let's get the seven lines. ([info]bookshop) wrote,
@ 2009-03-04 19:17:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:fandom, meta, politics

Racefail 2009
In case you live under a rock and have not been following RaceFail 2009, the gist of it is this:

After months and months of a disheartening, vicious debate between a number of sci-fi professionals and Fans of Color about racial diversity and cultural appropriation in sci-fi, some of the professional writers (using their real names, obviously) have begun attacking vocal and critical fans because their position is being launched pseudonymously. Some of these professionals have even been outing fans by revealing their real names without their permission. This has prompted a very strong backlash in the fandom community, as you can expect.

I will not link to Will Slattery's blog directly, but as reported by [info]coffeeandink he writes, "my point is that she [after he removed her real last name from his post outing her] is... safe... now."

No, she is not.

Fandom practices require safe and empowered spaces where fans can be fans without fear of backlash. You always hear the horror stories, but it is important to reiterate that backlash does actually happen, that it has happened to real fans. It has happened to me - I lost my job in 2003 after someone released my real full name on the internet without my permission. Despite the ongoing progressive cultural shift towards empowering fandom in some parts of the world, fannish practice all but requires either complete anonymity, or a strong level of trust between pseudonynomous fans.

Slattery and Cramer violated every form of online etiquette when they outed fans without their permission, but more relevantly, they violated a crucial level of trust between those of us who inhabit and interact with fan space. They pretended not to understand the necessity of an autonomous fannish identity. They disrespected the right of a fan to control their own level of fandom participation and to decide for themselves what that means.

That level of disrespect creates an environment where fans are permanently unsafe, because you can no longer control when someone will out you to your boss and get you fired, or post your real name on the internet in the middle of a messy debate on racism. They did not just out [info]coffeeandink's real identity; they made the collective fan environment just a little nastier, a little unsafer, for all of us.

The worst of it is that they disengenuously tried to claim that in order to have meaning, a fan voice must be tied to some other valid and legitimate voice. They denied that a fannish voice can have power and meaning on its own.

By outing [info]coffeeandink, what Slattery and Cramer effectively did was attempt to muzzle her voice as a fan. Because by insisting that she speak from some other identity they were saying to all fans everywhere, "you don't matter - while you inhabit this role, your opinions are invalid."

This is horrible enough when applied to the fan voice in general. But they were using this tactic specifically to further deny legitimacy to already marginalized fannish voices, Fans of Color who were already speaking out against privilege.

The very act of trying to force Fans of Color to stand behind some other identity just proves exactly how valid and necessary the voices of minority fans are, and how imperative it is that fan voices in general be granted autonomy to speak in their roles as fans, without justification or explanation.

I have been genuinely amazed at the number of professional writers who have aggressively fought fan assertions that they have not done the work of examining their own privilege. Because it seems to me that using your position as a professional writer using a non-pseudonym to bully and shunt to the side the voices of those who do not have that privilege is sort of, well...

what's the word? it'll come to me any min -

oh. yeah. privileged.



(21 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]curia_regis
2009-03-05 12:23 am UTC (link)
If it makes you feel better, I don't remember your real name! But then again, I wouldn't have done anything with it even if I did remember.

The entire situation gives me the creeps. Enough people in my RL know about my fic writing for the whole outing me to be pointless, but that's because I know that they wouldn't mind. I can imagine once I get a government position, fandom's going to become a liability for me. :|

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]bookshop
2009-03-05 12:36 am UTC (link)

Just to clarify, it's not about feeling better - I wasn't trying to garner sympathy (this is not about me in any way). But I think that because we are being asked as fans to prove our identities by people who would marginalize us because we choose not to, that it's very necessary to speak out and say that I am someone who has actually suffered because of that very proof.

And yeah - during the three years I worked for the government, after that outing, I locked my entire journal, because had I been outed again it would have been extremely compromising to me and those around me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]curia_regis
2009-03-05 12:39 am UTC (link)
I know you weren't trying to garner sympathy. I was just commenting on the only part of the post I really knew about. Obviously, I've been living under a rock because I hadn't heard of Racefail before this post.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]bookshop
2009-03-05 12:44 am UTC (link)

it is a giant giant clusterfuck and i'm actually going to go home and spend most of the night doing more backreading, because there's just SO much to get through and i've so far not been able to take in a whole lot other than the main highlights. The most comprehensive link roundups are at [info]rydra_wong's livejournal, and i was just looking at a number of good roundup links on this post.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]curia_regis
2009-03-05 12:49 am UTC (link)
Thanks. :)

As far as I can tell, it sort of morphed from race!wank into the whole internet anonymity thing. I get what both parts were about, but the link between the two is still eluding me. I guess I know what I'm going to be doing when I get home tonight!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ungemmed
2009-03-05 02:25 am UTC (link)
Several people not directly involved in the original failsplosion, but friends with/otherwise related to some (white) authors/fen who were criticized (by FoC and allies), started an auxiliary fail regarding Tone. This quickly degraded into equating pseudonymity with anonymity/sockpuppeting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]issahime
2009-03-05 12:32 am UTC (link)
That... boggles my mind. How can they do something like that to the fans? Just, no. That's wrong on so many levels. I actually know of one author who has withdrawn almost entirely from fandom, going so far as to delete her LJ account, for fear of professional backlash if her fandom activities were outed. It horrifies me that it should even be a concern.

(Reply to this)


[info]flourish
2009-03-05 12:34 am UTC (link)
Amen!

(Reply to this)


[info]bessemerprocess
2009-03-05 12:53 am UTC (link)
I have very few words that can be said in polite company about this.

Besides using outing as a way of shutting down both poc, foc and fannish voices, of trying to punish and shame, what I don't get is the claim that a legal name would have have more legitimacy. My legal name has no legitimacy in any fannish circles. If I posted anything under it, that argument would basically be contextless in a fannish or internet arena. Only my psued has any legitimacy because it's what all my opinions and words are tied to, and therefore, by using my legal name I'd basically be my own sockpuppet. Argh, this just makes me SO angry.

(Reply to this)


[info]imaginarycircus
2009-03-05 01:21 am UTC (link)
I remember 2003. Ugh. Some of it was great, but that part was horrible. I'm glad you posted about this too. Its been driving me up a wall. A wall made of moldy cheese and anger.

*squishes you*

(Reply to this)


[info]glockgal
2009-03-05 01:26 am UTC (link)
You are just so swell. I <3 you.

(Reply to this)


[info]taraljc
2009-03-05 01:34 am UTC (link)
I don't think Shetterley realises how deep the holes he's digging are. This is what he'll be remembered for, from now on. Not for his novels (which were never as good as his wife's). Not for his political aspirations. No, for being an asshat online.

(Reply to this)


[info]pinkfinity
2009-03-05 01:47 am UTC (link)
Oh, you know how I feel about this. People should control how and where they use their real name online and using it in one space does *not* mean that everyone has carte blanche to use it in every other online space.

Period.

(Reply to this)


[info]suaine
2009-03-05 02:05 am UTC (link)
Aja, why do people suck so much? I want my happy place back :(

(Reply to this)


[info]eleveninches
2009-03-05 02:44 am UTC (link)
Today I made the mistake of reading you-know-who discussing on her blog how [info]coffeeandink still owes her an apology (for... what? I'm sorry, I don't speak crazy), and I thought I was going to have a rage black out.

(Reply to this)


[info]lizfu
2009-03-05 04:15 am UTC (link)
This is.....sickening. For a professional who relies on the fans, this guy's attitude is horrible. I think [info]coffeeanddink's terms are reasonable. I would NOT want to attend a con with this writer as a guest; he obviously doesn't respect fans.

(Reply to this)


[info]karanguni
2009-03-05 04:20 am UTC (link)
*nods* *is all she has to say about this*

(Reply to this)


[info]in_lieyw_of
2009-03-05 05:07 am UTC (link)
Ugh, I had no idea this was going on. It's as wrong as any violation of a human right to privacy/anonymity in any other media, though, isn't it? Once the internet started being more widely used, everyone has become equally unsafe. But because it's as dangerous as a respected publication, it should also be taken as seriously as any breach of privacy by any other kind of media. If an online reputation can cost you a job, there should be an equal punishment for the "writers" who have no sense of professionalism. :\ People.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2009-03-05 07:52 am UTC (link)
I've just been reading up on this SF debate, and from what I can tell, KC, and particularly WS, have acted rudely and maliciously. But they have not done anything illegal. I appreciate the fact that this lj labeled the outing as a "violation of etiquette" - because that's what it is. Rudeness. Not illegal.

There is no "human right" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) to media anonymity either, btw. No. Such. Thing. Not that human rights necessarily carry any legal or practical weight: just ask the people being raped and killed in the Congo.

But as far as I am aware, even under US law there is no such thing as legally-protected anonymity unless you are, for example, a CIA agent in the employ of the federal government (in which case "outing" undermines national defense and is then called "treason). And even then, people can apparently out you without being charged for it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]cacklebang
2009-03-05 06:58 am UTC (link)
I was reading a bit of it the other day, and I can't explain the sheer horror I felt at the complete violation of someone's privacy. It's cruel and unnecessary and it really treats their role in fandom as something to be ashamed of (since using a pseudonym is SO SHAMEFUL). Just. Fail. Can someone kick them off the internet?

(Reply to this)


[info]i_the_eo
2009-03-05 01:16 pm UTC (link)
You're so fabulous. Stay in fandom and crusade for justice forever, plz?

(Reply to this)


(21 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…