and attitudes like this [discussed, not yours, she amends to clarify] are why I call myself a craftsperson rather than an artist, ever... *sigh*
(had an interesting discussion last weekend with a fellow writer, who happens to be a male of A Certain Lack-of-Pigmentation and financial status, about the difference between 'privilege' [which he had purely for being male-and-pale in this world] and 'entitlement' [which he did not have, Life having knocked the gloss off him in the manner proper to all self-aware adults]. I think he got it.)
well, one of the quickest ways to explain it is that privilege is something other people give to you, and entitlement is what you take for yourself (the assumption that you are worthy of/entitled to privilege).
Or: privilege is passive, entitlement is active.
But that's simplification, 'cause my brain's not awake yet.
This has been an interesting conversation to watch develop (I'm just browsing links on metafandom), though I think I've managed to actually stay away from people suggesting that people shouldn't warn for sexual assault/non-con stuff.
I'm considering doing a study of the rhetoric used to frame debates surrounding "privilege" in fandom. I'm particularly fascinated by the bingo card meme...I wonder how long it will be before we have one for this conversation as well.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, but I'm bloody tired of the bingo cards, and for that matter, of every clever, snarky trope that basically says "If you say THIS, we automatically laugh at you." It just perpetuates that nasty Internet atmosphere of, "The rest of us are out here just looking for a reason to mock you, so you better STFU."
I mean, I've seen some hilarious bingo cards, laws of jurisimprudence, etc., but...in the long run, I'd rather do without.
Yep--that's pretty much why I'm interested in them and the whole way the discussion is frequently framed. In reading racefail posts I found myself growing annoyed at the two-edged sword many were presented with when confronted with racial discussion--either toe the party line and approach with head down and cap in hand (and even then there are no guarantees) or be subject to derision. Even the sites that people get linked to frequently have a derisive rhetorical tone (yes, I know...) that may serve to alienate more than educate.
The misunderstanding of the (very complex) concept of privilege is perhaps the worst thing, because people don't understand how loaded and complicated privilege is, and frequently the discussion stops there--as though identifying and acknowledging one's own privilege is the end to be achieved.
And I'm getting ahead of myself; I've got a bit of reading to do on race and rhetoric in between, you know, this whole gestation business...
I'm surprised that you're characterizing such a broad discussion as having to toe a party line, because I don't think it happened that way. It doesn't apply to the warning situation at least.
You are 100% right. This is what I get for not tracking down the original link. Off to correct (and my apologies to both Cedara and Cereta if reading.)
-- I think the idea of warning is very important. I'm generally against any sort of censorship. However, just because I might be able to handle doesn't mean someone can or should.
It's why I warn people when I watch an icky movie that I happen to enjoy, but which also has very graphic violence. It's the least I can do. Because a person should be able to make up their own mind before the see or read or hear something that might potentially distress them.
You'd think. But I've run into the same thing misscam's talking about in vidding as well as in writing, with some rather special snowflakes insisting that their pleasure in a vid/story is completely and utterly ruined by any warnings of any kind, and that this is just as valid and pressing an argument as warning trauma victims of triggers.
(You want privilege? Back in the vidding argument, someone once huffed "Of course it's a violent and controversial vid! *I* did it! People ought to be ready for that!" Because of course she expected that the entire fringe of fandom was familiar with *her.*)
But that's just silly saying that a warning will ruin your enjoyment.
I've a number indie splatter films (most of them rubbish, but what the hey) made by the sort of rebellious directors who take no 'shit' from anyone who make a point of having a warning at the front of their films. Warnings that clearly state: THIS MOVIE WILL OFFEND MOST PEOPLE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. In fact it seems to be a matter of street cred for them.
Comments 52
(had an interesting discussion last weekend with a fellow writer, who happens to be a male of A Certain Lack-of-Pigmentation and financial status, about the difference between 'privilege' [which he had purely for being male-and-pale in this world] and 'entitlement' [which he did not have, Life having knocked the gloss off him in the manner proper to all self-aware adults]. I think he got it.)
Reply
Reply
Or: privilege is passive, entitlement is active.
But that's simplification, 'cause my brain's not awake yet.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm considering doing a study of the rhetoric used to frame debates surrounding "privilege" in fandom. I'm particularly fascinated by the bingo card meme...I wonder how long it will be before we have one for this conversation as well.
Reply
I mean, I've seen some hilarious bingo cards, laws of jurisimprudence, etc., but...in the long run, I'd rather do without.
Reply
The misunderstanding of the (very complex) concept of privilege is perhaps the worst thing, because people don't understand how loaded and complicated privilege is, and frequently the discussion stops there--as though identifying and acknowledging one's own privilege is the end to be achieved.
And I'm getting ahead of myself; I've got a bit of reading to do on race and rhetoric in between, you know, this whole gestation business...
Reply
Reply
Carry on.
Reply
Reply
-- I think the idea of warning is very important. I'm generally against any sort of censorship. However, just because I might be able to handle doesn't mean someone can or should.
It's why I warn people when I watch an icky movie that I happen to enjoy, but which also has very graphic violence. It's the least I can do. Because a person should be able to make up their own mind before the see or read or hear something that might potentially distress them.
It's common sense, isn't it?
Reply
You'd think...
Reply
You'd think. But I've run into the same thing misscam's talking about in vidding as well as in writing, with some rather special snowflakes insisting that their pleasure in a vid/story is completely and utterly ruined by any warnings of any kind, and that this is just as valid and pressing an argument as warning trauma victims of triggers.
(You want privilege? Back in the vidding argument, someone once huffed "Of course it's a violent and controversial vid! *I* did it! People ought to be ready for that!" Because of course she expected that the entire fringe of fandom was familiar with *her.*)
Reply
I've a number indie splatter films (most of them rubbish, but what the hey) made by the sort of rebellious directors who take no 'shit' from anyone who make a point of having a warning at the front of their films. Warnings that clearly state: THIS MOVIE WILL OFFEND MOST PEOPLE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. In fact it seems to be a matter of street cred for them.
Reply
Leave a comment