In Failtown, they pay you by the word
This wank brought to you by wank_report.

A bit of context: The Mammoth Book of Mindblowing SF is the next installment in the Mammoth Book anthology series edited by Mike Ashley. Recently, its table of contents, which lists the twenty-one stories and authors that will be included in the book, was posted on the SF Signal website.

Almost immediately, there is some grousing from the peanut gallery -- it seems that not one of the authors included in the lineup are (a)women, or (b)nonwhite. Commenters proceed to point this out, mostly keeping it down to a few sentences and seemingly content to speak up and move on. Luckily, Paul Di Filippo, one of the authors featured in the anthology, arrives on the scene, CAPS LOCK AT THE READY AND BRIMMING WITH RAGE.

"Every single commenter here seems to me to be committing a logical fallacy of tremendous dimension, one so big it distorts entire worldviews:

DEMANDING THAT EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF EVERYTHING COMPOSITE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY STATISTICALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE ENTIRE COSMOS

You know what: a potato field is not likely to contain corn plants. A pine forest might feature an oak or three, but be 99% pine trees. The Beatles were 4 white guys. Sonic Youth has no people of color! My ream of copy paper is all white, with no sheets of lettuce included!"

Reactions range from serious responses to general confusion to "wtf, drama llama?"

But tortured produce comparisons are not enough for Di Filippo, who decides that his argument would be better served by the inclusion of...

Math homework!
"Now, if you got the annual LOCUS survey of books published and pointed out to me that there were N number of anthologies published in 2008 featuring Y number of stories, and that only X percent of these stories were written by folks who were not WASP males, and then you argued that X percent was way too low, I would consider you had the beginnings of a rational argument and gripe."

Accusations of JEALOUS!
"But I have to say that when ANY WRITER (not just female writers or writers of color) complains about being excluded from a venue and cites issues of platonic principle and idealism, I always first posit underlying jealousy and a desire for status underneath all the lofty hypothetical talk."

...Seinfeld?
"The book in question was assembled by a combo of 1) and 2). Obviously, Mike Ashley recalled only stories by men and invited stories only from males. (Or possibly, invited women who did not respond or qualify.) This resulted in a men-only book. Is this sexism, or is it a function of the phenomenon illustrated in the SEINFELD episode of the big-breasted waitresses? Elaine was incensed that a certain diner featured only big-breasted waitresses--until she discovered that all the women were the owner's daughters. In other words, what seemed to be sexism was "family bias." Mike relied on his "family connections," to the dead or living. And that family included no women. Limited family maybe, but sexism? Your call."

But for those who haven't yet drowned in the sea of abortive analogies, Di Filippo ramps it up to 11:

"Come, come, now, Tempest! Are not potatoes and trees a beautiful, vital part of Gaia? Just as Walt Whitman (a male, but forgivable since gay) wanted to be reincarnated as humble grass, so too do I myself dream someday of being a tree or potato--if I am not one already.

And in a shifty debating technique, you neglect to mention my implicit comparison with Kim Gordon. Kim Gordon, man! Like, punk, you know? (Am I "with it" yet?)"

"My Failboat has been sunk! I go down bravely yet moronically at the helm. Farewell, dear world!

Actually, all this useless talk has diverted me from working on a new story. For a Mike Ashley anthology! Yes, it's true. The Secret Masters are continuing their malicious depradations. My protagonist, however, is a Person of Color. This choice was made ages ago. I hope this might in some small way exculpate my sins."

Tempest:
"... I fail to understand how being gay makes Walt Whitman "forgiveable". I guess you're implying that someone around here has said that men are bad? But I guess you think those imaginary people would think gay men are okay because... they like other men? I... really, I'm trying to see the logic here and missing it. Explain, please."

Lori S.:
"Paul, your argument about personal stakes might be more effective (and sound bushels less defensive to boot) if *your* name wasn't in the TOC."

Luke Jackson: (in defense of the author)
"Congratulations on speaking some against-the-grain sense in the midst of a mindless stampede. I know it can be hard speaking up against the lemmings."

Mike Ashley, in his capacity as editor, tries to address the conflict, but sadly manages to tack on his opinion that "women are every bit as capable of writing mindblowing sf as men are, but with women the stories concentrate far more on people, life, society and not the hard-scientific concepts I was looking for".

Back on SF Signal, Di Filippo grows weary of answering comments, and urges people to engage him over email instead for even more tl;dr punishment. Rosefox takes him up on his offer, resulting in a super-special moment for everyone involved:

"You will never get any private or public repentance from me. At least not until someone on the "other side" offers the same, and does it first, considering that their moronic arguments preceded my moronic arguments."

"You have always struck me and continue to strike me as a sincere wisher-of-goodness for the field. Others in "your camp" appear to me to be repugnant and dangerous combinations of Jerry Falwell, Savonarola, Osama bin Laden, Bill O'Reilly and Aimee Semple McPherson. To such, I will never bow my head."

ETA: (thanks, varpstone): The Angry Black Woman weighs in. And there was much rejoicing.