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I’m also asking that unpublished writers refuse to enter their contest for unpublished writers when it’s announced–the “Where the Magic Begins” contest.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
I would like a “superlike” button so that I can “like” Courtney Milan’s comment a kajillion times.
But Laura, you realize you’re living in a country with religious freedom. Which must mean that you cannot justify a political opinion, one which would affect society as a whole, with any religious argument.
What you believe in is your choice, but you can’t assume it commits everyone as it commits you. For instance, American Muslims can’t demand of the whole US that they ban eating pork, or feast during Ramadan. They can (and actually, have a right to) choose that for themselves. I hope I’m obvious here.
Now sexuality is a private territory and should remain so (between consenting adults), free from politics and religion. Homosexuality is just another sexuality, and there’s a lot of diversity in sexual orientations and practice. Why should this diversity not show in culture and literature ?
Well, there’s a reason why, though not a valid reason. And that reason is that many people feel threatened by different sexualities. Which is due to the lack of representation and acceptance of sexuality’s diversity. Which itself is due to people feeling threatened by diff… Well. You see what I mean.
Of course individual judges have the right to say “No, thank you” to submissions they prefer not to read. To exclude same-sex romances – especially when they’ve accepted them before and have had winners within those submissions – should be called into question because it is a contest open to the public and not a personal critique. Personal preference is different than business-based bigotry, isn’t it? (The chapter is making money; it is a business.)
And did you really just try equate same-sex romance with rape, infidelity, and pedophilia? Really?
“People do have serious religous objections to homosexuality.”
Why yes, they do. Leviticus says homosexuals should be killed, as should adulterers and children who are rude to their parents. Leviticus also says a man who looks on the unclothed body of his menstruating wife, they should both be exiled from the community.
Exiled any one for that lately, Laura? Do you wear a veil or shave your head as St Paul – who didn’t like women any more than he did gay people – abjures?
Did you miss the entire point of Jesus’s explicit setting aside of Leviticus, and his lessons about loving another, and not making judgements on sinners unless you are completely without fault?
Guess you did.
“Sarah insists on tying romance in with the worst excesses of liberal secularism.”
You mean the kind of liberal secularism that thousand of American and allied soldiers have died for in Afghanistan and Iran? You mean the kind of liberal secularism that’s considered an ideal in every enlightened country other than your own? The kind of liberal secularism which America cheered when it resulted from the end of the Cold War?
You live in a secular country, Laura, like it or not. It’s in your constitution. Just because your religion is given weight and tax breaks far outweighing the actual number of adherents or any social value you bring to your society, doesn’t mean the USA is officially christian.
As for ‘liberal’, you can’t condemn repressive regimes in the Middle East unless you consider liberality a virtue. I assume you’re quite disapproving of ‘sharia’ law (as misunderstood in America’) – and yet it’s as far from secular as it gets.
“Lookit at the shreiking Ann has displayed.”
You’re pretty shrieky yourself, pet.
“No, I am not a homophobe. I am religous.”
I’m pretty certain you’re both, actually, based on your actual statement that you object to homosexuals. No, they’re not the same thing. There are plenty of observant people of faith like Sarah who aren’t homophobic at all – and her religion is more adherent to Leviticus than yours is.
“Its a shame this chapter succombed to this bullying. Its a damn shame about Komen too. “
It’s a damn shame you can’t spell. Are you using the bit of the brain most people use for that, to remember all these right wing whines about pseudo-persecution?
I wish I could dismiss your rantings as the laughable, ignorant spew that it is, but when you have people who want to be president of America spewing identical drivel, it’s more worrying than pathetic. The comfort is that your kind is decreasing year on year, for all your noise, and homophobia and other hate is rejected by a clear majority of all people, and Christian too.
You should learn the lesson that Komen for the Cure did – you can push good people around so far and then we turn and fight hard to preserve our rights. You can’t bitch about bullying when you’re the ones launching the attack. “Mum, he hit me back” doesn’t even work for three-year-olds.
“When someone else’s safety and acceptance in society is on the line, your personal discomfort comes in a very distant second. “
Needs to be repeated in letters ten feet high.
You are wonderful, Courtney.
<quote>Sarah insists on tying romance in with the worst excesses of liberal secularism. </quote>
Obviously, you think “liberal secularism” is a heckuva an insulting charge to launch at a person. I know what I think of when I hear those words, but I’m curious as to what exactly they mean to you. Would you please define them, in your own words, and explain why you think it is a bad thing to be tied to? Seriously – I’m not trying to be snarky. As someone who considers myself a very principled person who happens to both liberal and deeply skeptical about the existance of a God, I genuinely want to know what it is about those two things that you find so abhorrent that you use them as an insult.
I am really curious about human rights legilsation in the Oklahoma. In my jourisdiction, this action by Romance Writers Ink would be a violation of the human rights code which prohibits discrimination in the deliver of service to the public. I wonder if someone from Okalahoma could weigh in here. Is there human rights law in Oklahoma and id Romance Writers INk violate it?
“Is there human rights law in Oklahoma and id Romance Writers INk violate it? “
They haven’t banned gay *people*, Amy. Just stories about them. I’d be horrified if this fell under legislation, frankly.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing – Edmund Burke
The job of a citizen is to keep his mouth open – Gunter Grass
I’m alway happy to come here to find good people with their mouths open.
I think it was really, really bad PR. If they’d appealed for judges, and then failed to find any, they could have said that. I’ve known contests not to take place because they can’t find enough judges. Arguably, people who judge same sex romances should have experience in that genre, or at least enjoy it.
Appealing for judges is a fairly common thing in the RWA. I’m not a member, and I’ve received a few requests to judge over the years, so the fact that the chapter did not do that says that either they didn’t know they could, or they didn’t want to. The More than Magic contest isn’t a new one, so they should have known.
So by not saying they did that, what they’re saying instead is that they don’t consider same sex liaisons to be a romance, which is totally unacceptable.
Courtney, you are my hero!
They have a surplus of judges willing to read them, the same judges who judged them in years past.
Ann, are you trying to say that GLBT individuals define themselves differently and aren’t a monolithic entity that thinks and acts as a unified whole?
The devil you say.
Holy. Crap.
“are you trying to say that GLBT individuals define themselves differently and aren’t a monolithic entity that thinks and acts as a unified whole? “
Hell no. Don’t you know teh gays are the Borg Collective and move and think in lockstep, and everyone of them want to have sex with middle-adged straight women who think that not being invited to a Hannukkah party is the same thing as being treated like a second-class citizen?
I thought everyone knew that.
>>>>8( You say you support us. That you have G&L friends, and yet you use words like “lifestyle” and “preference”. Words we fight every day to remove in association with our IDENTITY.
It isn’t a lifestyle. It isn’t a preference. And having G&L freinds, you should know this.
Understand this too. Our love is not a subgenre, it’s not a plot point. Would this group who we are “bullying” also accept paranormal SAME-SEX romances? Because that is a subgenre.
Would you, Sealaughing, be as forgiving if they had said they would not accept blacks or latino or Jewish couples? Do you see how that correlates? Do you understand at all what picking an IDENTITY and saying it is not welcome is not the same thing as NOT ALLOWING YOUNG ADULT ENTRIES? >>>>8(
As for our imagined slights, it’s clear to me where you stand in our fight for human rights and equal rights. It’s clear to me that you are not a supporter of the G&L community because if you were, you’d be horrified of all the things you typed about how we are “whining” about the fact that we’re being murdered for just BEING, about how the young of us are being bullied into death and about how we’re dying around the world because our very identity is viewed as a crime.
Shame on you, Sealaughing, shame shame on you.
“For the G&L community to insist on inclusion EVERYWHERE is like Catholics whining because they aren’t invited to the Hanukkah parties!”
Your analogy is not valid. The LGBT community in this case was previously included and respected enough in this specific contest to win awards, and then was summarily excluded in all categories without explanation.
Inclusion is not the issue here, but the rollback of inclusion, which is a real and pressing problem for the LGBT community.
A better analogy would be whether blacks would be considered whiny if they were upset at being forced to go back to drinking at separate water fountains.
http://www.advocate.com/News/D…
This link alone proves how serious this situation is. It’s not about a group of people whining or bullying when they don’t get their own way. It’s a matter of LGBT people wanting to have equal rights and to be treated like human beings. This is all over the web now and how do you think it makes these kids to know that some adults are so “uncomfortable” with who they are that the chapter would rather close down their contest, then accept LGBT books?
One thing that heartens me about this whole fiasco is the greater clarification that same-sex romance is neither a matter of genre nor sub-genre; it is a matter of content and character.
You can have a *genre*-specific contest inviting only Paranormals. Or Historicals. Or Inspirationals.
You can have a *content*-specific contest inviting only stories about, I dunno, firemen. Or people of Asian heritage. Or stories about the great winter sport of curling.
You can have an *author*-specific contest inviting only writers who live in a particular state. Or have a particular ethnicity. Or are of a particular gender. (I would love to see a Men Of Romance writing contest!)
These are all limitations based on the *celebration* of their specific theme.
But to hold a contest and say in a post-script: All stories are welcome within *whatever* category EXCEPT THOSE WITH A CERTAIN TYPE OF CHARACTER, then yes, it is exclusionary and discriminatory. To say such a thing after at least THREE YEARS of welcoming books with that same content is an open insult.
A ton of these chapters already discriminate when it comes to IR, its just called polite racism. I once submitted an IR YA to a RWA chapter contest and was told by a judge I should have mentioned the race of the character from the get go because when she found out I believe on page 15 she said it threw her out of the book. She gave me the lowest scores of all three judges.
Wteffing effery is that crap? It threw her out of the book that the MC wasn’t white?? FIFTEEN pages in? I really wish people would name and shame.
Lily, neither RWI’s decision nor the Komen’s foundation decision to de-fund Planned Parenthood “appeared” to reverse progress—they factually did reverse progress.
Why on earth do I say that? Because that particular contest accepted those same sex entries—and several of those stories won. So yes, it’s reversing progress.
umm… I know that lots of books have cross-genre or cross-category content. Everybody here can nod and think back to at least the discussion of sci-fi romance, or historical romance, or mystery-romance. Paranormal romance is (correct me if I’m wrong) a HUGE subcategory (there’s also paranormal stories that aren’t primarily romance, or don’t have large romance themes.) Is it that difficult to think there might be same-sex couples in a paranormal romance? Or an action-romance, or a romantic mystery, or a sci-fi romance.
I’m not going to claim that the gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered would never cry ‘discrimination! victim! unfair!’ without just cause, but I don’t think that should be our first guess at them not liking something that is said/done/changed. I think we should first look at what is being complained about – sometimes that thing being pointed at IS unfair.
And you have my sympathies on being harassed by assorted individuals that you don’t want to date that don’t want to take ‘no, I’m not interested, I already said no – get lost!’ as an answer.
I write same gender romances and I read them—proudly! If you walk like a duck, quack like duck and look like a duck, I’m guessing you’re a duck. Same goes for bigots. What the hell does this mean—“I’m uncomfortable…” Nobody is asking anybody to participate. Just to read a nice romance. Love should never make anyone feel uncomfortable. I love vampire and wolf pack stories too, and I don’t particularly “relate” to blood sucking or howling at the moon. It’s fiction, folks. If you say you’re “uncomfortable” then you’re implying there’s something wrong with same gender love and romance. Well, talk to God about it, honey, because God made them that way. Maybe if He knows you’re uncomfortable with His creation, He’ll change it for you.