Kerfluffle!

[sapote]

Maybe it's being, you know, a Southern white girl descended from a slave owners (feel free to defriend me!), but I've never understood what's so traumatizing about people accusing you of racism. When someone accuses me of being racist I usually go, "Huh. Really? Oops!" and then say "Let me think about that and get back to you! I'm quite sorry!" and try to be less racist next time. None of us can claim to be a) raised outside of society or b) raised in a perfect society, so really, can't you be expected to pick up some mental detritus now and then?

Is it racist of me to say that finding out you're being a little racist is not the end of the world? I don't even think it's that much of a reflection on your character as long as you consistently try to improve your level of treating-everyone-as-well-as-possible.

I'm not trying to open the whole can of worms again, incidentally, it's just that every time there's a discussion on fannish ethics, all those worms seem to get out anyway, and I decided to take it to my own lj instead of getting it all over someone else's.

Comments

[rilestar.livejournal.com]

So I understand that it can *feel* like being cudgelled, but I think what sapote is saying is that it really shouldn't feel like being cudgelled, because it's *not* a Scarlet Letter

See, I understand what Sapote is saying here because she has clarified her use of the word 'racist' - and it means something different to many other people. It reminds me of women who vehemently deny being a feminist - until you talk them through their beliefs, and show them that 'feminist' doen't have to equal 'man-hating lesbian with shaved head and piercings'. They are feminists, but their (mis)understanding of the term leads them to reject the tag.

Similarly, in my job - I work for a union - I have been treated as scum of the earth because of the preconceptions some people have (usually second-hand preconceptions, too, learned from family) about what unionism is all about (and god forbid they should let the facts get in the way of a firmly held belief!)

Anyway ... point is, actually - that kinda is the point. The terminology is tainted with imagery. If you want to encourage someone to critically analyse their behaviour, you'll either need to help them redefine the terminology, or find new wording altogether - wording that will move people onto the path of self-reflection, rather than raise their hackles and put them on the defensive.

And do I think this is *your* responsibility as someone who has been on the other end? No. I think it's great that you are willing to speak out - I get that it wouldn't be easy for you, I have seen the kind of response you're talking about. However, I think that receiving those responses should show you that the message isn't getting through the way you intend. A rethink of strategy is probably needed.

Not saying I have the answers, though. It's *way* easier to do this when you see the person in the flesh, for instance. Lots harder to do when you are using text, with no facial expressions, or body language to help show what you mean. In these circumstances sometimes I make a general observation of the issue, rather than to say: "You just did this." With a lot of people, this will draw them into a conversation on why they just did that, and hey - you've got them thinking.

I do wonder, though, whether these conversations may go down better in private (via email), rather than as a publicly viewable post? Taking out of the equation the sting of being shown to be less-than-perfect in front of others could help (we're such touchy creatures!) It also removes the 'dogpile' part, too.

And shit, I've just realised the time: I have an appointment to get to. I'll probably reread this later and think of a million ways I haven't expressed myself very well, but I hope you follow at least some of these rambling, Sunday morning thoughts!

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

It reminds me of women who vehemently deny being a feminist - until you talk them through their beliefs, and show them that 'feminist' doen't have to equal 'man-hating lesbian with shaved head and piercings'. They are feminists, but their (mis)understanding of the term leads them to reject the tag.

Right, *exactly*. And in my opinion, the solution there is not to abandon the word "feminist" because it's irretreivably tainted -- because even if we softened it up and tried not to sound so scary or threatening, and called ourselves, whatever, "equalists!" or "personhood-ists!" -- the problem is, the people who have issues with the *concepts* and *goals* of feminism would just mock and stereotype the "equalists" as viciously as they had tarred the "feminists." There'd be no point in giving up the word "feminist" in order to not scare people who have a wrong idea about feminists.

So, really, we *could* just stop saying "racism" because it's a big scary word and it scares people, but honestly I don't see that solving anything either. Even the gentlest, most soft-toned fannish meta, that doesn't even use the word "racism," that doesn't accuse individuals, that addresses broad trends and maybe says "unintentional offense" or "sorta problematic" -- even that can get a backlash. So, IMO, I really don't think the problem is in the *words* or even the tone, so much as the ingrained defensiveness of the people who just don't want to listen.

Obviously, there are good ways and bad ways to start the conversation. And there are conversations to have with beginners who have never had this talk before, and conversations to have with people who understand the basic concepts already and don't need all the terms explained again, etc. So I'm really not saying we should always charge into the conversation with "Hey! Since you're racist, I just thought I'd stop by and say--" and so on and so forth. Obviously being overly hostile and crazy and accusing doesn't help anything.

But I do think, a lot of the time, that "maybe we shouldn't use words or say things that scare people or make them angry" ends up becoming a distraction, because I don't think there *are* nice enough words or a sweet enough tone to pre-empt the backlash, if the person being criticised feels like lashing back or saying "how dare you call me racist, that's so hurtful that I'm now justified in treating you as badly as I possibly can!"

I do think the people being criticised have to take some responsibility for their own words and actions, and not just be like "Well, she said 'racist' and then I clearly wasn't responsible for my actions after that."

I do wonder, though, whether these conversations may go down better in private (via email), rather than as a publicly viewable post? Taking out of the equation the sting of being shown to be less-than-perfect in front of others could help (we're such touchy creatures!) It also removes the 'dogpile' part, too.

In the conversations I've seen, it often does start out that way-- like in the Harry Potter comm where they had a "miscegenation" challenge that covered interracial, interspecies and bestiality sex all under the same tag. People *did*, IIRC, take it to the mods through email asking that the tag be changed, and only brought the criticism public when the mods told them there was no problem and the tag wasn't going to be changed.

It can also be more useful to make a public post if you're concerned about a widespread trend... for instance, it might be more useful to make just one meta post saying "hey, what's with all the stories all of a sudden calling Girl a bimbo slut, while Boy gets pats on the back for the same behavior, isn't that kinda stupid?" as opposed to emailing authors, because the meta post might possibly cause people to stop and think before writing stories like that *in the future*, whereas just privately writing each author wouldn't do much in that sense.

[rilestar.livejournal.com]

And in my opinion, the solution there is not to abandon the word "feminist" because it's irretreivably tainted

I get your point, but I think there are times where it is helpful to let go of the terminology in order to make the point. Of course, there are always going to be people who react badly to any intimation that they are less than perfect - for those kinds of people there would be no point to changing the language as they're going to arc up anyway. (Can't always tell how people are going to react until you start the conversation, unfortunately.)

I do think the people being criticised have to take some responsibility for their own words and actions

You're absolutely right - no matter what's been said to them, there is no excuse for revenge attacks. Frank Herbert used to quote his wife: "Revenge is for children, and the emotionally retarded." I'm a big believer in personal responsibility.

In the conversations I've seen, it often does start out that way-- like in the Harry Potter comm where they had a "miscegenation" challenge that covered interracial, interspecies and bestiality sex all under the same tag. People *did*, IIRC, take it to the mods through email asking that the tag be changed, and only brought the criticism public when the mods told them there was no problem and the tag wasn't going to be changed.

Okay, in the first place - what the fucking fuck? Seriously? That really happened??? Oh oh oh, SO MANY KINDS OF WRONG! It's people/situations like this that have got me my reputation: "Yes, Riley, we know - Big Bomb. Kill all the stupid people." Argh, people suck.

It can also be more useful to make a public post if you're concerned about a widespread trend

Oh, I totally agree. I was more thinking along the lines where I've seen people post comments to an author's fic and people jump in on both sides. In those cases I would recommend the private email - if you're going to be commenting specifically to the author it might work better to not do it in front of others. But yes, a public meta post - by all means.