s name in vain—all of which should, but apparently don’t, disturb the same people who are uncomfortable with same-sex entries.
Of course, many unbiblical acts take place in mainstream romance as well, and in order to exclude them all, a chapter would have to limit the contest to inspirational romances. But this chapter’s contest doesn’t even have a dedicated inspie category.
So pardon me if I think their decision to exclude same-sex entries is less about expressing a religious opinion than about expressing personal prejudices.
@laura: you said, “Its the idea of judging my tastes and deeming them, well sinful. Its not enough that I don’t read gay romance, but I have committed a thought crime in my head, my thinking is faulty and unworthy, and I most atone for my sins.”
Where exactly did I say that? If you don’t personally like gay romance, I don’t care.
My problem with Romance Writers Ink’s decision was their exclusion and the reasons for it. They were discriminatory. Whether their objections were based on religion or on the price of wheat is irrelevant and does not signify. They were discriminating and, as many commenters pointed out, if they’d said “interracial” or “non-white romances” were not welcome, there’d have been just as much fury, if not more.
I will, however, admit to absolutely and unequivocally supporting the separation of church and state, and rejecting any state- or federally-mandated enforcement of religious doctrine.
I have people in my family who at the first drop of being called out for their racist/homophobic views cry: “religious persecution!” What happened to “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “hate the sin, not the sinner?” Since when did basic human rights and dignity oppress your conservative viewpoints?
@Laura No one is asking you to change your mind on same-sex books. I don’t read Native American historicals because I feel that they depict most Native Americans in a stereotypical way. However, just because I don’t read them doesn’t mean I don’t know other romance readers who love them. Nor would I expect them to be excluded from a ROMANCE writing contest based on my views.
BTW, check on on the by-laws of the RWA. Same-sex books do not have their own category, they are put into the genre romance category they belong in. e.g. contemporary, historical, etc. They compete with other (sometimes straight) romances in that genre and IMO that’s the way it should stay.
“People do have serious religous objections to homosexuality. If you say anything about, you are deemed wrong and shreiked at and bullied. Expressing a religous opinion has become tantamount to joining the Klan.”
There is no choice I can make that allows everyone to be comfortable. There is no way I can smooth everything over. So I’m stuck with a bad choice.
There are people whose objections to homosexuality lead them to beat and murder gay people, or to sit silent and watch while children are beaten up in our schoolyards for failing to conform to societal gender norms. You are not one of those people, but when I stay silent when someone objects to homosexuality, I send a message to the worst ones out there. I tell them that I will look the other way, that what happens to gays and lesbians is not happening to real people. Silence puts people in danger.
I have to choose between making people uncomfortable who have religious objections to homosexuality, or making people comfortable with outright hatred. I have to choose between making a group of people uncomfortable about one aspect of their religious beliefs in one part of their lives, and making a different group of people uncomfortable with everything they yearn for in every part of their lives.
When someone else’s safety and acceptance in society is on the line, your personal discomfort comes in a very distant second.