I have a question

[la_marquise]

Dear SFF Community,

Most of the time, I'm proud to be part of you. I'm proud to be part of a community that Matched It For Pratchett and regularly raises money for Talking Books for the Blind. I'm proud to be part of a community that is strongly, vocally, actively working to ensure our space is fully accessible, convenient and pleasant for people with disabilities. I'm proud to be part of a community that set up the Carl Brandon Society and Con Or Bust. I'm proud to be part of a community which, on seeing institutionalised racism, sexismn, trans*phobia, homophobia, hostility to people who reject gender normativity, turned around and, yes, argued, long and loud and continuously, but also set out to clean house and make ourselves better. Very few other groups linked by common interest have done that. Most of them seem to prefer to gaslight and bully those who raise such issues. I'm proud to belong to a community that sees its own shortcomings. Yes, we could do better. We can always do better.

There are some great things going on in our community right now. Nine Worlds is working to create and maintain a con environment that is welcoming to PoC, QUILTBAG people, fans with disabilities, new fans. Many cons now have and enforce Codes of Conduct aimed at fostering inclusivity and safety. Con committees are working to find ways to recruit new fans, younger fans. SFWA is working actively to end a culture of normative sexism and racism. Women writers are banding together to address equality in bookshop promotions. Writers of colour are speaking up and working to address the inequality they face. People from across the fan spectrum are supporting and signal-boosting them.

And we are all rooted in the societies that raised us, societies that are, mainly, institutionally racismt sexist, tran*- , xeno- and homo-phobic, hostile to people who face physical and mental challenges, wqhich blame the poor and underprivileged for their difficulties. We were most of us raised in cultures that fostered this, often unconsciously. We are surrounded by images and actions which reinforce an unequal status quo. It awes me that so many in our community fight this, in both their cultures and themselves. IT awed me that we stand up to those who are within the community who seem to revel in their prejudices and tell them, No More.

But, right now, I have a question for you. Why, when we fight these battles, do we so often resort to the same old patriarchal norms? Why do we reserve our greatest spleen for *women* and defend our right to do so? That, I put to you, needs addressing and it needs addressing now. I really don't want to comment on Loncon 3 and Jonathan Ross: enough has been said and said in all kinds of ways. My personal view on it, for those who will demand to know such things, is that I think the chairs made a mistake here. He is a fan, certainly, but he is also controversial and divisive for well-rehearsed reasons. At the same time, he's very popular, particularly with the younger demographic and would certainly have drawn in new, younger attendees. So I can also see that the chairs had reasons on their side too. I don't think the chairs are bad people. I know both of them, have done for years, and they have both worked long and hard for inclusivity in UK fandom. This time, trying for one kind of that, they made a mistake in another kind. We all make mistakes. They don't -- they shouldn't -- cast us into pits of hellfire for all eternity. If that were the case, then the Vox Days have won: they don't care about making mistakes, they just carry on. If we throw each other out of the lifeboat one by one, we end up with no-one.

That's one thing. But I want to go back to my question. Why is the worst reserved for women?
Here's what I saw: a woman, who is a survivor of bullying and class oppression, expressed her concerns over the material that might be used by Mr Ross and how it might affect her. A large number of people, male and female, lit into her for daring to express her fears in public, for being 'mean', for being out of line.
Women must be Good.
A young woman, who is related to Mr Ross, tried to reassure her and was distressed by all the things that were being said. Another woman, the mother of that young woman, stepped in to defend her daughter. She perhaps did not do so tactfully, but she was faced with an upset and unhappy child. And, a number of people lit into her for daring to express her feelings in public, for being 'mean', for being out of line.
Women must be Good.
Both the adult women are now silent on twitter. One has felt driven to delete her account. These women have in fact spoken to each other calmly and come to mutual understanding. But people on all sides -- pro-Ross and anti- him -- are continuing to abuse both these women. I'm seeing more of that than I am people questioning his form of comedy or the chairs' decision. I'm seeing women as a group involved in this being demonised in the press and on social media, for being strident mean girls, bullies, sell-outs etc etc etc.
Because Women must be Good.
Neither of these adult women committed a crime. It's not a crime to be distressed and triggered about potential harassment. It's not a crime to feel the need to defend your child verbally. But people are using the tone argument on both of them, because women Must Be Good. They are demanding complete recanting and surrender. They are demanding recognition for a perceived right to abuse women.
Because women must be Good, and a woman out of line is far worse than a controversial man or a questionable decision.
This is patriarchy at its best, using us to undermine each other. I've seen you, men who position as allies, poking fun at that first woman, implying her concerns are trivial, stupid, blamable. I've seen you, women who I love and admire and support, demanding a right to punish a woman for being married to a man you disapprove of. I've seen male allies and vocal feminists falling straight into the patriarchy trap and blaming the women.
Shape up. Look at who is gaining here. Not us. Oh no. The winner> The system that says women must bear responsibility for policing and controlling male behaviour, that women must adapt their bodies and thoughts and actions to suit male expectations and desires, that women must attain to and keep far higher standards than men at all times, that Women Must Be Perfect.
Mr Ross will not be hosting the Hugos. The concerns the community had over inclusivity and safety were heard. Inclusivity and safety won out.
Yet somehow the long term winner seems to be patriarchal thinking.
And I want to know why.

Comments

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

That message - you have to do things in a certain way, you have to behave and believe in a certain way - is common to cults. When it appears in paganism big red flags go up, regardless of whether one believes in the principles it is espousing.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

I do think that if an event said they were going to have, say, the EDL leader, as a guest, then you could choose whether to attend or not. But if an event says it's going to be open, welcoming, and respectful, takes your membership money, and then invites someone like that EDL person, you have bought into the event, you have invested your holiday time, your travel budget, your hotel budget etc. as well as your membership money, and so if the convention then deviates strongly from what you thought you'd invested in, you have a say in it.

That's exactly my objection to the whole Ross/Hugos business. I had had enormous doubts about Loncon because previous Worldcons had been such a disaster from my perspective (concerns about sexual harassment) and because until - as a matter of fact - World Fantasy Con got stick for its feeble harassment policy, Worldcon had also been looking like it was going the same way. So I'd been talked into it on the strength of its "getting" that issue (by promoting its current policy, and by the fact someone I know well had been invited to draft it), and having Ross host the Hugos was the reverse of its "getting" what people were worried about.

I don't care if other people would have found him the big draw and not worried about that - for me, one of the key points about Loncon was whether it did or did not take harassment seriously, and for me getting Ross to host a keynote event at Loncon was as negative on that point as it might have been for a climate change activist to discover Clarkson was handing out the Green Energy Awards at some big do.

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

The other point, of course, given the original point of the post was about women being treated more harshly than anyone else in these cases, would anyone seriously WANT to be seen as "That uptight bitch who called the cops on poor socially awkward Joe accidentally putting his hand where he shouldn't when he'd had a jar too many? Christ, what is it with these blushing little Victorian flowers these days? Have they no sense of proportion?"

And yet, if the only option is "call the cops" where does that leave people who want to put a marker in the sand, just not that deep?

[(Anonymous)]

So I will selfishly confess to having been pleased when I saw the announcement because it made selling Loncon to my highly dubious family suddenly a lot easier. If Ross was involved then maybe it is a safe place to let my niece go to.

What happened next was exactly the kind of thing that I didn't need when making my case.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

I think we've had this conversation before but this is taking me all the way back to my brief and dangerous flirtation with student politics in the 1980s and early 1990s - where the drive for perfection smashed everything up.

As I've said elsewhere I was smoothing the way for my 12 year old niece to go to Loncon and announcing Ross as Kari mentions did make it look more acceptable to people who normally look down on SF. The only thing I've been able to think of when reading the arguments for a 'safe' and 'inclusive' space is safe and inclusive for whom? :(

[daveon.livejournal.com]

I did ask somebody yesterday if they didn't feel a little patronized by some this. I was surprised that the answer was an emphatic no. But then we bump into some of the Geek Social Fallacies concerning inability to understand that for perfectly valid reasons people can have different opinions to you.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

THIS! This! And many times this.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Yes: the Geek Fallacy. That one has done a lot of damage over the years. (And how like universities, now I come to think of it.)

[mizkit.livejournal.com]

holy crap.

You've actually just put your finger on what's always kind of bothered me about fandom. I mean, I'm sure I should have seen it before, especially since I certainly recognize instances of actively cult-like behaviour in specific aspects of fandom, but somehow I never applied the thought to the whole of fandom.

But as someone who is passionate about sff/comics/etc but grew up a long way, physically, from any possible interaction with fandom, the, well, *fanaticism*, of the SFF fandom community has always looked a little weird to me. And now I know why. And perhaps that's why although I obviously consider myself a fan and a geek and all of that, I've never really felt like I belonged to fandom in the way that many people seem to feel they do.

Which doesn't make me any less disappointed with the behaviour of Fandom: The Idea in general...

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I dream of a world where safe bodily autonomy is the norm, though.

[redbird]

The thing is that the best case in that scenario is that if someone is assaulted or harassed, she can file a complaint and have the harasser removed, ideally before they harass three other people.

The goal should be that said potential harasser bothers zero con attendees, not that they are stopped after one if security and law enforcement show up quickly, two or more if the security person is at the other end of the hotel and the local police are dealing with something they consider higher priority.

Also, a comic picking someone out from the front row of the audience and targeting her or him for obnoxious comments based on the person's appearance is likely to be dismissed as "just a joke" by law enforcement. Walk up to someone at a party and say "ha, you're ugly, what are you doing here?" might get you asked to leave; stand on a stage with a microphone and say "look at that ugly person" and even if the audience doesn't laugh, you're unlikely to get pulled off stage and replaced by someone who isn't harassing the audience. There's an argument that people who go to a comedy club for certain performers know what they're getting into; the Hugo Awards are not meant as a Don Rickles stand-up act.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

The thing here is I actually think the probability of 'one of our own' saying something out of turn or insulting due to lack of experience or nerves is actually higher than a pro with experience and script doing it.

Regardless of his previous form, I actually thought Ross was less likely to make some of the messes we've had so much fun with over the years.

[ms-cataclysm.livejournal.com]

A similar thing happened with my pension admnistrators. They sacked a top performing fund manager -Nicola Horlick - because they learned that she had a sick kid and they thought it might affect her performance. They then boasted in their investor presentations about doing this. So I now have new pension administrators.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

LJ seems to be playing up today. And no problem.

Re: Thank you all for a reasoned debate.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I'm glad to have been helpful. I am all in favour of everyone being judged on themselves, and not on the grounds of what they appear to be.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

I see where you're going with this but I still bump up against the only outcome being that Ross was unsuitable and shouldn't have been chosen. Whereas I think there's an alternative position that had all the information been put out there first that we'd be now in the middle of one of our usual fan feuds but Ross would still be doing the Hugos and SFF fandom wouldn't be making the front page of London's main evening news paper for 'hounding' a woman off Twitter.

For the lack of information the blame falls 100% on the shoulders of the chairs. As I've said to you elsewhere, I think, for many reasons he was the right choice if we want to have fandom taken more seriously in the mainstream and raise the profile of the Hugo Awards. But I fully understand that I do not necessarily represent the views of all fandom in wanting to see if that is the case.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

The press have been quite spectacularly unhelpful.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I can't speak to the Readercon incident: I'm not in any way sufficiently informed. But I tend to agree that flexibility is generally helpful.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Yep. Zero harassment is a good goal. And I tend to agree that a comedian who tends to controversial material is not an ideal host.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

This is why the decision to invite him was one I personally think was a mistake. I wouldn't have been as concerned if he had been appearing on a panel, say: the audience tends to be self-selecting for those. But the Hugos have a much wider catchment.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I am deeply unimpressed by the sections of the press that appear to think those issues are less important than what's been going on re the Hugos.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I have to confess that whenever an issue turns into a huge public row, my instinct is to be as far away as possible.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

:-(
There are lots of people who don't want to engage in big public wars and who work quietly and continually to make things better too.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Inclusivity matters. It matters hugely. I am one of the thin-skinned, in fact, and without the marquis and various friends, I would have run away from cons long ago because of the level of sexual harassment I've experienced.
There are a number of very reasonable grounds for objecting to Mr Ross: I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Apologies if I've phrased things poorly. I was trying to express the gendered aspects that I'd seen.

Re: Thank you all for a reasoned debate.

[mevennen.livejournal.com]

Exactly. You're not the only WASP bloke to feel put off, and part of the problem is that in the history of cons is that some women, and some people of other ethnic groups, have not felt welcome either, often for very good reason.

However, trying to redress this seems to be resulting in hurling out baby with bathwater. I'm assuming that you're not, in fact, some sexist monster who is just waiting for the chance to make vile remarks with impunity, but that you might be (correct me if I am wrong) alarmed at the possibility that some chance remark will bring down a shedload of self righteous opinion from the language police. Quite a number of feminists are beginning to feel the same way, and it might be time to note that although a number of us do, in fact, want to be more inclusive, not to mention simply polite and non-hurtful, we're not invested in the kind of discourse (aka failspeak) that is emanating from a relatively small percentage of fandom. Someone worked out this morning that it's about 200 people, at least on Witter.

It seems to come out of Sapir-Whorf; I have problems with it that are primarily philosophical, but it's being treated as though it was analogous to mathematics as a provable theory, and pretty obviously, it isn't: it's a set of hypotheses with which one might or might not agree.