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

[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."