Romance Writers Ink Contest: An Exercise in Discrimination

Browse the Bitches

Bitchin' Blog Posts

by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | February 04, 2012 | Saturday at 3:06 pm | 143 Comments

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

Filed: General Bitching, Ranty McRant

Tagged: wtfery, romance writers ink, make the burning stop, discrimination

| |

Sidney Bristol said on 02.04.12 at 03:29 PM • [link]

I can understand the members being uncomfortable with reading same gender stories, or preferring to not read them, but refusing to find judges who are willing to participate is sad.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 02.04.12 at 03:33 PM • [link]

this is so sickening, but i’m not really surprised. this country seems to get more and more ignorant as time goes on. the fact that this chapter used to accept same-sex romances is very telling. it makes me wonder whether those in charge of the chapter felt it would be more acceptable now than it would have been in the past.
Jm Cartwright said on 02.04.12 at 03:46 PM • [link]

Nicely said, Sarah. We’ve got a whole bunch of people working to change minds at RWA - and our campaign is growing.

JM Cartwright
Proud member of Rainbow Romance Writers
Amy Denim said on 02.04.12 at 03:51 PM • [link]

I find discrimination and censorship in and organization (RWA) that I am a proud member of to be unacceptable. I joined Rainbow Romance Writers even though I’m not LGBT nor do I write it. I just wanted to stand up with them to cry foul.
I’m an unpubbed author and I will certainly not be entering any of RWIs contests.
Slc1106 said on 02.04.12 at 03:55 PM • [link]

It’s Oklahoma. Deplorable, but not entirely unexpected, based upon my relatives and friends living in that state.
Barrett said on 02.04.12 at 04:00 PM • [link]

A well written summary, Thank you for shining a light on, yet another, egregious example of ignorance cloaked with righteousness.

Barrett RWA/RRW member
Heidi Cullinan said on 02.04.12 at 04:00 PM • [link]

Interesting is that same-sex novels have entered—and won—their contests in the past. And these are just the names I recognize.

http://rwimagiccontests.wordpr… (Sloan Parker,

http://rwimagiccontests.wordpr… (Lara Bambauch and Josh Lanyon, erotic novel)

http://rwimagiccontests.wordpr… (Ava March, Novella)
Melissa Bradley said on 02.04.12 at 04:09 PM • [link]

I remember these! What hypocrites they are, now taking a discriminatory stance. Wonder if someone’s town council/school board/etc. started taking notice and pointing fingers. Thanks for sharing these Heidi. :)
Heather said on 02.04.12 at 04:14 PM • [link]

Yeesh. Some of the best romances I’ve ever read were m/m romances! “False Colors” by Alex Beecroft, Lee Rowan’s “Royal Navy” quartet, “Faith and Fidelity” and “Duty and Devotion” by Tere Michaels…. the list goes on, but these aren’t just “gay romance”. They’re excellent, compelling, and emotionally-fulfilling stories. If those folks want to miss out on some truly excellent reading, let them. Their loss.
Tania Kennedy said on 02.04.12 at 04:36 PM • [link]

I already was a fan of Courtney Milan for her novels, and now I’m even more of a fan for her social politics. Next stop: buying all her backlist. :)
Heather said on 02.04.12 at 04:36 PM • [link]

By the way, could we start a thread about GLBT romance? It doesn’t get nearly the attention that hetero romance does. I’d love some new recommendations and to share the best of the ones I’ve read.
Dontstopreading said on 02.04.12 at 04:44 PM • [link]

So…this is a big contest that happens to be run by the OK chapter? (sorry, not familiar)
dick said on 02.04.12 at 05:40 PM • [link]

These kinds of situations are difficult. Sex, whether kisses or intercourse, plays a big part in romance fiction. If the chapters’ judges are uncomfortable reading a same-sex romance, isn’t it better that they state that rather than accept the entries and mis-judge because of the discomfort? Or accept entry fees and not give the same-sex entry any attention? That they did so shows a kind courage, don’t you think?

dick
KJ Reed said on 02.04.12 at 05:55 PM • [link]

Is discrimination in this manner legal? Yes. Is it within their rights to make the rules so that they bar entries of same-sex couplings? Absolutely in their right. But hopefully, they will soon see, that the court of public opinion says this is far from okay.
KJ Reed said on 02.04.12 at 05:59 PM • [link]

I think that it’s true, if a judge has a problem reading a same-sex romance, they should not be forced to read it. And it is up to them to be honest and up front about that from the beginning. I do not begrudge the judges being honest at this point and saying “I can’t fairly judge those entries, please don’t send those to me.” Not everyone is drawn to it. That’s okay.

But the contest, from where I see it, had a chance to find judges who were qualified and were comfortable with reading same-sex couplings. It’s becoming more wide-spread as a genre, and far from impossible to find those who would be willing to read it.

Could it have taken a little bit more time this year? I don’t know, maybe. Could it have taken extra effort that they weren’t anticipating? Maybe. But that’s what happens sometimes. And the adjustments should have been made. Or they COULD have been made, and they chose not to.
Lori said on 02.04.12 at 06:09 PM • [link]

So apparently this was National Show Your Ass In Public week and no one told me. What is wrong with people?
?? keri ?? said on 02.04.12 at 06:09 PM • [link]

Heather - when Sarah tweeted about this, my first response was a similar question, but specifically for f/f romance. It’s easy to find m/m, but I’m having a really hard time with f/f, especially fluffier kinds. I love Sarah Waters and Emma Donoghue, who are always suggested, but their writing tends to be more literary and heavy and less “romance novel”, and when I try to find others, I often just come across erotica meant for the male gaze. :(
DreadPirateRachel said on 02.04.12 at 06:09 PM • [link]

Yes, please! I’d love to read some good f/f romances, and I’ve been searching for some erotica (ANY erotica) that features f/f/m. It seems like all group-sex erotica is m/m/f. Not that there’s anything wrong with that (far from it), but I’d like to see some quality examples of women deriving pleasure from each other.

RE: the rest of this shitstorm, hell yeah, everyone who boycotts this contest! This type of discriminatory bullshit is unacceptable, and I’m a bit horrified that the RWA allows it.
Barrett said on 02.04.12 at 06:17 PM • [link]

Check out Bella Books or Bold Stroke Books, or just check the publishers on the RRW website.
azteclady said on 02.04.12 at 06:19 PM • [link]

That disregards this section (from the quote posted at Courtney Milan’s blog): “We recruit judges nationwide and even worldwide (for e-books) and our only requirement is that they are regular romance readers.

They tell us which categories and what “heat” level they prefer to read, so our entrants’ books get into the hands of people who might give them the most favorable rating.”

So no, I don’t think it shows courage. Just the opposite, in fact.
DreadPirateRachel said on 02.04.12 at 06:23 PM • [link]

My thoughts exactly. As a bisexual woman, I have never, not once, read a romance that featured a heroine who is like me. I’ve found bisexual heroes and bisexual supporting cast, but never the heroine. It’s frustrating, to say the least. It doesn’t feel good to realize that mainstream romances like to pretend I don’t exist.
Mara said on 02.04.12 at 06:31 PM • [link]

I’ve been asking myself this all week, too. Still hopping mad over the Komen business and now this breathtaking bit of complete bullshit. Just makes me want to go around shaking people until they gain some semblance of common sense and decency.
isobel carr said on 02.04.12 at 06:34 PM • [link]

I simply don’t understand why this wouldn’t be dealt with the same way that erotic romance is: if you get an entry you feel unable to judge, send it back. I was so pleasantly surprised to get a F/F in this year’s RITA box, and then BAM, this crap happens.
cleo said on 02.04.12 at 07:02 PM • [link]

Hear hear
?? keri ?? said on 02.04.12 at 07:10 PM • [link]

Yes! I read m/m romance and m/f and I’ve read m/m/f and I enjoy it all, but sometimes… I just want to read a f/f story that fits the romance genre. I also get tired of the objectifying of men (particular in certain m/m romance circles - BL manga, for ex) because, well, it does nothing for me and gets boring! But for the objectifying women side, it’s almost all male gaze and porny and makes me feel uncomfortable and kind of dirty (not the good kind of dirty, either).

It’s frustrating to see “LGBT romance” or “same-sex romance” discussed, but it’s never the full spectrum - just m/m or maybe m/m/f. I don’t really follow niche blogs because it’s just one aspect of what I want to read, so I’d never heard of the publishers Barrett mentioned - I’m checking out Bella Books now and they have 29 pages x24 books in the Romance category, which is promising! (Too bad the covers are kind of blah - I’m one of those people who is drawn to covers if I don’t have recs.)
Stacia Seaman said on 02.04.12 at 07:21 PM • [link]

As I’ve mentioned on Twitter and will mention in an upcoming blog post, I’m concerned about the broader issue here. I write GLBT romance and erotica. I identify as GLBT. I have been a dues-paying member for years now. I hesitated in joining my local chapter for exactly this reason: I wasn’t sure what their reaction would be when they saw what I wrote, much less who I am.

If I were living in Tulsa, realizing the local chapter of RWA has decided they are “uncomfortable” enough with GLBT romance to completely exclude it from their chapter contest would make me think long and hard about joining that chapter—or, for that matter, joining RWA, because if RWA allows their chapters to discriminate in this manner, what does that say about the organization at the national level?

To writers who identify as GLBT, this is much, much more than a chapter contest. This is personal. This is about a national organization that is happy to accept our dues while allowing its membership to say that our stories are not romances, that our relationships are inferior. I think that’s a big problem, one that RWA needs to address.
Lee Rowan said on 02.04.12 at 07:52 PM • [link]

They can find judges to accept rape scenes, S&M, etc. But not same-sex. The answer is to find judges. Elisa Rolle manages to round up a couple dozen of us for the Rainbow Awards; a call for volunteers would find them inundated. This is a bogus argument.
Lee Rowan said on 02.04.12 at 07:55 PM • [link]

Aha. So gay romances HAVE won, and that’s what scared them silly. Heavens to Elizabeth, those undesirables are joining the country club!

The Petition Site has a petition up over here:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com…
Lee Rowan said on 02.04.12 at 08:01 PM • [link]

You might enjoy Lynn Kear’s Murder in a Buckhead Garden, from PD Publishing. Good mystery with a lesbian in a committed relationship. I lucked out with it while reading for the Rainbow Awards in 2010.
Damon Suede said on 02.04.12 at 08:04 PM • [link]

Savvy and tart as always, Sarah! Thank you for pointing out what’s what and who’s keeping it on the down-low. :)

I have zero problem with contests targeting entries. I have zero problem with chapters tailoring contests to meet the abilities of their volunteers and officers. I DO have a problem with a contest which has recognized LGBT titles in the past deciding that the E-Z worksaving fix is to just eliminate a whole category of romance which has for many years been not just included, but honored. I guess the potential LGBT winners are beneath attention or acknowledgement as of 2012. Good to know. The trouble is that no one forces you to BUY a book, but when an author is PAYING YOU to judge a book, quality should be the criteria not personal bias. I guess the folks who are skeeved out by LGBT characters need to be protected, and that’s fair if sorta sad. Hell, saved a bunch of authors the fee, right? And saved them from anything that isn’t within their comfort zone. Heaven forfend. Whatevs. It’s just another chapter contest…a source of income and a little promo mojo.

It’s just so myopic and inexplicable as an official position. Marginalizing is the way you invent minorities and ghettos. It’s a foolish decision and one they cannot have thought about with any degree of depth. Imagine the outcry if the rules had been changed to state: NO JEWISH CHARACTERS PERMITTED or NO FAT HEROINES or ONLY WHITE RELATIONSHIPS ALLOWED. Any defense they offer comes apart like wet toilet paper.
SB Sarah said on 02.04.12 at 08:04 PM • [link]

F/F GS vs STA - coming right up. Gimme 2 minutes.
J P Bowie said on 02.04.12 at 08:05 PM • [link]

Try my website for size! LOL. http://www.jpbowie.com/ Gay romance there along with some mysteries and vamps! Gotta love ‘em. Cheers, JP
J P bowie said on 02.04.12 at 08:10 PM • [link]

Well said Lee, Elisa does a marvelous job with nary a squawk from her judges. I’m afraid all those excuses from the Oklahoma chapter are bogus right wing oriented claptrap and I hope they’re feeling ashamed right now - but somehow I doubt it!
Alizamann1 said on 02.04.12 at 08:30 PM • [link]

Just seems like exclusionary practices have a tendency to grow. As an RWA member, I’m very disheartened by this decision. Particularly, as a writer that often uses diverse characters, I use contests as a way to gain exposure. What if no one will read my African American lesbian that’s in love with an Asian American? Sad.
SB Sarah said on 02.04.12 at 08:36 PM • [link]

@Keri and @DreadPirateRachel: new entry for you!

GS vs. STA: Lesbian Romance
The Other Susan said on 02.04.12 at 09:09 PM • [link]

Yeah, nobody told me either. Too bad - I’m sure I could have come up with something really good. Not as good as what’s actually happened, though.
Keziahhill said on 02.04.12 at 09:34 PM • [link]

At the risk of some shameless self promo, I have two f/f shorts in one ebook available from Kindle and other ebooks sellers. And I’d like to give a bouquet to my national romance writers’ organisation the Romance Writers of Australia who define in their contests rules that a romance is between the main protagonists not between (or not only between) a man and a woman.
Jill shultz said on 02.04.12 at 09:46 PM • [link]

Thank you, Courtney and Sarah!

I am outraged by this chapter’s behavior, but heartened by the response. Thank you for being on top of it, and offering such cogent replies.
DreadPirateRachel said on 02.04.12 at 09:53 PM • [link]

Damn it. Commented on the wrong post.
azteclady said on 02.04.12 at 10:29 PM • [link]

While totally agreeing with the wrongness of discrimination of any kind, and condemning this decision by whomever runs the Romance Writers Ink chapter of RWA, could we please not paint all of Oklahoma with that brush?
Aurora85 said on 02.04.12 at 10:36 PM • [link]

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…
Sablegrey said on 02.04.12 at 10:46 PM • [link]

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.
Resternglantz said on 02.04.12 at 11:13 PM • [link]

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?).
Deanna Lee said on 02.05.12 at 12:17 AM • [link]

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.
Lee Rowan said on 02.05.12 at 12:33 AM • [link]

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.
Laurel said on 02.05.12 at 12:54 AM • [link]

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.
Laurel said on 02.05.12 at 01:04 AM • [link]

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.
Stacia Seaman said on 02.05.12 at 01:12 AM • [link]

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).
Carolyn Jewel said on 02.05.12 at 01:49 AM • [link]

I suggest you look for novel by Radcliffe, one of the leading authors of f/f romance.
Lucy Francis said on 02.05.12 at 01:56 AM • [link]

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?
KBR said on 02.05.12 at 03:24 AM • [link]

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.
Aurora85 said on 02.05.12 at 03:39 AM • [link]

Which Radcliffe? Ann Radcliffe doesn’t have f/f romances…
Anon said on 02.05.12 at 04:07 AM • [link]

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.
Laura Vivanco said on 02.05.12 at 05:57 AM • [link]

I think Carolyn meant Radclyffe.

And on the topics of RWA and Radclyffe, just a few days ago I was pleased to learn that:

There will be a GLBT panel at the 2012 Romance Writers of America conference. The panel members are Kim Baldwin, Suzanne Brockmann, Lauren Dane, Sarah Frantz, K. A. Mitchell, Heather Osborn and Radclyffe.
Mitzi Flyte said on 02.05.12 at 08:21 AM • [link]

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…
Jill Sorenson said on 02.05.12 at 08:27 AM • [link]

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.
Stephanie Takes-Desbiens said on 02.05.12 at 09:32 AM • [link]

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.
dick said on 02.05.12 at 10:46 AM • [link]

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
Throwmearope said on 02.05.12 at 10:53 AM • [link]

@ 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.
HK said on 02.05.12 at 11:43 AM • [link]

(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.
Ally Blue said on 02.05.12 at 12:08 PM • [link]

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.
Unimaginative (Wahoo Suze) said on 02.05.12 at 01:19 PM • [link]

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.
Lee Rowan said on 02.05.12 at 01:20 PM • [link]

@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.
DreadPirateRachel said on 02.05.12 at 01:25 PM • [link]

Laurel, that would be awesome. I’m so thrilled with how many awesome recommendations I’ve gotten because of this thread.
Julieinduvall said on 02.05.12 at 01:33 PM • [link]

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.
Patrice said on 02.05.12 at 02:44 PM • [link]

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.
Alpha Lyra said on 02.05.12 at 02:49 PM • [link]

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.
Brandi said on 02.05.12 at 02:50 PM • [link]

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.
Margie_church said on 02.05.12 at 05:05 PM • [link]

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.
Violrussell said on 02.05.12 at 05:30 PM • [link]

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.
dick said on 02.05.12 at 05:39 PM • [link]

@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
Jaime Samms said on 02.05.12 at 06:05 PM • [link]

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!
Shana Berry said on 02.05.12 at 06:41 PM • [link]

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).
Faellie said on 02.05.12 at 07:04 PM • [link]

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.
Parhelion said on 02.05.12 at 07:33 PM • [link]

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.
Dayna said on 02.05.12 at 08:07 PM • [link]

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.
Beth Beth said on 02.05.12 at 08:16 PM • [link]

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?
Lu said on 02.05.12 at 08:22 PM • [link]

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.’
Beth Beth said on 02.05.12 at 08:39 PM • [link]

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.
KzoeT said on 02.05.12 at 08:49 PM • [link]

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.
Beth Beth said on 02.05.12 at 09:01 PM • [link]

@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.
Ann Somerville said on 02.05.12 at 09:09 PM • [link]

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.
Saranna DeWylde said on 02.05.12 at 09:11 PM • [link]

I happily volunteer to judge for The Rainbow Awards if someone decides to put that together.
Terrie Sandelin said on 02.05.12 at 10:19 PM • [link]

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.
Unimaginative (Wahoo Suze) said on 02.05.12 at 10:55 PM • [link]

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.
Lee Rowan said on 02.05.12 at 10:59 PM • [link]

I haven’t read Brockmann, but now I must. Classy lady!
Beth Beth said on 02.05.12 at 11:43 PM • [link]

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.”
Al said on 02.05.12 at 11:49 PM • [link]

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.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 02.06.12 at 12:01 AM • [link]

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.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 02.06.12 at 12:13 AM • [link]

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.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 02.06.12 at 12:20 AM • [link]

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.
Ann Somerville said on 02.06.12 at 12:23 AM • [link]

Al, in some parts, the person you’re replying to is known as the ‘eponymous commenter’. There’s a reason for that.
Beth Beth said on 02.06.12 at 12:24 AM • [link]

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.)
Ann Somerville said on 02.06.12 at 12:25 AM • [link]

“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.
Jessa Slade said on 02.06.12 at 12:33 AM • [link]

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.
Ann Somerville said on 02.06.12 at 12:40 AM • [link]

“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
Elizabeth Gunther said on 02.06.12 at 12:52 AM • [link]

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
Elizabeth Gunther said on 02.06.12 at 12:55 AM • [link]

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.”
Lee Rowan said on 02.06.12 at 01:00 AM • [link]

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.)
Lee Rowan said on 02.06.12 at 01:04 AM • [link]

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.
Lee Rowan said on 02.06.12 at 01:07 AM • [link]

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.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 02.06.12 at 01:17 AM • [link]

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.”
Noybusiness said on 02.06.12 at 02:22 AM • [link]

So they’d rather marginalize people for their very nature than make people uncomfortable for their backward beliefs?
elladrake said on 02.06.12 at 07:11 AM • [link]

I read that in the comment above as well and wondered.
But I know several male authors in RWA. Several.
Jane Leopold Quinn said on 02.06.12 at 08:15 AM • [link]

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
Tamara Hogan said on 02.06.12 at 08:53 AM • [link]

There’s a comment up at http://rwimagiccontests.wordpr… stating that the contest has been cancelled.
Laura Vivanco said on 02.06.12 at 10:04 AM • [link]

And now the RWA has put out a statement:

RWA Clarifies Its Position Regarding Chapter Contests

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.
Jody Wallace said on 02.06.12 at 10:08 AM • [link]

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.
Lee Rowan said on 02.06.12 at 10:33 AM • [link]

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.)
Patricia Eimer said on 02.06.12 at 10:44 AM • [link]

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.
Lee Rowan said on 02.06.12 at 10:49 AM • [link]

“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.
Noybusiness said on 02.06.12 at 11:09 AM • [link]

It’s especially annoying when people try to sweep evidence of prejudice under the rug by insisting that it’s all been fixed now.
Jeannie S. said on 02.06.12 at 11:09 AM • [link]

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.
laura said on 02.06.12 at 11:25 AM • [link]

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.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 02.06.12 at 12:28 PM • [link]

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.
Unimaginative (Wahoo Suze) said on 02.06.12 at 01:12 PM • [link]

the worst excesses of liberal secularism

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.
Melinda said on 02.06.12 at 01:27 PM • [link]

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.
SB Sarah said on 02.06.12 at 01:35 PM • [link]

@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.
Beth Beth said on 02.06.12 at 02:11 PM • [link]

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.
Courtney Milan said on 02.06.12 at 02:33 PM • [link]

“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.
Unimaginative (Wahoo Suze) said on 02.06.12 at 02:54 PM • [link]

I would like a “superlike” button so that I can “like” Courtney Milan’s comment a kajillion times.
R. Billoir said on 02.06.12 at 03:38 PM • [link]

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.
kzoet said on 02.06.12 at 03:49 PM • [link]

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?
Ann Somerville said on 02.06.12 at 06:04 PM • [link]

“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.
Ann Somerville said on 02.06.12 at 06:05 PM • [link]

“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.
Tina said on 02.06.12 at 07:25 PM • [link]

<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.
Amy Jo Wickens said on 02.06.12 at 09:28 PM • [link]

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?
Ann Somerville said on 02.06.12 at 10:48 PM • [link]

“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.
Bnbsrose said on 02.07.12 at 02:24 PM • [link]

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.
Lynne Connolly said on 02.07.12 at 02:50 PM • [link]

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.
Stephani Hecht said on 02.07.12 at 02:56 PM • [link]

Courtney, you are my hero!
Jackquigley175 said on 02.07.12 at 05:45 PM • [link]

They have a surplus of judges willing to read them, the same judges who judged them in years past.
SB Sarah said on 02.08.12 at 09:17 PM • [link]

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.
Ann Somerville said on 02.08.12 at 10:15 PM • [link]

“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.
Dani Alexander said on 02.08.12 at 11:14 PM • [link]

>>>>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.
Arshad Ahsanuddin said on 02.08.12 at 11:42 PM • [link]

“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.
Stephani Hecht said on 02.09.12 at 12:53 AM • [link]

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?
Colleen Coover said on 02.09.12 at 02:49 AM • [link]

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.
Maggie said on 02.09.12 at 08:01 AM • [link]

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.
Dani Alexander said on 02.09.12 at 01:17 PM • [link]

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.
azteclady said on 02.10.12 at 10:21 PM • [link]

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.
Lu said on 02.11.12 at 09:12 PM • [link]

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.
Shannon West said on 02.18.12 at 08:48 PM • [link]

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.