Taking a break for Christmas

I’m gone for a little while. Have a safe and happy holiday, everyone, and a happy New Year!

Black male privilege

Here’s an interesting perspective. Since African Americans are one of the minorities that count, who would think any segment of the black population would experience privilege? Here’s the report, though, provided by sociologist L’Heureux Lewis-McCoy (2014) in Brittany C. Slatton & Kamesha Spates (eds) Hyper Sexual, Hyper Masculine?: Gender, Race and Sexuality in the Identities of Contemporary Black Men (p. 75). According to Lewis-McCoy, black men experience privilege. This seems contrary to common knowledge. Evidence shows that black men in the US typically experience the most discrimination in employment, relations with the police, early death, imprisonment, etc. So where does the privilege come from?

According to Lewis-McCoy, the very fact that there are only 83 men per 100 women in the black community leads to privilege, especially if these men are accomplished. This includes entertainers, sports figures, college graduates of all kinds, writers, doctors, artists and sociologists. Because of their relative rarity, these men experience a strong systemic privilege relative to other minorities, and especially to black women (though not to white men, of course). The obvious example in this case would be in affirmative action. Looking back at the previous blog, if we reserve affirmative action for the most oppressed minority, this is certainly black men, and according to Hugo award finalist David van Dyke’s very insightful comments on the last blog, this translates to advantage.

Additionally, all black men in the US experience privilege, according to Lewis-McCoy, when it comes to accountability. Expectations for black men are low because of high levels of discrimination, so everyone takes it as a matter of course when things go wrong, never looking at the underlying personal deficiencies. Everyone blames oppression instead. This leaves black men with an out as far as personal responsibility goes. Because it’s clear they can’t accomplish anything for themselves, their families or their community, many don’t try. Instead, according to Barbara Reynolds, a certain group engages in acting out as a form of protest, which they mistake for effective activism.

The other big privilege for accomplished black men that Lewis-McCoy identifies is in negotiating sex. You can read his article for more info on that.

Looking again at the SFF community, the conventional wisdom holds—I don’t see much privilege for black men here. Instead, they are hugely under-promoted. Sites like this generally only include black women writers. How did Samuel Delaney ever make it?

What is Whiteness?

According to Jamelle Bouie, the recent election is a case of “white won.” If that’s so, maybe this is a good time for another look at what that word “white” means. I’ve already mentioned in a previous blog that white is more a set of power relations than about race. This means that whiteness is about power and privilege and not really about skin color at all.

One of the mistakes that neo-left activists have made, according to David Marcus in a response to Bouie’s article, is that this group has equated privilege with skin color, assuming all white people are privileged and demanding they should admit this and apologize for oppressing people-of-color. According to Marcus, the struggling white working class (along with a big chunk of the middle class) has responded to this demand with a hard swing to the right. He suggests that “whites” will no longer accept that minorities should be allowed to pursue their own interests to the detriment of whites, and that things people-of-color say will no longer be ignored in the political arena.

So given that this is really about power and privilege, who turns out to be white and who turns out to be a minority? This is an interesting topic. First, people of Arab ethnicity are currently making a move to withdraw from the “white” race into a MENA (Middle Eastern/North African) category. Although Arab-Americans have been designated as white for the last 70 years in the US, they increasingly feel they don’t have the privilege that whiteness should confer.

Next, it occurs that Asians are actually “white.” This is a social phenomenon that goes back several decades, when suddenly Asians became invisible in diversity counts (and started to sue about discrimination in university admissions). If you’re interested in further reading on this topic, see an article here by Eugene Volokh written in 1998. Non-Latino Hispanics also turn out to be invisible in diversity counts, and I’d hazard a guess that Native Americans are mostly invisible, too. So that leaves only blacks and Latinos as the minorities who actually count.

Next blog: How does this affect the SFF community?

Transgressive writing as a minority pursuit

I’ve been poking around again, this time wondering a little about the history of transgressive fiction. As it turns out, transgressive is considered a genre, and many writers of what we think of as classics today were actually considered transgressive in their day. This includes writers like the Marquis de Sade (which you would expect), Émile Zola and Fyodor Dostoyevsky. James Joyce’s Ulysses was actually banned in the US until 1933, and William S. Burroughs was the subject of an obscenity trial.

People are still writing transgressive fiction today, of course. It’s normally considered to be cutting edge works about sex, drugs, incest, pedophilia, etc., but as I’ve mentioned in previous blogs, people who think they’re just writing something creative can suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of correctness.

Here’s an interesting article by Polari prize-winning writer Diriye Osman who found he had written a transgressive book called Fairytales for Lost Children about the African gay experience. The first indication of this, of course, was difficulty in finding a publisher. Osman suggests that writing programs normally promote a type of writing that appeals to the mainstream, while avante-garde and transgressive works always come from outsiders and minority writers. Osman also notes that most editors are very risk-averse, which means they don’t much want to deal with avante-garde and transgressive writers–they want more of what’s on the best-seller list. After numerous rejections, Osman finally found a tiny publisher for his collection of stories, which (surprise!) then went on to win an award.

Racism, Sexism and the failure of allyism at SPFBO

While I’m working on the Hugo packet, I’ll check in on more social trends. The first is allyism. This is activity that supports activists, even when support might not be in the immediate interest of the person supplying it. An example might be when men support feminism through not only stepping back politely out of the way, but also writing in support of and voting for women’s issues. Another would be whites supporting people of color through investigating white privilege, ignoring reverse racism and trying to advance the interests of POC. Another would be straights supporting gay rights and gay marriage. This is a moral stance that’s been popular among progressives for a long time, indicated by involvement in the civil rights movement and similar activities. However, as the left has recently gotten more extreme, there are signs that allyism is breaking down. More on this later, but first, here’s a concrete example.

The Self-Published Fantasy Blog-Off is a competition with ten judges that reviews (and incidentally publicizes) self-published fantasy works and picks a winner. This year writer Max Florschutz submitted his book Unusual Events, but withdrew it after finding a review on one of the sites that he considered racist and sexist. You can find his blog about it here, titled “When did ethnicity and sex become the most important thing?” along with a link to Jo Niederhoff’s offending review of Outbound here.

“I’d probably have loved the book even if both of the leads were white and straight,” is the sentence Florschutz objects to. He tries it out with the flip test, getting “I’d probably have loved the book even if both the leads were black and homosexual,” and concludes that it is a racist and sexist statement. Niederhoff looks to be white, so her review is an example of allyism that has crossed over into offensive territory. The interesting thing is that Florschutz, a white male, did not step back in this case. He has made a protest, not only in his article, but also by removing his book from consideration in the competition.

Some people might say that Niederhoff was just mouthing a popular view without engaging her brain, and that Florschutz has over-reacted in suspecting this means bloggers in the SPFBO were prejudiced against white men. However, we can compare this to the recent David Riley incident, where he was attacked as prejudiced and forced to step down from the Stoker jury because of his comments on immigration. If Niederhoff had only said she enjoyed the diversity in the book she was reviewing, I’m sure this wouldn’t have been a problem. However, as it is, I have to agree with Florschutz. This leaves me wondering: Is extremism divisive and unproductive?

Review of “The Story of Moira Greyland” by Moira Greyland

This is one of the Best Related Work Hugo finalists, published on the Website askthe“Bigot.” It’s an expose of pedophilia and child abuse about Marion Zimmer Bradley and her husband Walter Breen written by their daughter Moira Greyland.

Greyland details abuse she suffered herself from her parents and her “stepmother” who was apparently Bradley’s lover. She also details Breen’s abuse of boys, leading to several arrests and sentences of probation. In 1992 a final conviction sent him to prison, where he died in 1993. Although Breen was barred from some SF events, rumors of his activities were generally dismissed as “character assassination” and ignored.

Greyland goes on to discuss the curious philosophy on sexuality that Bradley and Breen seemed to hold. According to their theory, children who were introduced to sex early would develop into their definition of “gay” sexuality, which appears to be pansexuality. They felt this was the natural state of humanity, and that sexual orientation was due only to lack of proper education. Based on this, Greyland advocates against gay marriage and gay parents, citing research that shows children of gay households are maladjusted.

I don’t agree with her conclusions or her political stance—she has apparently accepted her parents’ definition of “gay” without question and equated it with pedophilia. Still, this is a valuable piece of work that exposes the private under-culture of sexual abuse and how it is often ignored. It’s well written and well supported, but not news at this point—she already exposed the abuse in 2014. Three stars.

Totalitarianism, File 770 and suppression of ideas

We like to think that we’ve gotten past all that. This is the US/UK/Europe, after all, founded on principles of freedom. We’re not in any danger of falling under the sway of totalitarian regimes. We have a free and open culture, where immigrants and minorities are welcomed and valued. We have Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression safely ensconced in the US Constitution, which means the government can’t legally suppress what we think or what we say. But will that really protect us?

One of the arguments presented by readers at at File770 was that Freedom of Expression meant that public opinion would take care of racist/subversive ideas, shaming and ostracizing anyone who questions public policy on racial or ethnic lines, for example. The premise was that it’s fine to attack people and lobby for their removal on the basis of assumptions about their views because this will publicize and emphasize that some views are morally wrong and unacceptable to the public. This is expected to intimidate others who might be tempted to express similar views.

Because I’m of a certain age, I can recall a previous US administration where questioning of the current president or his policies resulted in immediate shaming on public media by groups supposedly unconnected with the government. Oppose the president, and you’re toast. Was this really public opinion or was it something else? I can also remember another previous administration where the president made extremely risky decisions that brought the country to the edge of nuclear war because of a phenomenon called “groupthink.” This describes when people who are intent on conforming to group values end up making dangerous decision. The current term for this is “virtue signaling” where everyone is expected to signal that they are part of the group, toeing the line and reciting the creed. Is this a good thing, or will it lead to dangerous results?

When I was asked by the readers on File770 if I thought racism was acceptable, I answered that this was a complex subject and that everyone was a racist to a certain extent. This immediately signaled that I wasn’t part of the group, and the discussion degenerated to personal attacks. Suddenly I was dangerous and needed to be ostracized as quickly as possible. My ideas were subversive and needed to be suppressed.

So, was Bradbury right? Will suppression of ideas lead to an eventual conflagration? Or was this just another stupid, hysterical diatribe?

Note: The fact that this discussion took place in the comments section of File770 is no reflection on Mike Glyer who owns the magazine and writes the articles. The readers comments do not represent his views. Read the discussion here. Please see previous blog for more comments on the incident.

Suppression of ideas at File 770

I’ve just had an experience on File770 where a number of people came out very strongly in favor of suppression of ideas, and I’m feeling the need to write something about it. This shouldn’t reflect on the magazine, or on Mike Glyer, who provides an excellent venue. He’s not responsible for the views of his readers.

The initial question was whether David Riley, who had reportedly expressed racist views, should be allowed to serve on the HWA awards panel, but the discussion soon devolved into a fight about whether some ideas should be suppressed for moral reasons. For people of a certain age, this echoes an era when leftists were accused and persecuted as traitors with little or no evidence. It meant that you had to be really careful what you said or wrote, or you could end up “blacklisted” and unable to work, if not in prison. In response, I’d like to review Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.

Guy Montag is a “fireman” on a squad that burns books. These are sniffed out by electronic “hounds” operated by a totalitarian government. Where people have hidden books in their homes, the entire house is burned down. Montag is on assignment to burn a woman’s home. She is defiant and self immolates, burning up with her books. Wondering at her attitude, Montag steals a book. He returns home to his wife and finds that Clarisse, a young neighbor with free-ranging ideas, has disappeared.

Montag is disturbed and tries to discuss the woman’s death with his wife, but she gets angry, thinking his subversive ideas will cause him to lose his job. Mildred insists the woman was to blame for the whole thing because she was hiding books. At work the next day, Montag’s boss tells him that most firemen steal books from time to time, but that they need to be promptly destroyed. Over the next few months, Montag accumulates a stash of stolen books and comes to realize that he knows nothing about what the government is doing, as there are no newspapers and nothing on the media but entertainment. There are signs of a war looming—he sees formations of jets in the sky. One day a fire alarm comes in, and when the squad responds, Montag finds it is his house they are set to burn. His wife has turned him in.

Montag does his duty, burning the house, but then he turns the flamethrower on his boss, burning him up. Montag is attacked by a sniffer hound, but manages to escape. He flees into the countryside, looking for others who have fled, and finds a band led by a man named Granger. As they watch, the city is destroyed by a nuclear bomb, everyone burning up in the conflagration. Granger explains that history is full of repeated falls of civilization, and that it is their job to help rebuild.

The book was published in 1953. Groff Conklin, reviewing for Galaxy, called the novel “among the great works of the imagination.” P. Schuyler Miller, reviewing for Astounding Science Fiction, called it one of Bradbury’s “hysterical diatribes.” Bradbury had previously investigated these ideas in short stories and wrote the novel in 18 days on a rented typewriter. Ironically, Fahrenheit 451 is often found on banned book lists, and words like “abortion” or cursing are redacted when it is used in high school lit classes.

See the next blog for more oomments on the issue.

Upheaval in the awards system?

This has probably been coming on for a while and I’ve just not noticed, but it seems like a lot of organizations are announcing awards for SFF, or that nominations are open for their awards, etc. This is an awesome development, as it provides recognition for authors who are worthy. Some of these don’t look like mainstream awards, either, which provides a spot for people who are a little off-beat to find an audience and get a little promotion.

However. I see today that DragonCon has announced they will give out awards in 2016. This is kind of a biggie. DragonCon is a huge convention, with an annual on-site attendance of about 70,000 people. The press release says the awards will be based on nominations and votes from all fans, not just attendees or members, through an open system. They’re apparently going to run this off their Website where voters can register to vote.

Contrast this attendance figure with WorldCon that gives out the Hugo Awards. Wikipedia lists 4,644 attendees and 10,350 who bought memberships to vote the 2015 Hugo Awards, which was a record for numbers. With DragonCon moving into the awards game, I’m thinking the Hugo’s are officially undermined. The Puppy scandal has not only disrupted the voting system, but it seems to have led to an inspection of the Hugo process where works are winnowed through a narrow review and recommendation system and onto the ballot.

While most people aren’t going to swallow the Puppies’ complaints of a vast conspiracy whole, their grievances do seem to have resulted in concerns about the fairness of the process. WorldCon has scrambled to provide additional controls, but it could be that their credibility is already shot. The Dragon Awards will include a category for mil-fic, and they’re encouraging a free-for-all, i.e. campaigning.

More on this tomorrow.

Wrap of the postmulticultural, postblack moment

Finishing up the discussion.

So how do these trends I’ve been discussing translate to what we see happening in the SFF community? It’s kind of hard to sort out, but I’ll give it a try. Change is always uncomfortable, and mainly the recent confusion means is that we’re in the thick of it.

For one thing, there’s now a big difference in viewpoints between generations. The traditional minorities (women, people of color, LGBTQ) have all made great strides toward reaching equality of opportunity, often because of their own activism. Most magazines and anthologies now post a diversity statement and often make proactive efforts to include diverse voices. Young writers are happy to take advantage of these opportunities, but seem unaware of the activism that led to the inclusion. I’m seeing a number of articles lately from older writers and editors that note how the erasure of pioneer minority SFF leaves young minorities thinking they are the first generation to write SFF.

For another thing, bullying about political correctness is on the increase. One reason for this might be the recognition that multiculturalism as a policy only provided lip service to change and didn’t do enough to produce real opportunity. Possibly minority activists are increasing their efforts for change as they now feel the decline in support for diversity. Younger writers especially seem less tolerant of what they see as transgressions and likely to respond unfavorably.

As bullying has increased, so has the backlash. Because multiculturalism as a policy pits minorities against white men, they have in some cases suffered real injury to their reputation, opportunities and careers. This is made worse by political and generational differences. The sentiment in response has not been pretty. Cue the Hugo controversy.

Last, pressures are again on the increase for assimilation of minorities. One reason for this is the shift in public policy. Another influence, which I haven’t seen recognized in the quick research I did on this, is the leveling power of popular culture. Assimilation is a real force. Young minorities are now more likely to define themselves through popular culture than through their traditional cultures, which they may not find entirely comfortable.

All these opposing forces have led to a situation where the cultural mosaic is pretty sharp edged. What should we do about it? Well, multiculturalism did have its good points. We might consider white men and conservatives as minorities and respect their culture appropriately.