When Sisters in Crime formed, lo those many years ago, I was psyched. While I wasn't a writer in the genre, I'd supported women writers the easy and best way – I bought their books. For years. I discovered mystery, you might say, when the women "came out". I was looking for strong women. And found them with Muller's EDWIN OF THE IRON SHOES, with authors like Linda Barnes and her wonderful Carlotta Carlyle, with Sue Grafton, Sara Paretsky and the awesome VI Warshawski. Gay characters and straight, black, white and later Asian. Women characters and women authors. I went straight to the "strong women characters" shelf at Kate's Mystery Books and am ever grateful she created that as a way for us newbies to find what appealed In mystery.

My time in mystery began pretty much with Edwin, published in 1977. I was reading female authors, getting to know female characters (of the private eye and tougher side of things) . Moving back east and shopping at Kate's in the 80s confirmed it, as did getting involved in the convention scene in the 90s. Getting even more involved with the internet and finally getting the courage to chair a convention in 1997. I was a convention fan guest of honor in the next decade and chaired my second convention two years ago. I'm immersed, shall we say, in the mystery genre and the community it fosters.

In recognition of that focus, I joined Sisters in Crime early. I then unjoined – or rather just didn't re-up for a while because I had a hard time seeing what the organization offered for a fan and reader. But after having a rather sad little squabble with someone whose main message was "well, what have you done for us lately, you little fangirl" I did rejoin. Somewhat reluctantly since again, I didn't see it being all that two-way. Most of the work of the organization seemed, to my somewhat jaundiced eye, to be for the sake of the writers. I didn't see all that much for us fans. There were some groovy things – the books in print stuff was really nifty for finding upcoming books. Having a special breakfast or meeting to go to at a convention was sometimes fun, yep. But more than once I would suggest something more of a fannish nature and it would be either shot down or greeting with enthusiasm, and then ignored. I'd have a meeting and be told "great we'll be in touch". I'd receive enthusiastic pats and, eventually, wondered if I was being placated or patronized since nothing EVER came of what were, truly, helpful suggestions and honest offers of educated, skilled assistance. I volunteered, more than once, for a position with the national organization. Sometimes these were new-ish ideas, others weren't and they were filled by other folks. So be it. I am good at certain things but so were most of those who got the jobs (though I still rankle at the BiP one year where the very first title was typoed. I still think I would have caught that.) I ran the local chapter for a couple years – an exhausting exercise in futility. To this day, most of those associated with that chapter will not speak with me. It wasn't a happy time.

But I persevered. And at times, for a while, with financial assistance with was gracious and courteous. SinC has never charged a lot, but there were years, after going from a book-buying, gainfully employed office manager to a disabled person earning fully a third of what she used to make, that memberships in organizations were just out of reach. But that ended too. And eventually I decided that what I had to offer wasn't what the organization needed. And while I maintained membership for a few years during which I was working as a publicist for several authors, once that ended, I stopped joining Sisters in Crime. In return they got what support I could offer, defending them at times to convention-runners and con chairs who would repeat everything from ballot-stuffing rumors to just snarkism against those damn radical women, why can't they just relax.

I have, as a matter of good will, I guess, been getting stuff from SinC over the last few years. I really appreciate it and assume it has to do with the fact that either I've chaired Left Coast or I review. But today's mail brought a flyer from the organization which offers a "new mission statement". And that's where we part ways. The new mission statement reads "that SinC exists to "promote the professional development and advancement of women crime writers."

Of course you can argue that such promotion and advancement enhances my reading pleasure. But….well, but , I don't wanna. I want to be directly involved. There was a time when it felt more like SinC was for all of us – women bookstore owners, women reviewers, website managers, mailing group organizers, editors, booksellers, publicists. The specific focus on "women crime writers" makes it clear that ll work of SinC is for that group.

I will not argue that things are "equal" so it's ok. They are not. This is still needed. But where I am in this equation? I can only do what I always did - read the books, promote them, discuss them, review them. When working on a convention, ensure than women crime writers were treated equally in all things. Argue for inclusion. Advise that when you chose guests of honor, you makes sure that men and women are equally represented, in guest of honor and/or toastmaster and/or lifetime achievement categories. As I remarked a wek or so back to Rachel Maddow (who seemed to forget that the NCAA included women) you gotta "remember the ladies".

The focus of SinC was always to a large extent on the women writers, I know. My attempts to be involved and promote the cause ranged from "applying" for the Books in Print editor job to suggesting there be a "convention liaison" position for all those things I used to do (see above.) Maybe there is no change, just a change in emphasis or wording.

There was that time, in the last year or two, when I actually had words with the organization when they published an opinion piece stating that being called a "fan" was pejorative. I take high offense to that – maybe to some professionals, that is true, but not to us gril…er fans. I wrote a strong reply which, credit ot the SinC organization was printed in full. But it still felt to me like I was not especially weicome in the clubhouse and hadn't been for a while. I mean I shoulda sorta gotten that after trying 3 times to volunteer to help and never hearing back. So then I'm being told I should be embarrassed about what I am, and have happily, knowingly called myself for 30 years. I'm a fan and proud. I do not "believe" that "mystery fans" are "fanatics" nor that, just because that may be the word's derivation, that the meaning sticks. I'm not that dumb. Er, am I? Despite what certain authors claim, there is a long, respectable and respectful history in genre fiction for Fans. Fan guests of honor at Worldcon and Bouchercon, at regionals like Boskone or Westercon or Left Coast Crime have a history of service to the genre. Real writers like Bill Crider have been fan guests of honor and have not been embarrassed by this. Please don't tell me what I am or am not. Please don't tell me I should be embarrassed by it. You don't like it – that's your issue, yeah?

Some years ago, in an abortive attempt to create a one-time mystery convention, the focus of which was the private eye (dubbed by some friend the "Anti-Malice" which cracked me up) I had a conversation with someone where In said that no, I was not interested in running a "writer only" event. It's complicated by another person who might have been involved insisting that we not have a fan guest of honor and that this would be not be a "fan convention". I responded that this was like saying it was a "no-marriage wedding" or asking me to run an event for men only. I was assured that fans would be welcome at the event, but the message was that we were second-class. I said no. Maybe if I were on salary, but I don't volunteer for gigs that don't include me.

I really think that this time, I get the hint.