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

[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.

[alias_sqbr]

Well...another way to look at it is that people suddenly feel full of energy and enthusiasm about making swancon even better. Bit of both, perhaps.

I like to share my interests with anyone who'll listen :)