About that.

[laceblade]

At the end of this post by Kathryn Cramer, she requests that "con committee members should do a lot more listening and a lot less defending when concerns like these are raised."

While I do not speak for the WisCon Convention Committee, I am a member, and I have yet to hear why Jay Lake, or any other person felt "unsafe," specifically. I also have yet to hear what exactly is meant when they say "unsafe." What the fuck should I be listening to, exactly? References that are so vague that they are useless? The reason you can't name it is because the "lack of safety" to which you refer is better described as "uncomfortable when privilege is challenged." Sorry, but the WisCon ConCom is not the place to turn to if this is your problem.


Also? Word.

Comments

[antarcticlust]

First of all, I can't even figure out exactly what Cramer is trying to say in that post--it's almost incoherent. Secondly, people keep speaking for Jay Lake (or saying they're not speaking for Jay Lake) - where does Jay Lake actually speak for himself? Thirdly, I'm glad we have a nice clear distinction between safety and comfort to link to in these discussions.

[laceblade]

Yes, I was appalled by the lack of coherency, especially when she seems to be calling out others for not making sense?

Jay Lake made a few small comments (I'm assuming you've seen them elsewhere?). When people defending him speak for him without consulting him, it's heroic; when other people critique or ask questions about the things he said, the response is something like, "Jay Lake has CANCER; you are going to Hell for even mentioning his name!"

[antarcticlust]

I actually have yet to see anything in his own words. And the "HE HAS CANCER" thing is...well, if he shouldn't be involved in the conversation, then we shouldn't invoke him at all. It goes both ways.

[laceblade]

http://yeloson.dreamwidth.org/744549.html?thread=1591909#cmt1591909

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/370278/fails/jay%20lake%20fail.html (original comments, scroll down to read)

[antarcticlust]

First, I have a real issue with someone who is challenged on a statement and then responds with: "You need to go read my entire blog and everything I've ever published and it's clear that I know all about privilege." He says it several times!

"The real issue I have trying to get at lately, from my perspective, is that it's structurally impossible for me to talk about privilege without being condemned for speaking up. The default assumption as demonstrated during RaceFail that as a white male I have no standing and no basis to form an intelligent opinion on privilege, race or gender."

This sounds like it was written by someone who has never, ever been to WisCon!

Okay, yeah: "I can't help how people judge me by my skin color and gender" pretty much sealed the deal in terms of this guy's willingness to really engage, regardless of his "credentials."

Wow.

[sasha_feather]

It's also unsettling how he tries to use his daughter to improve his credibility.

Re: Wow.

[antarcticlust]

Yes! He uses his daughter's (unspecified) race to as one of those very credentials!

Now rethinking DN's apology for not separating fear of POC from post-Racefail discomfort, I actually think that what Jay Lake was saying falls much more in the former than the latter. His arguments seem to imply that whites/males wouldn't call him out, or wouldn't make him feel "unsafe."

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

Err...are all these debates (religion, race, this) just spiraling into each other, or developing independently? And does this happen every year?

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

The debates are developing independently (at least, the religion and this one are - I think that this one is very much linked to race).

Generally, online discussion after the Con is related to a panel in which someone said something effed up (i.e., Cultural Appropriation of Doom panel).

This year, there weren't any fail-y panels, which is why the discussions are all about last year's panels (religion, although I think that discussion was pretty self-contained in the one comment session) or comments made behind the scenes/in people's journals before/during the con (Jay Lake and other similar sentiments).

[la-luna-llena.livejournal.com]

good point!

[berzerker-prime.livejournal.com]

Speaking as a member of another con staff, I can say that very few conventions indeed would feel the need to dignify this guy's complaint. Especially if there is nothing accompanying the complaint saying "let me help you do something about it." We haven't ever had the specific complaint, but I know for a fact that Geek.Kon's reaction to this sort of thing would be "would you like to run a panel or another piece of programming to help us address this?" If the answer is "no" then the argument rings hollow; it's just another case of "gimmie-gimmie, I deserve this just because I'm me."

I have seen conventions that were well and truly unsafe and it usually has more to do with people running through the halls and trashing things than with people who are having their perceptions challenged. And though I haven't yet gotten around to getting to WisCon (things keep getting in the way), this is not the reputation it has; far from it.

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

I think he gets 'dignified' because he's an author and a lot of people read his blog, and he's been going forever. "Institutionalized fandom privilege" or some such thing - none of which I give a flying fuck about, obviously.

I'm heartened to hear that WisCon has a reputation as a safe convention. Of course, our crowd is pretty mature, so it's hard to compare to, say, ACen.

[jume.livejournal.com]

When did "fen" develop as a word? I'd never heard it before, but urban dictionary knew it. And why, do you think?

[mystickeeper.livejournal.com]

When: http://www.fanhistory.com/wiki/Fen

Why, I think: It's a shorter way to say "fandom," it's like "men" or "women," but non-specific in its gender notation. To me, "fandom" is like an amorphous blob of culture, and "fen" are the people. This could just be me.