Things we don't see (at Swancon)

[sqbr]

So I've been thinking about cons, and con panels, and at the same time I've been thinking about racism and sexism and... stuff, and I have some vague thoughts about the way "minority" (which may not actually be in the physical minority) opinions and perspectives get ignored. Unsurprisingly, these are illustrated in particular by the panel I did on Race in SFF, but I'm planning on going into that in a separate post (the combined post got too long and rambly even for me)

Now first off I don't want to be one of those people who equates huge evil social injustice like racism etc with small scale unfairness like media fans not getting the same recognition as lit fans. They are Not The Same, and anyone who says they are is an idiot. But on an individual scale some similar dynamics come into play, it's just that with sexism etc those dynamics are underscored and reinforced by society wide predjudice, making everything nastier and more complex. I'm sorry to anyone who gets annoyed at the way I blur them a bit, I'm not the most intellectually rigorous writer ever :/

In general wrt Swancon, I think people are not very good at recognising that "interestingness" is not an objective measure. There's kind of a negative spiral, where the people who run/decide on panels aren't interested in something, so it doesn't get programmed, so noone who likes that stuff gets on any panels, so...
At the "What are we doing wrong at Swancons" panel there was a lot of interest in attracting new members, but none in figuring out what it is we could do that the people who don't go to Swancon would like (for example, what they do at Waicon). The assumption seemed to be that we just needed to get people to turn up, and once they'd done that they'd be overwhelmed by how awesome the con is and never leave.

But as someone at that panel did point out: how do you figure out what POVs you don't see, if you can't see them?

This ties into a discussion at a Gynaecon panel on the way female scientists are treated in fandom. There's sort of a double whammy, where women are automatically given less respect for doing things that would get respect from a man, but also things women tend to like (craft, soft sciences, romance etc) are given less respect than traditionally male topics (electronics, physics, action etc) so that if you're a woman who likes traditionally "girly" things you get very little respect at all.
(I'm never sure how much of this sort of thing applies to me personally, since I have a self deprecating attitude but fairly male interests. Of course one could argue that that my gender isn't coincidental to my self deprecatingness...)

The way I see it there are three stages to something like sexism. There's active discrimination, ie "You're stupid because you're a woman". There's subconscious bias, ie "I can just tell that you're stupid. And as it happens, this is true of all the women I know." And then there's indirect bias caused by society's biased values, ie "Everyone knows that dresses are stupid, and thus you are stupid for liking dresses". The last sort is the hardest to root out, especially since everything gets complicated by girls who don't like dresses and boys who do.

And of course individual "sexist" or whatever acts are rarely that straightforward, there's always confounding factors like personal history, personality, etc. It's like at the "Race and the Other" panel where people were coming up with all these plausible reasons for the fact that there are no non-white technological societies in StarGate: yes, it's not impossible that any one of those could hold and the whole thing could make sense in a non-racist way. But when this sort of thing happens in show after show you eventually have to put your foot down and stop acting like it isn't an issue. Racism, sexism etc are like the death of a thousand cuts (plus a few deliberate slashes and jabs), pointing out that each individual cut is quite small and that hey, all of us get the odd cut from time to time, isn't very helpful. Some people get WAY more cuts than others, and we need to do something about it.

But what do we do? Well, I think refusing to be ignored is important, as is being as involved as possible in the decision making process. Even if certain parts of fandom never get their head around why some of us like/care about fanfic anime dresses certain things, they can at least come to terms with the fact that a large and vocal subset of us do and grudgingly give us our due (in theory. I realise it hasn't always worked out that way, thus Gynacon etc). With actual discrimination I think you just have to speak up, make people think about whats really going on and not let things slide. From the other end, we have to really listen when people complain about feeling alienated or ignored, and try and get our head around the idea that just becuase we don't like something doesn't mean it's objectively bad, and just because we don't personally have a problem with certain patterns of bechaviour doesn't mean they don't need to be changed.

None of which is easy or always works, of course. *sigh* Still, do what we can right?

Comments

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

Thinky and insightful. Thanks.

One of the bigger stumbling blocks, it seems, when combatting sexism, is the backlash from people who don't see the big picture. It doesn't apply to them, so it's not 'their' issue. But they're allies, so any discussions around privilege get taken personally, and the whole thing can spiral out of control. Since it has always been the expectation that it's women's "job" to soothe hurt feelings and be 'nice' and ignore slights so that things run 'smoothly', not many want to rock the boat further (understandably!), and nothing changes.

The burden is on men as well as women to break down and discard institutionalised sexism, _even if it isn't directly their fault at the time_. This is waaaay harder than it sounds.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, absolutely. And I think this holds even more when we're talking about actual numerical minorities.

But that the same time, it's very difficult for men not to become the same sort of problematic talking-over-people-when-they-just-don't-get-it "allies" I was talking about in my next post. Look at Joss Whedon: he means well and does a lot of good stuff, but still manages to be pretty sexist for a "feminist".

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

Speaking of Joss Whedon and sexism... (http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom_wank/1146668.html)

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

Nodnodnod.

I see parallels with disability rights/accessibility (I'm talking in general here, which I should have clarified from the start - about larger systems and patterns, not about Swancon, which I wasn't at. Partly for access reasons, which aren't anyone's fault as such, just the way most cons are set up by default.) Able-bodied people will say over and over again stuff that amounts to "But we have a wheelchair ramp! Anything else is too hard!", instead of actually listening to what people with disabilities are trying to say.

One of the strongest themes running through the feminists-allies discussions in the blogosphere seems to be "Just shut up, listen, and really hear us for a moment." ("Without getting defensive.") That, and "Believe our lived experience."

You make the parallels with race and racism also, which are totally valid IMO (disclosure: as a white person). All function in different ways, but the patterns repeat.

[leecetheartist.livejournal.com]

Tangentially...do we ever see indigenous artists/writers/publishers at Swancon? Have they ever been asked? I guess we could look into these guys and invite them. http://www.noongar.org.au/

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

I was planning to suggest that we invite a local indigenous rep to come along and perhaps tell dreamtime stories, or teach us a traditional dance/story, or explain some artwork. I also struggle with how to express the idea without making it seem like tokenism :-(

[alias_sqbr]

Mmm. It is one of those appealing but incredibly minefieldy ideas isn't it? They had a local Noongar guy give a "welcome to country" at a medical conference I went to recently, which was great, but local indigenous groups have a much stronger connection to (and interest in) medical services than fandom. I think there isn't quite a framework for incorporating the sorts of things you're talking about, but perhaps they should be (ie people come and talk about folklore/religion from various cultures. But then again, understandably, they might not like the idea of people inevitably going "Ooh! I could use that for a story!")

Personally I think we're probably better off trying to give more voice to the various marginalised POVs within fandom before we start inviting in outsiders. Like: anime panels with japanese fans on them. Or panels about cross cultural fandom with fans from non-english speaking countries on them.

[leecetheartist.livejournal.com]

Better some action than no action for fear of offending?

[alias_sqbr]

Is that the sort of thing they do? Continuing from my discussion with stephbg below, does the stuff they do mesh with the stuff we do? If not we might want to consider widening our definition of "what we do", but I think that needs to be looked into before we invite them :)

If there are local indigenous spec fic writers etc then yes it would be good to invite them or at least do a panel on them or whatever.

Anyway, thanks for the link.

[leecetheartist.livejournal.com]

Well at the very least we can ask.

[stephbg.livejournal.com]

What I don't what to do is invite people (authors or otherwise) because they *happen* to be genetically indigenous. I want people (who *might* be indigenous) to respond to the use of indigenous culture to inspire spec fic. Is it A Good Thing? Is it Disrespectful? We've had panels like this before, but typically without representatives.

I've certainly read plenty of short spec stories with "pointing the bone" and walkabout and similar simplistic references. I'd like to know if that sort of thing annoys anyone, and if it's even a valid cause for annoyance given the strip-mining of lots of other cultures (Native American, Celtic, Japanese etc etc etc).

And then there's the racism versus culturism...

I really suck at explaining this sort of thing. I am an embarrassment to my Arts degree. I shall have to consult with BB who was an active and respected Native Title rep in the Dept of Indig Affairs. He's actually had ConTact.

[violetsquirrel.livejournal.com]

and try and get our head around the idea that just becuase we don't like something doesn't mean it's objectively bad, and just because we don't personally have a problem with certain patterns of bechaviour doesn't mean they don't need to be changed.

YES. As far as I'm concerned, a very large amount of problems with society come from the fact that people can't separate "I don't like this" from "this is bad and no one should like this". Which is hard to do, yeah, and I have to stop myself from doing it pretty often, but it's important.

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, it's all very well to say this sort of stuff in theory but following through in practice is another thing all together :)

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

"At the "What are we doing wrong at Swancons" panel there was a lot of interest in attracting new members, but none in figuring out what it is we could do that the people who don't go to Swancon would like (for example, what they do at Waicon). The assumption seemed to be that we just needed to get people to turn up, and once they'd done that they'd be overwhelmed by how awesome the con is and never leave."

Are attendances down? I hadn't realised. I would've thought "not being the Internet" would be a significant factor.

I have found Swancon an enthusiasm-neutral experience, the couple of times I've gone. I haven't been that eager to attend, and I've left neither more nor less eager to attend again.

"It's like at the "Race and the Other" panel where people were coming up with all these plausible reasons for the fact that there are no non-white technological societies in StarGate: yes, it's not impossible that any one of those could hold and the whole thing could make sense in a non-racist way. But when this sort of thing happens in show after show you eventually have to put your foot down and stop acting like it isn't an issue."

Many fandoms (seem to) have followers that prefer to collaboratively cover up the flaws of questionable material because they derive enjoyment from those flaws (of racism, sexism, whatever-essentialism ...) and by the time one arrives with a critical viewpoint they often have their arguments prepared. I'm personally willing to forgive a lot of political incorrectness in those works that I actually enjoy. Most people have that double standard.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

Attendances are not, in fact, notably down in the long term, or notably decreasing.

Some other areas of fandom are growing a lot faster, but its not a competition.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

*shrug* Fair enough, and I'm glad to hear it's not dying off. There are some ways in which it is a competition.

[mandragora2003.livejournal.com]

Oddly enough, the biggest problem I have with some programmes (incl. Stargate, which I actually like!) is not so much that they are deliberately racist or sexist, but the fact that they are rabidly trying to not offend their viewers and end up being *accidentally* racist and/or sexist. Regrettably, the perception of the viewing demographic is set by the concept of a white, middle-class male American audience with a large disposable income. Appealing to this group often means *leaving out* women, non-Americans, the aged, the too-young (or at least, the not-allowed-to-drink), non-Whites, or non-middle-class. And the not-unattached. Anyone who might be an uncomfortable topic to highlight, in fact. If any of the above show up in an alien society, said society or individual will be placed in a position somehow inferior to that of the watching demographic. (Sometimes technologically, sometimes morally). Thus, the audience will not have their delicate little sensibilities bruised by a challenging topic, and the television producers may continue to make money. The same logic shows up in non-sff too, and occasionally obtrudes enough that I cannot watch a show at all.

*Sigh*. It bugs me on a nit-picking, OCD level to have demographics messed with (ask me my biggest bug-bear re: the Matrix).

[alias_sqbr]

Well, one could argue that placing the needs of your white male viewers first etc is racist and sexist, but I get your point and it is pretty crazy making. (And I think thinking of things in terms of deliberate bigotry misses the motivations behind most of this stuff, since most people are at least superficially interested in tolerance etc)

Its like the "No female leads in childrens films" thing: apparenly boys just will not identify with a female lead. At least, this is the case in the minds of the producers, and they're the ones who make the decisions.

So....what was your biggest bugbear re: the matrix? :D

[alias_sqbr]

I don't know that attendances are down so much as that dissatisfaction is up :)

I'm not saying people shouldn't enjoy dodgy shows, since then there'd be nothing left to watch. And yes, you can always find some way to justify the stuff you like too much to criticise. I think what annoys me is people getting so caught up in defending each instance they don't acknowledge the wider pattern.

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Dissatisfaction up eh? Hmm.

"I'm not saying people shouldn't enjoy dodgy shows, since then there'd be nothing left to watch."

Just keep doing what you're doing. Put your point of view and pretty soon it'll become clear who the like-minded people are, or who can be persuaded to see your point. Then you can share your interests with them instead of with the others.

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

At the "What are we doing wrong at Swancons" panel there was a lot of interest in attracting new members, but none in figuring out what it is we could do that the people who don't go to Swancon would like (for example, what they do at Waicon)

That wasn't my impression at all.

In general wrt Swancon, I think people are not very good at recognising that "interestingness" is not an objective measure.
I guess. I'm acutely aware of it. Its a complex issue to deal with, though.

[alias_sqbr]

That wasn't my impression at all.

Well, we all have different points of view :) I will admit I was feeling particularly sick and grumpy that day.

I agree that it is a complex issue (you talking about how hard it was to find anyone to run anime panels got me thinking about the negative spiral of the people who always run panels being the people who like the stuff that's always been on panels etc) and not easily solved. But imo talking about it is a good first step.

[mynxii.livejournal.com]

I actually have to say that I agree with Dave on this - there were several things that prk and I took away to simmer on to discuss with our committee.

I didn't think there was the 'get them there' and the event itself will do the rest, but that the next bit of that discussion didn't actually happen on that day, and at the time, there was a lot of focus on looking at how to get people there - it's two seperate things, one of which was discussed thoroughly at the time, and was the focus of the panel inadvertently, and several other points that were also worthy of similar discussion and stuff, didn't quite make it into the limelight. (despite my trying!)

The issue of growing this is nothing to do with dropping numbers, numbers are in fact fairly steady (this year will be bigger, it was a Natcon and there was a strong eastern states presence.) The reasoning behind growing things is so that we have the membership numbers and potential funds to afford the bigger, and exponentially more expensive venue space. My many meetings with hotels and such put the most reasonable large hotel quote at a guestimate (and not actual quote) at $40k. Which is WELL over twice what we're currently paying, just for venue space. There are also several other associated factors. More members means that the number of people sharing the cost is more, and thus membership is less expensive.

For a value of expensive, which is actually for what you're getting, not at all expensive. Which is not to dispute that $120-150 or more to go to an event, is actually a lot of money.

There was coherence at some point... just some thoughts and info that might be useful.

The other thing that I'm trying to keep in mind is that there ARE constraints to how and what we can do, money is one, space is another, volunteers is a huge one. There may be many things that we agree to in principle - such as having a room for the entire convention for dealers, but as far as feasibility goes right now, very difficult.

Hope the info is useful/interesting in any case.

i'm noting this and various posts to go through and spend time on with the 2009 committee. At the very least we will take on board things, have the discussions and facilitate space for listening and said discussion - what we can then do with it will remain to be seen, but knowing black_samvara as I do, there will be plenty of opportunity to give feedback on the programme as it evolves.

Also, you may not be aware that the social BBQ that we're doing, is also going to be a first programming meeting, largely informal and a chance to debrief on stuff, and discuss what's on people's minds before we really turn our hand to the upcoming swancon. Also gives people a chance to become familiar with our programmer, and she with everyone else :) Details on bbq available on request. There will be many other opportunities to do this if you or others interested cannot make it.

pointless comment showing appreciation.

[elaran.livejournal.com]

I really like your posts on stuff like this.

Thanks!

[alias_sqbr]

Boosting my ego is not remotely pointless :D