alixtii | People Who Have Expressed What I Think Most Articulately So That I Don't Have To

Suzie at Echidne of the Snakes, on how Dollhouse is and isn't (and should and shouldn't be) feminist, here. (I think we may disagree on whether or not sex work is inherently anti-feminist--I don't think it is--but that obscures the more important point that, both in real life and on the show, the way sex work is actually conducted is pretty clearly immoral in almost all cases.)

cesare, on using sexually explicit RPF and FPF, particularly those involving some type of queerness, as a mechanism of critique and attack and mockery, here and here. And for the record, no, I would have no problem with people writing RPF about me even if the purpose was to slander me, and even if they leave it in places I'll probably see it. The fact that they wanted to attack me would sadden me, of course, if I found out about it, but the particular method they chose would be one I'd consider legitimate and valid and even sort of awesome; all the world's a text and we should feel free to remix it.

The first rule of RPF is, of course, that the characters we never write are never the real people (if your metaphysics allows for such a thing) they purport to be; in this context, the very idea of RPF as an attack is logically incoherent. Which is not to say that doing anything at all with the intent to hurt somebody (or the knowledge that it would hurt them) is an okay thing, or that the mere knowledge that someone else acted with that intent couldn't itself be hurtful, but that's a very different critique, and I've seen people specifically claiming that intent isn't relevant to the discussion they were trying to have.

yhlee, on "how to avoid the wind-up toy effect," dealing with issues of worldbuilding especially in science fiction and fantasy settings, here. At some point I'm going to write why I think what she writes there is a useful corrective to what I found problematic or wrong coming out of the Science and Magic panel at

writercon, but for now I'll settle on just linking it.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

As much as I find the thoughtful discussion of literary theory and queering and the metaphysics of RPF and art-as-social-criticism fascinating, I still think it's deeply fucked up to create a sexually explicit depiction of someone without their consent and then shove it in their face. And fandom's inability to grasp that disturbs the hell out of me.

I would probably be mildly grossed out if someone made a manip like that of me or wrote explicit RPF about me without my consent, and then posted it to my journal or in reply to one of my comments. However, I don't assume that my reaction will be identical to everyone else's. It could be a deeply triggering experience for sexual abuse survivors, and we should never assume that someone is not a survivor just because s/he is engaging in sexist, homophobic, transphobic oppression.

Yeah, there's a lot of potential concerns, like triggering, to be taken into account beyond what the action is in and of itself. And I'm on record that a writer has a moral obligation to avoid causing foreseeable harm that may be caused through her writing.

I think there's an interesting conversation to be had about the ethical responsibilities of the oppressed toward their oppressors. Am I ethically obligated to treat sexists and homophobes with dignity and respect? Do I have to concern myself with their comfort and sense of safety as I try to dismantle their power? No easy answers.

No, easy answers are not to be had. I'd probably answer "no" to your two questions, but obviously there's some point (violence?) where the answer becomes "yes."

I worked out what was worrying me about this (beyond the obvious 'you should be nice to people').

If you believe that we live in a structurally sexist, racist and homophobic society such that anybody at any time may be sexist, racist and homophobic unintentionally, then how are you defining 'sexists and homophobes' such that you recognise them to be sure it is ethically acceptable to yourself not to treat them with dignity and respect?

Even if you are only treating them without dignity and respect in the moments of their (possibly unintentional) acts of sexism, racism or homophobia, how do you define the boundaries of those moments and those actions so that your withdrawal of dignity and respect does not spill over into their general lives?

In short, this sounds awfully like you are temporarily using the definition of racists, sexists and homophobes which is in fact current in wider society - namely defined by intent. And then of course you tap into a whole new raft of questions about how you identify accurately somebody else's intent.

So why your 'probably no'?

I've been thinking about this too. Hopefully I'll elaborate further when I have some more time, but I think the issue has as much to do with the definitions of "dignity" and "respect" as with sexist/racist/homophobe. Which is to say there are such things as attacks on one's fundamental humanity, but there too are attacks on a sort of lower-level dignity, a disrespect of the person but not her personhood: the question becomes more a question of courtesy than of morality, if that makes sense. Being ethical without giving in to the Cult of Nice.

Certainly anything which assumed an essentialist conception of what a racist, etc. would be would be problematic. I was responding to something someone else said, so I find it easy to believe that if I were phrasing the question while choosing my words carefully, I might be more specific as to which types of violations would count or not.

More later, maybe.

Am I ethically obligated to treat sexists and homophobes with dignity and respect? Do I have to concern myself with their comfort and sense of safety as I try to dismantle their power? No easy answers.

I would say you (general you) need to remember that they are not just defined by their sexism or homophobia. The chances are they have other problems of their own, and even if you decide you can be beastly to them as regards their -ism you surely have an ethical responsibility to tread carefully as regards everything else. And since humans do not live their lives in discreet boxes of separate ideas and behaviour within their own minds, upsetting a person 'because of' one thing will always play into all the other facets of their life and who knows how your actions may spread out and what harm they may do?

At the very least one should try to set a good example. Rise above their own bad morals to display good ones. Demonstrate how to do things right and how to apologise if one does them wrong. In short, nursery manners have a lot to be said for them - we tend to teach children the fundamental things that matter to us as a society, and by and large they aren't that far off the mark.

So I would say I find the answer to that one very easy indeed - nobody who cares about other people should ever take the attitude that it is ok to treat another person other than with dignity and respect. Even if they do happen to represent something you hate.

I still think it's deeply fucked up to create a sexually explicit depiction of someone without their consent and then shove it in their face. And fandom's inability to grasp that disturbs the hell out of me.

Word.

People Who Have Expressed What I Think Most Articulately So That I Don't Have To

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject