The blasted Vision Statement (being part 4)

[zeborah]

Okay, try this one:

1) We will focus on discussing the process of writing speculative fiction (science-fiction, fantasy, and related genres).

2 a) We know that writers write in various genres, at various lengths, on various topics, in various orders, with various technologies, varyingly planned or unplanned, etc, according to their personal style and needs.
  b) We want to share what works for us, and we want other writers to feel free and safe to share what works for them.
  c) Therefore we will avoid implying either that any particular technique is obligatory, or that any particular technique is wrong - though there might be times when a particular technique is wrong for a particular author or for a particular story.

3 a) We know that society in general and speculative-fiction in specific contain many stereotypes and biases that are racist, sexist, homophobic, ablist, and/or intolerant of people in non-nuclear family structures, people of different religions or of no religion, and others.
  b) We don't want to unwittingly perpetuate such stereotypes and biases in our own fiction. We also don't want to unwittingly perpetuate them in real life and/or hurt a fellow human being.
  c) Therefore we want other members to feel free and safe to point out to us if we've said something that accidentally perpetuates stereotypes or biases or is otherwise hurtful; and we will take it as a favour and learn from it if they do.

4) Therefore, on-topic discussions will include but not be limited to:

  a) dragon biology, alien speech patterns, how horses differ from motorcycles, ways to show/confuse chronology in time travel stories, etc;
  b) outlines, punctuation, use of themes, infodumps, RSI, pen porn, etc;
  c) cultural appropriation, sexist language, homophobic tropes, depictions of religion, etc; and
  d) pun cascades, cats and chocolate, etc; because frivolity is the mortar that binds together a community.

5) The group will be moderated by a panel in order to keep it friendly and safe for all members.

If you're still not happy with it, it would be of great help to me if you could note precisely what you disagree with and/or offer alternative wordings.

But please note that I consider it very important to explicitly include:
a) the groups that have been implicitly sidelined by the sf community in general and rasfc in particular; and
b) the topics which were theoretically allowed on rasfc but which in practise more than one of us was afraid to talk about.

Comments

[painoarvokas.livejournal.com]

This one no longer gives me a "not my thing" reaction. Looks fine.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

It's getting better, though I'm still wary of anything called a "Vision Statement" because I feel it might be intimidating to potential members. Will people hesitate to post because they're afraid that what they have to say is either too trivial or they're afraid of inadvertently offending?

I do believe that a more general Equal Opportunities policy, plus a Code of Conduct will cover everything without being so specific. It has served me perfectly well during 15 years of teaching quite a mixed bunch of students.

I feel there are all sorts of problems with no. 3 above. It could end up serving as troll bait -- ooo, look! There's a group that will be easy to wind up! -- and, if you read it one way, it could be considered patronising to the very people it's claiming to encourage. By specifically mentioning these groups, it implies that we're graciously opening our doors to them and letting them come and explain their quaint ways to us and set us right about how we should write our stories. Sorry. That's putting it very crudely, but there is something about it that sets my teeth on edge.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

I agree, both on the general "Vision Statement" thing and your specific reservations on item 3.

I think that item 5 covers most of it . . .

[brownnicky.livejournal.com]

Me too.I agree with Helen on all counts.

[zeborah]

It's getting better, though I'm still wary of anything called a "Vision Statement" because I feel it might be intimidating to potential members.

That one's easy: call it "What this group's for" instead.

For the other issues, if I start talking I'll talk too much. :-) Thank you for the feedback.

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

Personally, I have a problem with #3, but that's because I feel it's my right to write about what I want and if stereotypes are included, so be it. They do exist for a reason and they do have their place and for me, getting past stereotypes includes treating stereotypical characters as any other characters. If I post something that others find stereotypical and point that out to me, my best course of action, given this vision statement would be to ignore the comment. Or to not post about that sort of thing at all, which means I'll be self-censoring. Which is fine. I'm just pointing out that such vision statements, meant to be welcoming and all-inclusive, can also be off-putting. Just my 2 cents, and probably worth less than that these days. Which is why I didn't participate in the recent race fail upset.

[karinfromnosund.livejournal.com]

Jumping in a bit late, I know, but...

This one works for me.

I agree with what some others say about §3 (esp 3a), but I'm not sure what could make it better, short of writing something completely different.

[sciamanna.livejournal.com]

I find this a lot better and not at all offputting to me (well, I can only speak about myself).

From some other comments, I think the "unwittingly" in point 3 is not coming across, so it may need to be rephrased to make it clearer? (I say this because of something Zeborah said in an IRC conversation, which makes me think the word is important for what she's meaning to say. I may also be wrong of course.)

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

argh, flail. Finally getting around to reading some of this. I have Opinions. I will eventually express them. But I think I'd better read everything first. (For your notice).

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

I hate LJ, just swallowed my comment.

Do you want a Dreamwidth invite code (for a free account, can back up your LJ)?

I don't like 3 either (sorry you're getting the short version due to my paranoia, but I can add more detail as you ask). I'd prefer something like "all participants respect and assume good will of all other participants and respect their personal experience, regardless of background, ethnicity, gender and/or sexual identity."

[zeborah]

I can't decide if I can be bothered with Dreamwidth or not. If you've got a spare code I could poke at it, but I'm not sure that I'd poke at it very *soon* so if other people are likely to make actual use of it in the meantime then it'd be better to go to them.

Thanks for your comment. Um, more detail would be good, if you can. I do like "assume good will" but I'm wary of something general: I just feel like something like that sentence could be proposed for rasfc and the only objection would be "But we already do that!"

I want something with teeth.

My sister and I were noodling alternatives this afternoon but I can't decide whether to post here in comments, or to start yet another thread, or to just throw my hands up in the air.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

I think I understand why you're flailing, and I understand you want teeth. I just don't know how to put in teeth that will actually work.

I'd argue very strongly against existing rasfc "respect and good will" - DDF treats everyone who doesn't agree with him as though we just haven't been enlightened to his way of thinking yet, or we're too stupid to understand how profound his view of the world is. I have lost respect for him, and everyone else who posts stupid homophobic evolutionary psychology speculation with no connection to actual reality and who can't even look ashamed when I mention they sound like they've never talked to a gay person. And who don't seem to think that talking to a gay person might be a prerequisite for talking about them.

I'm still flailing. I want a filter that keeps people like DDF out. I can't define one to my satisfaction (that isn't excluding of people I'd like included). That's part of what fascinates me about him. It's obvious to me there's something wrong with how he interacts with people who don't think like he does, or aspire to, but I don't know how to turn that into a generic rule that would be useful.

One of the things I did have in the comment that got eaten was that while I know you aspire to 3, and I think I do too, we're possibly about the only rasfc regulars who do (darkhawk? a few others who have already fled?) and while you need something like 3 to be welcoming to eg PoC writers (who I'd imagine would avoid rasfc like the plague) I don't see, from a purely practical point of view, that we have a line of PoC writers eager to join if only we had rules that made it a safe space for them. We do have a group of disaffected ex-rasfc'ers and I think it's more important to come up with rules that make them think it's going to be a safe space.

That will probably mean this is going to be a mainly-white-women group; that is possibly not your dream. But I'm afraid I think your chances of setting up a different group, with say lots of PoC, are Buckley's and none. You will have to find existing PoC-rich writing communities and sit around quietly and listen for a long time.

The privilege thing sucks. I don't think you can come up with rules to try to deal with privilege that won't either scare off all the people who haven't engaged with privilege or still lead to RaceFail type disasters. Because the thing about privilege is that you don't realise you have it and you will deny having it and it takes a lot of work and effort and time to accept that you do, and to change your world outlook enough to start being more aware of it, and not go into panicked self-defence every time someone with less privilege points out your arse is showing.

Look at what happened in RaceFail. At least the moments that were most striking to me were E.Bear trying to demonstrate how to be a White Writer accepting criticism from a PoC reader - I mean the fact that she wanted to demonstrate that suggests some kind of awareness of the problem but as soon as we got into it, she showed that she hadn't thought about it at all - the mere 'taking one for the team' phrase set off alarm bells in some PoC right at the beginning and now I understand much better, it sets off alarm bells in me too. And the other was PHN assuming that the people who were upsetting medievalist (or someone else?) were white males, that she and he were naturally more enlightened and less racist than anyone who could upset them, and who just never seemed to accept out loud that really, truly, there are more PoC (and women PoC) on LJ participating in racism discussions in fandom than he'd ever met or known of at conventions because conventions are racist places.

I'm just rambling again. I can't help you. I'm trying to think back to pre-racefail me, and what I'd have found acceptable and not, and what I find acceptable now and not, and I've changed so much in that respect that almost nothing means the same thing as it did back then. It's about being pulled out of your comfort zone kicking and screaming, and eventually understanding that the reward for doing the work isn't a new comfort zone, but a permanent discomfort zone.

[zeborah]

I'm at a point where I am accepting that I have privilege, and I *think* I'm at a point where if someone tells me I'm showing my arse then I can keep my defensiveness to myself.

What I want to do is to have a "What this group's for" statement so that, once we also have a space, I won't be embarrassed to write to the moderator(s) of relevant communities and ask if it would be appropriate to post about it to their community. I'll be very thoughtful about who to approach, and what to say; and very aware that people may be sceptical, and may point out where my arse is showing; and maybe they'll say it's not appropriate, or maybe no-one will be interested; and certainly I need to keep reading more in places that are already set up; but I can still ask. Because if someone isn't asked then they don't even have the option.

(During Racefail, I thought I did see someone saying that there was a need for [some kind of group]. This doesn't mean that my kind of group is what they were after, or that they'd trust me to get it started, but... some people might be interested.

(Also I'm feeling very stupid at the moment because I could swear that, a couple of months ago before rasfc blew up for me, I saw the website of a long-ex-rasfcian who was involved in some kind of group for writers of colour. A critique group maybe? But I can't remember her name or the name of the group; when I google the person I thought I remembered, I can't find anything that rings any bells.)

Anyway. Discomfort zone, absolutely. But I'm in a mood (this may be a life-stage mood because I feel the same at work) to quit letting my discomfort hold me back from doing things that I think would be good things. At the same time I don't want my cockeyed idealism to set up a situation that'll explode for someone else. But... I don't want to support the status quo by not trying.

impartial arbiters

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Ah, something I have thought of and wanted to mention (amazing how hitting the "post" button helps my memory):

One of the other things that annoys me about DDF that I'd like to get into some sort of rule/guideline form which unfortunately makes moderation about 1000 times harder (but moderation is hard): DDF when he argues is both one side of the argument, and believes he is an impartial arbiter of the argument (and that there is a position which an impartial arbiter can take). And somehow, a large fraction of rasfc agrees with him. I never saw anyone treat me like I was an impartial arbiter in any of my arguments with him (although some people found me persuasive enough that they personally stopped treating DDF as impartial arbiter although they did not scream very loudly for him to back down every time he acted as though he was an impartial arbiter).

In general, as I understand my own privilege and the whole problem around it better, I see more and more clearly that there usually is no impartial arbiter and can't be. And it is a product of white colonialist enlightenment thingy stuff that we even assume that there is an impartial arbiter viewpoint. And the fact that it's male, white, western, enlightenment thinking etc is what makes privilege privilege, or at least a big component. It's the privileged point of view.

Once there is no privileged point of view, who is an impartial arbiter for any given conflict? (Because there will be conflicts at some point). I think you should be very flattered so many people are happy with the idea of you as moderator, because in many respects you're not exactly near the middle of the distribution of views I expect the group will have. But there's a high risk you yourself will be involved in conflict, and you can't be the moderator for those. But how do you get co-moderators you trust? And then how to prevent moderators/ruling clique vs lowly underdog conflicts? Or will we just have to say "tough luck, form your own group if you don't like the rules for this one?"

(I'm thinking about this because my partner was recently the lowly underdog in a moderators vs lowly underdog conflict on a webforum he's on, and the problem with setting up his own group apart from needing the time and money to do it was that the webforum pretty much had a monopoly on that subject matter for australasia. It was made worse in that case in that as far as I could tell, the moderators were not applying rules consistently, and there was a very definite conflict between the interests of a "lowly underdog" participant and the advertisers, which was the basic problem really. But the advertisers of course were who had brought in the money to allow the forum to have the neat features etc that had led to it being the leading forum, and eventual monopoly. This by the way is part of why I'm switching to dreamwidth - no advertisers to get into conflict with.)

Re: impartial arbiters

[zeborah]

This is a good point. I do, too often, think of myself as an impartial arbiter. I think sometimes there are situations where even if someone isn't an *impartial* arbiter they can still be a *useful* one. But it's an issue that I need to be more aware of in the situations where conflict arises.

In terms of moderation for this group, it's tough. Because there need to be rules for choosing the moderators, and who chooses *those* rules? Is it turtles all the way down? I do think that ultimately it *does* come down to "If you don't like these rules then this is not the group for you." I don't see any other option -- not just practically, but logically.

And I want to accommodate as many people as possible with whatever rules are set up, because a group of one would be pretty lonely. But on the other hand, the rules have to above all be something that *I'm* comfortable with. Because it'd be stupid of me to set up a group which, if I wasn't setting it up, I wouldn't join.

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

So, I've been reading more RaceFail stuff, and dreamwidth "what we're about" stuff and one word that sprang up as useful in point 3 is "responsibility". Take responsibility for what you say, that your words may hurt or offend someone else, even if you had no intention of that. But that needs some qualification - we've had plenty of rasfc'ers saying in effect "you're an arsehole and I take full responsibility for that, because I know it's going to hurt you and I think you deserve to be hurt". Particularly when those of us arguing against sexism or homophobia or racism are framed as delicate little flowers who couldn't survive in the Real World, that PC is all about protecting people from reality - this is usually in a context where the people saying that either have never genuinely been hurt by prejudice against them as part of an arbitrary class, or have absorbed that hurt as 'just the way it is' without looking at the fairness of it.

Eg a lot of men who are all "you're delicate little flowers" about women asking for less sexism get extremely hurt when they're treated as potential rapists or otherwise threatening, because they haven't absorbed that their sexism causes that defensive, justified response in (some) women.

Actions have consequences and that's why you need to take responsibility, you know?

Similarly, I'd like it if: you screw up, or change your mind, you say so. It's another thing that drives me nuts about DDF and the dishonesty of his arguing style. Eg the statistics/high distribution argument on rasfm, where eventually Brian had to come in and say "Aqua is right, David's argument makes no mathematical sense", and DDF just didn't say a peep. I know that's probably shame, but because he always says something when he disagrees with you, always has an opinion, it does give the impression he will not ever say "I was wrong" or "I changed my mind" or "I understand better now" let alone "I apologise for ...".

Maybe that's make a good rule? It's okay to make mistakes, the important thing is acknowledge them and learn from them. "I'm sorry" is not a sign of abject humiliation, particularly if you get into the habit.

responsibility and apologising

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

Oh, and not to say I'm a picture of virtue over this, you know? It's something I'm recognising in myself, that I'm very reluctant to apologise when I hurt someone (particularly when it's unintentional) or to say "I was wrong", and I can tell from the little I've been able to change that the more I do it the easier it does get and the less it feels like abject humiliation to me and the better a human being I appear to other people, probably because I am becoming a better human being (at least on that axis).

So no doubt part of the reason DDF fascinates and infuriates me so much is that he shows me how certain of my own qualities can go really bad and gives me something to work away from. And I'm trying not to make this all about him, but to learn from the experience of interacting with him and the issues it's caused both for myself and for rasfc as a whole, and to pull out some general principles/guidelines for how to act. Even if most of the examples of why I like a rule or what situation I'm trying to avoid, involve DDF.

(or rather, they don't all, there's a bunch of stuff I didn't like that DDF never did, but I talk about that as "some rasfc'ers", like the PC delicate flowers stuff. DDF does things differently enough from the generic "hostile to women" rasfc atmosphere (although I do think he contributes to maintaining it, albeit sideways) that he needs to be treats as a separate case. And I'm not implying that the generic rasfc atmosphere is hostile to women, just that rasfc has a hostile to women atmosphere, which partly consists of JAD nutbaggery, partly DDF academic arrogance, and partly generic sexism, and it's that third bit I was trying to point at.)

I have to nip off and get a blood test, then I'll come back and read through your response to my first substantial comment (and following exchange) in some detail and comment there. I hope this is all the kind of discussion/thought provoking you were after. I also hope it's not too late.

If it's not quite what you're after, just try to tell me more what you're after, and I'll try to focus my energies and ideas in that direction, thanks.

Re: responsibility and apologising

[zeborah]

This is all useful, thank you. Definitely not too late either.

What you write is interesting and I need to read it again and think more. (Same for much stuff elsewhere.)

But commenting before I forget: What I think would be either potentially useful or potentially conducive to people thinking "OMG dictatorial much!" would be (not in a "What this group's for" document of course, or in a set of rules; but a separate resource) a list of modelled dialogues for face-saving conflict resolution. Eg (sloppy sketch, not intended for actual use)

A: Oh hai, are you aware that what you said is offensive to a group of which I [am/am not] a member?

B: Oh whoops, I did not know that. As I intend no offense to that group I shall endeavour henceforth not to say such a thing again.

A: Cool, thanks.

B: No problem. Only I don't actually understand quite why. Do you know where I can read more on the subject?

A: [Well, it's because... | Sure, here are some links... | Not off the top of my head, sorry; try Google.]

B: Thank you. It appears to be much like general relativity in that I can make no sense of it but lots of intelligent people vouch for its validity; therefore I shall make a mental note in case of future revelations. Returning, then, to [writing, cats and/or chocolate]...

<ponders> Oh wait, I forgot an alternative: potentially Made of Fail. Ah well. :-)

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

I also thought this might be useful to read as guidelines constructed for a similar situation.

Otherwise, I'm staying right back out of this for now.

[alias_sqbr]

Hello! I got here via discussion with aquaeri about my own attempt at creating a safer space on dreamwidth after my lj friendslist showed their asses one time too many. You may also remember me from such communities as racism_101 :D

If nothing else, I'd just like to say that I had no real interest in joining the existing mailing list, but might consider joining this new one :) (The only thing putting me off would be that I like the way lj/dreamwidth etc handle threading and comment notification so much I get put off by other places)

Anyway, I don't have any specific advice or anything (though you're welcome to steal ideas off me if they're useful) but you might consider posting to feminist_fandom or whileaway to get people's feedback. (Admitedly, I posted to debunkingwhite about mine and all I really got back was "Nice rules!" but at least that was good for my self esteem)

[zeborah]

Hi, and thank you! I've just been reading your rules that Aqua pointed me to, and then I followed a bunch of links; and just now you've inspired me to read a bunch of stuff and links from feminist_fandom and whileaway; and now my head is full. :-)

I would like to get broader feedback but didn't want to be all, "Hi, you don't know me, but tell me what to do so that if anyone says I'm doing it wrong I can say you told me to." I'd been thinking about posting to racism_101 (since at least there I'm not *just* there to get my homework done) but got mired down in the discussion here (and Real Life(TM) and writing). Also I wasn't sure if it'd be appropriate to. (Would it be appropriate on feminist_fandom or whileaway? Most of the posts there seem to be on quite other matters.) I have an ambition to find the time to join debunkingwhite but in the meantime am just reading.

(Wow, I'm not usually this disjointed.) Anyway, I'll keep a note to let you know once something's set up. Must talk to people about that. (Goodness, brain, what's up with you? I think I'd better watch another installment of my latest Korean drama to get myself linear again.)

[alias_sqbr]

Heh, sorry, hope it was good head-full-ishness, I know the feeling :)

I guess my thought with feminist_fandom (and in retrospect whileway probably isn't the right place) is that you are trying to create a space for feminist (and anti-racist etc) fandom to flourish, and if you framed the question as a "How do you try and create spaces for feminist fandom to flourish, and what do you think of my attempt?" I think it would be on-topic. I can see it feeling weird as a first post though.

I joined debunkingwhite before they instituted the entrance exam so for a second I was like "She hasn't got time to click "Join"?" :)

[aquaeri.livejournal.com]

I just want to say I'm glad you two met each other, it looks useful.

[coraa.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to say, from a long-term rasfc lurker, I really applaud your efforts with this. It seems like something that I might actually feel comfortable becoming not-a-lurker in.

[zeborah]

Thank you! That's a kind of comment that makes me sad about the past but hopeful about the future...

(Though I haven't talked about it much recently on my LJ, it is very much going ahead; I'm just rushing less than when I started. :-) )