It looks like you're looking for a reason to insult women for being offended.

And is calling a woman beautiful actually grounds for a sexism complaint in your world?

Cripes, man, grow some ovaries. If you can't deal with the backlash against Resnik's comments, you can't deal with any woman who thinks for herself and dares to voice her opinion when she feels she's being reduced from a thinking human being to a physical object whose entire worth is based on whether or not she's…

well, i don't see why the comments that react to the sexism have led to YOUR outcry on these posts. it seems that you, as well as the old white dudes, are having some difficulty keeping it in perspective. nobody was censored, nobody was fired. just a lot of complaints about it

My god , you are painfully, cluelessly sexist. Go away. You're embarrassing to my gender.

People like you are part of the problem.

A professional magazine is not there to celebrate anyone's sexuality. And if you think second wave feminists wouldn't have tore your ass apart for disingenously talking about sexual freedom in this context, you are deluding yourself.

You have entirely missed the point.

Yeah, congrads on not getting it. There's just about a metric ton that's been written on why images like this are sexist tripe that reduce a female character, no matter how badass, into just something that a guy can ogle. I'm sure you can google 'male gaze' or something if you want to know the rest.

The bigger point…

so the readers/viewers should grow balls, but Resnick and Malzburg should be permitted to whine like babies? gotcha

When people deploy the term "political correctness," 99 percent of the time it feels like an easy tactic for dismissing a legit argument calling out some bullshit. It's like beginning a sentence with, "I'm not sexist/racist, but..." and proceeding to say something sexist or racist. Sigh.

I haven't been a fan of the SFWA Bulletin covers in general because I think they should have something to do with the content, and they usually don't. In fact, it's one of the few publications I read where that's the case, so I think that's a perfectly legit thing to hold against it. And I found this particular cover…

Oh lawd, in the end Resnick just complains about how unlucky life is for him as a BWAHHHHH old white dude!!!Cause once again for the billionth time everyone else in the world is out to get him for being old and white and a dude -__-

1) The cover had absolutely nothing to do with the issue's content.

It isn't a fantasy magazine. It's the official bulletin of an industry group that represents writers.

Considering all else, sounds like the cover was icing on the cake.

"....WORKS FOR ME."

Carol Marcus wasn't a rehash. There was no romance, they didn't meet at the academy and even her field is different. Khan, however, wakes up and resumes his genocidal ways, someone dies saving the ship in radiation chamber. That's a rehash.

New Trek TV show please. It would allow for character development, thoughtful and analytical plots, action in appropriate places, and for ongoing story lines which accentuate Trek's strengths rather than needing to focus on big explodey movies which will never make enough money to make Paramount happy.

It's the question I asked: if you're making a "new" Star Trek, then why the fuck are you telling an old story!?!