A little brain-fried this morning. I did another 6000+ words on the rewrite over the weekend, which left little time for coming up with brilliant blog ideas. (On the bright side, after a year on the book and with less than a month until deadline, I’m getting closer to actually figuring out Red Riding Hood’s character…)
So today, ya get links:
The anthology Gamer Fantastic came out while I was on vacation. This one includes my story “Mightier than the Sword,” which marks Smudge’s triumphant return to a SF convention.
My Facebook buddy Pablo Ramos has created one of the most entertaining costumes I’ve seen in a while. He had already put together a delightful Big Boy costume. Now he’s created something even better: the Big Boy Jedi. (I copied the thumbnail over, but you’ll probably need a Facebook account to see the details.)
The NCADV/Mermaid’s Madness auction is up to $105, which means in addition to the Mermaid ARC, the winner will also receive another of my books. (Winner’s choice.)
Tempest challenges a long-standing and frustrating trend at Realms of Fantasy. (Alternate title: Tempest demands more man-butt.) Add my voice to those who are tired of the boob/cleavage emphasis. Realms is a good ‘zine and deserves better.
And … um … that’s all I’ve got. So I’ll make this an open thread. If you’ve got a project or link you’d like to share, here’s your chance.
Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Comments
This project was mostly taken up to keep from worrying about
I was very happy to read that everything had gone okay for mabfan & gnomi!
For me, it was most enjoyable to see that she made at least one of them seriously consider the issue. Tempest has always kind of struck me as someone who confronts issues in an unproductive way. I totally agree with her re: cheesecake/beefcake concerns; however, I don't think that literally walking up to the people in charge and mocking them is the right way to go about fixing the problem.
The quips she makes are entertaining in a blog post, but they aren't helpful when you're talking to the person whose behavior you want to change. Quips I'm referring to: "Do you guys have a boob quota?", "You do know that women wear clothing, don't you?", "Boobs and boobs and boobs and boobs", implying "my ideas are always awesome!"
Look at Jim's response to your post; like me, he agrees with Tempest's point, but because of her confrontational approach, he finds it necessary to preface his agreement with "My interactions with Doug have all been very positive." Pretty much everyone I've talked to that agrees with Tempest (not just this issue; others as well)(and including myself) has felt the need to distance themselves from her at the same time that they agree with her.
Just my $0.02 :)
From the link in your post, I infer that you think I am (perhaps unconsciously) racist or sexist because I disagreed with your approach or "tone." Am I correct in that inference? If so, I'm sorry I made you feel that way.
My main disagreement with your approach stems my recent reading of Thom Hartmann's Cracking the Code. It's about the art of communication, and even though it's mainly concerned with political (liberal v. conservative) contexts, I find that much of it is applicable to any given debate or discussion. One of the points that's made early in the book is that it's important to find common ground and common goals between you and your "opponent". In politics this is relatively easy, because everyone wants the best for the country and their children etc, and they just disagree on how to do it. In other situations, it's harder to find common goals. Still, Hartmann points out that while it may feel good to verbally bash or make fun of the other person, it's rarely productive to do so in a conversation with that person (in this case, "productive" assumes that the two of you are trying to reach a point of agreement).
Anyhow, perhaps the most important part of my reply to threeoutside (imo, anyway) was the first sentence: "For me, it was most enjoyable to see that she made at least one of them seriously consider the issue."
I really mean that. The fact that Warren took your point seriously was great. I really hope that your conversation leads directly to a shift in the pattern of art at the magazine. More importantly, I gather that Warren has more authority than Doug (I'm not very familiar with RoF other than seeing it on the newsstand). If so, then it's even better that you were able to have a productive conversation with him.
***
Okay, now my thought process has been completely derailed because I just clicked on your username, and ended up staring at the unicorn-boy mock cover on your journal. I must say, I heartily approve XD
Certainly the way one goes about saying things has a lot to do with how they're received, but as the commenter below me has pointed out, sometimes using a neutral or common ground or polite or civil tone/approach gives the person you're talking to the false impression that the things they have to say or the stance they're taking are in any way acceptable to right thinking people.
I am most often called out for my tone when the discussion involves very contentious and very personal matters, such as racism or sexism, prejudice, bias, whatnot. And while it is possible to get some of the message across while playing "good cop", there is all too much danger in the person who you're trying to stop from being racist, sexist, prejudiced, bias, etc. thinking that they are just slightly off the mark, or that you're a "safe" person of color who isn't all uppity, or some variation thereof.
Often times, people need to be set down, harshly, in order that they might understand the magnitude of what they're on about. One cannot be polite in the face of racism. Calm, yes, collected and controlled, yes. But polite? No.
And that is really what the tone argument comes down to in most contexts. Be polite and measured in the face of sexism/racism/prejudice/bias.
No, thanks.
I know full well that there are many people who are uncomfortable with me doing this. they agree that these things are wrong and bad, but they are not willing to meet these wrongs with equal "loudness" about why they are wrong. The majority of these people who are unwilling? Are people who have not ever directly experienced the wrongs under discussion.
White people re: racism. Men re: sexism. Straight people re: homophobia. cisgendered people re: transphobia. When people who are not directly affected by these things attempt to tell those who are that they should modify their tone to better get their message across, take the first step into Failandia and often keep walking.
I know full well who these people are in my circle and I don't mind if they take a step back from me. Because if they aren't willing to say "tempest is right" even if my tone doesn't suit them, then obviously they don't care much about what is right.
I was about to reply to your post point by point, but really it would just come down to the fact that we disagree about which situations call for "setting someone down harshly" (though I agree that there definitely are situations that warrant it).
I'd also like to point out that both Warren and Doug were in the same conversation with me. I said the same things to them in the same tone. The difference between their two reactions was not MY tone but THEIR attitudes.
Another point mentioned in Thom Hartmann's book, in the same area that he talks about common ground, is the idea of putting yourself in someone else's shoes. When I joined in on this discussion, my first step was to think about what happened in terms of homophobia instead of sexism: "What would I do if given the chance to confront the staff of a fantasy magazine exhibiting an underlying pattern of homophobia?" I asked myself. I know it's not the most accurate thing, comparing homophobia to sexism, but it's the best comparison I have within my experience.
You may call me a Pollyanna for thinking that everything will be fine if we're just nice and love each other yadda yadda, that's fine. But please don't dismiss my opinion on the assumed grounds that I've never been discriminated against.
As regards your second point - I wasn't disputing those facts. What I meant was this: Had I been in the same situation, there's a good chance I would've started off with some of the same snark you used (note: I don't consider snark to be a pejorative term). Where we differ is that I would've taken Warren's good attitude as an opportunity to change my approach.
That's really what most of my disagreeing with you boils down to: If I was in your position, I would've done things differently. I think the main thing at this point is to see if A) Doug changes his attitude, and B) there is any kind of policy change re: art at RoF.
But not always.
And not completely.
You can't compare oppressions and you can't say "I as a person who experienced oppression X would do this were I to experience oppression Y." Oppressions are related, but not the same. And how one should go about combating them are not one-to-one.
It may offend you that your race or gender affects how I relate to you in this conversation, but you should think of it differently: it's your privilege I'm objecting to, not your race or gender. Men are capable of putting aside their privilege and getting it. White people are, too. I don't think you're one of those people yet.
But, I will say (if this means anything to you, and it may not) that you certainly seem to me of being capable of getting it. But first you'll have to actually acknowledge that privilege is getting in the way.
However, I come across attitudes similar to yours all the time and the problem is almost always unchecked, unexamined privilege, usually of the white and male variety. You disagree? Go right ahead. In this instance, I got exactly what I wanted (the publisher to take an important issue into consideration) and I didn't have to modify my tone.
Spend some time around other race and gender activists and see if they lean more toward your tack or mine.
This is what I said in my previous post - "I know it's not the most accurate thing, comparing homophobia to sexism, but it's the best comparison I have within my experience."
I do acknowledge that privilege plays a role in these discussions. I am constantly mindful that I am a white male talking about sexism. I have spent a great deal of time writing my replies, because I want to be careful not to misspeak, and because I want to take the time to make sure that I can fully consider what my opinions are and why. Frankly, I dislike the idea that my input would be rejected out-of-hand because I am a privileged white male. I feel that I have been disagreeing civilly, respectfully, and thoughtfully. I don't think it's your intention, but the vibe I've been getting back is "my way of thinking is the right way, and the only reason you're disagreeing is because you're a privileged white male; if you don't agree with me 100% you must be prejudiced."
I don't disagree with you. I've seen this as well, and you're right that it almost always is a lack of empathy or introspection.
In this case, I honestly think it's just a difference of personality; I am generally more timid and afraid to offend, and I try to avoid conflict at all costs. You are obviously very different from me in this regard (I don't mean that in a negative way). I tried as much as possible to frame my disagreement as "I would have done this differently" rather than "you should have done this differently" because who am I to tell you what to do, especially when you got the results you wanted?
I have, although I admit the experience is mostly in the overlap with LGBT activism - black gay activists, lesbian feminists, transgender activists, etc. I have seen them take a number of tacks, both those similar to yours and similar to mine, in varying situations.
***
I think this whole discussion is a little besides the point. You were successful in getting your point across, and I am glad that RoF is going to seriously reconsider the policy behind its art department.
I should probably be saying this at your blog
but it is a whole tab away, but I enjoyed and appreciated your post.I don't expect it to go much higher, but $100+ is pretty darn cool indeed.
I don't really pay much attention to the cover&interior art for the stories, and I'll have to go drag out my issues now and re-look at the covers.
I don't know how much we can hold Realms responsible for the ad content. Now you've got me curious to flip through my issues, though.
off-topic:
I've finally seen Transformers 2, so now I can go read your review on it.
it was entertaining enough although it made more of an effort than the first one to distract me with its lack of a cohesive storyline.
I'm still mulling.
You can find them here:
http://www.abnersenires.com/songs/s
Enjoy!