Issues with Vividcon/Brainstorming

[thuviaptarth]

Links

• laurashapiro, Vividcon 2009: Some observations about race, gender, and accessibility (DW | LJ)
  
• obsessive24, Loaded thinkies from vividcon (race, criticism)
  
• bitter_crimson, A N00B in Vividcon 2009 (also incl. accessibility & trans & genderqueer issues)
  
• bradcpu, Home, a few more VVC thoughts (incl. newbie[?] issues -- not clear yet, I hope Brad will have time and energy to expand on this)
  
• bop_radar, On inclusion and exclusion in vidding fandom: personal reflections (authority, nation, race, gender, other issues)
  

[ETA: Have corrected some references to genderqueerness to refer to transsexuality and/or genderqueerness depending on the particulars.]

The past year has included a lot of fighting with my friends and communities about issues of access, representation, and social justice. I don't actually like fighting with my friends. I don't even like fighting with people who aren't my friends. I am tired of being frustrated and alienated, and I am tired of frustrating and alienating people. So I copped out of a lot of discussion at the con, and would probably be copping out right now, if it weren't for Deepa's example at the con and Laura's example online.

I'm going to throw out some criticisms and some suggestions here. I'm not convinced the suggestions are the best way to fix the problems, but I figure it's better to get brainstorming started, and sometimes knowing what's a bad idea can lead you to a good one.

[ETA: I'm posting these as suggestions for community feedback, not as demands to be acted upon.]

So, first, I recognize that the Vividcon Concom works extremely hard and has been attempting to deal with some of these issues. In general, I think it's a beautifully run con, and I'm grateful to the people who put the hours in. I'm going to talk about issues of racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia, discrimination against genderqueer people, and some general institutional failures to guard against hierarchy or to incorporate or welcome the contributions of newer fans not because I think that people have been malicious or intentionally prejudicial, but because we exist in a sexist, racist, ableist, authoritarian society that does not encourage us to question how our own privileges adversely affect our understanding of our power. If I thought the majority of people at VVC intended to harm those with less privilege than themselves on some axis, I would not bother talking about this at all. But I am not talking about individual intent; I'm talking about systemic effects.

Second, while I'm going to talk about a bunch of these issues together and I think all of them need to be addressed for the health of the con and the vidding community, I don't think they operate identically or are of equal importance. I'm talking about them together because I think they intersect and reinforce each other, but I do not think issues of status within the fan community have the same weight as institutionalized oppression based on race, sex, sexuality, gender identity, and ability, although the former can be affected by the latter. I would also like to acknowledge that sexism plays out very differently in the vidding/transformative works community than it does in society in general, because vidding/transformative works is a predominantly female community, and white, middle-class, able-bodied, straight, cis-gendered women are in a position of even greater relative power there than they are in society in general. Nevertheless, we do not walk away from the effects and internalizations of sexism when we walk into a predominantly female space, and sexism is still very much in operation.

Second, while I'm making suggestions based on my experience elsewhere, I realize that these suggestions may not work in the particular context of Vividcon.

These are some of the problems I see:

I don't run cons. I have, however, worked at a bunch of different tech start-ups during booms and busts, and in my experience 100 and 150 are big thresholds for companies, because they're points at which previously successful ad hoc internal communications and work arrangements break down; smart, driven, introverted workaholics can no longer handle the workload by devoting more hours to it and have to delegate or bust (lots of them bust); and institutional experience can become insularity and exclusion. I don't think these are the only things driving the perception of newer vidders that VVC is elitist and insular, but I don't think they help, either.

Some suggestions:

• Make the incorporation of new attendees into the con an explicit priority, possibly with a Concom member assigned as newbie liaison.
  
  
• vidderkidder suggested buddy arrangements for established VVC goers/newcomers
  
  
• Have a vidding/betaing workshop either concurrently with the con or the Thursday before, breaking out into sessions of 1-2 vid in progress, 1 experienced vidder or beta, and 3-4 newer vidders/betas. This would probably need to be at least 2 hours long, with a break in the middle; it should follow the model of writing workshops where the person whose work is being workshopped is silent during the critique.
  
  
• Have a randomized meal sign-up for one or more meals, where people get randomly assigned to a small group of 3-4 people outside their usual fannish affinity group.
  
  
• Have an officially organized newbie dinner the night before the con or breakfast the first day of the con.
  
  
• The Vid Review and the In-Depth Vid Review were both co-moderated by mixed-generation/mixed-affinity-group pairs of fans. This is great! Please keep this up.
  
  
• Be more proactive in addressing [trans and] genderqueer issues. At Wiscon, there are suites on one of the main con floors open for small programming and overflow programming, and the bathroom for one of them is marked as unisex, as is the bathroom in the Con suite. I'm not sure it's possible to do the same at VVC given the different hotel setup, but it's worth investigating. For both genderqueer [sexual and gender identity] and accessibility issues, I am disturbed by how the onus is put on the people without privilege to complain, rather than on the rest of us to educate ourselves and make accomodation.
  
  
• Be more proactive in addressing disability/accessibility issues. U.S. culture in particular is so biased towards extreme individualism and against interdependence or sensible accomodation of disability that it puts the onus for accomodating disabilities on the individuals with disabilities rather than on society at large. This can make it painful or humiliating for people with disabilities to have to ask for specific accomodation, especially when it ought to be a default arrangement. I know the Concom has worked with people with disabilities to make sure they have accomodation, but I think there is still room for improvement. Here are some things that I have seen other cons--okay, here are some things I have seen Wiscon--do:
  
  
  
  
  • Include a checkbox and text field in registration for "I am a person with a disability/traveling with a person with a disability and may require additional accomodation" and have a dedicated Concom liason for following up with everyone who checks this and makes sure that the needs are met. [ETA: Response from mobility aide.]
    
    
  • Reserve seats for people with hearing, visual, neurotypical or mobility impairments [disabilities] at the front of the room and near exits, usually just by putting stripes of blue masking tape on the seats.
    
    
  • Mark off wheelchair spaces at the front of the room and/or near the exit for people with mobility impairments.
    
    
  • I was happy to see the large text programs in the Con Suite this year. I think people generally realize this is something that is too expensive to make the default, but I'd love to see this offered as an individual option in Registration next year so people can preorder large text programs if they need them.
    
    
  • In crowded or frequently traveled hallways, tape off sections to keep some part of the hallway clear for people to move. For most of us, the crush of people is just inconvenient. For people with mobility issues, it can be exhausting and debilitating.
    
    
  • [ETA: Concerns raised about my disability/accessibility suggestions in general] [ETA2: Please also see Morgan Dawn's post.]
    
  
  
  
• Use the Con Suite and Overflow Room for post-Premieres small discussion groups.
  
  
• There's been a lot of discussion from newbies--and, on my part, honestly, not so newbies--about how difficult it can be to find people after official programming ends. Is it possible to keep the Con Suite and Comet Room open 24/7, or later than programming? (No, I do not think Melina should take speed for the duration of the con. I think other people also need to be responsible.) During the con, elyn suggested a message board outside the Con Suite for when it's closed, which I also second.
  
  
• A lot of people are hugely stressed out by Premieres, but newer vidders are even more stressed out than experienced ones. Do Premieres need to be on Saturday? What do we lose and what do we gain if we swap the nights for Premieres and Club Vivid?
  
  
• The Concom is all white and with a sole exception drawn from a circle of acquaintances with a similar fannish background. This is understandable. But given the con's growth, requests for changes that the existing Concom doesn't have the time to accomodate, and ongoing issues with exclusions of people of color and newer vidders, and, not least, the possibility of burnout on Concom staff, I would strongly recommend the active recruitment of new Concom members, particularly aimed at newer vidders and people of color. For people of color, you need multiple people on the Concom; just adding one person is tokenizing, frustrating, and generally unhelpful. It is probably also worth it for me to make explicit that the responsibility for addressing racial issues is not the sole responsibility of people of color and that you should be inviting people to take on particular tasks or projects and not to be your Colored Person Advisor.
  
  
• Decide whether the Vidding Town Hall is going to be the state of vidding discussion or a progress report from the OTW. I was startled that this focused entirely on the issues of outsider visibility and not on any of the controversies that injured many people in our community this year, particularly the neverending RaceFail. Great, we're the scrappy underdog fighting the power who fits neatly into a tradition of white middle-class feminist protest about white middle-class feminist issues. When are we going to talk about the divisions and fractures among us? The IDIC challenge theme, unfortunately, fits all too well into this comfortable approach to power issues: it doesn't require anyone to confront anything that's uncomfortable, and when it fails to produce much that addresses racial or sexual diversity, conveniently the responsibility cannot be placed on any individual; it just happened.
  
  
• At the con, at least one person was mistaken for another of the same ethnicity/race, even though she was wearing a name tag. Other people of color noted visible and sometimes audible reactions because they weren't white and yet hadn't notified people of this ahead of time.
  
  Dear my fellow white people, I do not think you're evil for making these mistakes. The people you offended probably don't think you're evil. I do think you're rude, thoughtless, and privileged by your race in ways you ought to take more notice of. And it really pains me to say this, because I am saying it to people I like and respect.
  
  Read the name tags. If you make a mistake, apologize.
  
  
• [ETA: This point is not addressed to the Concom or white attendees. I'm throwing out for the consideration of people of color, as something I've seen work elsewhere. I'm not interested in forcing people of color into this or even arguing more strenuously for it if you're not interested. If you are interested and/or want to talk to people who've tried it, I can point you at online discussions and/or set up introductions with people of color who made use of the setup. But seriously, throwing this out for your consideration and now dropping the subject. Not interested in talking you into something you don't want to do!]
  
  Something that worked really well at Wiscon was (a) people-of-color-only meetups at a meal at the beginning of the con and at the end of the con, for people of color who wanted to network with each other, deal with particular concerns of racism and white privilege, talk fannishly without fearing racefail, and decompress at the end of the con; and (b) dedicated people-of-color space for people who wanted a break from the overwhelming whiteness of the con. I hesitated to suggest this before VVC, and I'm hesitant to suggest it now, because it doesn't do much good for a white person to make an outside suggestion. Absolutely I am NOT suggesting this as a mandatory thing for people who aren't interested. But I would strongly urge people to consider implementing this/asking the Concom to make accomodation for this, because, honestly, the difference in energy and enthusiasm I saw among my friends afterward was amazing. (I don't have time to look up individual links right now, but K. Tempest Bradford posted about it a lot.)
  
  
• Honestly, I am a little reluctant to suggest the same thing for men. I feel that a lot of the discussion of men in vidding looks at men as a numeric minority without considering the effects of sexism and male privilege, which do not disappear when men enter a predominantly female space. A lot of the reactions I see to Laura's comments and other discussions of men in live-action vidding fandom or the history of vidding as a predominantly female art form do not acknowledge sexism as an institution or the erasure of female contributions to culture, society, and art as an ongoing and centuries-old problem; they treat sexism as a matter of individual prejudice. The problem is not that the men who vid or attend Vividcon are not nice guys, anymore than the racial problems with Vividcon are due to the white people in charge not being nice people. I have personally benefited from the willingness of several men in the community to share knowledge and advice, and enjoyed the work of many more. The problem is the way men are socialized to take up space and women are trained not to; the problem is who gets paid attention to, and who gets forgotten. The problem is that women are really, really, REALLY used to the masculine supposedly being inclusive of the feminine, and neither men nor women are at all used to the converse.
  
  So while men are even more of a numerical minority at the con than people of color (and I know it's extra fun for people who are both), the fact is that outside the con is a world where men have substantial power and privilege by virtue of their sex, and people of color have the reverse. (Yes, even in countries that are not white or Western. Colonialism: Bringing the global effects of racism to a continent near you since 1492.)
  
  That said, yeah, men are a numerical minority at the con, they're really visible as a numerical minority at the con, and that can suck. So I would support a men's meetup/men's space at the con for them to talk about the issues that come out of that if they're interested in that.
  
  

Comments

[wistfuljane.livejournal.com]

There is nothing wrong with one's natural response or assumption, per se. There is, however, something problematic when that response or assumption is based on conditioning inherent in a society that is full of -isms. And when that's so, I think it's worthwhile to try to overcome that natural response and assumption.

When I asked you if you had considered why, I was not only asking if you have considered why it's so rare that few Fans of Color are attending a con, but also why there are surprises at seeing Fans of Color at cons. These two issues are closely connected. I'm going to be extremely blunt because you ignored my implications:

I can't claim to know the psychology of all those white attendees who were surprised to see Fans of Color at Wiscon (et al) and acted rudely toward them, but considering RaceFail, well, it's pretty obvious that most of them buys in the notion of People of Color are not interested in Science Fiction/Fantasy. Or more accurately, they buys (unconsciously or otherwise) in the whole white is the default, white culture is superior, People of Color do not contribute to culture or society, etc. etc. notion. Both of which are racist beliefs.

In essence, the fishbowl effect (the staring, doubletakes, whispering, "look at the POC" attitude, etc.) is one manifestation of the invisibility of People of Color in a white-dominant society. It's a common symptom of racism (a reaction based on the race of a person that, for example, results in the other person being negatively hyperaware of their race is usually a form of racism, sorry to say) and as long as it exists at cons, Fans of Color will continue to feel unsafe and unwelcome. Trying to excuse the fishbowl effect by saying it's a natural response or based on a perfectly reasonable assumption and thus, not one's responsibility or that trying to change it is counter-productive to anti-racism is, frankly, an awful thing to say. It's trying to excuse one from examining why one's behavior or that of society is problematic.

[diannelamerc.livejournal.com]

There is nothing wrong with one's natural response or assumption, per se. There is, however, something problematic when that response or assumption is based on conditioning inherent in a society that is full of -isms.

Whereas I think that trying to pretend you are not affected by the culture around you to the point of trying to hide how it affects you is pointless and disingenuous.

When I asked you if you had considered why, I was not only asking if you have considered why it's so rare that few Fans of Color are attending a con, but also why there are surprises at seeing Fans of Color at cons.

I see the two as a direct reflections of each other.

These two issues are closely connected. I'm going to be extremely blunt because you ignored my implications:

I did not ignore them, however if I missed something, I'm willing to listen again.

I can't claim to know...."

O.K.-- stop and look at the statement you just made: "I can't claim to know [their] psychology" but "it's pretty obvious what it is".

...Or more accurately...

Whoa, there. Your first point does *not* in any obvious way lead to your second. Equating "being unaware of PoC's contributions and/or interest in sci-fi fantasy" to "more accurately [believing] white culture is superior, People of Color do not contribute to culture or society, etc. etc."- is one heck of a wild assumption and (il)logical leap made on, as far as I can tell, nothing but your own prejudices.

For someone discussing seriously issues of diversity and respect, you are showing little understanding of either outside of your own narrow focus.

In essence, the fishbowl effect (the staring, doubletakes, whispering, "look at the POC" attitude, etc.) is one manifestation of the invisibility of People of Color in a white-dominant society.

Absolutely.

It's a common symptom of racism (a reaction based on the race of a person that, for example, results in the other person being negatively hyperaware of their race is usually a form of racism, sorry to say)

I don't see a need to apologize for what you say, however I disagree that inherently symptom=cause. The reason for the reaction exists because of racism in society (otherwise there would be no rarity of FoC at cons and this would never have come up). The reaction itself is not a symptom of personal racism, it is an honest reflection of the existence of our (all too often racist) society.

I don't doubt that it makes FoC uncomfortable--I certainly wouldn't like it were I subject to it. But the problem boils down to "there are not enough PoC visible in fandom" and that's the issue that needs addressing. Not the issue of "even though they're rare, no one should admit noticing them".

Trying to excuse the fishbowl effect by saying it's a natural response or based on a perfectly reasonable assumption and thus, not one's responsibility or that trying to change it is counter-productive to anti-racism is, frankly, an awful thing to say. It's trying to excuse one from examining why one's behavior or that of society is problematic.

No, it's distinguishing reaction from action--the two are very different, and I think that it is a pretty awful thing to say that--because people have eyes, and do not sufficiently disguise that fact, they are being racist. Note: you also keep bringing "(the staring, ...whispering, "look at the POC" attitude, etc.)" into the same category as a doubletake--whereas my point is that I believe they are fundamentally two different things. I agree that the former--the actions that follow the initial reaction--are very problematic. I simply disagree with your bundling of reaction and subsequent action into a single, convenient category.

I think that if you look more closely at what I've said, you'll see that we seem to agree on pretty much all but this last point. (Or maybe you won't.) However, I've made the point I wanted to make as clearly as I could. It seems we fundamentally disagree on that point. So be it. After establishing that, there hardly seems any reason to keep arguing our sides at each other any further.

Reposted with corrected grammar for clarity

[thuviaptarth.livejournal.com]

At this point, you've completely ignored my statement that the problem wasn't just the double takes but white people actually saying to people of color, "Wow, I thought you'd be white," as well as the additional issue of white fans mistaking one fan of color for another even though everyone was wearing name tags. You've also ignored all attempts to discuss this as a problem of institutional racism in fandom and society in favor of justifying your own emotional reactions of [to] people of color, again without considering how [the] individual reactions [of multiple white people], however understandable, amount to [a] pattern of behavior and [an] assumption that is alienating for people of color.

No one is saying that a double take at a person of color is the equivalent of burning a cross on their lawn. What I said, what wistfuljane said, and what many people of color in the links we both proved have said[,] is that this is a behavior and [these are] action[s] that stems from racist assumptions and that contributes to the discomfort and alienation of people of color at cons, thereby perpetuating racism.

For the record, I assumed you were unfamiliar with the links I provided because your comments on RaceFail indicate you are not very familiar with it, and because you are repeating arguments that were repeatedly made and debunked during the arguments [RaceFail] without any apparent awareness that these are not new arguments and that having to counter them is exhausting for people of color and white anti-racist advocates in exactly the same way as [that] having to counter the assumptions and misdirections about ability, sexuality, and gender identity in my initial post were for you.

Additionally, accusing wistfuljane of prejudices, a narrow focus, and arguing out of convenience rather than a more profound understanding of racism than you seem to have is an ad hominem attack, and if you make another one, I will ban you.

[thuviaptarth.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry for the ad hominem attacks made on you in my journal in diannelamerc's last comment and have warned her I will ban her if she repeats this behavior.

[wistfuljane.livejournal.com]

Thank you - especially for your comment to diannelamerc, because anything I could have said in reply to diannelamerc's recent comment would have been filled with too much anger and accusations.