Author: has written 12 posts for this blog.

A friend claims I derail conversations like a reversed magnet on a maglev train. I even derail my own conversations.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

148 Responses

  1. Xyre » Orson Scott Card is a hateful homophobe

    […] (X-posted to Feministe.) […]

  2. g
    g July 29, 2008 at 8:33 pm |

    How long before opposing gay marriage, or refusing to recognize it, gets you officially classified as “mentally ill”?

    Wow, wouldn’t it be awful if in this country someone could be classified as having a mental disorder for something to do with sexual orientation? [sarcasm button ON]

  3. RyanRutley
    RyanRutley July 29, 2008 at 8:35 pm |

    Good Christ, that is an epic feat of shell-game equivocation. I’ve come to believe that when someone insists on defining the terms of debate, they are not prepared to discuss in good faith.

  4. zadig
    zadig July 29, 2008 at 8:56 pm |

    Success! When you google “hateful homophobe” (in quotes), Orson Scott Card is at the top of the list. It’s a shame, too, because I still enjoy about 1/2 of his writing. (The other half is just utter crap. Really. Amazingly bad. I mean really, Lovelock?)

    Anyway, well done.

  5. Bushfire
    Bushfire July 29, 2008 at 9:03 pm |

    The term “homophobic” is somewhat problematic, because the ending “phobic” is normally associated with psychopathologies, not just dislike. That’s why people have started to use “heterosexist” and “homonegative”. However, it is understood by most normal people that “homophobic” refers to a range of dislike to hatred, rather than a DSM diagnosis. He is discussing this to distract from the actual issue.

    I can’t imagine what makes people make ridiculous statements like “homosexuals are ending democracy”. I also enjoy “destroying the moral fabric of society”. I am still trying to find out how my love for my girlfriend will destroy the moral fabric of society. Can’t imagine how it would change our political system either. It seems like these people don’t even listen to themselves when they talk.

  6. Brian
    Brian July 29, 2008 at 9:19 pm |

    Where I disagree with you: Ender’s Game. The book is amazing, one of the best of all time.

    Where I agree with you: Orson Scott-Card is a stupid-ass fucker. When I first discovered this over a year ago, I was heart broken. I have come to terms with it, and I share this info with everyone.

  7. Hot Tramp
    Hot Tramp July 29, 2008 at 9:47 pm |

    From Card’s sterling mind:

    These judges are making new law without any democratic process; in fact, their decisions are striking down laws enacted by majority vote.

    Uh, sweetie? Judicial review is PART of the American democratic process. It’s why we, you know, have a federal Constitutions and state Constitutions? To avoid that whole tyranny-of-the-majority thingamabobby? Unless you’d like to do away with all court decisions that were made in the face of an unhappy majority. Which would make you a racist as well as a homophobe.

  8. Onymou
    Onymou July 29, 2008 at 9:58 pm |

    While there’s a lot of criticism leveled at Card, I think my favorite is this http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm brilliantly exhaustive look at morality in Enders Game.

  9. Vicki Wagner
    Vicki Wagner July 29, 2008 at 10:08 pm |

    Democracy in America ended the day George W. Bush took office and the US Supreme Court called for an end to counting ballots in Florida. Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 people/votes. If American didn’t rise up in the year 2000, they never will…unless taxes get raised to a point where they are unwilling to pay. I don’t know what kind of democracy this homosexual is enjoying when she got kicked out of her military for kissing a girl.
    Yeah, that was after they gave me a Top Secret Clearance. I’m still waiting for the Liberty and Justice For All Thing to kick in….
    My two cents.
    Vicki Wagner
    Host of Lesbian Knows Best
    Author of Get a Gay Date Today!

  10. Arnold Layne
    Arnold Layne July 29, 2008 at 10:16 pm |

    I cannot speak for homosexuals, but we bisexuals have been destroying the fabric of moral society for decades, centuries, nay, millennia, and we’re damn proud of it.

  11. Mercredi
    Mercredi July 29, 2008 at 10:28 pm |

    Oh, Card.

    He’s truly informative – why, from some of his thoughtful essays, I learned that to strongly disagree with him is to in fact infringe on his first amendment rights! Also, I learned that blacks gays have the same rights as white straight people, since everyone has the right to marry someone of the same race opposite sex!

  12. Nakanja
    Nakanja July 29, 2008 at 10:37 pm |

    Objecting over the term homophobe always seemed like a pointless attempt at distraction to me. Would it satisfy them if people stopped using it? I doubt many conversations’ve gone like this:
    “Stop calling me a homophobe; I’m not afraid of gay people!”
    “Okay, then how about I just call you gay-hater?”
    “Alright; that’s an accurate description of my position. I have no complaints and will shut up now”.

  13. Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca)
    Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca) July 29, 2008 at 11:15 pm |

    Mm, I like Ender’s Game and Ender’s Shadow for the strategic aspects but found the characters and the rest of the series uninteresting.

    On the other hand, Orson Scott Card is a hateful homphobe as well as an ignorant little man.

  14. denelian
    denelian July 29, 2008 at 11:30 pm |

    yep, he has many many views i detest.

    in person, he is very pleasant so long as you avoid politics and religion. and ya know, i do this with ALL old people (old = people i cannot have a rational conversation with. and doesn’t include my parents OR my 82 year old grandmother.)

    hrm. just so ya know, i can get along with lots and lots of people whom i wish weren’t able to vote. OSC is right at the top of the list. i really really wish he were more like Eric Flint. and advertised his religion less.

  15. vodalus
    vodalus July 29, 2008 at 11:54 pm |

    man, i keep misreading the hyphen in “stupid-ass fucker”…rather ironic, given the context of the complaint.

  16. Siege
    Siege July 30, 2008 at 12:44 am |

    @Onymou: That essay articulates a lot of the problems I have with Card’s work as a whole. These (unexamined?) conflicts really color the entire moral universe of his fiction (some of which I have enjoyed, but I am happy to say none of which I have paid for. Thanks, library card.).

    Oh, and for a deep dose of persecuted-innocent-violent-righteous-closeted-homohatred, read “Songmaster”. Or on second thought, don’t.

  17. Tanya
    Tanya July 30, 2008 at 12:50 am |

    Yeah, legalizing marijuana would be sooo terrible.

    I get the point that you were trying to make, but why on earth would you equate legalizing marijuana with polygamy, bestiality, hooliganism, murder, and Project Runway? The complete lack of any criticism of the pointless drug laws is an unceasing source of disappointment for me.

  18. Bianca Reagan
    Bianca Reagan July 30, 2008 at 12:52 am |

    Booo. I like Ender’s Game, and I love Ender’s Shadow. Until I read the introduction of First Meetings: In the Enderverse, I didn’t realize he was Mormon. That explained his obsession with Thirds and family planning mandates in the books and stories. Nothing explains the homophobia in that article. Crazy man.

    I wonder if the vitriol comes from a Ted Haggard place in Mr. Card’s troubled heart. At least I don’t have to go through this difficult time alone.

  19. NancyP
    NancyP July 30, 2008 at 12:54 am |

    What serious hyperventilation Card has! Give him a Xanax and keep him away from computers and word processors.

  20. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 1:09 am |

    I actually spent a lot of time dissecting Card’s anti-homosexuality writings. I’m satisfied that he isn’t a homophobe, but he is definitely a heterosexist. Does he dislike or fear gay people? He says he doesn’t, and I believe him. However, he does feel that in our communities and through the state, homosexual relationships should be outlawed and heterosexual ones should be privileged. Not a homophobe, but a heterosexist, according to my understanding of those words.

    Card thinks that homogeneity within our communities is the most important underpinning of human society. If you can understand this value system, it is easy to understand why he sodomy as bordering on treason.

    In the later Ender books, he sees in limitless habitable planets the potential for a totally segregated future for humanity, based on ethnic and religious fractures. As a kid, this irked me. As an adult, and in light of his more bigoted positions, I’ve come to view his work as totalitarian, reactionary filth.

    I guess democracy can’t work unless we’re all in agreement. That he’s calling out the thought police shouldn’t surprise anyone. Homophobe, though? I think something closer to fascist would be more appropriate.

  21. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide July 30, 2008 at 1:17 am |

    Ender’s game was okay. It wasn’t ZOMG AMAZING, but it was okay. The Shadow books, however, conclusively demonstrated that whatever talent he had is long-gone. Those hackneyed rewrites of the story of Ender’s Game made it harder to like the book of Ender’s Game. Oh, and we mustn’t forget Empire if we’re discussing OSC’s literary works as a “mitigating” factor contra his politics.

    On the matter of “homophobe”, I’m not horribly keen on the construction, because it feels like it’s playing a power game (“Ha, yer scaird’a gay folk!”). The idea, I’ve always been told, is that one fears what one doesn’t understand, etc. But still, it feels like the word is aiming to “hit them where it hurts” by accusing such individuals of being (pardon the language) immasculine sissies. On the other hand, the “-phobe” construction is used in other non-psych contexts as well (e.g., francophobe, Islamophobe), and in those cases one has trouble suspecting this dynamic is at play. So personally, I try to avoid the term, but occasionally use it and certainly don’t complain at others doing so.

  22. exholt
    exholt July 30, 2008 at 1:37 am |

    I read Ender’s Game and Speaker of the Dead between the sophomore and junior years of high school. They were captivating to read at the time….though I was also captivated by reading other sci-fi novels ranging from Star Trek to Issac Asimov. Unfortunately, Ender’s game was the last sci-fi novel I’ve read as pressures from school and life along with an increasingly obsessive interest in reading history and computer technology related writings meant that no time was left over for sci-fi reading.

  23. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 1:39 am |

    Card also said that Serenity (dir. Joss Whedon) is the greatest scifi movie of all time.

    He is clearly a hateful moron. All of his opinions are tainted and invalid.

  24. Lauren O
    Lauren O July 30, 2008 at 2:45 am |

    Sooo…when Alai was whispering “I love you” to Ender, I wasn’t supposed to see any homoeroticism in that? Hmm.

  25. RyanRutley
    RyanRutley July 30, 2008 at 3:16 am |

    Ok, so I haven’t read any Scott Orson Card (not because I’m not nerdy enough, but because I’m enough of a nerd to look down on him as science fiction for people who don’t know good science fiction), but in researching Ender’s Game it has come to my attention that the major villians (who Ender eterminates for the good of the human race) are called……..

    I shit you not…….

    The buggers.

  26. Aaron
    Aaron July 30, 2008 at 3:50 am |

    The original short story “Ender’s game” packed a lot of punch. Then he expanded it into a crappy novel, that tugged at poor put-upon little kids in just the way mentioned.

  27. Yonmei
    Yonmei July 30, 2008 at 4:19 am |

    ha: Does he dislike or fear gay people? He says he doesn’t, and I believe him. However, he does feel that in our communities and through the state, homosexual relationships should be outlawed and heterosexual ones should be privileged.

    Yes, because he hates and fears gay people. Of course he claims not to: he perceives his homophobia as the normal way to feel about gay people.

    By the way, the date on which “democracy ended in America” according to Orson Scott Card’s own definition, is in fact 12th June 1967.

    And Orson Scott Card is a homophobic terrorist.

  28. Speaker for Himself | MetaFilter
    Speaker for Himself | MetaFilter July 30, 2008 at 4:53 am |

    […] which he says "marks the end of democracy in America". Not everyone is too happy about that. posted by Artw (67 comments total) That column is as narrow as his fucking mind. […]

  29. Ellid
    Ellid July 30, 2008 at 7:20 am |

    Orson Scott Card is an idiot. I read one of his essays in a fanzine all the way ack in college, almost thirty years ago, and I thought he came across as a whiny, self-obsessed idiot then. Then I tried to read Songmaster and thought it was one of the creepiest books I’ve ever read, and completely stupid as science fiction when he flat-out admitted in an introduction (or an afterword, or something) that the “science” behind the book was impossible but he wrote the book anyway.

    He’s also a proud member of a church that had institutionalized racism until the 1970s (or, until a convenient “revelation” allowed black men to “hold the priesthood” – prior to that, blacks were considered to bear the mark of Cain, or something) and that excommunicated several women for daring to support the ERA. No wonder his thinking is, shall we say, a bit twisted….

  30. Ephraim
    Ephraim July 30, 2008 at 7:37 am |

    “Card thinks that homogeneity within our communities is the most important underpinning of human society. If you can understand this value system, it is easy to understand why he sodomy as bordering on treason.”

    This might make a little bit of sense if homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior were mutually exclusive, either at the level of society or at the level of the individual person.
    Unless, of course, we’re to believe that homosex is so appealing to everyone that once you’ve tried it heterosex is ruined for you. And if that were the case, humanity would have long ceased procreating.

  31. Riva
    Riva July 30, 2008 at 8:02 am |

    Meh, at least there’s some gold among the mud with Card. He’s not Jonah Goldberg, for example. Then again, that’s pretty faint praise.

    That being said, I dunno whether you can really connect sucky writing (wherever you find it) with X-ist writing. Plenty of bad writers with good hearts. Plenty of good writers with really bizarre and hateful ideals (read any literature from before 50-100 years ago? ’nuff said.)

  32. norbizness
    norbizness July 30, 2008 at 9:04 am |

    Not only that, but he’s a huge Jimmy Fallon and Hitch fan, which may be a worse crime against humanity in the long run.

    Also, the last two pages of this 2000 Salon interview are pretty horrifying.

  33. rejiquar
    rejiquar July 30, 2008 at 9:07 am |

    I read Ender’s Game and the first two sequels too young or too maybe too carelessly to consciously process the criticisms brought up in Onymou’s link; and appreciated tremendously his “Secular Humanism” speech, which I heard at some con or other.

    But Wyrms was absolutely stomach-turning—positively the most horrific rape I think I’ve encountered in a novel. At the point the evidence for Card’s disdain for women became incontrovertible, and my fondness for the author never really recovered.

    But then, I’m kinda slow.

  34. Casual Reader
    Casual Reader July 30, 2008 at 9:12 am |
  35. Thomas
    Thomas July 30, 2008 at 9:13 am |

    About the suffix -phobe:

    Anyone who reads about the history of foreign relations among European countries has seen the suffixed -phone and -phile used in a very similar fashion. Historically, for example, a Briton who believed that France was the biggest threat to British interests, and therefore feared and opposed France, was a Francophobe. One who held such a belief also, at some points, typically viewed Russia as a natural ally, and was therefore a Russophile. One taking the opposite positions would have been called a Russophobe and a Francophile. In foreign policy, the terms remain to some extent, and -phobe in that context means one who opposed, mistrusts and regards as a threat.

    I think it is beyond debate that Card opposes, mistrusts and regards as a threat the GLBT community. He is therefore properly called a homophobe.

    This nomenclature has the additional advantage that the ill-informed mistake it for an allegation that they are possessed of an irrational fear, which drives them to distraction, possibly because that is also often true.

  36. Rebecca
    Rebecca July 30, 2008 at 9:24 am |

    vodalus: I give you this link.

    ha: I’d say that wanting to privilege heterosexual relationships and outlaw homosexual ones is pretty inherently homophobic. It implies that homosexual relationships have less worth that heterosexual ones and are in fact evil (Card says legalizing gay marriage is the end of democracy, hey).

  37. human
    human July 30, 2008 at 9:42 am |

    He has homosexual characters in some of his books. There’s one in the “Memory of Earth” series and one in a later book in the “Ender’s Shadow” series. They’re sad, servile little men that the reader is supposed to feel sorry for because they suffer from an affliction. But, if they can man up, get it up, and marry and impregnate a woman, that makes it all better. In fact, by going against their homosexual desires in this way, they’re to be admired more than heterosexual men because it’s HARDER for them to impregnate a woman. They really have to work at it – it’s not all fun and games!

    Lovely stuff, really.

    Oh and Lovelock, haha! Yes, a book about a monkey who overcomes oppression through… wait for it… MASTURBATION. It was supposed to be a series, but maybe his publishers showed a glimmering of sense and cut him off after the one…

  38. CBrachyrhynchos
    CBrachyrhynchos July 30, 2008 at 10:06 am |

    For about a decade now, I’ve been avoiding using the word homophobia and preferring terms like “heterosexism” and “anti-gay bigotry.” First, because I really dislike having the extended semantic discussions about how the meaning of homophobia is different from agoraphobia or aracnophobia, And second because I think that often the big picture of systemic and systematic oppression gets lost in all the discussion about individual prejudices.

  39. CBrachyrhynchos
    CBrachyrhynchos July 30, 2008 at 10:10 am |

    Can’t help it, but I keep wanting to play with how the hyphen placement matters in the phrase
    stupid-ass fucker, compared to stupid ass-fucker. (Although with the latter the feeling of delightful stupidity comes during and after the act.)

  40. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 30, 2008 at 10:15 am |

    “Does he dislike or fear gay people? He says he doesn’t, and I believe him. However, he does feel that in our communities and through the state, homosexual relationships should be outlawed and heterosexual ones should be privileged. Not a homophobe, but a heterosexist, according to my understanding of those words.”

    What new fangled twisted logic is this? The only way for it to make sense is if you too, ha, are a homophobe (i.e, your “belief” in him that he isn’t a homophobe, while simultaneously parsing out the “outlawing” of a ***relationship*** between two people can only lead me to think that you don’t find outlawing human relationships to be based in fear and hate).

    Why would you even go to bat for a man who spouts such odious tripe? Why defend him (oh, you know, on a feminist site) to even the slightest degree?

    And to all of you thinking it’s okay to redefine “homophobe”, give me a break. Who benefits? Those poor wankers who want just being gay to be illegal? Is that who you really want to defend? Who the fuck gives a rat’s ass if they don’t like the “phobe”? Isn’t that the prime indicator that there is a deep underlying issue that they need to address?

    Maybe when gays have their ***civil*** fucking rights acknowledged and legalised we can split hairs over who is or who isn’t phobic, but until that day comes, every person who is not advocating for the ***civil*** fucking rights of gays is HOMOPHOBIC.

    Civil rights, folks. Not just marriage. Civil rights. I hope you’re enjoying yours today.

  41. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 10:21 am |

    Two responses: First, if he says he doesn’t hate gay people, I see absolutely no reason not to concede the point. His policy prescriptions are so inherently jingoistic and offensive (and I’m leaving a lot out) that they speak for themselves.

    Ephrain said, “Unless, of course, we’re to believe that homosex is so appealing to everyone that once you’ve tried it heterosex is ruined for you. And if that were the case, humanity would have long ceased procreating.”

    Card writes: “One thing is certain: one cannot serve two masters. And when one’s life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another. ” http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

    Here’s the point: He sees the LDS church as one community. He sees homosexuals as forming another community. He argues that those two communities cannot coexist in a functioning democracy. And what of other communities can’t coexist in a democracy–Catholics, Baptists, atheists… Jews, Gypsies, political dissenters?

    Why get into an argument about whether or not Card thinks gay people are icky? I don’t see anything inherently wrong with most murderers, but still think they should be locked up for obvious reasons. That Card sees the behavior and inclinations of consenting adults as inherently criminal is the problem, not WHY he sees it that way.

    He’s a right-wing extremist and his values are inherently at odds with liberal democracy. He needs to be exposed for what he is.

    There are plenty of people who are creeped out by homosexuality who don’t think they should be treated differently in our society. They are homophobes. Is Card a homophobe, too? I don’t know, but he is definitely something much, much worse.

  42. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 10:30 am |

    Q Grrl, that is really out of line.

    My point is that there is no reason to get pulled into a side argument about Card over his inner feelings. It is pointless, and beside the point.

    I happen to think pretty much the entire Republican and conservative movement is based on hate. I don’t get into arguments about it, because it is easier and more effective to form arguments based around kids who don’t have health care, collapsing domestic infrastructure, and, yes, the critical role of our civil rights in our democracy.

    Clearly, I am a homophobe.

  43. Jesurgislac
    Jesurgislac July 30, 2008 at 10:35 am |

    ha: My point is that there is no reason to get pulled into a side argument about Card over his inner feelings. It is pointless, and beside the point.

    We’re not discussing Card’s “inner feelings”. We’re discussing the homophobic feelings and opinions he has made very, very public.

  44. Sepra
    Sepra July 30, 2008 at 10:44 am |

    I loved Ender’s Game and I liked the Alvin Maker series, and probably would still if I read it again. I even like the Shadow series, which I thought was well done. Will I probably read him again after this? No.

    I also liked Piers Anthony (at least the Apprentice Adept Series, Incarnations of Immortality and the first couple Mode books) until I realized that he was a pedophile. Now I wouldn’t touch his books with a ten foot pole.

    As a huge fan of the scifi/fantasy genre, I think I was able to shut off the degradation of women and racism when it got in the way of enjoying a novel, but as I have gotten older, it becomes more and more painful to read. There is some great scifi/fantasy out there without all that crap

  45. Not News: Orson Scott Card is a hateful homophobe. « Ottermatic

    […] Greensboro, North Carolina, not far from the man himself, so although I appreciate the coverage at Feministe and The Slog, it is not news to me that Orson Scott Card is a hateful […]

  46. little light
    little light July 30, 2008 at 10:52 am |

    That’s funny, I don’t think Q Grrl is out of line in the least. I’m sorry, but the argument *I* think is pointless is “But why are you calling him a homophobe? He says he’s not one, and that all he wants is to criminalize queer people who attempt to interact with other people or fall in love.” I mean, come on. Really? “He doesn’t hate you, he just thinks that you kissing your partner should be illegal. He doesn’t fear you, he just thinks your family’s existence will collapse democracy, render the government illegitimate, and spread like a disease until it dissolves civil society. But he’s not a *homophobe,* I mean he’s not *scared* of you.”

    This is the side argument. This is the distraction from the issue at hand, this equivocation and weaseling. Including, “Well, no, he’s not really a homophobe, he’s a fascist who happens to fit the criteria for being one. That’s different. Can we change the subject?” Complete with the classic,”Why are we complaining about bigotry anyway? It’s everywhere, after all. Let’s talk about what I think it important to talk about right now, which happens to be something else.”

    I’m sorry, opposing hate from random demogogues might not be the most vital thing ever in fixing society, but you know what? It doesn’t *keep us from doing* those other things or having those other conversations. And in the meantime, more unopposed hate speech props up those political regimes and policies you’re concerned about. And for that matter, telling marginalized people when they have time on your schedule to be pissed about bigotry directed toward them is kind of counterproductive.

    Unopposed hate speech adds to the climate where I’m exhausted every day from dealing with little jabs from systematic oppression. Unopposed bigoted arguments are what convinces some landlord not to rent to me in spite of antidiscrimination laws, or nudges some boss over into “You’re just not what we’re looking for” when I need a job. Unopposed hate speech, allow to settle and harden into the “normal” status quo, is what justifies that hate speech used against me during an incidence of police brutality, is what convinces my family that milder bigotry is in fact support by comparison, and exposes the arguments that those making policy use about us behind closed doors.

    Multiple conversations can happen at once, you know. And we can figure out on our own what to be offended by.

  47. Thomas
    Thomas July 30, 2008 at 11:01 am |

    BTW, for those who don’t know much about Card or sci fi, Casual Reader’s link is very instructive. Some people think that the first two Ender novels are seriously deliberate apologia for Hitler, and perhaps even a committee-written Mormon conspiracy. Seriously. I don’t have the background to evaluate either claim, but if true, Card-tolerance is unacceptable.

  48. Sarah
    Sarah July 30, 2008 at 11:14 am |

    Orson Scott Card has written some of the best (and worse) sci-fi and fantasy stories of the last 30 years. He his also a Mormon who attempts to use his celebrity to forward his bigoted views. I feel that I can enjoy and admire his writing talent while completely condemning his opinions as backwards and harmful to a democratic society.

    Frankly, I’m sickened by the blanket attacks on judicial review perpetrated by the conservative right. It is an attack on the foundation of American democracy – checks and balances was pretty much the best idea Our Founding Fathers ever had.

  49. norbizness
    norbizness July 30, 2008 at 11:23 am |

    “Bigoted” works a whole lot better and has no internal debate about whether one “fears” gay people. It’s like saying that Bull Connor was “negrophobic” instead of “a racist piece of shit.”

  50. Thomas
    Thomas July 30, 2008 at 11:24 am |

    “Frankly, I’m sickened by the blanket attacks on judicial review perpetrated by the conservative right. It is an attack on the foundation of American democracy – checks and balances was pretty much the best idea Our Founding Fathers ever had.”

    That bears repeating.

    The countermajoritarian function is not a bug. It’s a feature. Nine unelected people are supposed to be able to vindicate fundamental rights over the objection of the majority.

  51. Anna
    Anna July 30, 2008 at 11:29 am |

    Sepra, I’m at work, and not entirely willing to google “Piers Anthony Pedophilia” when I’m here – can you expand on that a bit?

  52. kakodaimon
    kakodaimon July 30, 2008 at 11:34 am |

    Onymou: Yes yes yes, I was just about to post that when you happily beat me to it! And the title (if not the content) of the essay Kessell references, “Sympathy for the Superman,” is exactly why I can’t stand Ender’s Game. Feel sorry for the perfect boy, because people are jealous of his superiority. Ick.

  53. Miss Julie
    Miss Julie July 30, 2008 at 11:40 am |

    If we could focus on Card’s bigotry, rather than trying to link it to a religion about which many of the previous commenters seem to be vastly misinformed, I’d really appreciate it. I don’t mean to distract from the issue at hand – I mean, I know that Orson Scott Card waves the Mormon Banner high, and this article was found in a copy of the Mormon Times (a publication I’ve personally never even heard of). But it makes it hard to focus on the issue at hand when I start feeling this defensive of my religious beliefs. Besides, isn’t it kind of hypocritical to call out someone for their prejudiced thinking and then add some kind of, “And he’s a Mormon, and we all know how THEY are” argument to the end? I’m just saying.

    And yeah, I’ve never quite gotten how legalizing gay marriage would bring down democracy. Or society. Or anything else. I understand that some people have some faith-based problems with homosexuality, but if that’s the case I wish they’d just say so instead of trying to make some kind of weird, ostensibly pragmatic argument. These “gays will somehow destroy America…I don’t know how but it will happen” arguments are tiresome, hateful, and just plain strange.

  54. Sailorman
    Sailorman July 30, 2008 at 11:58 am |

    [shrug] If I define someone as a homophobe, I do so because they dislike gays, not because they go into shrieking convulsions when gay people approach.

    But if they point out–correctly–that this is a different use of the word than, say, arachnophobia, I concede.

    Why not? What’s the big deal with the label? I’m happy to call them a bigot, if they prefer, or a gay-hater, or something that doesn’t trap me into semantic side tracks.

  55. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 11:58 am |

    If you want to get dragged into a debate with Card about whether or not he fears, hates, or is simply uncomfortable around gay people, that is certainly your prerogative. We can definitely have two conversations, but I don’t see what this one accomplishes.

    Jesurgislac: “We’re not discussing Card’s “inner feelings”. We’re discussing the homophobic feelings and opinions he has made very, very public.”

    What he has made very, very public is a position that is fundamentally aligned with fascism. He’s also saying he’s not a homophobe. You can argue with the latter, but I think it is more effective to hold up the former and call him a totalitarian sleeze.

    Norbizness: ““Bigoted” works a whole lot better and has no internal debate about whether one “fears” gay people. It’s like saying that Bull Connor was “negrophobic” instead of “a racist piece of shit.””

    Card is guilty of bigotry. He is guilty of believing things and having values that make him a piece of shit. And we should be pulling those arguments which he has made into public to mock him.

    Card has happily engaged in this debate over whether or not he is a homophobe. I find all of your arguments very convincing, but I think they miss the point, and it distracts from the horrible things that Card is saying, loud and clear, and explicitly.

    Consider the Dred Scott decision–I think the more important issue there is that it was a monstrous supreme court ruling that undermines American values and enabled the continuation of crimes against humanity. Whether or not the justices were secretly racist is an interesting question, too, but is secondary to the degree that one should avoid being distracted from the former to discuss the latter.

  56. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide July 30, 2008 at 12:28 pm |

    @kakodaimon
    I get the same dynamic fiercely, though I didn’t when I read Game and Speaker. They were revolting clear when, years later, I read the first two Shadow books. I never read anything else by OSC after the second of those (and finishing said second was a painful chore, but I very rarely stop reading a book once started). They presented a persecution fantasy drenched with such utter paranoia that it became unreadable. As bad as the poor little perfect boy Ender had it, his travails were nothing compared to Bean, with his perfect foresight and moral clarity, eternally faced with an indestructible and nigh-unstoppable (except for the perfect Bean, of course) arch-nemesis, who upon being defeated would inevitably be brought back to ever-increasing power by the foolish, shortsighted, selfish Untermenschen who were in charge of everything. Not just paranoid, but lazy and hackish.

    @Onymou:
    Ah, Kessel. Thanks for the link, it’s been too long since I’d read that or anything else by him. This is plainly something needing remedied.

  57. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 30, 2008 at 12:32 pm |

    “Card has happily engaged in this debate over whether or not he is a homophobe. I find all of your arguments very convincing, but I think they miss the point, and it distracts from the horrible things that Card is saying, loud and clear, and explicitly.”

    Really? Are you gay?

    I sure hope so, because if you’re straight you’ve got goat balls telling me how I should react and how weightly my reaction should be to the homophobia expressed around me. My reaction DOES NOT miss the point; my reaction IS THE POINT.

    [to those who think “bigotry” is a good substitute, I clearly remember when “bigot” was a term that specifically related to race relations and racism. It is not a good substitute, especially when most adults with an average intelligence know perfectly well what “homophobic” means. Don’t neuter the word that resonates with the hatred I encounter; you only serve to give hate a platform to rest on.]

  58. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 12:43 pm |

    Q Grrl: Is your reaction about him disliking you for being gay, or is your reaction about him saying you are a criminal for being gay? That’s the distinction I am trying to draw, not one about whether or not you should be offended.

    I think I’ve created the impression that I don’t think Card is horrible or that I don’t think everything about him should fill us with righteous indignation. And hurt. I think it is an important semantic point, but maybe it isn’t. He’s gross and disgusting and I agree with everyone commenting here absolutely on that point.

    Q Grrl, you’ve accused me of homophobia, which I think was out of line. I don’t think I need to be gay to have an opinion on this, and I’m disappointed to hear you resort to that. Further, I don’t think I’ve tried to dictate your reaction, but I do apologize for creating that impression.

    My point has always been that I think “fascist” is more apt than “homophobe.” I apologize that, in arguing that, I have seemed insensitive or presumptuous.

  59. Chad
    Chad July 30, 2008 at 12:59 pm |

    The really pathetic thing is that he doesn’t even have the basic facts straight. The push for gay marriage in the US is older than 15 years (the first judicial case I’m aware of took place in 1972) and same-sex marriage has been referred to and even practiced with cultural sanctions in classical Rome and imperial China, just to name a couple places/times. Also California has not actually outlawed homeschooling, but has required parents to have licenses to teach. Then there are his disingenious statements about abortion and FACE.

    Relying on dusty notions of “natural law” and bigotry is bad enough. The least he can do is perform five minutes of research before he writes.

  60. CBrachyrhynchos
    CBrachyrhynchos July 30, 2008 at 1:02 pm |

    Q Grrl: Ok, I’m a queer person who prefers anti-gay bigotry over homophobia for reasons that are grounded in my experience with education and activism. I’m quite willing to agree to disagree but please don’t frame that part of the discussion as straights watering down the word.

  61. jennhi
    jennhi July 30, 2008 at 1:05 pm |

    Thomas is right: Casual Reader’s link about OSC being an asshat is a very informative article. To restate: the author of that article has great reason to believe OSC didn’t even write the first two books of the series; the third one was, apparently, crap so the author believes the committee abandoned OSC and left him to write the book on his own.

    To back this up, the most convincing part of the article was the scene when the author’s friend Elaine, after having marked up a copy of OSC’s first two books with parallels she had found in a biography of Hitler, wrote an essay about this. OSC, infuriated, tried intimidating her over the phone and threatened to write a rebuttal. He obviously wasn’t expecting her to say okay to that, but she did — and he was forced to follow through. His essay was nonsensical; he denied certain parts of the book she cited were actually in the book, even though she had annotated them correctly.

  62. jennhi
    jennhi July 30, 2008 at 1:08 pm |

    sorry, submitted before I was finished…

    The third book in the series had a different tone entirely and to the author of the article, was probably written by OSC himself after his committee abandoned him and a hiatus of many years. He proved himself to be a pretty lousy writer, if the reviews are to be believed (and I haven’t read any of his books).

    Anyway, the point is that OSC can’t even be credited with something as “good” as Ender’s Game, so why are we listening to him now?

  63. CM
    CM July 30, 2008 at 1:10 pm |

    I read Ender’s Game a few years ago, without knowing he was a homophobe. It was an awful, awful book, and I don’t at all get why it’s praised by so many people.

  64. Shayne
    Shayne July 30, 2008 at 1:17 pm |

    Don’t know who Orson Scott Card is, and obviously I don’t want to know.

    I would like to state for the record that it’s the heterosexuals that have been destroying the fabric of society for a while now. They are the sexual coupling with privileges. And lest we forget, it’s been the white dudes in power who have destroyed the rest of the fabric. They are the ones who’ve had the power for most of the time.

  65. Jesurgislac
    Jesurgislac July 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm |

    ha: He’s also saying he’s not a homophobe. You can argue with the latter, but I think it is more effective to hold up the former and call him a totalitarian sleeze. … Card is guilty of bigotry.

    Ah, I see the problem: you weren’t aware that homophobia is the usual term for “bigot” when the bigotry is directed against LGBT people. That’s why Card argues he isn’t a homophobe, because he thinks the homophobically-bigoted opinions he has are right and normal.

    Now I’ve enlightened your ignorance, please quit demonstrating it. Thank you.

  66. Blog@Newsarama » Blog Archive » Card speaks against gay marriage (again), and Marvel gets pulled into the response

    […] Feministe, MetaFilter and a slew of other blogs and sites also have picked up on the topic — although many move away from the Marvel Comics aspect to focus on one of Card’s comments, which some interpret as the author advocating the overthrow of the government. […]

  67. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 1:38 pm |

    Wow.

  68. little light
    little light July 30, 2008 at 2:03 pm |

    Q Grrl, you’ve accused me of homophobia, which I think was out of line. I don’t think I need to be gay to have an opinion on this, and I’m disappointed to hear you resort to that. Further, I don’t think I’ve tried to dictate your reaction, but I do apologize for creating that impression.

    Ha, cupcake, the point wasn’t that you need to be gay to have an opinion on the matter. It’s that maybe, just maybe, when discussing homphobia/anti-queer bigotry, the actual queer people who’ve actually been targeted by that bigotry ought to have a little more weight to their voices. It’s that people who’ve been at the business end of this kind of bigotry are simply more informed and insightful on the matter, and have been told over and over by people who haven’t–even would-be allies–what our best interests are.

    As a person of color, I don’t really tolerate white folks attempting to tell me how I ought to define or understand racism, or what it’s Really Like. As a queer person, similarly, I just don’t have a whole lot of time for straight folks who want to tell me about how much better they understand homophobia and transphobia than I do. You’re welcome to an opinion, and having one that disagrees doesn’t make you a homophobe. But you’re not going to gain a lot of ground telling actual queer people what is and isn’t homophobia or what to think about anti-queer bigotry.

  69. Raging Moderate
    Raging Moderate July 30, 2008 at 2:13 pm |

    Oh, the irony. On a thread about homophobia, one commenter calls another “cupcake”.

    Is that acceptable here?

  70. Rebecca
    Rebecca July 30, 2008 at 2:39 pm |

    Here‘s the essay Jennhi mentions, by the way. Interesting stuff.

  71. little light
    little light July 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm |

    To the extent that “cupcake” was condescending, I apologize. I don’t understand what’s homophobic about it, but it wasn’t very nice, so fair enough.

  72. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide July 30, 2008 at 2:47 pm |

    @Q Grrl:

    [to those who think “bigotry” is a good substitute, I clearly remember when “bigot” was a term that specifically related to race relations and racism. It is not a good substitute, especially when most adults with an average intelligence know perfectly well what “homophobic” means. Don’t neuter the word that resonates with the hatred I encounter; you only serve to give hate a platform to rest on.]

    But this exactly misses the point. We call racial prejudice “racism”, not some variety of “-phobia”. We call anti-female prejudice misogyny, not gynophobia. The question is not whether we do use the homophobe construction, but rather if we should. Language changes, and particularly in the realm of social activism, change can be consciously motivated and carried out. Is there a good reason to continue to describe anti-homosexual prejudice with a term that evokes, whether one wants it to or not, comparisons to mental illness or a belittling fear dynamic upon those who it describes? I think it’s more productive to describe someone who espouses prejudice against blacks is better described as a racist than a negrophobe; likewise those prejudiced against homosexuals would to my eye be better called heterosexist (or even the clunkier heteronormativist).

    Recourse to less accusatory terms helps portray opposition to anti-homosexual prejudice as a neutral, rational endeavor, and undercuts attempts to paint it as emotional tribalism. By continuing to use the “-phobia” construction, semantic (and more importantly, rhetorical) wiggle room is given to anti-homosexual bigots to argue that its usage is an illegitimate attempt to decry people with a differing opinion as mentally ill. Recall that the term’s coiner argued that it was a mental illness. Adopting this language allows people to attempt to distinguish their particular “reasonable, acceptable” disagreement as principled and rational (as opposed to, say, Mr. Phelps), and allows them to claim that their detractors are not attacking prejudice so much as declaring that all those who disagree with them are insane. The overall affect is to let bigots to paint themselves as reasonable and victimized, and their detractors as unreasonable and oppressive.

    Personally, I’ll occasionally use the term for succinctness when speaking with sympathetic parties because it’s the most commonly used term for such attitudes. I will not use it in an accusatory sense because it needlessly yields rhetorical tools to the party I’m arguing against. I could use it, but I don’t think the visceral pleasure of throwing the epithet at them outweighs the legitimatizing effect that its subtexts affords its target.

  73. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 30, 2008 at 2:57 pm |

    ” I will not use it in an accusatory sense because it needlessly yields rhetorical tools to the party I’m arguing against.”

    Yeah, well, who’s arguing.

    I mean, if you’re having to *argue* with folks about whether gays are fully human and deserving of the same civil rights as everyone else, I don’t understand how you could rule out phobia or mental illness as an underlying cause. Surely if you are arguing over status-as-human and corresponding civil rights, and mental illness and phobia are *not* part of the equation, then the other side’s argument is instantaneously transparent and worthless. Why, then, do you keep arguing or worrying about “rhetorical tools”.

    If someone is dumb enough to believe gays are not fully human, then they sure as hell aren’t going to enjoy the semantic divisions of bigotry and homophobia. They sure as hell aren’t going to get that they are “anti-homosexual” or “pro-heterosexual” or “heterosexually biased”. In order for them to grasp the significance of your splicing, they would have to understand that heterosexual is not the default. They don’t view themselves as “heterosexual”; they view themselves as “normal”. As such, they really aren’t too worried about refining the argument, they’re just jerking your chain.

  74. Raging Moderate
    Raging Moderate July 30, 2008 at 3:02 pm |

    Q Grrl, do you use the terms negrophobe or gynophobe instead of racist or misogynist?

  75. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 30, 2008 at 3:14 pm |

    RM are you queer? Gay? Lesbo? Bi? Trans?

    If not, then STFU. Not your argument. Not your call.

    Put as much “passion” into arguing for gay ***civil*** rights and then I might consider that you have any weight at all on the side of your pathetic attempts at political commentary. Otherwise you’re just looking for shit to stir because you are bored and your life is comfortable enough for your boredom to spill out onto the politics that define my status as a full citizen.

    I’ve been “out” for the last 26 years and I haven’t seen a situation yet that “homophobic” didn’t fit to a T. My earlier point about “bigotry” is that we often use words that don’t semantically fit the situation, but they convey the reality of it just fine.

    Really, though, what particular dog *do* you have in this fight?

  76. Daomadan
    Daomadan July 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm |

    I feel the need to jump in even though Q Grrl is rockin’ it out on her own.

    I can’t believe we’re arguing whether it’s more appropriate to call OSC a “homophobe” or “bigot” or “heteronormative” etc…because what it all boils down to is a man who doesn’t think that I and my queer sisters and brothers have the same rights as heterosexuals and that we’re ruining democracy in America. That sure seems to scream “homophobic/insert your word of choice” to me.

    “Q Grrl, do you use the terms negrophobe or gynophobe instead of racist or misogynist?”

    Way to bring in a straw(wo)man there.

  77. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide July 30, 2008 at 3:34 pm |

    If someone is dumb enough to believe gays are not fully human, then they sure as hell aren’t going to enjoy the semantic divisions of bigotry and homophobia.

    Two points. First, many many many heterosexists don’t view homosexuals as sub-human; they view them as humans who are behaving in an immoral manner, and who shouldn’t be afforded “special treatment” in order to continue and encourage this “self-destructive” behavior. This doesn’t make their prejudice any better, certainly; it can make it worse because it lets them couch their arguments in calmer, more measured tones. But demonizing them doesn’t help to understand them and can alienate apathetic third parties.

    Second, the point is not to convince them, it’s to marginalize them and their attitudes. The important thing is not that they do or do not have credibility amongst themselves. The important thing is whether they have credibility with those who consciously identify neither with them nor with the LGBT camp. I.e., the aforementioned apathetic parties. The apolitical. The non-activists. The uninvolved. Whatever we want to call them. The folk who don’t feel strongly enough to actively take sides, but whose opinions are probably being courted when the two sides clash in the forum of public opinion. You know, the “public”.

    Only rarely can you be argued out of a position you weren’t argued into. So the bigots aren’t going to be swayed by argument, no matter how rhetorically savvy it might be. But the audience at large, outside of the dueling choirs, can be argued out of the position they drifted into. And that’s why rhetoric matters, that’s why it matters if we seem reasonable and cool-headed, that’s why it makes a difference whether the bigots can deflect criticism of their prejudice with an easy semantic flourish instead of contorting themselves into a pretzel trying to portray their stance as rational and measured.

  78. Raging Moderate
    Raging Moderate July 30, 2008 at 3:40 pm |

    “RM are you queer? Gay? Lesbo? Bi? Trans?”

    Nope.

    “Put as much “passion” into arguing for gay ***civil*** rights and then I might consider that you have any weight at all on the side of your pathetic attempts at political commentary.”

    I’m not sure why you found my question to you passionate, but not only have I fought for gay civil rights, we won! I’m a Canadian who has been to two gay weddings (one legal). Accusing those who disagree with you of being mentally ill doesn’t seem to me to be a good way to go about winning hearts and minds of the public at large (and not to mention being ableist).

    I’ll assume that you do not use the terms negrophobe or gynophobe. Why not? What is it about anti-gay bigotry that makes you feel that it is a mental illness, whereas racism and misogyny aren’t?

  79. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide July 30, 2008 at 3:49 pm |

    @Q Grrl

    I’ve been “out” for the last 26 years and I haven’t seen a situation yet that “homophobic” didn’t fit to a T. My earlier point about “bigotry” is that we often use words that don’t semantically fit the situation, but they convey the reality of it just fine.

    Question: have you seen situations that “heterosexist” wouldn’t equally well fit to a tee?

    Tone matters. “Neutral” accusations will be seen as more rational and unbiased by people who do not view themselves as involved. If we want to get to the point where heteronormative views seem depraved instead of “basically normal”, public opinion must be swayed. Giving the other side an easy lever to portray, as OSC does here, their prejudice as “different” and “better” than unacceptable, “bad” anti-homosexual prejudice doesn’t help. It may feel satisfying to call them out, but ATM it’s only going to score points with those who don’t need convinced.

  80. Sailorman
    Sailorman July 30, 2008 at 3:50 pm |

    I have, unfortunately, met and spoken to people who would not agree that “gays are fully human.” Happily this is rare.

    Most people I have met and argued with who don’t think gays are “deserving of the same civil rights as everyone else” think gays are human.

    It’s just that they think 1) all humans are not deserving of the exact same set of civil rights, 2) there are exceptions for certain actions or situations; or 3) certain things, that I am arguing are “civil” or “human” rights, aren’t in that category at all and are not properly referred to as “rights.”

  81. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm |

    “But demonizing them doesn’t help to understand them and can alienate apathetic third parties.”

    Poor things, so misunderstood. Life sure is hard for the haters, isn’t it?

  82. hecateluna
    hecateluna July 30, 2008 at 4:02 pm |

    Is this discussion seriously going on??? Obviously Orson Scott Card is a homophobe. Obviously some people want to re-define the term “homophobe” because either they’re too stupid to understand how words actually work (they sometimes have meanings that aren’t precisely defined from the morphemes they are formed from–SHOCK AND AMAZEMENT!), or they’re arguing in bad faith. Argh. Homophobe means anti-gay bigot. I’m sorry if you don’t like the way languages work, but seriously, get the fuck over it and move on.

    Anyway, I kinda liked Ender’s Game, for bad scifi fluff, which is what it is. Among bad scifi fluff, it’s well-written and tolerable. I’m also kind of at a loss for why anyone is actually still listening to Orson Scott Card, though. When was the last time he published anything remotely popular? Won’t he shut up and go away already?

  83. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 30, 2008 at 4:06 pm |

    RM: “What is it about anti-gay bigotry that makes you feel that it is a mental illness, whereas racism and misogyny aren’t?”

    Never said that, now did I. You’re creating straw arguments, so I won’t engage with you anymore.

    Nombrillisme: Fuck tone. We’ve already had the great feminist civility debates, which it seems you may have missed, so I’m not going to rehash the use of “civility” as a marker of oppression in and of itself. Personally I’m not worried about hurt fee fee’s of haters. I’m concerned that I, and folks like me, have space to put our own words to our own experiences. “Homophobic” only becomes problematic if you think you are on equal footing with the stupid fucks that hate you and you’re worried that they might be offended. Yeah, sure. They’ll fire you, deny you housing, refuse to serve you in a restaurant (happened to me recently), but shit we’re all fucking screwed if we hurt their damn feelings! Who will think of the Homophobes!

  84. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 4:11 pm |

    Hecate: He’s moved into writing comics, and is apparently being given control of Ultimate Iron Man. Marvel is also looking at doing comic adaptations from the Ender series, and I’m sure there will be a lot more coming from Card in the future.

    Follow the Newsarama blog link above, comment 66 I think.

    *goes back to shutting up, cuz white hetero males never get to hang out with the cool kids*

  85. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide July 30, 2008 at 4:19 pm |

    Q Grrl:

    Poor things, so misunderstood. Life sure is hard for the haters, isn’t it?

    Consider what Sailorman writes directly above you. At this time, it is rare to find people who openly express the opinion that homosexuals are subhuman. Why not? It didn’t used to be the case; it was listed as a mental illness by the APA until, what, 1973? But now we rarely hear those arguments aired in public. We hear arguments that the effects of homosexuality are bad for individuals or society… not that homosexuals are inhuman. Why? Because public opinion has shifted enough to make such arguments less acceptable compared to more “measured” ones. The public is less open to calling homosexuality a mental illness, and so its enemies cagily eschew this language in order to maintain greater credibility. They present arguments that are more nuanced and complex, albeit at root no less evil. If we attack the idea that the bigots are phobic towards homosexuality, if we even indirectly accuse them of being insane for thinking like this… what do they do? They cry, in a calm and reasonable tone, “Straw man! Straw man!” They claim that we fail to address their Legitimate and Serious arguments about the Evils of Homosexuality. They play for sympathy with the non-activist audience, and portray themselves as not misunderstood, but irrationally demonized. They whine and wheedle that they’re trying to have a reasonable debate, but these intractable, unreasonable haters prefer argumentum ad hominem, that they won’t (can’t?) address their Legitimate and Serious points.

    I see no reason to give them ammunition. Even if it feels good to do so point-first.

  86. Raging Moderate
    Raging Moderate July 30, 2008 at 4:20 pm |

    “Poor things, so misunderstood. Life sure is hard for the haters, isn’t it?”

    What about the apathetic third parties (ya know, the ones you need to sway to your side)? To hell with them too?

    I think I see why the fight for gay rights isn’t going so well in your country.

  87. Daomadan
    Daomadan July 30, 2008 at 4:27 pm |

    “*goes back to shutting up, cuz white hetero males never get to hang out with the cool kids*”

    Oh, boohoo…we “cool kids” not letting the white hetero male to play in the game of marginilization. You sure you want to give up all that privilege so you can come and play with us? Get paid less, discriminated against because you’re black/Asian/lesbian/bi/trans/disabled/etc, get killed because you’re black or gay or a woman? I could go on but…wow. Get some fucking perspective.

  88. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide July 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm |

    Q Grrl:

    Personally I’m not worried about hurt fee fee’s of haters. […] “Homophobic” only becomes problematic if you think you are on equal footing with the stupid fucks that hate you and you’re worried that they might be offended.

    Again, it’s not about being nice to the bigots. It’s about denying them an easy means to dismiss criticism in the eyes of those who don’t identify heteronormatively or or anti-heteronormatively. I know it feels good to let them have it, but it makes it easier for them to dismiss criticism with the so-called uninvolved (who, yes, aren’t… but that’s the whole point). It’s not about hurting their feelings. It’s about hurting their credibility.

  89. little light
    little light July 30, 2008 at 4:30 pm |

    *goes back to shutting up, cuz white hetero males never get to hang out with the cool kids*

    That’s astonishingly passive-aggressive.
    I’m sorry that you’re feeling upset that we’re not choosing to privilege your perspective as a “white hetero male” over the perspective of people who actually experience what’s being talked about, but the assumption that you automatically ought to have more authority in the discussion–as you would in most discussions and most places–is privilege, plain and simple. And the fact that you can only process this as about cliquishness and “cool kids,” rather than a matter of privileging the testimony of the directly knowledgable even though they’re not “white hetero males,” is really rather telling.

    It must be really hard, being a straight white guy in this world, expecting to always be deferred to and then finding that every now and then yours isn’t considered the most valuable perspective on a subject. You’re clearly being oppressed by all these brown folks and queer folks and all who keep insisting on not being drowned out by your hairsplitting and won’t indulge your abstract circumlocution regarding issues that directly affect their lives and not yours.

    Sometimes–sometimes–you’re not the most important person in the room. Life is difficult. Check your privilege.

    Raging Moderate? You, too. It’s nice that some of your best friends are gay, or whatever, but you’re being deliberately obtuse and you know it. You’re making strawman arguments and engaging with things nobody in this “room” has said in order to discredit arguments you’re not actually addressing. You know better.

  90. Mel
    Mel July 30, 2008 at 4:46 pm |

    The character in the Memory of Earth books–and his probably-asexual* arranged-marriage wife–depressed the hell out of me, because Card did portray them as being poorly suited for each other, and the societal persecution of the man as wrong, but his SOLUTION for this is for them to suck it up and make babies together and deny their true inclinations. Then no one will persecute them! They might not be HAPPY, but see, people like them can’t expect happiness.

    *She might have been a lesbian, but I think he intended her to read as asexual. I haven’t read these books in a long time–I read them as a teenager who was unable to put down a book I started even if I disliked it. Now I have self-preservation.

    It’s like he sort of gets it–which is probably how he manages to have gay friends–and then he so very much does not, which is how he can so loudly argue that his gay friends should have sham heterosexual marriages.

    I don’t much care what specific label we slap on Orson Scott Card–I don’t like him, his views on queer people infuriate me, and his books make me queasy.

  91. little light
    little light July 30, 2008 at 4:47 pm |

    I think I see why the fight for gay rights isn’t going so well in your country.

    Actually, I think it’s ’cause we were in that neighborhood in that short skirt, you know? Practically advertising.
    Or was it that society will stop hitting us when we stop making it mad? I mean, when we don’t behave right, or speak without being spoken to, or don’t have dinner ready on time, we’re making them do it, you know?
    Besides, we looked at them funny. It’s only understandable.

  92. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide July 30, 2008 at 4:52 pm |

    Hecateluna:

    Obviously some people want to re-define the term “homophobe” because either they’re too stupid to understand how words actually work (they sometimes have meanings that aren’t precisely defined from the morphemes they are formed from–SHOCK AND AMAZEMENT!), or they’re arguing in bad faith. Argh. Homophobe means anti-gay bigot. I’m sorry if you don’t like the way languages work

    Here’s the thing, though. The folk etymology for homophobia, “homosexual” + “phobia“, is actually right in this case. That was the intentional derivation of the term when Weinberg coined it. As in, a mental illness causing people to be irrationally afraid of, and prejudiced against, homosexuality. This nicely paralleled the then-current APA definition of homosexuality itself as a mental illness. The term subsequently had its meaning drift… but in this case it means it’s come to generally mean prejudice against homosexuals, but it has retained its original meaning with a non-trivially-sized block of speakers. So… the term is ambiguous. Its most common semantic interpretation is indeed “anti-homosexual prejudice”. The semantic interpretation of “mental illness causing one to hate and fear homosexuals” is less common. These are two different semantic entities. However, even noting that the dueling semantics more commonly lean towards the former… that’s only semantics. One must consider pragmatics as well. And these two semantic entities have much more in common in terms of pragmatics than they do in terms of semantics. To deny that suggests, to use your terms, a lack of understanding or bad faith.

  93. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 4:52 pm |

    Q Grrl, Daomadan: If you guys want people who aren’t LGBT to stay the hell out of your conversation, that’s fine. I guess I wandered into the wrong thread.

    I’ll pull out the Card quote again: “One thing is certain: one cannot serve two masters. And when one’s life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another.”

    Whatever else he may be, he is a segregationist at best and a supremacist at worst.

    Quoting Q Grrl: “RM are you queer? Gay? Lesbo? Bi? Trans? / If not, then STFU. Not your argument. Not your call. ”

    Actually, it is everyone’s argument. Anyone who believes in a free society or the basic rights of human individuals has a duty to be in this fight.

    Even to the degree that this conversation is constrained to the very narrow terms that Card wishes to engage on, the question of his homophobia, I don’t see how anyone can suggest a person of conscience has no place in the debate.

    Is Q Grrl’s perspective acceptable to everyone else?

  94. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 30, 2008 at 5:03 pm |

    I’m going to make a leap of faith (?) and guess that I’ve been out of the closet as long, or longer, than these two have been alive. Care to confirm that gents?

    And I’m calling bullshit on this, all of it:

    “They present arguments that are more nuanced and complex, albeit at root no less evil. If we attack the idea that the bigots are phobic towards homosexuality, if we even indirectly accuse them of being insane for thinking like this… what do they do? They cry, in a calm and reasonable tone, “Straw man! Straw man!” They claim that we fail to address their Legitimate and Serious arguments about the Evils of Homosexuality. They play for sympathy with the non-activist audience, and portray themselves as not misunderstood, but irrationally demonized. They whine and wheedle that they’re trying to have a reasonable debate, but these intractable, unreasonable haters prefer argumentum ad hominem, that they won’t (can’t?) address their Legitimate and Serious points.”

    Show it to me, bub. Again, I’ve been out for 26 years. Did heavy outreach activism in the late 80’s; in your face, no punches held, etc. I’ve not once had anyone react the way you describe. Not once; as in never.

    I think you just don’t like uppity folk. They rock open your carefully closed closet door. They make *you* nervous for reasons you don’t rightly know – like maybe you’re afraid to live, or fight, or address Power directly. So be it. Just don’t tell me my tone offends someone who I don’t really think exists.

  95. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 5:12 pm |

    I’ll accept that my “cool kids” remark was childish and passive aggressive.

    I also don’t agree with Nombril that folks should be overly concerned with the use of offensive language to describe a bigot.

    Can I point out, though, that this conversation between people who fundamentally share the same values has devolved into name calling and back and forth over whose arguments get more “weight,” whatever that means?

    That’s it. I’m voting for Bloomberg.

  96. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 30, 2008 at 5:13 pm |

    I leave you with Mr. Card’s own words. I think they confirm a heavy level of mental distortion, if not outright paranoia:

    “The dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

    It’s that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual “marriage.”

    They are unhappy, but they think it’s because the rest of us “don’t fully accept them.”

    Homosexual “marriage” won’t accomplish what they hope. They will still be just as far outside the reproductive cycle of life. And they will have inflicted real damage on those of us who are inside it. ”

    [Source: http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

    Even under the strictest definition of “phobia”, I think that the assumption that gays are hurting the reproductive capacity of the entire fucking SPECIES is, indeed, phobic.

  97. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 30, 2008 at 5:17 pm |

    Another from Card:

    “The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity’s ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships. ”

    [Source: http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/01/03/orson-scott-card-criminalize-homosexual-behavior.htm

    Nothing says “insane” or “phobic” better than claiming teh Gays will have mind control over the general populace (i.e., “shaking the confidence of the community” to the point that routine heterosexual mating might not happen.) One wonders what Card thinks about women. Or not.

  98. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 5:18 pm |

    Q Grrl: You got me with that quote.

    I’m convinced. He’s a homophobe, AND a heterosexist, AND a totalitarian. And a thoroughly horrible human being.

  99. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 30, 2008 at 5:32 pm |

    Ah, one more, then I’ll quit.

    Again, from Card:

    “The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible. . . .We are compassionate and forgiving of those who cannot resist this temptation, but we do not regard as adult anyone who has not overcome it; and we can only help others overcome those “genetic predispositions” by teaching them that we expect them to meet a higher standard of behavior than the one their own body teaches them.”

    This man is delusional. He talks about control and standards, so maybe paranoid too. He also wants me to trust the content of his particular mind over the lived experiences of my own body. That’s pretty fucking insane. Especially in light of the quote above of his the implies that teh Gays are gonna confuse the straights right out of reproduction.

    yeah, but I’m a big meanie because I called him a homophobe!

    *snort*

    Righto.

    oh, yeah, source: http://dearauthor.com/wordpress/2008/01/22/ya-honor-of-orson-scott-card-controversial-in-light-of-anti-homosexuality-statements/

    Oh wait, I read the OPENING paragraph to his stupid Nauvoo screed:

    “When I was an undergraduate theatre student, I was aware, and not happily so, how pervasive was the reach of the underculture of homosexuality among my friends and acquaintances. After a while I stopped being shocked to discover that someone I had known well, or whose talent I admired, was either moving into or already a part of the not-so-clandestine network of gay relationships. I learned that being homosexual does not destroy a person’s talent or deny those aspects of their character that I had already come to love and admire. I did learn that for most of them their highest allegiance was to their membership in the community that gave them access to sex. ”

    Okay, all you mincers of words, all you who would say this man is just hateful, but completely sane: how is it that Card can stump for straight marriage, but think that the highest allegiance queers have is to a community that gives them access to sex? I mean, holy fucking insane batpoop! How does that contradict any of his prior beliefs, excuse me, standards of morality if marriage = man + woman = reproduction = salvation of the species? I mean, one could certainly claim that a husband’s highest allegience is to the social community (i.e., marriage) that gives him sex.

    So really, queers are okay, according to Card, as long as we don’t subtract from the gene pool or try to undermine the reproductive goals of straights.

    That, my friends, is not a mentally sound man.

    But, my bad for calling him homophobic.

  100. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide July 30, 2008 at 5:44 pm |

    I’m going to make a leap of faith (?) and guess that I’ve been out of the closet as long, or longer, than these two have been alive.

    Speaking only for myself, you’re wrong. Not that it’s particularly material to the matter at hand.

    Show it to me, bub. Again, I’ve been out for 26 years. Did heavy outreach activism in the late 80’s; in your face, no punches held, etc. I’ve not once had anyone react the way you describe. Not once; as in never.

    I’m confused. Either I’m seriously misreading what you’re writing here, or you’re seriously misreading the OSC piece that sparked this post. The sort of bigot’s theatrics I’m referring to are on display there. Go have a look at paragraph 10.

    I think you just don’t like uppity folk. They rock open your carefully closed closet door. They make *you* nervous for reasons you don’t rightly know – like maybe you’re afraid to live, or fight, or address Power directly.

    Um, excuse me, but WTF? This is mindreading, plain and simple. Or if you prefer, you’ve just reduced me to a strawman for you to righteously smash. You don’t know me, you haven’t lived my life. Please do me the simple common courtesy of not pretending otherwise in order to score rhetorical points with a tired stereotype. I fail to see from whence you could be drawing the conclusions you’re drawing here, aside from an intellectual laziness that reduces everyone into simplistic caricatures who can be addressed in an equally simplistic manner.

    Just don’t tell me my tone offends someone who I don’t really think exists.

    Again, this is not about offending. This is about NOT HELPING THEM UNDERMINE OUR ARGUMENTS. If someone is in favor of minimizing intergenerational entrenchment of class privilege, should they say they want to establish an Estate Tax… or a Death Tax? Did we hear about the plucky goodness of the Contra terrorists… or Contra freedom fighters? This is about framing the discussion, and not using language that shores up the frame that the other side is trying to establish and maintain. The heterosexists routinely spin homophobe as a slur on their mental competence. This spin holds traction with “undecideds”. You want to argue, by pure anecdotal assertion, that it doesn’t? It does. I’ve seen it, repeatedly. You can go on thinking it never happens, that this term can’t or won’t be used to diminish critics in the eyes of non-activists, as you like. It can, it is, it does.

  101. hecateluna
    hecateluna July 30, 2008 at 5:46 pm |

    Nombrilisme Vide: You display knowledge and understanding of what homophobe means in this context, and what the intent was. So why are you still arguing about it? Some foundational pragmatics literature would indicate that a cooperative speaker would move on at that point, and actually discuss the topic at hand. I’m sure you know what literature I’m talking about, since you’re clearly such a expert in the field of linguistics.

    We could talk about whether there is actually any ambiguity in modern usage of the term, but that is not the point of this thread*. The fact that OSC is a homophobe (in your second sense of the word) is.

    *also it would be very boring, so I don’t want to anyway.

  102. Nombrilisme Vide
    Nombrilisme Vide July 30, 2008 at 5:56 pm |

    Hecateluna:

    You display knowledge and understanding of what homophobe means in this context, and what the intent was. So why are you still arguing about it? […] We could talk about whether there is actually any ambiguity in modern usage of the term, but that is not the point of this thread*

    Because, alas, the argument was never about what the term meant in the post. The argument arose in the comment thread regarding the utility of the term homophobe in general to describe bigotry against homosexuals. It wasn’t the point of the thread, but it was (alas) most certainly the point of the sub-thread that spawned.

    But I’ll more generally agree that it’s time to leave it lie. Tempers are flaring, and we’ve hit the point where all involved principles are entrenched in positions from which none shall be swayed an inch.

  103. Tlonista
    Tlonista July 30, 2008 at 5:57 pm |

    Old news in the nerd community. Card spouts off about the evils of Teh Gay™ and the awesomeness of Bush, among other things, on his own site and wherever someone gives him a platform. At first I was sorry to discover it, as I really liked Ender’s Game despite the dodgy morals — and it’s still a classic of the field, which is more than you can say for any of, say, Piers Anthony’s books — but his vitriol has eroded any admiration I had for him.

    Re: “homophobia”: pointing to a dictionary and saying “but he doesn’t have an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to gay people!” is 1) extremely boring, 2) not an argument, and 3) wastes valuable time that could be spent googlebombing Orson Scott Card.

  104. Sailorman
    Sailorman July 30, 2008 at 6:21 pm |

    Since someone quoted me, I would like to clarify:

    I, personally, do not engage in semantic arguments with homophobes, preferring to call them something else.

    However, I fully support Q Grrl’s preference to insult them as much as she wants, and to call them whatever the fuck she wants, without any prohibition whatsoever (not that she needed my permission anyway, of course!)

    More to the point, I actually used to be on the “everyone should be civil” side of this argument, until I noticed that I and people like me spent more time arguing about civility than the topic. And in fact, this thread has devolved into a fight between those who wish to call OSC a homophobic asswipe, versus those who wish to call him a bigoted asswipe.

    Civility is important, sure. But it is clearly not MORE important than insulting OSC.

  105. Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca)
    Rebecca (liberal!Rebecca) July 30, 2008 at 6:33 pm |

    Oh, and this post is now #1 hit for “hateful homophobe” (with quotes or without), with the Mormon Times article second.

  106. Uncle Orson’s Lap « The Grumpy Owl

    […] I refuse to jump in with the hep cats and call him a homophobe.  Like Uncle Orson, I believe that marriage is a religious institution.  The government should […]

  107. roses
    roses July 30, 2008 at 6:40 pm |

    Is Q Grrl’s perspective acceptable to everyone else?

    Yes. (And I’m saying this as a straight person). In conversations about oppression, the words of the oppressed carry more weight than the words of somebody who has no idea what it’s like to be in that situation. Men don’t get to define sexism, white people don’t get to define racism, and straight people don’t get to define homophobia.

  108. ha
    ha July 30, 2008 at 7:12 pm |

    “In conversations about oppression, the words of the oppressed carry more weight than the words of somebody who has no idea what it’s like to be in that situation. Men don’t get to define sexism, white people don’t get to define racism, and straight people don’t get to define homophobia.”

    What does “weight” mean?

    Men don’t know what it is to be victims of misogyny, white people don’t know what it is like to be black, and heterosexuals don’t know what it is like to be victims of homophobia.

    But to say that one group “gets to” define things and another doesn’t seems to seriously limit and underestimate the potential of discourse.

    I don’t think anyone here was trying to minimize the impact of homophobia or bigotry. But in a conversation about tactics or definition, you really think one group has special rights? Do you see this limiting the role of conscious folks outside of the LGBT community in any other ways?

    You agree that folks outside of the LGBT community should STFU?

  109. Brown Shoes
    Brown Shoes July 30, 2008 at 7:33 pm |

    There’s a difference between “STFU” and trying to define the terms of a discourse we have no personal investment in, for everyone else involved.

  110. Yonmei
    Yonmei July 30, 2008 at 7:44 pm |

    ha: I don’t think anyone here was trying to minimize the impact of homophobia or bigotry

    You mean not counting you yourself? You claimed that just because Orson Scott Card believes gay people shouldn’t have the same civil rights as straight people, and that gay sex should be a criminal offense, and that gay marriage warrants overthrowing the government, that doesn’t make him a homophobe.

    If you didn’t intend to be offensive when you asserted that we ought not to call a homophobic bigot a homophobe because after all, the homophobic bigot says he doesn’t put out this kind of homophobic bigotry because he’s a homophobe, it’s out of pure and selfless loathing for gay marriage, well, now you’ve been told you were being offensive. And if you didn’t want to be offensive, you can stop now.

    Do you want to stop being offensive?

  111. Bushfire
    Bushfire July 30, 2008 at 8:45 pm |

    I want to post my support for Q Grrl’s position as well. Queers do not have to play nice, for any reason. Queers live in fear of someone denying them jobs, housing, health care, and basic human dignity if someone knows they are gay. This is irrational fear of homo/bi/trans sexual people. Queers have a much higher suicide rate and most of them get bullied at school. To ask a queer person to tone it down and use a “nicer” word than “homophobe” is so incredibly fucked up. I love it when straight people fight homophobia, but no, they don’t define homophobia, even the most sympathetic straight people I know really don’t have a clue what I go through as a queer person. Queers defining their own oppression is not a fucking special privilege. We’re talking about an oppressed group. Letting an oppressed group describe themselves in language they choose is not a privilege. It would be a privilege if the word “homophobic” didn’t have to exist because straight people hadn’t decided they were “normal” and others “deviant”.

    I don’t want straight people to STFU just because they are straight. I do want straight people who want to tell queers which words to use the describe the hate they experience to STFU.

  112. belledame222
    belledame222 July 30, 2008 at 8:50 pm |

    ““The dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally….”

    oh lordie, straight out of a 1950’s pulp and/or the ex-gay “therapists.” Yeah, once again, someone thinks his personal is all the political, dreary sigh.

    p.s. per this?

    hat’s astonishingly passive-aggressive.
    I’m sorry that you’re feeling upset that we’re not choosing to privilege your perspective as a “white hetero male” over the perspective of people who actually experience what’s being talked about, but the assumption that you automatically ought to have more authority in the discussion–as you would in most discussions and most places–is privilege, plain and simple. And the fact that you can only process this as about cliquishness and “cool kids,” rather than a matter of privileging the testimony of the directly knowledgable even though they’re not “white hetero males,” is really rather telling.

    It must be really hard, being a straight white guy in this world, expecting to always be deferred to and then finding that every now and then yours isn’t considered the most valuable perspective on a subject. You’re clearly being oppressed by all these brown folks and queer folks and all who keep insisting on not being drowned out by your hairsplitting and won’t indulge your abstract circumlocution regarding issues that directly affect their lives and not yours.

    Sometimes–sometimes–you’re not the most important person in the room. Life is difficult. Check your privilege.

    Raging Moderate? You, too. It’s nice that some of your best friends are gay, or whatever, but you’re being deliberately obtuse and you know it. You’re making strawman arguments and engaging with things nobody in this “room” has said in order to discredit arguments you’re not actually addressing. You know better.

    Little Light? Marry me.

  113. roses
    roses July 30, 2008 at 9:01 pm |

    You agree that folks outside of the LGBT community should STFU?

    I don’t think you should never say anything about gay rights – allies are useful. But if a bunch of gay people are telling you you’re wrong about what constitutes homophobia? Yeah, I think you should shut up and take their word on it.

  114. shah8
    shah8 July 30, 2008 at 9:21 pm |

    whatta wierd thread…

    And yes, Piers Anthony, once I had figured out during my young, impressionable teenaged years that he really, really, like toothsomely young girls, wicked me out…Partially because I really enjoyed the incarnations series right up until the end…

    As for Orson Scott Card…well, there isn’t much to be said for him…For a long time, he was a complete irrelevancy, until he went back to the Enderverse with Bean’s perspective, which got him some new attention. Even so, all he ever was, was a gateway drug for newbies. Basically the same quality writing as Robert Sawyer, with the same false accolades.

    Of course, everyone here knows I prefer to be the upfront asshole, especially when I don’t think there’s any interest in having a mutual conversation. Knock ‘em between the eyes, I say! Orson Scott Card is a denialist, homophobic, xenophobic (Just check out Pastwatch, y’all), apologist son of a hack writer and professional asshole.

  115. SophiaPriskilla
    SophiaPriskilla July 30, 2008 at 10:05 pm |

    Yeah, about the only defense Orson Scott Card could offer against charges of homophobia is that he hates lots of people. Sort of like Pat Buchanan… I remember having his works recommended to me many years ago, picking up a book or two, and coming to the conclusion that all his writing could accurately enough be boiled down to, “Hi, guys! I’m a Mormon! (Not much) love, Orson. P.S. I can’t write.”

  116. Leesa
    Leesa July 30, 2008 at 10:06 pm |

    I don’t seen anyone telling people they’re wrong about what constitutes homophobia. I’m seeing people saying that using the word ‘homophobe’ to describe people like Card may hurt the fight for gay rights because people like him can twist the word to make it seem like they are the ones who are victims (as Card does in his article). Giving them any way to make themselves seem rational and logical about their hatred is a very bad idea, because it may allow them to sway people who haven’t made up their minds. I’m not sure how saying the use of a particular word gives the haters ammunition is in any way trying to tell gay people “what constitutes homophobia”. We need another word, one which calls them what they are but which they can not be used by them to make them into victims.

  117. Like Mick Jagger, in a way. « feminism + fandom = attitude problem

    […] about: Orson Scott Card finally completely loses his shit about teh gayz (commentary at FSF and Feministe), and Charlie Stross announces that he’s going to deliberately make sure all his forthcoming […]

  118. GallingGalla
    GallingGalla July 30, 2008 at 11:18 pm |

    Men don’t know what it is to be victims of misogyny, white people don’t know what it is like to be black, and heterosexuals don’t know what it is like to be victims of homophobia.

    But to say that one group “gets to” define things and another doesn’t seems to seriously limit and underestimate the potential of discourse.

    ha, are you seriously suggesting that a person who is not part of a particular oppressed group and have no idea what it’s like to be a part of that group, gets to expect equal weight put on hir totally uninformed and ignorant opinions on the impact of said oppression, what the oppressed are “supposed” to feel and “supposed” to behave, and what terminology is used to define the oppression? Because that is seriously fucked up, and as someone who is queer, trans, and a woman, I sure as fuck don’t accept straight cis men defining those terms for me.

    You agree that folks outside of the LGBT community should STFU?

    Yes.

  119. Jack
    Jack July 31, 2008 at 12:38 am |

    Oh, MY lord. What a wreck. Really, how about if we call a moratorium on straight people insisting that the word homophobic is grammatically incorrect or some shit. Really, can we say DERAILING?

    What he has made very, very public is a position that is fundamentally aligned with fascism. He’s also saying he’s not a homophobe. You can argue with the latter, but I think it is more effective to hold up the former and call him a totalitarian sleeze …

    Consider the Dred Scott decision–I think the more important issue there is that it was a monstrous supreme court ruling that undermines American values and enabled the continuation of crimes against humanity. Whether or not the justices were secretly racist is an interesting question, too, but is secondary to the degree that one should avoid being distracted from the former to discuss the latter.

    OK, ha – first your telling queer people that the more important, clear issue here is that Card is totalitarian and fascist, not that he’s homophobic. Then you’re also declaring that the most important issue in the Dred Scott case was not racism, that the racism is in fact secondary to some generalized concept of crimes against humanity. If you’re also white, than I have to say, you sound like so many straight white guys I’ve encountered who simply can’t be bothered to fight oppression unless it’s generalized to the point that it’s about them, too, and doesn’t make them uncomfortable by calling them out on their own vast portfolios of privilege.

    But to say that one group “gets to” define things and another doesn’t seems to seriously limit and underestimate the potential of discourse …

    You agree that folks outside of the LGBT community should STFU?

    Way to get it twisted. As others have said, the point is that people who benefit from homophobia/heterosexism/straight privilege/whatever the fuck you want to call it do not get to dictate the terms of engagement to the people oppressed by those constructs. And your continued insistence on trying to define the conversation for, or rather against, queer people simply demonstrates why the privileged should not try to define the oppression for the oppressed.

    So yeah. Seriously. Message to straight folks who just can’t stop arguing with queers over semantics: check yourself and your privilege before posting the same damn thing over and over again. Because if you can’t check yourself before you hit “Submit Comment” again, this queer will be happy to do it for you.

  120. Gina
    Gina July 31, 2008 at 3:28 am |

    We need another word, one which calls them what they are but which they can not be used by them to make them into victims.
    But that’s their MO–to claim that they’re the ones being discriminated against. They’ll do that no matter what word we use, because in the end it’s not about the word, but the fact that we call them out on their hateful views. I agree with Q Girl and her supporters–let the people who’ve experienced it decide the terminology to use.

  121. Yonmei
    Yonmei July 31, 2008 at 3:50 am |

    Leesa: I’m seeing people saying that using the word ‘homophobe’ to describe people like Card may hurt the fight for gay rights because people like him can twist the word to make it seem like they are the ones who are victims

    Yeah, but they’re always going to do that. So don’t indulge them.

    I’m not sure how saying the use of a particular word gives the haters ammunition is in any way trying to tell gay people “what constitutes homophobia”.

    Then let me explain it to you. Homophobia means the particular kind of bigotry that targets LGB people. (Transphobia, related word, means the particular kind of bigotry that targets trans people.) True, the word was originally coined to name a particular kind of mental illness (in 1972 by George Weinberg). But the meaning of words changes with how they are commonly used and understood. When we say that Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, the only people who will claim that this means we are saying he is mentally ill are the homophobic bigots and the suckers who think the homophobic bigots justified in claiming to be victims. Everyone else will understand that we mean Orson Scott Card holds bigoted views about LGB people and our claim to equal rights.

    Here’s the real reason these people object to the use of the word “homophobia”, and why they would object to any word that meant the same: using the word homophobia to describe these bigots says “If you feel hatred and contempt towards LGB people, if you want to deny equal rights to LGB people because of their sexual orientation, there is something wrong with you.”

    Homophobic bigots want to believe their hatred and contempt for LGB people is normal. They do not want to be identified as homophobes, not because they think they’re being regarded as mentally ill, but for the same reason they do not want to be identified as bigots: they want the rest of us to accept that their homophobic feelings are normal.

    Don’t give them the ammunition that they need. That’s what you’re doing. They’re homophobes. They don’t like that label, but that’s their problem. Don’t make it yours, and don’t try to make it ours.

  122. RyanRutley
    RyanRutley July 31, 2008 at 4:06 am |

    And seriously, if we’re going to get all etymological about it, “homophobia” doesn’t mean “fear of gay people”. It means “fear of that which is the same”. Is anyone prepared to turn this into a discussion about whether Scott Orson Card is afraid of things that are the same as other things?

    Words mean things, and “homophobia” means anti-gay bigotry, unless somebody is looking for a way to obfuscate their prejudices, or look clever.

  123. Maggie
    Maggie July 31, 2008 at 6:25 am |

    I remember reading Card’s homophobic “essay” when I was fourteen or fifteen and being sort of confused about why everyone was up in arms about it. Not because it wasn’t homophobic, which it was, but just because it was such a blatantly obvious piece of attempted propaganda with techniques so shabby that a teenager could see right through them – what threat could it possibly pose, I thought? My primary reaction was one of *disappointment* – the man was such a good writer when it came to fiction, and yet he can’t even write a little political rhetoric with any degree of subtlety? (I am, incidentally, a fan of the Ender’s Shadow quartet: the politics are brilliant and those books don’t get as wordy and selfinserty as the sequels that follow Andrew Wiggin)

    I have since learned that when one really, really WANTS to believe something, the shabbiest of justification is in fact sufficient. Card obviously wrote the essay in the process of attempting to convince himself that his knee-jerk reactions to homosexuality were justified, with the typical intellectual’s terror of being irrational. And along the way it’s become fodder for everyone else who is in his shoes – the people who consider themselves intelligent and educated, and thus incapable of such crass attitudes as homophobia… so there must be SOME reason they don’t like the idea of gay marriage, and it must be a GOOD reason, right? Because educated, intelligent writerly individuals don’t HAVE prejudices, right? Right? Right…?

  124. Maggie
    Maggie July 31, 2008 at 6:32 am |

    …and, wait a second, this is a NEW one? He hasn’t gotten any better at it.

  125. bellatrys
    bellatrys July 31, 2008 at 7:35 am |

    You want OSC creepy? Read Hart’s Hope or Enchantment.

    The first one starts out with a viewpoint chara of a young girl who is the daughter of a king in a vaguely “Ancient” setting, a little reminiscent of Dunsany, who is subjected to all these *negatively-presented* violently-sexist attitudes (she makes the mistake of repeating a quasi-feminist remark by one of the concubines who had taken her under her wing, without understanding it, and so her father has the woman tortured to death) and to culminate, is raped by the leader of an invading army after her father is defeated in battle and then cast aside.

    You’d think, if you read a lot in the genre, that at this point she’d take up the sword and become an Amazon avenger-type, but nope. She disappears from the story, to become a Wicked Witch whose sole purpose is to punish the True Lovers with their Pure & Chaste Love because of their connection with her rapist.

    In “Enchantment,” a truly weird attempt at doing an update of “Sleeping Beauty” with a modern hero time-traveling back into Old Mythic Russia (and he’s Jewish and yet is okay with pretending to be Orthodox while he’s back then, don’t ask) and yes, the Princess is a “strong” character who mostly just stands around being beautiful and noble and her strength consists in trusting the hero and marrying him and having lots of beautiful babies.

    The Wicked Witch who put her under the spell, however, is of course Baba Yaga, and her wickedness we are told stems from her having been sold off to an abusive lord and raped by him, and killing her husband and her baby to escape, and thus Rejecting Life (altho’ she takes male lovers) and hating everything that is good.

    No sympathy for raped teenage girls, in OSC’s mind. Not a *shred* of an attempt to say “look, I agree your life sucked, but maybe trying to ruin everybody else isn’t the answer?” to redeem an Evil Overlord or Overlady type – as happens in the Rimski-Korsakov folk-tale-inspired musical which seems to have inspired some of it, no bit of “There but for fortune” reflections from the Princess towards Baba Yaga as to how easily she might have ended up the same sort of chattell – and not even a hint that maybe Baba Yaga and Asineth are at all justified in their rebellions actions, in so far as no society protected them from the *entirely legal* actions of their male masters…no idea that a woman could do evil for the sake of personal power-grabbing or other amibitions just like a man, but only because her “natural” urges to marry a loving husband and have children were thwarted from outside – or any idea that there can be any valid life options for a Good Woman beyond marrying a loving husband and having lots of kids, anything else is a Tragic Waste.

    All of his portrayals of female characters are creepy on one level or another, but these are the worst imo (though “Lovelock” runs a very close third.)

  126. Jesurgislac
    Jesurgislac July 31, 2008 at 9:34 am |

    You know, if I could get to San Diego for 7th August, which I can’t, I would plan on going to the “Mysterious Galaxy Booksigning” for well before 6:30pm at 7 August 2008, with all my queer friends and allies (it’s on 7051 Clairemont Mesa Blvd) and we’d pack out the bookstore. We’d be ever so polite, and we’d all have Card novels (they’re not hard to find cheap at used bookstores), and we’d just stand in line. All of us. Dead polite. Nothing a bookseller could object to, except that we wouldn’t be buying any of their books (or at least, none by Card) And as he signed our cheap, used books, we’d each of us hand him a message. A card, perhaps, with a pic of George Takei and Brad Altman. Or we’d ask him to write “In celebration of equal marriage in California” or “To Anna and Sue, with much love for their wedding and happiness for their future married years”.

    Doubtless there will be other events up at his calendar.

  127. CBrachyrhynchos
    CBrachyrhynchos July 31, 2008 at 9:40 am |

    Yonmei: The reason I don’t like the term “homophobe” is that I’ve had this exact same semantic conversation so many times I’m sick of it. Calling anti-gay bigots, well, bigots isn’t any less offensive to them (if anything its more offensive).

  128. roses
    roses July 31, 2008 at 9:51 am |

    We need another word, one which calls them what they are but which they can not be used by them to make them into victims.

    They’re going to do that regardless of which word we use. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen a person called out for racism trying to turn themselves into victims (because being called racist is ever so much worse than having racism directed toward you *eyeroll*). If we started calling homophobes “anti-gay bigots” they’d just pull the same damn thing. “How dare you call me a bigot! I have nothing against gay people, some of my best friends are gay! Just because I think their lifestyle is immoral and they shouldn’t be allowed to legally marry doesn’t mean I’m bigoted

    Also, what Yomnei said.

  129. Sepra
    Sepra July 31, 2008 at 10:05 am |

    Anna: I am sure you already looked this up at home (I was not on the internet as much yesterday). Piers Anthony has a pretty large track record of putting in sexy young women as young as I believe 8 into consentual sexual relationships with much older protagonist men. These men are all upstanding guys in the community who would never do anyhting unethical… except sexing up 13 year olds, of course. Examples: “Firefly,” (8 year old pressures a hapless pedophile for sex) “…And Eternity” (noble Judge encourages his 13 year old lover to travel in time so she’ll be technically legal “for her sake”) “DoOn Mode.” (Colleen and Darius, who is the bestest most noble man ever). He has also made rapists sympathetic because men “just can’t help it”. He has never been convicted pf pedophilia, but he has stated that as long as she’s good looking he doesn’t care if she’s 15 or 50. But somehow he never goes for the 50 year olds…

    Thomas: I very much doubt that Ender’s Game is an apologia for Hitler. Card has stated that part of the reason he wrote Ender’s Game was to write a novel without really any hidden meaning or symbolism. I ‘m not sure if there is a link, as I read it awhile ago in a paper publication. I think people like to construe things about the novel, but it was one of the more straightforward novels of its era.

  130. Sepra
    Sepra July 31, 2008 at 10:31 am |

    Oh also, in regards to the homophobic conversation. We are all writing in English, which is one of the largest, most complicated languages semantics-wise because we borrow words all the time, and they may not make sense if deconstructed logically. I think upthread there was already precedent established with francophobe and francophile, which I was also accustomed to. I would consider myself a russophile, but that doesn’t mean that I literally love every Russian person that comes my way.

    “Homophobia” is a word that stands in for someone unreasonably antipathic towards homosexuals. It is commonly known in English and does not require jumping through semantic hoops: everyone knows what it means and accepts the hatred aspect as a part of its definition. I think that pretty much sums up OSC, so if he is saying he is not, then he is lying or deluding himself. Anyone defending it is being too legalistic in regards to English.

    (As an aside, I would love to use “homophilia” in regards to “love of homosexuals” as a word for straight allies, but am not sure that that would fly.)

    OSC tows the official homophobic Mormon line, as do most Mormons of the non-jack variety. It might be more helpful in the long run to work to get the LDS church to change its position, although that may never happen, unfortunately. I have met more than a few very nice Mormons that I could have been friends with if it weren’t for their unacceptable beliefs which were spoon fed to them by the church.

  131. little light
    little light July 31, 2008 at 10:43 am |

    Good point, Bellatrys. Did you miss the MRA fantasy in “Enchantment”?
    Our modern hero starts out engaged to a nice American Jewish girl–and let’s leave aside the weird stuff with Judaism in this book–who’s pretty, but she’s all strident and outspoken and wants a career, because she went to college and got her head all full of feminist nonsense. So what’s he do? He not only goes to the Ukraine to find himself the perfect (sleeping!) girl, he travels in time to quasihistorical Ukraine to find a honest-to-God mediaeval old-country Slavic princess with her old-fashioned values and passive prettiness, who’s more like his mother and who his mother approves of over his current fiancée. Who the mother disapproves of. Even though she’s also a Jew, and the new girl, who can’t even speak Ivan’s native tongue, is Christian. And the strident feminist-brainwashed American Jewish fiancée flips out and gets used by the villain in her jealousy and vanity because she breaks when she realizes that, poor fool, she threw away the perfect man by trying to focus on herself and her career.
    So he brings said mediaeval non-English-speaking Christian Slavic princess back to his time and country, and she learns how to use dishwashers and stuff because she has an instinctual understanding of kitchens (!) and bonds with his mother over kitchen-witchery, and then, after some fighting and stuff, bears him lovely babies by the handful.
    Oy. Oy gevalt.

  132. Q Grrl
    Q Grrl July 31, 2008 at 11:03 am |

    “I’m seeing people saying that using the word ‘homophobe’ to describe people like Card may hurt the fight for gay rights because people like him can twist the word to make it seem like they are the ones who are victims (as Card does in his article). ”

    Actually, Card presupposes being called “homophobic” and only then does he react to the word. His reaction isn’t self-defense stemming from a second party calling him out. His reaction is adversarial before an adversary has been established. IOW, he has to set up teh Gays as hypersensitive, irrational, and overreactive just so that his pontifications might bear the sheen of non-falsehood (can’t call it “truth” because even Card unwittingly acknowledges that his stance is worthless and dishonest).

    Card’s goal is not to redefine the context within which his words exist (i.e, parsing homophobe from heterosexist). His goal is to diminish the subjective humanity of teh Gays by painting them as sinful, selfish, overreactive, hypersensitive, and one might even guess: shrill. It’s really a tired old meme: gay man = faggot = pussy = woman = weak = worthless = the need to be dominated. Card really doesn’t care what he is called. He really doesn’t care about homophobia. He cares that he might be clever enough to create confusion, reaction, and paranoia in a group (the church) who’s main focus is not life in the here and now, but life in the forever after – a life that bears no reflection of the laws that are encoded in human society. The church has nothing to lose by encouraging bigotry, especially if clever wordmasters like Card can couch the terms in the symbolism of sin and redemption, rebirth, and rigtheousness.

    But again I have to stress: Card is not doing this because queers have said he is homophobic. Card is doing this because he thinks he is clever.

    Queers use the term “homophobic” not to strike truth into the hearts of bigots or tertiary fence sitters. We use the term to strike the truth into our own hearts so that we no longer feel alone and freakish. It’s a way to reclaim our psyches.

  133. Raging Moderate
    Raging Moderate July 31, 2008 at 11:40 am |

    “Queers use the term “homophobic” not to strike truth into the hearts of bigots or tertiary fence sitters. We use the term to strike the truth into our own hearts so that we no longer feel alone and freakish. It’s a way to reclaim our psyches.”

    At least your honest about it. But I can’t quite figure out why you don’t care about those fence sitters. They’re the ones you need to defeat people like Card.

  134. Jax
    Jax July 31, 2008 at 12:10 pm |

    PLUS he got his abortion argument wrong. Abortion is actually much more restricted now than when Roe was first decided.

  135. Jesurgislac
    Jesurgislac July 31, 2008 at 12:36 pm |

    But I can’t quite figure out why you don’t care about those fence sitters. They’re the ones you need to defeat people like Card.

    Eh, if the fence sitters get pissed because we’re calling the bigots on the other side of the fence bigots, they never were really “fence sitters”, were they?

  136. bellatrys
    bellatrys July 31, 2008 at 12:51 pm |

    Oy. Oy gevalt.

    Indeed, little light, oh, sooooo much a MRA fantasy! And yet I can’t find any one else out there talking about what a vile updating of an already darn sexist story (even in its modern, watered down versions) it is. The reviews I found last time I went looking all cooed over how “romantic” it is.

  137. Raging Moderate
    Raging Moderate July 31, 2008 at 1:11 pm |

    “Eh, if the fence sitters get pissed because we’re calling the bigots on the other side of the fence bigots, they never were really “fence sitters”, were they?”

    Some of us have been arguing all along to just call them bigots, for several reasons which have been posted here. I’m glad you’re on our side.

    “And in fact, this thread has devolved into a fight between those who wish to call OSC a homophobic asswipe, versus those who wish to call him a bigoted asswipe.

    Civility is important, sure. But it is clearly not MORE important than insulting OSC.”

    I’m guessing that this post is sarcastic. But in case it’s not:

    If you wish to vent your anger, call him whatever you want. If you want to convince people that he’s wrong, just refute his arguments without the insults. I don’t know about you, but when I hear someone attack the messenger instead of the message, it makes me think that maybe the message is correct.

  138. bekabot
    bekabot July 31, 2008 at 2:06 pm |

    The good old “slippery slope” argument: legalizing gay marriage leads to legalization of polygamy, bestiality, marijuana, hooliganism, murder, and Project Runway.

    The funny thing about which is that Orson Scott Card is already a Mormon; as such, he’s got no business having any problem with polygamy (at least).

  139. Bushfire
    Bushfire July 31, 2008 at 2:21 pm |

    Being queer doesn’t make one automatically responsible for educating the masses about human sexuality. There are books/websites/courses/pamphlets/presentations/movies for that. The fence sitters can do whatever the fuck they want- if they are smart they’ll make education opinions based on facts, and if they’re not smart, then we probably couldn’t reach them anyway.

    “I’m seeing people saying that using the word ‘homophobe’ to describe people like Card may hurt the fight for gay rights because people like him can twist the word to make it seem like they are the ones who are victims (as Card does in his article).”

    This is like saying “if feminists would just be nicer, then maybe more people would listen to them”. The person in question is definitely homophobic. Even if we were to agree that the word means a Freudian-style “irrational fear” (which it doesn’t) I would still argue that he is homophobic. There has to be something really wrong with a person when they intentionally terrorize a group of people whom they know barely anything about just because they seem kind of “icky”.

    You know what IS icky? This concept of defining who is and is not mentally ill. Victims of oppression are labelled “depressed” when they have a reasonable and unavoidable emotional reaction to their oppression (and then are sold drugs, as if it will help with the oppression), but the the people who terrorize, demonize and exploit others receive no label. I saw we describe them as they are.

  140. bellatrys
    bellatrys July 31, 2008 at 3:02 pm |

    Also, believing that a tiny minority of human beings, against all available evidence, is liable to destroy all of civilization if not stopped with the full force of law and custom – definitely a sign of irrational fears.

    So, yeah, homophobic you bet your ass!

    (And as for the homophobic denialists who bleat “but I just think it’s WRONG/Sinful, I’m not SCARED of Teh Gay!” – well, yeah, and not going to church on Sunday is a sin for Christians, and not fasting before communion is a sin for Catholics, and remarrying after divorce is a sin, and drinking a wine cooler is a sin if you’re Orson Scott Card or a lot of Baptists, but you don’t hear OSC screeching about how the government needs to bring back the Volstead Act, do you? or demanding that th government and society ostracize divorcees and refuse to grant remarried het couples legal rights?

    And as for the homophobic denialists who bleat “but I just think it’s DISGUSTING, I’m not SCARED of Teh Gay!” – well, you can’t legislate your squicks and only cranks think they should even have the right to do so. I personally consider eating raw shellfish to be so repulsive that I can’t stand hearing about it, and find it hard to feel sorry for people who get food poisoning from it, because what normal person would do that? But I recognize that a) that’s just me (and yeah, a lot of other people, but so what?) and how does Joe or Jayi eating oysters raw harm me, really? and b) there is no public health menace in people choosing to eat raw oysters, even if there are sometimes algae risks etc. involved. People choke to death on cooked fishbones or meatballs, too. So, no, if you’re trying to ban rights for your GLBT fellow citizens, then you’re homophobic, not just ooked out by the thought of M/M or F/F intercourse, not just afraid for their immortal souls…)

  141. Feministe says: Orson Scott Card is a hateful homophobe « Readingtalkinglaughing

    […] I was glancing through a blog that I read regularly, Feministe, and ran across this post on Orson Scott Card. Since we read Ender’s Game for bookclub, I thought everyone might find this interesting. […]

  142. Nooney
    Nooney July 31, 2008 at 6:10 pm |

    This is shocking, and dismaying news, given what a ridiculous icon OSC is. I’ve never read Ender’s Game, but I did read Homecoming: Earth. Isn’t there a scene where one of the young male characters gets sodomized by other boys? (or am I completely making this shit up?). Combine youth sexual violation with hatefulness toward gays and I think we’ve got a case of literary projection here…

  143. Chris
    Chris July 31, 2008 at 6:43 pm |

    Bushfire wrote:

    “The term “homophobic” is somewhat problematic, because the ending “phobic” is normally associated with psychopathologies, not just dislike.”

    But Orson Scott Card’s rhetoric IS pathological. He’s NOT one of those people saying he disapproves of homosexuality, but is still willing to live and let live. He’s saying the law ought to be brought to bear on gays, to intimidate them and coerce them into invisibility and silence. As long as you think potential jail-time is a valid punishment, you ARE “homophobic,” you’re not merely “heterosexist.”

    There are some people who don’t have friends of other races, and who would not consider dating a member of a different race. But then there are people who actually long for the days of legalized racism, of segregation, of blacks shoved to the back of the bus. The latter group ARE more pathological and more dangerous than the former. The former are close-minded, but the latter are truly harmful and hateful. Orson Scott Card DOES fall into the category of outright hate-monger, but is too dishonest with himself and his readers to admit it.

  144. celticdragon
    celticdragon July 31, 2008 at 8:51 pm |

    Like ottermat, I also live in Greensboro, NC where Mr Card resides. He sometimes goes into the Walgreens where my spouse works. Unfortunately, he does seem to be as much of an asshat as most folks here believe. Sad, since I do like his “Uncle Orson Reviews Everything” column in the Rhino Times (a local newspsper), and I also like the original short story of “Ender’s Game”. (The novel was a waste. The short story rocked.)

    I have not met him as of yet, and being a transgendered woman, I have no doubt that he would disapprove of my “life choices” or some such. Fair enough, but he can’t seem to grasp the concept that agree or disagree…being a GLBT person really is none of his or anybody else’s concern. We don’t get into HIS face. He is far too busy getting into OURS.

  145. Speaking of Fascists and Homophobes « The Crotchety Old Fan

    […] and quickly got inundated.  Search results appeared from as far back as 2004 to as recently as yesterday.  The sites ranged from the respectable to what some might consider the […]

  146. James A Woods
    James A Woods August 1, 2008 at 12:34 pm |

    Can you present your argument without resorting to name-calling and misquoting Mr. Card? The use of such techniques implies that you know your argument is weak and want to bolster it with sensationalism.

  147. Northern Lights » Blog Archive » Orson Scott Card is [not] a Homophobe

    […] Game, has long been vocal in his opinions on homosexuality—and, recently, despite social critics, he continues to speak his mind. A sampling of Card’s writing […]

  148. Knowing About Authors « Life And Then Some

    […] Scott Card.  It’s recently* gone around certain parts of the internet that he holds some opinions with which I do not agree**.  There was also an interesting analysis *** of the character of Ender […]

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.