Women in fantasy

[Steerpike]

Political correctness can certainly be akin to censorship or thought control when the intent is to intimidate, stifle, or harass. That happens quite a bit on the internet, given the form and tenor of many of the reactions of those advocating political correctness. The idea is to make the other side nervous or afraid of expressing their viewpoint. Simply hiding behind "we're not stopping you from saying it" is disingenuous. If the government imposed a ten year prison sentence (to use an extreme example) on anyone who spoke against tax policy, and then said "oh, we're not stopping you from speaking, this is just a consequence of your speech," no one would fall for it. But when politically-correct types take to the internet to pillory or denigrate people they don't like, and to intimidate those who might express other viewpoints, then suddenly it's just a natural consequence of the speech and no big deal. It's hypocrisy, and most PC-types I've come across are nothing if not hypocrites.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Political correctness can certainly be akin to censorship or thought control when the intent is to intimidate, stifle, or harass. That happens quite a bit on the internet, given the form and tenor of many of the reactions of those advocating political correctness. The idea is to make the other side nervous or afraid of expressing their viewpoint. Simply hiding behind "we're not stopping you from saying it" is disingenuous. If the government imposed a ten year prison sentence (to use an extreme example) on anyone who spoke against tax policy, and then said "oh, we're not stopping you from speaking, this is just a consequence of your speech," no one would fall for it. But when politically-correct types take to the internet to pillory or denigrate people they don't like, and to intimidate those who might express other viewpoints, then suddenly it's just a natural consequence of the speech and no big deal. It's hypocrisy, and most PC-types I've come across are nothing if not hypocrites.

To put it bluntly, most of the intimidation I've seen is from people accusing other people of intimidation. That is to say, person A says something offensive, person B calls it offensive, person A starts accusing B of trying to silence him/her and rallies whatever forces he/she possesses to make mass threats against person B.

 

[Devor]

To put it bluntly, most of the intimidation I've seen is from people accusing other people of intimidation. That is to say, person A says something offensive, person B calls it offensive, person A starts accusing B of trying to silence him/her and rallies whatever forces he/she possesses to make mass threats against person B.

This happens. There's no doubt about it. But I think accusing people of saying something offensive can be pretty intimidating. There are many, many people who hold opinions they're afraid to express - what is that if not censorship? Maybe it's censorship we agree sometimes agree with?

I've seen the following scenarios a lot:

- People get offended because person A said something genuinely offensive.

- People get offended because person A said something similar to person B, even though person B was offensive about it and person A was not.

- People get offended because person A said something vague or nuanced, and they interpreted an offensive "hidden meaning" which may or may not have been there.

- People get gleeful about the chance of sounding angry because person A said something close enough to being offensive that they can use it to attack the people or opinions they don't like.

- People let out their mean or spiteful sides because Person A said something offensive or almost offensive, giving them what they see as an excuse.

Many of those scenarios are more about silencing or intimidating their opponents than they are about expressing a viewpoint. Mostly, I don't think people get offended that easily. But we often like to see themselves as protecting people who do.

So what's the point of all that? Mostly, that the tone of many of these conversations is usually more stressful, and less effective, than it's worth. There's a fine line between many of these scenarios, and different people may see the same situation as any one of them.

In sales, they say you're generally more convincing when your tone is one step away from that of the person you're talking to. And honestly, while some things are clearly good or bad, the degree to which they're good and bad is far more subjective than we like to admit. And there's always so many unknowns. So most of the time it probably does everybody good to tone it down.

I don't mean any of this as specific to this conversation or to one side or another. I'm quickly thinking of many, many examples from topics serious and silly. Really I think the tone of this conversation has mostly improved the longer it's continued.

 

[Ophiucha]

Mm, yeah, I see that a lot. A (race, instead of sex) issue came up in that weird webcomic - Homestuck? - a few months ago, around the holidays. The creator made a joke at the expense of the fans who care about racism, those fans got upset with him, the hardcore Homestuck fans started sending those fans death threats for besmirching the good name of [dude who writes Homestuck], and then the creator came out and said "I welcomed the initial criticism and have changed the offending line, my apologies, also you're all crazy and need to calm down", and in response those same fans continued attacking the first set because they 'made [dude] censor himself', and this went on for weeks. I had many friends in the fandom - on both sides of the argument - and even completely uninterested in Homestuck I was exposed to the largest internet fight I've seen in my many years online. It was pretty... wow. Just, wow.

There are definitely right and wrong ways to give criticism, there are right and wrong ways to take criticism (and respond to it regardless of whether or not you intend to change it), and there are definitely right and wrong ways to handle criticism of people you like. People are really bad about that last one, and it just forces things to escalate exponentially from "hey that line in episode 2 had some unfortunate implications about feminine women" to "how dare you call [so-and-so] a sexist? feminism is ruining this fandom". It's really irritating, but hey, that's the internet for you. (Unless it's not online, then it just risks escalating even further as I try to resist the urge to slap the guy.)

Incidentally, I think it's definitely important to emphasize that I never assume the writer of a show/movie/book/game is sexist just because his (or her) work has sexist things in it, or even is pretty sexist overall. They could be, but I'll wait 'til I see them interviewed or read their Twitter before making that call.

 

[saellys]

The idea is to make the other side nervous or afraid of expressing their viewpoint.

The idea, in my experience, is to make the person aware of a problematic statement. In a huge number of the instances I've witnessed, the person who makes the initial statement is genuinely unaware of how offensive it is, and/or has never given it any thought. Generally the people who point these things out just want the person to know, and think about it in the future.

For instance, the word "gay" gets bandied about in a mildly negative sense quite a lot in our culture. "You missed the bus and were ten minutes late for work? That's gay!" If someone hears this and requests that the first speaker not use a person's sexual orientation as a casual insult or term of dismay, the first speaker could squeeze this under the umbrella of censorship. It's actually a plea for respect, and the cumulative effect of a society that uses language like this in daily conversation is a factor that warrants consideration. There is more nuance here than one person's inalienable right to say whatever they want.

There was a time, I'm told, when thinking before you spoke was a valued life skill. If that's true and not just false nostalgia, I'd love to return to it.

 

[Steerpike]

The idea, in my experience, is to make the person aware of a problematic statement.

That is the goal a lot of people have, but there is often a vocal minority in these circumstances who want to shut the speech down and make sure no one else dares to engage in it. It is a chilling effect on speech as a result of bullying and/or hateful commentary by the very people who often claim to be the most tolerant. It is particularly prevalent against Christian religious speech in the U.S., since that is one group of people that some on the left feel it is OK to discriminate against or shut down by any means possible.

It's not the goal of everyone, but the general statement that the reactions against such speech never amount to attempts at censorship, thought control, intimidation, and the like is false.

 

[saellys]

That is the goal a lot of people have, but there is often a vocal minority in these circumstances who want to shut the speech down and make sure no one else dares to engage in it. It is a chilling effect on speech as a result of bullying and/or hateful commentary by the very people who often claim to be the most tolerant. It is particularly prevalent against Christian religious speech in the U.S., since that is one group of people that some on the left feel it is OK to discriminate against or shut down by any means possible.

It's not the goal of everyone, but the general statement that the reactions against such speech never amount to attempts at censorship, thought control, intimidation, and the like is false.

I didn't see anyone here say that reactions against such speech never amounts to those attempts. Again, in my experience, the instances in which people react badly to these observations and claim that they are being persecuted, censored, and intimidated far outnumber the instances in which the observations are presented in such a way as to actually warrant such claims.

I'm going to sidestep discussing the massive persecution complex I encountered while I was active in various Protestant churches several years ago, and get back to Resnick and Malzberg crying "Nazi!" when people pointed out that talking about how great a female editor looked when she was young is a pretty stupid way to conduct themselves.

 

[Mindfire]

Honesty is better than political correctness. And that's all I have to say about that.

As for Resnick and Malzberg, I'm still wondering how they figured discussing the looks of these female editors was in any way relevant to the main thrust of the article. That is, EDITING.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Honesty is better than political correctness. And that's all I have to say about that.

As for Resnick and Malzberg, I'm still wondering how they figured discussing the looks of these female editors was in any way relevant to the main thrust of the article. That is, EDITING.

If there's one thing I hate about the term "politically correct", it's the assumption inherent in it that being politically correct is different from being actually correct. If someone says, I dunno, "black people are raping our women" or something like that, and if black people aren't, by and large, "raping our women", he's not just being politically incorrect, he's being incorrect.

P.S. On the whole Christianity thing: I've noticed that the people who model Christianity as under attack tend to have a model of a specific attacker (e.g. atheists or homosexuals.) That attacker is typically something they themselves model as something Christianity needs to attack, with the goal of removing or minimizing its ability to influence social discourse. I think this entire paradigm is missing the point--culture wars aren't actual wars, and if you don't model someone as your enemy, you can have a rational discussion without the need for a "fight."

P.P.S. Is it just me, or is the moderation team, on average (albeit not in every case), noticeably more socially conservative than the average poster? I'm not accusing bias or anything--if you were biased, Saellys would have been banned months ago--it's just something that surprises me.

 

[Mindfire]

Don't mods by necessity have to be conservative? You know, to keep the peace and whatnot?

 

[Feo Takahari]

Don't mods by necessity have to be conservative? You know, to keep the peace and whatnot?

Not really. One could argue that mods need to be indifferent, but that's different from specifically expressing conservative ideas. (And I don't think that's necessary, either. What mods have a special obligation to do is to set a good example for posters. That means they can't belittle or humiliate posters for having different views, but if the posters can speak their minds about controversial topics, the mods can do so as well.)

P.S. Totally off-topic, but I'm starting to recognize that overall, the moderation here is much, much less trigger-happy than at the site I got banned from*. People are allowed to speak their minds unless they start personally insulting other posters, threads are allowed to proceed so long as they don't go off-topic**, and even temp-bans are rarely handed out. It's refreshing.

* I won't speak its name, because specifically bringing in drama from another site is really, really bad form.

** Well, unless they get into the really ugly stuff, but that's to be expected. I can still discuss more topics here than on many writing sites.

 

[Devor]

P.S. On the whole Christianity thing....

Let's not get political.

P.P.S. Is it just me, or is the moderation team, on average (albeit not in every case), noticeably more socially conservative than the average poster? I'm not accusing bias or anything--if you were biased, Saellys would have been banned months ago--it's just something that surprises me.

If by "Conservative," you mean "leaning right in American politics," I really don't think so. By the number of mods, not at all; by post count of the different moderators, it's pretty diverse, but maybe it looks that way compared to the rest of the internet. But I'm not even sure where some people stand, including Black Dragon.

If by "Conservative," you mean "erring on the side of....," would "conservative" be less moderation or more? I think we try to err on the side of a civil community. I think the attitude is just to be in the posts setting a good tone.

 

[saellys]

Honesty is better than political correctness. And that's all I have to say about that.

Outwardly displaying a modicum of respect for the other human beings with whom you share this planet, regardless of what you actually feel about them, is better than honesty.

 

[Mindfire]

Outwardly displaying a modicum of respect for the other human beings with whom you share this planet, regardless of what you actually feel about them, is better than honesty.

Honesty and respect are not mutually exclusive. I had a lengthy dialogue in PMs with Feo about our diametrically opposed viewpoints on numerous issues. Both of us were honest about our opinions, and for my part I felt the tone was consistently respectful.

 

[Zero Angel]

There was a time, I'm told, when thinking before you spoke was a valued life skill. If that's true and not just false nostalgia, I'd love to return to it.

Great phrase, "false nostalgia", and yes, that is what that was.

Outwardly displaying a modicum of respect for the other human beings with whom you share this planet, regardless of what you actually feel about them, is better than honesty.

Completely disagree with you here, saellys. First, a modicum of respect is hardly no respect at all, but many times people don't even deserve that. If someone is a waste of life and potential, then you're doing them a disservice to be respectful towards them. I don't believe honesty is the best policy, and I'm sure there are times when silence is golden, but you don't need to give respect to everyone in the world, just people that you feel deserve it. On the other hand, you should not be actively disrespectful towards people unless they deserve it also.

I grew up rather blunt, but frequently I found myself in situations where many were inwardly seething and refusing to say anything out of respect or social mores or whatever, so I would say what needed to be said.

Also, respect is really in the eye of the beholder. I imagine that the two SFWA people in question thought they were being respectful of the female editor in question that looked good in a bathing suit.

 

[Ophiucha]

Very true. Short of defining respect by each person's specifications and giving out a worksheet to every person you could ever talk to, I don't know if anything more than 'please' and 'thank you' can be expected. After all, how many men think it's rude for women to not respond politely to complimenting catcalls - while many women think it's rude to catcall a female stranger in the first place. I want to respect everyone I speak to, but our own biases and ideas of respect are too different for that to be a realistic expectation. Just something you can learn as you get to know somebody.

And perhaps as you get to know them, you find they don't deserve your respect. But as an optimist, I like to think that those people are few and far between.

 

[Devor]

I think think there's layers to it. You can still show respect for a person while bluntly chastising something they've done or an opinion they hold. But I think there's definitely a raw layer of respect which everyone deserves, sort of like everyone deserves the due process of law.

 

[LadyCass]

I probably have the most extreme opinions in this thread, but nowhere did I (or anyone else, for that matter) say there aren't any good female characters. I certainly recognize and applaud the improvements that have happened--maybe not in the past century, but definitely in the last couple of decades. Heck, I finally finished The Deed of Paksenarrion (which has been touted as a great example in this and other threads), and that was written twenty-five years ago. Elizabeth Moon did then what many people wish more authors would do now.

Being a "story-driven" author does not mean characters have to be weakly written. Characters with agency influence a story. A writer who creates characters, male or female, with no agency weakens their own story.

I always need to watch when I words such as 'never' or 'always'. Thanks for that catch.

I'm so bias on story driven vs. character driven story. I feel so often a character is altered to something that is was not when created or is created for a certain help in the story line but not developed beyond that. I think a lot of the issues that readers have with character flaws, male or female, have to do with that.

 

[LadyCass]

I will say the one area I feel women got the shaft the most was/is comic books. It feels to me only the past year have they begun to address that. All of the old school complaints about women being represented poorly do in fact apply in comic books. Most of them have unrealistically beautiful bodies with big boobs popping out, very rarely are they lead, they are only there to support the male lead, there attempts at giving them their own story line show them making decisions dependent on men, and all the others you can think of.
I think comic books have been the slowest to catch up of all the medias.

 

[Mythopoet]

First, a modicum of respect is hardly no respect at all, but many times people don't even deserve that. If someone is a waste of life and potential, then you're doing them a disservice to be respectful towards them. I don't believe honesty is the best policy, and I'm sure there are times when silence is golden, but you don't need to give respect to everyone in the world, just people that you feel deserve it. On the other hand, you should not be actively disrespectful towards people unless they deserve it also.

I believe that there is a basic level of respect that all human beings deserve simply because they are human beings and all life is sacred. And I believe that honesty is a basic kind of respect. No human being deserves to be lied to or deceived because a lie is one of the ways that you rob another of free will and that's a form of dehumanization that I can never agree with. I also believe that anything you can say honestly can AT THE SAME TIME be said with respect. Personally, I always give a lot of thought to anything I say before I say it.