speaking of small owls... or not.

[reenka]

A) Man oh man, I love Harlan Ellison <333333333 Can we please save our offense for the people who are actually lamebrained assholes instead of brilliant (if immature/obnoxious/perverted) old men? No? :/ Ahhh, that one's never going to go over well with some people, I know.... Still. I mean, a lapse of proper behavior in public isn't the same thing as being a bad person... god, I really wish I could stop arguing this point :/ :/ (Can you tell why I started out being a Draco Malfoy fan?? No? *snorts* I wonder if the people who become/are Draco fans these days don't think 'obnoxious asshole' is a really good description of him... sometimes I wonder.) But yeah, Harlan is SO the Draco Malfoy of the professional fantasy writers biz :> I bet Draco would grope Hermione's breast if the occasion arose and be like, 'well, she can take it', ahahaha, oh, they're brothers in lamitude <3333

    EDIT - Disclaimer: I'm only talking about the personal, psychological ramifications & issues, not trying to imply anything about 'proper' social response or standards.
    
    Well, the kerfuffle's probably 'cause most people value the behavior itself over motivation/subtleties of context... but it's gotten to the point where my mom tells me 'I think you're a good person' and I said, 'why?' So she says it's because I'm honest (and I laughed) and then she clarified 'honest about the things that matter', and I raised an eyebrow. Finally, she said 'you've got a sense of honor-- modified for you', ahaha & that I'm not a mean person. So I was like 'are mean people bad?' and she said yes. This exchange is so funny to me 'cause I had a 'MEAN PEOPLE SUCK' sticker I was very proud of when I was 20 or something; I still think mean people suck, but I also think that since more than half the world's population doesn't know 'mean/truly cruel' from 'harmlessly obnoxious' or even 'impolite'(!!!), I'll just go around defending mean people.... *sigh*
    I should really shut up about this topic; I realize how repetitive I am :/ It just really HURTS MY BRAIN that people don't get that impolite/obnoxious != mean evil bastard. This is not advanced ethics, is it? :O

...Although I think the question of 'can a mean person still be a Good person?' is an interesting one. Cruelty/sadism is one of the true... uh... negative qualities that exist, and perhaps the only truly bad quality as far as I'm concerned (though extreme self-centeredness and desire to control/subjugate others tie in), but. I think too many people think verbal obnoxiousness is the same thing (ethically) as the actual biggie (which is wanton cruelty itself). Granted, it's a sign of insensitivity, but there can be a range there, I hope :/
    If people are being funny, even if they're not funny at all, by definition they're not in the same ballpark as someone who's just cruel. Secondly, true cruelty depends on knowing who you're being cruel to and how they'll react; a truly cruel person picks on someone they know is vulnerable and sensitive (or submissive/can't fight back/born victim). It's merely an obnoxious/rude/wanky person who picks on someone they consider either tough or an equal, or someone who's not there and will never hear of it. There's also a third type of meanie who picks on people they truly think are mean/bad/wrong (but not 'stupid' or 'ugly', because there's no possible even skewed moral justification there)-- I'd say they're just badass or 'tough', like a vigilante/judge stereotype. (Ahh, Gryffindors, ahahahahah...ha.) Anyway, these three types are seriously different in terms of ethics and the best way to deal with them, I think.

For instance: people have told me that I seem v. sensitive to them & they think of themselves as mean enough (but in control enough) that they -could- say/do things to really hurt me but they don't 'cause we're friends. I'm sorry, but these people don't know me well enough~:) I don't think you can just hurt someone like that if they haven't got the mentality of a victim (ie, caring what people think, unaware of their flaws/issues, unself-confident about their strength or ability to fight back or succeed). I'm not 'out there' as being a toughass, and in fact I'm pretty (sometimes extremely) sensitive about what people say to me, but... I'm also extremely self-aware. There's literally nothing you can do/say to me about myself that 1) I'm unaware of; 2) I don't have faith I can work through eventually, given this exchange doesn't involve violence (well, violence would take a lot longer to deal with, since I'm least confident physically). So just as there are predators, there are victims-- one sort of allows/forms the existence of the other; therefore, not being a victim, it would be very difficult for a predator to gain mental access to me no matter how 'mean' or 'bad' he/she was.

Anyway, people who're just obnoxious and like to mouth off or do jackass-type things for a laugh aren't predators, pure & simple. They're more like hyenas, I guess-- well, there's a range from seagull or crow-type scavengers to hyenas, maybe :D There's a huge difference in nature between a crow and a hawk, say-- though human beings who have power & like to use it are often a lot more mentally unbalanced than hawks. I mean, hawks are a natural part of the ecosystem in which they exist in the same way mice are-- but human beings who have those sorts of dominant/cruel natures tend not to know their place. (Btw, if I had to be a bird of some kind, I'm probably a small owl-- I mean, I could always go for fresh meat, but mostly I don't make a big fuss and go with nice easy insects.) Um. Okay, that was a tangent -.-
~~

B) Man, it is beyond rare these days that I come across something that makes me really feel like an HP fan (in terms of fic or art or whatever)... but the funny thing is, I really am, actually. The last time I felt it before recently was when I saw Platform 9¾ (or the stretch of wall at King's Cross that has part of a trolley attached, whichever). Man, that was ace. Yesterday, I was sort of happy reading JKR's old post-HBP interview (which my deluded brain found slashily inspiring), and then furiosity's 'The Revenant' had an adorable Draco. I wish this sort of 'ooooh, DRACO IS SO CUTE' thing happened to me more often... I remember when I read hackthis & Silvia & had that squeeing gurgle of adoration every time. (Ahahaha, I was so lame I used to read angsty obscure stuff like Jay's 'Disarm' & squee too. Well, okay, I used to squee at everything. :/ What. :/ Um.)

Aaaaanyway, I had a point and here it is: I was looking at the Swedish HP book covers at The Leaky today, and ooooh! *commence sparkly-eyed cooing* I love the OoTP one, but what I REALLY love is the HBP one <3333333333 I AM SO FULL OF TEH HBP!HARRY LOFF <3333333 That Harry is my Harry, wah <3. I wanna cuddle-wuddle him and call him Geooorge... um. So yeah. HBP! LOVE! :> Man, I really wish they sold these as posters... *weepz*

C) I've been on a kick for m/m/f (uh, pr0n) past few days, and woefully I don't like either Hermione/Harry/Draco nor (really) Harry/Ron/Hermione (and things like Sirius/James/Lily or Sirius/Remus/Tonks are actually a squick), so in terms of HP, I'm totally stuck. I sort of want to request Harry/Draco/Ginny on one of those request challenge comms, but I'm pretty sure no one would bother writing it really in character (... if that can even be done, which it probably can't without an epic, and even I don't want to read 300p for porn).
    Still, I'm vaguely inspired to write lots of 'normal' boysmex from seeing a bunch of nekkid boy pics ♥. The thing I really like is how many are smiling or being cute & playful. Most pics with girls have this 'artificially slutty' quality to the playfulness... I dunno. Like, the boys are a lot more unself-conscious & 'natural' than most girls of the same age-range I've seen, which is awesome <3. So I had this mental process where 'playful gay boys' naturally progressed to 'playful bi boys', just to up the shameless slut factor, ahahah (plus my Harry remains mostly straight this way) :D

Also, I really like this article saying it makes more sense to separate romantic & sexual bisexuality rather than just saying 'if it's not romantic, it's not bisexual' the way people do. I also like the idea that 80% of guys are bisexual but heteroromantic & homoplatonic, hahaha. It seems to bear out what I've observed, and leaves room for slash-- I mean, they could have tons of very deeply platonic sex, I don't mind!! :D

D) Sometime asked me why I'm so verbose recently. I'm like, "..... GOOD QUESTION". -.-;;

Comments

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

But you know, I think in the Harlan Ellison situation, people are not offended by only by the behavior itself, but by specifically the context/motivation/situation. They're especially offended because Ellison has a history of doing it, and because of where it occurred, and even especially because he isn't just some random punk, but an important writer. (Ellison is known to be a great writer, but if he does something bad, why should he be excused from criticism? That makes no sense to me.) They are especially offended because they look at it in the context of a sci fi fandom in which some feel there is a strain of disrespect for women/sexual harassment.

In a way, it isn't really about Harlan Ellison only, but about battles that are going on in the SFF con community. In a way, people cannot take the boundaries of obnoxiousness for granted. If they don't say anything, then whatever it is they object to may be considered acceptable, and ignored. That's one reason why people speak up, to police the boundaries. If there hadn't been such an outcry, would Ellison have acknowledged publicly the unacceptability of his actions? (I don't know, being not too familiar with him. Just a question. )

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I'm not really directly criticizing the critics and saying they're wrong to express concern, but it seems to go beyond that to sort of an overblown response? I mean, the projecting-of-other-issues is definitely there, and it's unfair/unreasonable to some extent.

Apparently the context is that he was being a jackass 'because she was exhorting me to behave', in this case (meaning, not the same thing, I think, as sexual harassment, though related). I guess it's not really a question of 'forgiving' or 'being silent' (or rather, stewing silently), to me, but rather just not having a victim mentality. A little bit of column A (not letting it get to you) and a little bit of column B (not accepting is as 'normal'), because -both- would actually be self-victimizing behaviors.

I don't feel any particular need (as a woman who's not Connie Willis) to have him apologize publically; if other people do, I think that's their issue-- and I suppose one could say 'he's a part of that community, so if he offends one member, he offends every member', but I just can't think that way. I don't get offended for or on behalf of people 'cause we all have such varying sensitivity levels and also I hate too much sympathy/pity, especially public. I personally wouldn't want to hear 'there there, he's such an asshole, I hope he apologizes/has his balls cut off/gets slapped by karma'. I mean, some people may want to hear it, but I don't :/ I actually would appreciate a direct, private apology, but I don't need -that-, either :/ I'll get over it; my angst is my angst, and even if it's someone else's fault, my response is my responsibility, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, I said all this not to say 'why isn't everyone like me! bitches!' but just to say we're not all a communal brain. Thinking like that leads to a sort of mob mentality that isn't usually emotionally sensitive in itself. In terms of conflict resolution (which would be my goal) and psychology/group-morale peacekeeping, it's best not to start outright witch-hunts or marches until personal understanding/communication has already failed.

I personally don't care that he's an important writer; I personally don't think being a famous writer means you're supposed to be held to some higher standard-- I mean, we're all idiots (humanity, that is). Some of us are better at hiding it than others, and some of us are just not as projective/obnoxious about it. I think caring about 'social image' like that is something that's normal & okay for people to do, but at the same time it leads to unreasonable expectations and sometimes mob mentality; regardless, I wouldn't necessarily call it an intrinsic part of ethics in general but rather of the psyches of J (myers-briggs-type) personalities.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

Er... isn't this just blaming the victim? I can see this as being useful to help people get over incidents in which they're victimized, but you sort of come accross here as saying that if someone is offended by something, it's their fault, and they shouldn't be offended. Maybe that's a better way to get through life, but I don't think your viewpoint here is as neutral as you think it is. It is too convenient to people who behave badly to insist that others should not band together to disapprove of their behavior. Many victims (of whatever) feel that one of the most painful things is that society does not support them and condemn their victimizer. (Now maybe this is a bit charged language for this situation, but I'm speaking in general terms about victims here).

Anyway, in terms of that situation, I think it definitely is sexual harassment. Have some people taken the condemnation too far? Yeah, they always do. But that's what people do in any situation that outrages them.

Yeah, but obviously the conflict is not going to be resolved until the people offended are satisfied. The onus is on the wrongdoer. That's why people make public apologies, especially for their public actions. Speaking personally, if the incident had happened in private, I would think it was between the two of them, but since it was public, he should also apologize to the people who put on the event. Anyway, since many people in the sci-fi community seem to feel that he hurt the community by his actions, I think they have a right to believe that as well, regardless of what you and I may think. Conflicts can't be resolved by forcing people to suppress their sense of justice.

Your first paragraph seemed to suggest that his behavior should be viewed differently because he is 'brilliant.' So I read that as saying that because of his accomplishments, he should be treated differently from a nobody who did the same thing. Ah, yes, we all have urges to do things that are wrong, but yes, indeed, some don't act on them, and that does make them better people. Mob mentality is bad, but it's a perversion of something that our society would fall apart if we didn't have (social opinion). (I also don't see social image as a part of ethics or psychology. It's a part of sociology)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ahh, no, that 'brilliant' bit wasn't to excuse him on the basis of social standing... merely to say that I find brilliant (that is, intelligent) yet obnoxious behavior more offensive than dumb yet obnoxious behavior. Not to excuse but to say 'I genuinely have a different response, depending'. Mostly 'cause you can talk to brilliant jackasses & they tend to not be as serious or fanatical (mostly) as lower-IQ jackasses.

Generally, I think 'support' and 'condemn' is the sort of charged language I like to avoid; I don't try to be neutral at all (actually, I was pretty conflicted on posting this 'cause I thought it was All About Me & therefore wanky). To me, it just takes a lot to truly condemn someone, and I like to be really sure what I'm condemning them for and what degree of offense I find them guilty of. That's why I went on that metaphorical tangent about scavengers vs. predators-- because when I do condemn, it's for real.

I also realized my stance on victimization may take some explaining not to be offensive to some people, but eh... heh, I don't write for 'wide audiences' or whatever. Mostly, I'm all for self-awareness and self-empowerment-- rather than 'blaming' the victim, my goal would be to say none of us have to be the victim unless we choose to be on some level. Admittedly, I'm not a source of social support most of the time...until I think the offense is so wide-randing and serious that it needs a communal unified response (a form of war). Since I don't go to war lightly... I like to stress changing yourself before you try to change others' behavior (always a tall order).

Besides, I most definitely am not society, and neither is my mindset likely to catch on anytime soon :>

I often have issues with people's 'sense of justice'; possibly I don't have enough of a 'sense of justice' to satisfy 'most anyone, 'tis true (I tend to err on the side of mercy in the traditional dualism). You're right (I think) about apologizing to the organizers; that would be the polite thing to do, and indeed he did it. I was mostly referring to people's jumping on him regardless of that. I wasn't trying to justify him at any point, except to say his behavior is not in the same ballpark as truly abhorrent sexual-predatory-type behavior, which I think is important to separate. Without degrees of offense, these things become barely even related to the initial person/incident, which bothers me.

I think I just have a general issue with 'here, look at this [mostly harmless joker] jackass-- he's representative of EVERYTHING THAT'S WRONG WITH OUR COMMUNITY'. That gets to me. Not because I think being outraged/socially conscious is bad/wrong/useless, but because it leads more conflict rather than less most of the time (that I've witnessed in online communities-- until someone just gets banned & the cycle starts over).

I also meant that people often -use- the 'social image' type reasoning as a part of ethics, even though it isn't, yes. Like, talking about a person as if they were a public signifier in a debate focusing on interpersonal relations just hurts my head :>

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

But for people who are not the victim, the issue is, how do we behave? If we say people have a *choice* to be the victim, that's putting the onus on the victim, and can be used as an excuse not to solve the problem. Instead of trying to punish the offender, or trying to prevent future offenses, we instead tell the victim she should be satisfied with taking a more positive attitude? If the victim didn't do anything wrong, why should THEY be the one who we encourage to change their behavior? It's the offender's behavior which needs to change, but it is the only way to solve the problem. But, sexual harassment is not a small thing. It is a wide-ranging and serious matter which does deserve unified response (also, if there's a systemic offense, there already is a 'war' going on, and responses against that are just self-defense). That is the perspective that people are coming from here. I get the impression that a lot of women in the SFF community have experienced this problem, and this is part of what they're trying to do about it. Uh... also, we're all part of society, I'm afraid.

Yeah, I agree. (But look, you were reading Ginmar's blog) It is not a sexual assault, and it's an exaggeration to say it is that, but I think in some ways, isn't there a sliding scale and thus a relationship between sexual harassment and sexual assault? I see in the links people moving beyond Ellison himself, though, and talking about the issues provoked. So I think many are doing what you want them to do, not treating Ellison himself as the only problem, although it is legitmate to use his behavior as an example.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I guess I wasn't thinking of this incident as part of the larger 'war on sexual harassment' because I thought he was being a jackass (rude) and incidentally it was sexual. I wasn't meaning to downplay the overall problem (which definitely does deserve a unified response), but saying that the wider you make the definition-- the more inclusive it is in terms of motivation and context-- the more hopeless the struggle becomes. It would sort of be similar to a grand unified response against recreational drinking/pot-use in the 'drug war' (not equivalent, just similar to me).

Also, I wasn't writing any of this as a serious social treatment-- so if I did answer the bit about 'what does the non-victim do', I'd have to write a new essay. I could say 'well, it helps to narrow things down/not overreact/not demonize anybody/try to understand'-- but that's an attitude, not a solution. In this specific case-- of Harlan Ellison-- I don't think he even could be individually 'solved', and certainly not through mass outrage. I just intuitively feel he's not a useful entry point because he's an obnoxious joker-- which makes him 'part of the problem', sure, but not representative or a good example of who to single out to condemn.

I guess asking 'why should they' (be the ones we encourage) implies I'm making a final jugdment-- a decision of some sort that excludes other approaches. I'm very far from dictating anyone's behavior one way or another-- so my answer would be 'well, it's up to them, I just think this would encourage their mental health & make life easier to deal with'. While logically, it's the offender's problem and the onus is on them, practically, I believe no truly permanent/significant and quick solution is possible if you mean to shift basic human nature (though things can & do get better).

I guess to verbalize things I didn't touch on, I believe the 'solution' to wide-ranging interpersonal conflict , regardless of who the 'offender' is, has to be global and constructive. Therefore, anger/outrage serve only a limited use in keeping us on our toes & aware 'this is wrong'. Only communication, respect & understanding across gender lines will 'fix' this to any significant degree, and indignation won't help people adapt/understand/grow from knowing each other.

If you ask 'why do these men act this way?'-- the answer is probably 'they don't know how to respond correctly to women as equals/non-sexual-or-romantic objects'. This is a valid social issue/disease, most extremely expressed through assault, but one that permeates all levels of interaction. The 'solution' would be to forgo the victim/oppressor mentality & form new lines of communication-- a difficult process that's likely to take at least another generation. Not a satisfying answer, but my idea of a realistic one. And I do realize I'm part of society, I just meant I'm not a very vocal/representative/statistically significant part. I'd be one of the 'silent masses' who 'fall through the cracks' and 'get ignored by the dominant policy-makers 'cause they're extremist freaks', if there's poll categories for that. :>

Well, I wasn't responding to that whole post-- that's why I linked the thread responding to Ellison's apology specifically (with people ranting). I think all the misfocused anger makes me feel like it's only confounding the problem, pitting 'factions' against each other. I like the discourse, of course, but am simply frustrated with the consistent overreaction to this type of obnoxiousness in various forms.

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

I think people who are deep in sci-fi fandom might have a different perspective on what went on there, though. Groping, though, I really do think is not tenuously connected to sexual harassment? I mean, it's not like he just made a pass at her, he crossed the line to physical contact. So to me it's not at all overreacting to connect it with that.

The thing is, for the most part people do what you said, they just keep quiet and don't try to rock the boat. So it takes an outrageous and extreme incident like this to make all of that come bubbling up. So I don't think the people overreacting are the ones to blame, it's the social problem that is to blame, truly. But... indignation can be a starting point to that. It's better than complacency, Often times those are the main choices, because people are ignored until they raise a stink.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ah, but didn't I say it was the social problem that's to blame? When I said that about it being a 'valid social issue/disease' & so on? In any case, I definitely wasn't 'blaming' the people overreacting-- I mean, even if a reaction irritates me, that's me being irritated, not me telling them what they should do, right? I guess it's really almost fruitless for me to talk about this sort of thing because by default I'm supposed to be using the language of 'should' (how people 'should' behave, what's 'wrong', who do I 'blame') whereas I just have personal/intuitive reactions to things. That's why I said all that about my reactions to [verbal] harassment & the personal metaphor stuff-- I thought it was obvious I was separating this from a social judgment.

The -only- social thing that was directly irritating me is any direct attack on Harlan Ellison (online, by non-participants) 'because he's an obnoxious asshole'. I mean, that's better than complacency & not caring at all, but he strikes me as a poor focus for righteous anger-- an immature, old-fashioned-obnoxious-joker [if brilliant] old man. I'm not denying people their anger though (how could I?)... I just wish we could get to the point where there's option C), which would be 'mutual attempts at conciliation/understanding'. My desire is for constructive harmony (on the large scale, not in specific cases), but I don't want to be seen as encouraging apathy/fear/oppression-- I mean, what I care about is more individual than social. Individual understanding, individual strength (non-victimization-- of the sort Eleanor Roosevelt was talking about in that famous quote).

I mean, I can understand why people are indignant-- often, I am too-- but this struck me as a weak battle to pick, especially if it's only using Harlan Ellison as a jumping off point (considering he's not a typical person, it seems like). So it's not like I'm saying 'because it wasn't a pass'-- that's what I meant about being a jackass and meaning something as a joke even when it's not funny-- just that it changes the motivation/nature of the offense. It's still bad, in other words, but seems bad differently. To me. But I'm not denying anyone their perspective? I just sort of had a nearly knee-jerk emotional response to the bashing thing the way I would no matter -who- people would be self-righteously bashing, with the exception of... well, to me there's no exception. I'm okay with fandom_wank 'cause it's gratuitous obnoxious mocking, but self-righteous indignation-type bashing always makes me feel 'but why can't we be more conciliatory & discriminatory in our outrage'?

...It's just really sad that people might think I therefore want them shut up. This is why I try not to um, talk to outraged/emotionally volatile people :>
(Also, umm, I'm sorry if during all this I came off as... um, blockheaded/insensitive/anti-feminist as it seems. I really don't even consider the prescriptive angle much...)