When they came for Jonathon Ross, I said nothing…

[f4f3]

Well OK, that’s not strictly speaking true. When they came for Jonathon Ross, accusing him of being the poster-boy for racism and sexism, and he retaliated by calling one of the posters stupid, I said I was on his side in this one. If someone called me racist and sexist, I’d be pretty upset and I’d reply. (If they said I was an outsider and knew nothing of the Genre, I’d definitely think they were stupid, even if I didn’t have a pedigree of writing comics and SF and promoting the genre in mainstream cultural outlets).

For this, someone I’ve known in comics circles for 20 years said that I was “Not a deliberate collaborator but your approach had that effect.”

Round about then I flung my toys out of the pram. I may have used the words “pitchfork” and “lynch mob”. I was also castigated for not taking it on trust that because Ross had been accused of racism and sexism he was, ipso facto, a racist sexist. I hadn’t done my research (the primary sources I had neglected to investigate, apparently, were the dozens of tweets showing his racism and sexism, many of which my accuser had personally retweeted).

By that time, the point was moot, since Ross had already offered to withdraw and the Convention had grabbed at his offer gratefully.

Ross, apparently, is a comedian. I’m not a huge fan of his, because I don’t watch talk shows, and I don’t go to too many awards dinners. I liked him on the BBC’s film show, and I thought his Vampire Mobsters comic was a bit meh, but showed a lot of promise for a first timer.

Apparently his crimes, which have made him an unfit person to present the Hugo Awards (and don’t get me started on the Hugo awards) was that he’d told jokes which had been construed as sexist, racist, or both, and that he hadn’t been sufficiently contrite.

Well you know who else that rules out from hosting our little awards ceremony? Bill Hicks. Billy Connolly. Billy Crystal (you’re not telling me that Miracle Max isn’t a Jewish caraciture? That his "When Harry Met Sally" character isn't a women hater?) Dave Allan. Chick Murray. Miranda Hart (her portrayal of large women as clumsy and inarticulate is degrading to large women everywhere). Sandi Toksvig (she was nasty about the Scots on News Quiz the other week). Briefly, anyone. Everyone. Anyone who can be accused (because the accusation is all it takes) of being sexist, racist, sizeist.

I know and admit that I’m not safe. For a start, I wouldn’t be able to present the awards (I’m white, male, middle aged). And if I look at my Twitter timeline, I’ve made comments that the Westminster government is greedy, heartless and obsessed with passing power to their friends. And though I haven’t checked lately, I’m sure some of them are women. Some of them might even be black. Maybe I should just turn myself in now? Plus, I read Flashman books. I'm a fan of Cerebus. And I laugh at them. Take me away, please, it's for my own good...

Starting with fair intentions of making fandom more inclusive, we’ve ended up with a Macarthy-ite community of witch hunts and lynch mobs, of guilt by association and by presumption.

Fandom is not a safe place for me, and I won’t be any part of it. For those of you who think this bullying and shaming is acceptable behaviour, ask yourself who’ll speak up when they come for you?

Comments

[ruric.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with bullying or shaming either, but calling someone to account for behaviour which should be challenged is something I don't have a problem with.

So when groups that have been historically excluded yell long and loud and people who are not quite the worst examples of clueless-white-person-expressing-racist-sexist-views get caught in the backlash I can understand. I get the "Oh FFS not again" stance of the excluded groups and I get the "I'm no racist" insta-reaction from Ross.

But just for once I wish someone in the public eye would shut the hell up and examine their behaviour before hitting reply.

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, I'm fine with being accused of collaboration.

I hope that I would be fine if someone accused me of making a racist or sexist comment because I was born in the 60s, I inhaled that crap with my first breath and checking your own privilege 24/7 is hard work and we all occasionally put a size 10 boot in our mouths. I would hope that I've scratched enough of the surface of the 'isms 101 to take a step back and look at what I was doing before snapping "that's not me".

That's what struck me about the first line of your post: "If someone called me racist and sexist, I’d be pretty upset and I’d reply." Would you reply first or would you pause to think whether they had a point? I think that's a key question we all need to think about.

How do I feel about Neil Gaiman? I feel that he's a lovely bloke with good intentions and has some problematic views which need to be challenged. and I'm glad to see that his fans don't give him a pass but call him on it. I'm pretty sure *I* have problematic views which need to be challenged and I work in a field where every day is about challenging society's view of groups who are disenfranchised and don't have a voice.

Most of my energy these days goes into fighting the battles where I know I can have an impact rather than screaming into an endless void! Over the last 12 months that's been doing a daily remedial Social Justice 101 with my boss - who has never worked in social housing, and kind of embodies the Oxbridge educated, Tory, Times reader who's never been challenged about his views. It's slow going but we're collectively chipping away at all his ingrained assumptions. *G*

I'm not labelling you (but I am pointing out you're using the same language guys who are trying to excuse racist/sexist behaviour have been using) or dismissing your view that bullying/shaming is unacceptable.

I also agree with you that people should do their own research and go to the source rather than taking internet rumour for truth.

The thing is your post taken as a whole didn't parse for for me, as if you were leading a call against unacceptable behaviour. These lines:

"I know and admit that I’m not safe. For a start, I wouldn’t be able to present the awards (I’m white, male, middle aged).

Starting with fair intentions of making fandom more inclusive, we’ve ended up with a Macarthy-ite community of witch hunts and lynch mobs, of guilt by association and by presumption.

Fandom is not a safe place for me, and I won’t be any part of it. For those of you who think this bullying and shaming is acceptable behaviour, ask yourself who’ll speak up when they come for you?"

These read like the standard excuse and massively exaggerated hyperbole you see in response to any of the recent call outs which have been happening over the past few years.

Was it your intention to provoke discussion by using the same terminology? if so, it worked!

one of two - I get carried away

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Thanks for coming back on this - I'm absolutely fine with people disagreeing with me, and me them, and it's much more productive to have a dialogue about it than a series of disconnected press releases (cf my paper "Instructional Strategies Utilised With My Father's Mother On The Subject Of Extracting Ovine Protein").

"That's what struck me about the first line of your post: "If someone called me racist and sexist, I’d be pretty upset and I’d reply." Would you reply first or would you pause to think whether they had a point? I think that's a key question we all need to think about."

So yes, and also no.

Yes in that I saw a Tweet and responded imediately. It's what I do on Twitter (actually, and I've just realised this as I type, Twitter had nothing to do with it. I made an immediate response based on my emotional response to the Tweet, and then posted about it the next day, rationalising my emotional response. - and I've read Haidt and Kahneman, so I have no excuse for not seeing that earlier. Ok, that's a neat insight, and I'll try to work it into this response).

So, what I saw was someone being treated bady, and that's what I instantly responded to. I didn't stop to think, well, maybe he asked for it, or maybe he put himself in a vulnerable place, or maybe he made it worse for himself by smart mouthing his attackers. Someone was being attacked, I defended him.

You know what? I still don't see that as a bad response.

Everything in your note (which I'll treat with the respect it deserves in a minute) comes down to telling me that its's wrong to defend some people because worse things have happened to other people.

And I don't agree with that.

"How do I feel about Neil Gaiman? I feel that he's a lovely bloke with good intentions and has some problematic views which need to be challenged. and I'm glad to see that his fans don't give him a pass but call him on it."

I must run with the wrong crowd. Apart from some dirt-digging on his Scientologist upbringing, I've never seen anyone, anywhere, call Gaiman to account for anything until this happened. Not saying they haven't, just saying it's never impinged on a reasonably (ok, exceptionally) Geeky person who is somewhat familiar with fandom. Never.

"I'm fine with people disagreeing with me, I'm fine with being accused of collaboration."

I'm delighted when people disagree with me. How do I know what I believe, until I need to defend it? But I am absolutely not fine with being accused of anything. Maybe because the legal background makes me aware of how dangerous an accusation without evidence can be, when the accusation comes written down in a Police notebook (don't get me started on the Scottish Government's campaign to abolish the need for collaboration in criminal cases. Just don't). Maybe because of a passing knowledge of The Terror, and Lenin and Mao, and, (thanks Ali) The People's Front of Judea. You accuse me, of anything, and I will come back hard and unthinkingly. If you want to know my rationale for that, I'd point to growing up (in social housing) in an environment where the police could pile out of unmarked vans and give a good kicking to anyone who couldn't get out of the way.And then fit them up for possession. Where being accused of being in the wrong gang could get you beaten to death or, if you were lucky, just put in hospital. And that emotional response is still there, tempered with decades of experience and education that let's me respond to an accusation with words and not with fists or feet.

Perhaps I'm not very good at expressing this, and perhaps what I'm saying can't be heard over the clamour of what I am. Orwell said it more clearly (didn't he always?) in Homage to Catalonia:

“When I see an actual flesh-and-blood worker in conflict with his natural enemy, the policeman, I do not have to ask myself which side I am on.”

Two of Two: Did I mention long-winded?

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

And while we're on the subject of privilege... I know I won the privilege lottery when I was born male and white in a Western democracy. And I know that I was then given a big cherry on top of that by being given a free education which let me earn enough money to get myself out of the slums I grew up in. But I also know that classmates of mine died with avoidable diseases, were stabbed to death in playgrounds, were sent to jail for things they didn't do, where sent to jail for things that they DID do, and who still live in postcodes were the life expectancy is less than it is in sub-Saharan Africa. I don't need to be told to check my privilege, I bless it every time I drive to my mum's house.

Hmm. Enough about me, and more about my badly parsing post:

"The thing is your post taken as a whole didn't parse for for me, as if you were leading a call against unacceptable behaviour. These lines:

"I know and admit that I’m not safe. For a start, I wouldn’t be able to present the awards (I’m white, male, middle aged)."

You cut that one a wee bit early, I think - for one thing, I don't seriously think I should be asked to present the Hugos (unlike the Tweeter I was reading, who was certainly up for it). My point was that the sins of reading the wrong books or comics could also be counted against me (and by extension, others. See, it's not all about me).

"Starting with fair intentions of making fandom more inclusive, we’ve ended up with a Macarthy-ite community of witch hunts and lynch mobs, of guilt by association and by presumption."

I actually believe this one, though as well as confirming that the witch hunts and lynch mobs are not literal, I should probably have said "McCarthy-lite", not -ite. But I still don't want to be part of a community that thinks it's ok to bully and shame, no matter who they pick on. And who do it righteously.

I wasn't consciously echoing anyone else's response to anything. I'm speaking for myself and saying that fandom is becoming a place I don't feel comfortable in because of the behaviour I'm seeing demonstrated, and that it's not a place I'd feel safe in. If your response is that these feelings are a response to being called out on something, well no - they aren't. I feel genuinely uncomfortable about the things that are being said and done in the name of good intentions.

I don't think history excuses the actions, and I don't think the end justifies the means.