Author: has written 213 posts for this blog.

Guest Bloggers are most welcome to diversify the range of views and experiences presented on this blog. The opinions of Guest Bloggers do not necessarily represent other bloggers on Feministe: differing voices are important to us. Readers are cordially invited to follow our guidelines to submit a Guest Post pitch for consideration.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

19 Responses

  1. yes
    yes April 8, 2013 at 4:10 pm |

    Eh, I’d say it’s not that hard to be mean-spirited and funny at the same time. This article just fails at the humble task because it’s so bland and generic. I mean, feminism is ripe for clever satire (and needs it to be healthy, a trait it shares with every ideology), but when the best you can come up with is “rampant lookism” and a one-quarter thought out complaint about cognitive dissonance between feminism and sensitivity to Islam, you’re miles away from anything approaching wit.

    That said, the offense taken is tedious. Not as tedious as the article itself, but that’s a high bar to clear.

    1. snorkellingfish
      snorkellingfish April 8, 2013 at 8:57 pm |

      That said, the offense taken is tedious. Not as tedious as the article itself, but that’s a high bar to clear.

      Why is it tedious to call out things that are actually offensive? Are me meant to just not give a shit or pretend that being silent makes things better? My feeling is that even if talking about stuff doesn’t change the actions of bigots, it can at least help marginalised people feel like someone’s on their side.

  2. karak
    karak April 8, 2013 at 4:58 pm |

    My friend is a Pakistani Muslim. A few years ago, he attended a con dressed as Big Boss. Someone took a picture and uploaded it to the internet, tagged as ” Nig Boss” or “Nigger Boss”.

    Ha ha. Ha.

    He was so humiliated–and somewhat concerned–that he didn’t want to cosplay ever again. He backed out of a group cosplay we were going to do together and admitted he was afraid to ever dress up again. I told him his feelings and safety were more important than a silly group cosplay.

    He finally decided he was willing to put up with the racism and abuse to be part of something he loved, but that’s a choice no-one should have to make.

    But, yeah, say shitty things about Muslims, because they never cosplay, they’re never targets, and they’re not real people or anything. It’s soooo fucking funny.

    1. amblingalong
      amblingalong April 8, 2013 at 5:07 pm |

      But, yeah, say shitty things about Muslims

      Wouldn’t that be Arabs or dark-skinned people? I.e. the locus of oppression here is race, not religion, based on the comment that was made.

      1. karak
        karak April 8, 2013 at 5:27 pm |

        They mainly came after him for his race, true, but a Muslim-hostile presentation would be just one more straw on the camel’s back on why he won’t go to cons or cosplay anymore.

        1. amblingalong
          amblingalong April 8, 2013 at 8:39 pm |

          Totally, just making sure I was clear.

  3. matlun
    matlun April 8, 2013 at 5:14 pm |

    This is quite different from the Adria Richards incident, I would say.

    [...] it’s impossible to keep your jokes from finding the “wrong” audience, the one that doesn’t appreciate how you trash their culture.

    I believe you are mistaking the intention behind the article. Here we are not talking about a sex joke that was seen as inappropriate. Instead the author used his joke article as an opportunity to air his criticism against Wiscon and some feminist ideologies by painting a caricature. Being insulting to Wiscon and the feminists in question is not an accident – it is much of the purpose.

    The joke article is unfunny and pointless, but I am not convinced it says much about the wider culture.

  4. a lawyer
    a lawyer April 9, 2013 at 9:22 am |

    He’s correctly satirizing the tendency of certain feminist groups–which apparently includes both Wiscon and Locus–to stifle speech that they don’t like.

    Look at the history:

    Someone posted in a non-Wiscon space with inflammatory and offensive comments. The chosen solution wasn’t to make opposing comments; the solution was to kick her off the WisCon panel.

    Someone posted a satirical article which was inflammatory and offensive. The solution wasn’t to post an opposing article; the solution was to kick the poster off of Locus.

    I *am not* disagreeing that the article was poorly done. I’m simply pointing out that the desire to shut people up rather than responding, is an overexercise of control. And oddly enough the article points that out fairly effectively, obnoxious though it is.

    1. EG
      EG April 9, 2013 at 9:46 am |

      the desire to shut people up rather than responding, is an overexercise of control.

      Bullshit. Neither Wiscon nor Locus are obligated to expend their resources in providing platforms for people who speak against their core missions or alienate large chunks of the readership or whom they find morally repugnant. That’s not an overexercise of control; that’s a decision about how they’ll allocate their resources.

      1. amblingalong
        amblingalong April 9, 2013 at 9:57 am |

        Bullshit. Neither Wiscon nor Locus are obligated to expend their resources in providing platforms for people who speak against their core missions or alienate large chunks of the readership or whom they find morally repugnant. That’s not an overexercise of control; that’s a decision about how they’ll allocate their resources.

        Exactly. The idea that ‘free speech’ requires other people to actively promote your ideas is facially absurd.

      2. matlun
        matlun April 9, 2013 at 10:02 am |

        No they are not obliged to do so. The question is what the should do. That obviously depends on the exact context and what you think about the texts written.

        Have Wiscon and the people in question been overly sensitive in these two incidents? IMO, yes, but that is hardly authoritative in any way. Anyone interested should just read the two texts (this latest text as well as Elizabeth Moon’s LiveJournal entry) in question and form their own opinion.

        1. EG
          EG April 9, 2013 at 10:25 am |

          I understand that, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t have acted as they did. Locus has a readership to consider and WisCon takes an active political stance.

        2. tigtog
          tigtog April 9, 2013 at 5:00 pm | *

          It’s that pesky Free Association thing that so many Free Speech fulminators tend to overlook: the right to freely express one’s opinions does not guarantee an audience willing to listen to them, and certainly does not guarantee invitations to address audiences whom other people have gathered for their own purposes.

        3. matlun
          matlun April 9, 2013 at 6:02 pm |

          @tigtog: Quite true. But in the same way as free speech does not mean that those texts are not open to criticism, Wiscon’s freedom to act does not mean that their actions are not open to criticism.

          How we should judge their actions hinges largely upon fairly subjective judgments of these texts. If they had been totally inoffensive I believe we could all agree that those actions would have been problematic. As they are not it is much more of a judgment call.

    2. delagar
      delagar April 12, 2013 at 12:57 pm |

      If Wiscon had not rescinded the GOH position to Moon, that would, in effect, have said they had approved of Moon’s speech.

      Given that Moon’s speech was offensive to Wiscon’s mission statement (and to many if not most people who are members of Wiscon) that was a problem.

      Frankly, I don’t see that Wiscon had any other option — and this matter was debated, at length, by those in the community.

  5. Fat Steve
    Fat Steve April 13, 2013 at 5:21 pm |

    It’s one thing to make fun of ignorance in the form of prejudice against women, it’s a totally different thing to ignorantly and with prejudice make fun of woman.

    However, even innocent comments can be misinterpreted, so it seems ludicrous that he would go this far. I remember when my friend had a female reading series at a bookstore her in NY. Another (female) friend asked if it was too ‘female oriented.’ I said ‘well, it’s not like the walls are covered with menstrual blood.’ I thought I was riffing on her feminist-phobia, but I offended her massively, not because I questioned her feminism, but because I was one of those guys who ‘defined women by their periods’ (which was, of course, the attitude I was criticizing.)

    1. tigtog
      tigtog April 13, 2013 at 6:06 pm | *

      Not singling out your reported remark above particularly, Steve – it just reminded me of something. There’s a great phrase from a post by John Scalzi about the perils of “joking” to make a point – “The Failure Mode of Clever is Asshole”.

      On the Compliment Women thread, the point was made that “the fail state of a gendered compliment to a woman is a microagression”.

      This is part of what we mean by “intent is not magic” – no matter how clear the connection between the point one wishes to make and the words one chooses to make that point is in one’s head when one is composing one’s remark, we can’t guarantee that other people see the same connection and give it the same weight as we do, and when they don’t make the same connection then our intended communication fails on the intended level and communicates something different entirely.

      If more people analysed communication in terms of taking failure modes/states into account during the composition phase, and as a result often concluded that the risk of a failure state was unacceptably high in that particular situation with that precise amount of time taken for composition, then more people would conclude that making that remark right then and there was not the best strategical move in terms of treating other people fairly/kindly/professionally (and even that the original idea to make the remark at all was a tactical error better forgotten ASAP).

      This would on balance make life much less fraught.

      1. Fat Steve
        Fat Steve April 14, 2013 at 12:10 am |

        Not singling out your reported remark above particularly, Steve – it just reminded me of something. There’s a great phrase from a post by John Scalzi about the perils of “joking” to make a point – “The Failure Mode of Clever is Asshole”.
        On the Compliment Women thread, the point was made that “the fail state of a gendered compliment to a woman is a microagression”.

        This is part of what we mean by “intent is not magic” – no matter how clear the connection between the point one wishes to make and the words one chooses to make that point is in one’s head when one is composing one’s remark, we can’t guarantee that other people see the same connection and give it the same weight as we do, and when they don’t make the same connection then our intended communication fails on the intended level and communicates something different entirely.

        If more people analysed communication in terms of taking failure modes/states into account during the composition phase, and as a result often concluded that the risk of a failure state was unacceptably high in that particular situation with that precise amount of time taken for composition, then more people would conclude that making that remark right then and there was not the best strategical move in terms of treating other people fairly/kindly/professionally (and even that the original idea to make the remark at all was a tactical error better forgotten ASAP).

        This would on balance make life much less fraught.

        I agree with much of what you say, relative to some circumstances, but I don’t know if it applies to my situation. If someone is behaving irrationally and verbally abusing someone due to their own warped interpretations- telling the person being abused to look at their behavior seems a bit like victim blaming. As a moderator here you must be used to seeing people come up with the most ludicrous interpretations of Jill, Caperton, or any of the blogger’s comments. I don’t believe that all objections are equally valid and/or teachable experiences.

        What you say is correct, we can not count on people having the same interpretation as others- which is why you shouldn’t expect everyone to appreciate your logic. That doesn’t mean I think you can learn from someone who is being willfully obtuse.

        1. tigtog
          tigtog April 14, 2013 at 2:45 am | *

          My point, and I should have made it more clearly, was that I was harking back more to the OP than to your comment.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.