Further Ways the Spearhead Article is Made of Fail

He seems to have a problem mostly with male-male homosexual relationships, and believes that their presence in sci-fi is purely for the titillation of a show's female viewers. He doesn't seem to have a problem with lesbian relationships...Perhaps because he believes these exist solely for the titillation of a show's male viewers? (And he's OK with that kind of titillation!) These relationships may, in fact, actually be there for the representation of homosexual relationships. Because it's not actually all about the heterosexual people all the time.
Granted, many of these homosexual, (both lesbian and gay), relationships do turn out to be very flawed representations, and are more about "OMG, boys/girls kissing! How HAWT!" than about a complicated relationship between two people who happen to share a gender. Of course, the "complicated relationship" part is also, apparently, what throws this writer off. He claims they do not exist in "real sci-fi." So, the complicated dynamic between, say, McCoy and Spock, (Spock's cold logic, which often covered up violent emotions, juxtaposed against McCoy's irascible nature, which nonetheless co-existed with his devotion to the Hippocratic oath), didn't exist? Despite the fact that it was often at the heart of the issues within an episode or film? OK, then.
Now, if he has problems with badly-written relationships, particularly romantic ones, I can agree with that. I know that many of the tropes used in romantic relationships, (love triangles and unattainable beloveds, for example), that have found their way into sci-fi bother most women sci-fi fans, as well. (I'm looking at you, Stargate : SG-1. Let me tell you, nobody cared about Sam's engagement, and it took away from valuable science-fiction time.)
The other problem I have is that people in the comments keep bringing up "hard" science-fiction, but in the article,
it's all about Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, and Dr Who. None of those have ever been "hard" sci-fi. Ever. Even the original Battlestar had a lot more to do with fantasy, (but fantasy with robots), than it had to do with any actual science. Same with Dr Who, as the Doctor is really more a mythical being than anything else. Sure, writers occasionally like to throw in various theories on the nature of time and space in there, (with the end-result being that the Doctor has made many contradictory statements about space and time over the years), but there's rarely actual, physical science in there. The same is often true of Star Trek. Sure, they often get the words right, but many of the things done or said in any given episode of Star Trek are not possible. It is true that these are not "hard" sci-fi, and it is also true that these tend to lay a strong focus on relationships.
Now, it's true that hard sci-fi is rarely about relationships. It's usually about humanity in general. Or, it's about the psychology of a certain individual. Sci-fi, whether "hard" or "soft," is less about the actual science than the effects of the science on people, whether on a grand scale or a more personal one. It doesn't matter if you're watching Star Wars or Sunshine, it's the characters, and how they are affected, that is the real story. If the author of this particular article truly feels that recent endeavors has become too "soft," and focuses more on relationships, (especially romantic), to the detriment of other, "harder" forms of science fiction, well, that, I agree with. However, the article lays the blame for this at the feet of women and homosexual viewers of sci-fi, and the more I re-read the post, and read the comments, the more I see the article as merely an excuse to lay the blame on people who don't deserve it.

And now, I swear to God, I am done with it.

And there is Anger.

I'm in ur sci-fi, wreckin' ur TV shows.

Apparently.

I linked it, but, really, read it only if you'd like your head to explode. Many of the comments are just as bad, if not worse, than the article itself. (One person calls Joss Whedon a "mangina." Also, feminists are out to destroy everything. In the world. Because feminists just hate men that much. )
Mostly, I find it amusing, (and, simultaneously, disturbing), the belief in the article and most of the comments that a show is automatically feminized by the mere presence of women in the cast. Any show that features a woman in a position of power, (or any position that does not involve kitchens or bedrooms, I guess), is obviously part of the "feminist agenda." You see, all those times we complained that a show was not representing women/minorities/homosexuals very well, we were wrong. So very, very wrong. I've heard the whole "you should be grateful that they're at all" argument before, but this is way more, "the very presence of homosexuality and women ruins it forever." We're invading their sci-fi, and we need to get out of it. (Also, we're apparently ruing the internets as a male-centric "safe space" for men.)
I wish I could be more coherent on this, but the more I read it, (and most of the commentary), the more I want to call these individuals the most vile names I have in my vocabulary, some of which includes Klingon, Russian, and Goa'uld.
I do have this to say this: Nerdiness is not a solely masculine trait. (Are you that guy who came over to my house once and kept insisting that all my Asimov books actually belonged to my husband? Because "girls don't read Asimov?") Even if you define "nerdiness" as being, on occasion, an illogical, unreasonable jerkass about anything they perceive as a threat to the sci-fi and fantasy they love so much. Because that still applies to people of both genders and every manner of sexual orientation.
But women can't be nerds! Homosexual people can't be nerds! Because then, they will steal our fancy engineering and science jobs! Horrors! News flash: lots of them do not want your fancy science jobs. And if they do want those jobs, and they gwt them, that meant that were more qualified for the job. Is that what frightens you? I cannot say that women are automatically better at science or math any more than men are automatically better at it than women. But, a larger pool of interested people makes for more competition. Do you fear that you can't compete in a (slightly) more fair job pool?
Besides, I simply cannot see how boys would become less inspired to go into science/engineering jobs. All I can see is other people becoming more inspired to go into those same fields. The only reason I can see boys losing interest in science/engineering is if they suddenly decide that that kind of stuff's "just for girls." I don't recall hearing or reading anywhere that sci-fi/fantasy or science/engineering needed to be "just for girls." Most nerdy women I know just want to be included in that world without being treated like some horrible "Other." I am reading, both in the comments and in the article itself, that people are ruining sci-fi/fantasy by turning it into a "girls-only" club. If interest in sci-fi/fantasy is linked to interest in science/engineering, then whose fault would it be that boys don't want jobs in science/engineering, because that "belongs to the girls." Not me. I never said we couldn't share.
Add to that, the whole article just reeks of homophobia. Russell T. Davies ruined Dr. Who? Well, not because of Captain Jack and Torchwood. Bringing the Daileks back once every season, (after they had been "destroyed forever" for the sixth time), might have had something to do with "nu-Who" being occasionally awful, or perhaps Davies' grating writing style, and tendency towards bombastic and outrageous plots, (see: "Voyage of the Damned," panned by large swaths of Dr. Who fans), might have, you know, turned a few people off. (I, personally, like the bombastic and outrageous stuff. How can it be Dr Who if it's not overacted and underplotted?) The presence of "scary gay people" has nothing to do with it.
So, really, I pent way too much time on this guy, but his whole "women and homosexuals are ruining science fiction and fantasy for the important people, you know, straight males," thing has my blood boiling a little. (OK, a lot.)