Writercon 2009: -ism in Fandom

[rahirah]

At Writercon 2009 this last weekend, I was on a panel entitled "Evil In Our Midst: Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia in Fandom." And before I start talking about it, I want to give some background, because as I discovered through some conversations at the con, some of the people who attended weren't aware of why the convention decided to host this

Comments

[slaymesoftly]

I've been waiting to hear your take on this incident - having, of course, already been clued in elsewhere. I can't speak to why the person who spoke up did so, nor what she intended to say, but I can speak to how she got there. Had I been still there, I would probably have attended this panel, not just because you were on it and I was being supportive (*g*) but because, at a writing conference, I would have (and did, actually) assumed that it was to educate writers so as to help them write "other". If it was to be a closed meeting of those who think of themselves as non-A people, that should have been made clear in the programming description. I think anyone not aware of the imbroglio that was the impetus behind it would have assumed the same thing. That this was a session to attend so as to learn about others different from oneself.

The background is barely familiar to me - as you talked about it, I remembered reading things here and there referring to a dustup among published writers, but it never would have occurred to me that a barely remembered incident that I wasn't involved in would have its own panel at Writer Con. I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one to have been more or less blissfully unaware of the extent of the to do or that it included fandom. Perhaps that's a result of my being very much a member of Group A and having missed the whole thing because it didn't apply to me. That, I suppose is fail on my part, I don't know. I just know that I would have been sitting there absorbing information that might be useful to me as a writer and would have had no idea I wasn't supposed to be there.

As far as the way the questioner was shut down - I can understand some shock from those who assumed everyone knew the purpose of the panel. However, it does sound as though the speaker felt she had a legitimate viewpoint and that the response was incredibly rude. Having a hard time appreciating her feelings of being "too old" for fandom, if that is, in fact, what she was saying *g*, but if that's how she feels, she may have thought she had a right to say so. It seems to me that she could have been politely shut up by a response that briefly explained the panel's purpose and that it was specific to certain "isms" that did not include hers.

Now to read the rest of the responses and see if I'm the only oblivious person here...

ETA: Okay, I see from another post that this panel was a result of something that happened after WC 2006. Still have to point out that I can't be the only one in fandom who didn't know about that incident. I may have even known about it in some tangential fashion and just forgot about it as soon as went away from view. I couldn't tell you now which it is. But, as I suspect would anyone else not directly involved in the fallout from it and/or in planning the latest WC, I had no idea it had created a need for a panel dealing with the subjects of racism, sexism and homophobia. It still comes down to an assumption that everyone attending the con would know more about the purpose behind the panel than was apparently the case.

[rm]

Racism, Sexism and Homophobia exist in the world and are important issues. Therefore, with or without whatever happened in 2006 (I've no idea, as I was new to WriterCon this year) and the events of RaceFail on LJ over the last year (events which significantly involve the professional SF/F creator community), these are relevant topics (and arguably obviously so) for any con where we are trying to write about human experience and also have fandoms dedicated to whole cultures (e.g., bollywood) and sexual orientatons (e.g., slash).

[slaymesoftly]

I'm not saying they weren't worth discussing, or having a panel. I am saying that it wasn't clear to anyone not in the know that the purpose of the panel was not to provide a learning experience for writers who felt they didn't know enough about the subject matter. Which, it seems, led to attendance by some people who were not welcome and not treated politely when, in their ignorance of the actual purpose of the panel, they spoke out of turn. They are relevant topics, indeed. To all of us.

[rahirah]

The thing is (from my perspective, anyway) there's a distinction between a discussion about the problems of a marginalized group, and a discussion about how uncomfortable discussing the problems of that marginalized group makes members of the dominant group. A panel entitled "Racism et al. in Fandom" seems to me to be pretty clearly about the first thing. Which doesn't mean that the panelists may not choose to field questions about the second thing (and in fact I think we did on a couple of occasions, and in a way, that's what we're doing here and now) but it's not the purpose of the discussion.

[rahirah]

What rm said. But also, this: all too often when one is a member of the privileged group (and I have a lot of privilege in a lot of ways, so I'm speaking as a bonafide member of Group A here) the underlying attitude is that "These are your issues, not mine. If you want me to care, it's your duty to educate me, and convince me that your issues are worth my attention and you are worth my respect. I have no obligation to educate myself because these are not my issues. If you upset me, I can walk away, so it is always your responsibility to be the rational, conciliatory one, no matter what I say."

So yes, obviously, a panel like that is an educational tool. But as a member of Group A, it's also my responsibility - even more my responsibility - to actively educate myself on the issues, as well as passively accepting any education that may come my way. Because they're my issues, too, whether I realize it or not, whether I want to accept it or not. What is usually meant by "I'm not here to educate you" is "Don't just wait for me to tell you about this, go look for information."

It is very unsettling to many people when a debate gets emotional, or breaks down in some way. But if I, as a member of Group A, use my own discomfort as a reason to retreat from the debate which the other side cannot retreat from, then nothing changes. And these are everybody's issues.

[slaymesoftly]

*nods* But wouldn't attending a panel like that indicate that someone was trying to educate themselves? Which would be difficult if those on the panel or in the audience felt that no one should be there who couldn't be identified as belong to one of the groups? (And wouldn't a discussion of sexism apply to all of us? With the possible exception of the white male?)

[inalasahl]

I wasn't there; I had to leave for the airport at 11 a.m., and I don't know who the comment came from. But no, attending that panel doesn't indicate that someone was trying to educate themselves. It's quite usual in discussions like these for people to attend who want cookies or a ghetto pass or even just reassurance that they aren't racist, sexist, homophobic, whatever, without that person actually being there to learn anything.

[missmurchison]

I echo your confusion.

[rahirah]

As inalasahl says, it's not unusual for someone to go into a conversation like this saying (and believing) that they want to be educated - but when it becomes apparent that they are expected to do some of the heavy lifting themselves (by taking some responsibility for educating themselves, or by examining and maybe even changing their own beliefs and behaviors, or by having to deal with cranky, imperfect human beings who may be less than perfectly polite and respectful) then it's very common for those people to retreat into "I didn't mean to be offensive, you people are too sensitive, if you really cared about educating me you'd be nicer, I'm taking my marbles and going home," etc. And again, I'm speaking as someone who's been that person, far more often that I like to admit.

There's a term called intersectionality, which deals with how various kinds of privilege and lack thereof interact. It's way too complex to go into in a comment here, but Google is a very handy site. *g*