Cred Check

[rowyn]

The little slice of the blogosphere that I watch has been writing about a quiz crafter by Lisa Morton, purporting to sort professional writers from hobbyists. In her commentary, ursulav asked "Do professional accountants get this kind of crap?"

And this made me think about the areas in my life where my credentials have and have not been questioned.

Areas where I've been questioned:
* Am I a real woman?: This never happens in person and hasn't happened much if at all in the last 15+ years. But in the pre-Web days of the Internet, I got this all the time. I remember on one MUD where one particular guy asked every single alt I had, and then threatened that he'd try to get me banned for having alts when I commented on it. (Answer, yes, I am).
* A real geek? I don't even know what this means.
* A real comics fan? I used to be keen on the Marvel mutants, but I stopped buying comic books 16+ years ago. I still buy graphic novels on occasion and I read a number of webcomics. So this depends on what you mean by 'comics'.
* A real cosplayer? No, I just like to dress strangely at any venue with a reasonable tolerance for unusual attire. I don't costume in the sense of mimicking a particular character.
* A real gamer? Yes. I've even been known to drag my boyfriend to gaming events at times, although all of my SOs have also been gamers. Board games and mindless puzzle games are my favorites.
* A real writer? These are real words that I am really writing, so I guess so? I don't get paid for it and I am not a professional, however. This is my hobby.
* Really bisexual? Yes. Really.

Areas where I do not get questioned:
* Am I a real artist? I am not. I am not sure why I see a lot more "real writer" cred-checks than "real artist" ones. I don't know if illustrators (the sort of art and artists I see a lot of) are less hung up on this thing than writers, or if it's just that I'm not diligent about drawing even as a hobby, so no one asks.
* At my actual job. Despite not being qualified for half the stuff I end up doing at the bank (sure, I'll write and maintain your VBA code! why not?), no one at my job ever questions my ability. If I really can't even fake doing something, I always have to tell them because they won't ask. I have no idea why this is.
* A real furry? Technically, I can remember one person saying I wasn't, but he wasn't serious. I've never had a furry try to exclude me. (I am at the periphery of the fandom these days but still a furry).
* Really polyamorous? I don't know why 'poly' gets less doubt than 'bi', but it does. (Yes, I'm poly.)

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but I thought it was interesting to reflect on what parts of my life inspire sufficient disbelief that some people feel a need to question me about it. I don't even know what the difference is, really; it all seems quite arbitrary. What do you get cred-checked on?

Comments

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Um... there are things I might have wondered about but I'm not sure I've ever been 'cred checked' by another person on anything at all.

It's possible that it happened and I just didn't care, and so it didn't stick in my memory.

[rowyn]

Yeah, I've noticed sometimes that things I thought "never happen to me" later happen and I realize "oh, this does happen to me, I just don't care about it". c_c

[level-head.livejournal.com]

I spent much of a five-week trial on the witness stand in which I was "cred-checked," under oath, on every conceivable topic from my preferences in films to my memory ability to my programming skills to whether or not I dropped out of high school (I did). Before Twitter, I managed to send out a number of text bits while sitting in that box. ];-)

It occurred to me that it would be very valuable to be able to question all politicians and political appointees like that under oath. But, I suspect, we'd lose most of our politicians that way.

Maybe that's not all bad.

I've been challenged in board meetings, and in dealing with unsavory groups, about aspects of my life.

Hmm... I'm excluding general "Internet debates" (and especially political ones) from the general cred-check issue here, as such challenges to any assertion (or any aspect of the person challenged) are common whether well-founded or not.

But I have been challenged in a particular movie forum, where I was active and moderately popular for my mostly science-oriented writings. Parents of a couple of other (quite young) forum-goers challenged my age, gender, and occupation since I was likely a "suspicious and dangerous" character. That was rather strange.

===|==============/ Level Head

[rowyn]

Yeah, challenged on 'is this assertion you made about evolution substantiated?' are very different from 'can you prove that you genuinely like Star Wars?' The latter is a lot sillier. :)

[alinsa.livejournal.com]

Ummm... isn't the latter a form of peer review, and thus substantiation? :)

(Ok, not so much, but when you start talking about substantiating scientific assertions, you're talking about having your stuff peer reviewed, and the kind of 'prove you are X' thing is a sort of peer review, so... ok, yeah, that association was funnier in my head. Don't take this as a defense of "prove to me you're good enough to like X" type things.)

[argonel.livejournal.com]

I'm living life on easy mode, middle class edition (straight white male with engineering degree) so I can't recall being cred checked on anything. Pretty much anything I say or get involved with gets taken at face value.

[sebkha.livejournal.com]

We need to get together sometime and sing a few verses of the Stonecutters Song.

[rowyn]

Wow. So ... is it fun in that mode? Just curious.

I think white middle-class female American is pretty easy too, FWIW. (It amuses me that I used this metaphor before Scalzi popularized it. Hipster cred! I do not have enough of that to get checked on it ever. :D )

[argonel.livejournal.com]

It's nice. Not particularly exciting, but comfortable. The lack of month long vacations is offset by the lack of wonder about buying groceries.

Overall I would recommend it as a good way to play the game if you can get it.

[alinsa.livejournal.com]

There's also the ez-mode version, which is much the same but involves someone else paying your bills so you don't even have to deal with the annoying work part. I know a couple of people that do that! ...I don't know if it's fun. I'll ask.

[rowyn]

I played on that mode for the first 18+ years (sort of weaned off it until I was self-supporting after college graduation). I kind of hated it, to be honest. Work sucks but dependence sucks even more. YMMV.

[alinsa.livejournal.com]

I don't know why 'poly' gets less doubt than 'bi', but it does.

Two guesses:

1) Most people can probably at least *understand* poly, even if it's not for them. I mean, who *hasn't* been attracted to someone other than who they're shacked up with at the time? I suspect that monosexuals, on the other hand, simply don't have any context in which they can understand bisexuality, plus the whole idea that "if you're bi you're just undecided" that seems popular.
2) It's pretty easy to demonstrate that you're "doing" poly... here's my two boyfriends! But unless you're in an active poly relationship with people both genders, it's a lot harder to demonstrate that you're bi... "Sure, I've had this boyfriend for 20 years, and we're exclusive, but I'm actually bi!"


What do you get cred-checked on?

I can actually think of very little I get checked on. I suspect part of that is that my job is ethereal enough and difficult enough to define that most people don't even know what to cred check. With writing, anyone can say "hey, I can write, too, and I definitely read lots of things written by writers, so I should be able to judge!" or similar. Art is likely the same way. But how many people do large-scale web architecture and the like, or have even a vague exposure to it? And my hobbies frequently fall in the same general category as my day job.

I guess I've sort-of gotten challenged on the bi thing, though. Not directly, but there have been people that when they found out I'd had a same-sex partner for 16+ years, basically assumed they'd figured out my sexuality and just completely forgot that I'd told them I was actually bi, and then were shocked/disbelieving when I told them again. Not quite being cred-checked (I never got "are you sure?"), but probably leads to it.

I suppose I occasionally get asked on MUCKs and the like whether or not I'm a real girl, but I don't quite put that in the same class as the kind of challenges you're talking about in general.

[rowyn]

I think the biggest reason the 'are you a real girl' ("No, I'm an adult, not a child") question is offensive is that not everyone falls neatly on the gender binary and it's just rude to demand people take a stand somewhere on it. And that the questioner has a right to know.

[tuftears.livejournal.com]

I've been cred-checked once for being a 'real American'! The old woman complained at me for not even being able to understand the language properly. I explained that I was hard of hearing and she went 'oh' and shut up quickly.

[rowyn]

I am not sure if that's more funny or terrible. Or if finding it funny means I am a terrible person. *^_^* I'm glad she didn't decide that you being hard of hearing was also something she was entitled to be upset about. :P

[jorrocks-j.livejournal.com]

I don't...I just...what sort of exchange could that question even be part of?



"Are you really bisexual?"

"Um...yes?"

"Wait--there are really women like you?"

"Ye-es..."

"Oh my God...it's true...it's ALL TRUE..."

"What?"

"WE'VE GOT TO TELL 'EM..."

"Tell who?

"...WE'VE GOT TO TELL 'EM! TELL EVERYBODY..."

"PENTHOUSE LETTERS IS TRUE! PENTHOUSE LETTERS---IS TRUE..."






Because you know like Soylent Green and all that and OK I'll just shut up now...

[rowyn]

It's more like:

"How can you say you're attracted to women? You're dating a guy."

"Yes, I'm bisexual."

"But you've only dated men."

"So far, yes."*

"Have you ever had sex with a woman?"

"Not yet."*

"So you're not *really* bi."

"... how does that follow? I think I know who I find attractive. Better than you do."

"Well, you haven't done it yet so you don't know. You're just bi-curious."

"WTF does this EVER happen to straight people who are virgins? 'You don't KNOW you're straight, you're just straight-curious.'" x_x

* Neither of these are true any more, but I mostly had this conversation when both were true.

There's also the "bisexuals don't really exist, they're all either closet homosexuals or misleading hapless gay people to fulfill some straight-person fantasy" or some other BS that makes no sense to me. :/

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Okay, I think I can see why this would happen. Doesn't mean it's right or fair, but I can see.

Imagine this: I tell you that I am 1/16th French. I don't sound French at all. I'm not sure what "looking French" looks like, but I don't necessarily LOOK French in any distinctive way. I don't really have a French-sounding name, either. But, hey, it's just a silly little trivial thing. Right now, I figure that it's probably not going to have much of an impact on anything, though I might prompt some silly friends to start putting on bad accents around me or pretending to be mimes in an attempt at jest.

Imagine this, then: I tell you that I am 1/16th Sioux. (Or, rather, Nakota, Lakota, or Dakota, since "Sioux" is, I am told, a pejorative name applied by outsiders that just STUCK -- but all I really know about my Great-Great-Grandmother from the family tree book is that she was from a "Sioux" tribe, let's say.) You take a glance at me and you can't imagine a DROP of Native American blood in me. My claim might make the conversation a bit awkward. (What the heck is this guy trying to prove?)

Why? I think it's because there is, in our current culture, a certain value ascribed to being able to claim to be members of certain groups that are seen as oppressed or discriminated against -- especially if the oppression or discrimination is reasonably tolerable (i.e., admitting it won't have you dragged from your bed screaming in the middle of the night, whereupon you're never seen again, and you don't personally associate with people who'd hold it against you).

Is Johnny Depp "Cherokee enough" to play Tonto? Is Elizabeth Warren able to "legitimately" claim Native American heritage? And if so, what does that really mean? But apparently there is something seen as VALUE in being able to claim such a thing -- and as such, certain other people feel the impulse to CHALLENGE it. (I.e., should someone of more authentic Native American heritage played that role? Did Elizabeth Warren benefit unfairly by being able to claim to be Native American when applying for college, due to set-asides meant to address prior transgressions of the American people against the Native Americans already here?)

Similarly, while in certain parts of America, admitting to be "bi" or "gay" or anything other than heterosexual might make some folks uncomfortable and not get you invited to certain house parties, in others it's sort of like a "badge of diversity," where someone you know can claim, "Why, some of my best FRIENDS are (bi, gay, etc.)" in an attempt at claiming progressive credentials. However, if you can claim that YOU ARE bi, gay, etc., that's one even better, from a certain point of view, right?

Hence, I can see why someone might get all ruffled up about it. Anyone could just CLAIM to be bisexual, right? I could CLAIM to be "nonpracticing gay," or something like that. In our current culture, by contrast, I think there's really little to be gained right now for announcing that you're "hetero and proud" in mixed company. At least, not in any mixed company I deal with on a regular basis.

Some folks might be just fine with your declaration: more the merrier, glad to have you aboard, etc. But say something CONTRARY (e.g., "I'm gay, but I don't think enforcing gay marriage at the federal level is a good idea"), and someone might have the impulse to question your credentials in the course of things.

Just my theory, anyway.

[rowyn]

It's something like that, but on a different order -- I think saying "I'm bisexual" is seen in some circles as a claim to advantages in relationships, like it's something women to say to appeal to men even though they're not actually bi. I have no idea if this is a real thing or not.

And there's some bitterness associated with 'bi-curious' (although how a breakup of 'so she can date a GUY' is any worse than any other breakup is beyond me).

It's still really irritating to have people smugly assume they know more about my preferences than I do, though. Especially the "smug" part. Gah.

[telnar.livejournal.com]

Do professional accountants get this kind of crap?

One possibility is that accounting's different economic structure means that there are fewer hobbyists. Most people interested enough in accounting to want to spend a lot of time at it and good enough at it to be mediocre can make a living at it, so wanting to be a professional is very strongly correlated with actually being a professional. Writing doesn't work that way.

[rowyn]

That's what I thought at first, until I considered how arbitrary some of the other 'are you REALLY x" questions are. It's just weird that superhero comics fans provoke gatekeepers and furry fans don't. Maybe that's some kind of status marker thing, and furries do not consider themselves mainstream enough to provoke the protectionist response. ("Must guard fandom from the invaders!")

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Let's see.

There comes a time when I think there's a "legitimate" reason to question one's membership in a particular group, if there's any matter of controversy, but sometimes it surprises me what you can get questioned on. I don't think I've ever been "cred-checked" for reasons that I felt were beyond understanding, however.

For instance, consider the phenomenon of when you'll read some news article or watch a TV show, and some talking head will be brought on, claiming to be a representative of {religious or political or ethnic Group X}, and yet he's spending an awful lot of time CRITICIZING {Group X} in general. I can understand why people in {Group X} might want to question his credentials. At least in the case of religion or politics, you can pretty much claim allegiance to whatever flag you want in US society, and then proceed to proclaim it to be flawed in every conceivable way, and there's no law against it ... but color me suspicious about whether or not you really represent members of that group in any meaningful way.

However, I don't get the "real geek" thing. And it's been a pretty long time since someone questioned my "orientation," but then it's not something that generally comes up.

I've been challenged on being an "artist" (back in college, from a teacher who I suppose had a good point that I'm really just an "illustrator"), and also on being "furry" (not a particular label that I feel like trying very hard to defend anyway). Put those together, and there's a good argument that I am NOT a legitimate "furry artist" -- and yet sometimes I've been called that, too, in a pejorative way. There's just no winning, sometimes.

(Hence, when it's applicable I generally describe myself as an ILLUSTRATOR, or a SCULPTOR, or a MINIATURES PAINTER -- i.e., a very specific description of the task and skills involved -- rather than laying claim to the vague term "artist." And, I draw or sculpt or paint or kit-bash whatever I please, whether it be an anthropomorphic animal, a mythic beast, a giant robot, a plain ol' human, or WHATEVER. I'd rather not pigeonhole myself into a particular subject matter anyway.)

Back to the "real geek" thing ... I guess I could imagine it as some sort of reaction to disappointment when trying to associate with like-minded individuals. E.g., "So, are you a fan of Star Wars?" "You bet!" "All right! I'm so excited about the new 'Rebels' series coming out! Aren't you?" "Oh, I don't know...." "BLASPHEMY! I am revoking your Star Wars fan card!" (*YOINK*)

Or something like that. For instance, I have some pretty fond memories of Star Wars, and yet I find an awful lot to harp on in the Star Wars universe. And I don't dislike the prequels NEARLY enough to please the typical "Star Wars fan" I run into. ;)

[rowyn]

That's a good point, re: "I am X and I hate everything X stands for" being kind of fishy. c_c

I think some of it must have roots in the human instinct for tribes, to have a group that you belong to and that will protect you, and to which other people (unsafe people!) do not belong. I do find it very interesting what groups provoke the gatekeeper response and what ones don't, though. "Artist" must be defended but "illustrator" doesn't need to be. "Comics fan" has to be protected but "furry" doesn't? (Although your experience differs from mine on this). I don't really get the distinction -- I thought it was a status marker at first, but I didn't think that any of the sf/f subgenres were high status enough that they need a gatekeeper to chase the 'riffraff' off. Perhaps I am wrong!

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Depends on the environment, I figure. My experience is based on a few specific events, not really reinforced by continuing experiences today.

For the "art" matter, I was in college, in the art building, in an environment where the "artists" had a certain feeling of superiority, of eliteness, of being part of a club, of wanting to impress each other. Being an ARTIST was something to aspire to; it would mean you're part of this club, you speak the lingo, you appreciate those spatters of paint and deliberately garish choices of color, et al., and the desire to evoke feelings and make challenging political statements through your art, and aren't one of those dreadful peasants who just judges a painting upon whether or not it's "pretty," or upon how life-like the artist's interpretation of a flower was. I had an ornery disdain for abstract art; I wanted to experiment with light and shadow and texture and gestural qualities of application, but I also doggedly wanted my work to look like something. Hence the derisive observation from my teacher. I was bruised by it, and I could argue with it, but I can't claim that the teacher didn't have a point, based on my attitudes at the time. And, for all intents and purposes, I do illustration and occasionally graphic design, but I really don't try to tackle "art for art's sake" in any more lofty sense.

At the time that I ran into "what is furry?" controversy, I was in an "environment" in which it could be considered controversial. I.e., a MUCK, or an unmoderated forum, where the topic du jour was ostensibly anthropomorphic animals, but chatter might veer into topics of politics or religion or whatever, and arguments would flare up, FLAME WARS WOULD COMMENCE, and hard feelings would be had. And sometimes I was just a jerk. (I wasn't alone.) I think some folks had gotten comfortable with the idea that "I like anthropomorphic animals. I swing a certain way. I like certain things. I vote a certain way. All my buddies do, too. We are furry. Therefore you, who do not mesh with us in all these things, you are an outsider. YOU ARE NOT US. You do not belong. Never mind that you draw animal-people, you pretender. Mend your ways or go away."

I had people seriously telling me (calling me up on the phone, long distance from California -- gasp!), trying to set me straight that it wasn't just about anthropomorphic animals. It was a LIFESTYLE. That's pretty much what prompted me to have the reaction of, "Well, fine, I'm not part of your club, then. I'm not going to fight over that one."

Once I got out of college and my interactions were more selective (face-to-face encounters with people with real lives and real jobs, or online contact with folks in a more orderly, less chaotic forum), and once PawPrint Fanzine was rendered obsolete by online art sites, I just didn't run into that sort of thing anymore. I don't know if that attitude still persists somewhere on the planet, but then my only convention commitment is really Necronomicon. While originally I visited Necronomicon because of a chance to meet people like TuftEars, Prester_Scott, Bookwyrm, et al., those folks don't seem to make regular appearances at the con anymore; I'm still there largely because of the connections I made with folks in the gaming department (and because Gwendel likes an excuse to stay in a hotel for a few days, since we don't go "vacationing" aside from visiting my relatives).

"Anthropomorphic animals" might show up frequently in my games and my illustrations, but they aren't the core or central point anymore.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

P.S., I'm also talking about stuff back in the NINETIES. Like, ancient history. :)

[rowyn]

I think all of my "are you a real woman?" questions were in the 80s or 90s. (Yes, I was getting that in the 80s! On the university's local Vax because I didn't use that weird 'Internet' thing. :D

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

VAX/VMS:
1980s? Wow. I didn't discover MUCKs and newsgroups until the early 90s, but it was also through a university's VAX/VMS system.

Anyway, there were so many guys masquerading as or role-playing as females that for a long time I sort of took it as good odds that if I ran into someone presented as a female, it was probably actually a guy. (I was a bit surprised whenever I find out that Gwendel was a "real girl." Incidentally, she usually roleplayed as a guy. Still does, in most of our tabletop RPGs.)

[rowyn]

I didn't start MUCKing until ... 1991, I think? IIRC, I started Blacksox (and met you!) on FurryMUCK in 1991, lost interest after a few weeks, and came back with Shirp in late '91 or '92. I can kind of back-figure the timing because I know I met Alyt through Shirp before I graduated college in '92.

But I started spending time online on the VAX in 1988, as soon as I got to college. The VAX hosted a couple of BBSes that were local to the university and I met several of my friends through it.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

I first used the university VAX system upon arriving on campus in late 1989, but I think it wasn't until 1990 or maybe 1991 that I bothered with MUCKs and such. Until then, my grades were pretty good in college; I had started out with the "pre-engineering" program, but it was soon obvious that I had no angle for how I was going to be able to afford a college with a full engineering program, so I switched to Comp Sci -- and then around that time, I think that's when I learned about telnet and such, and there went all my spare time. =/ Me and my stupid failure to prioritize properly. (No past tense on that problem, sad to say.)

[rowyn]

I boggle at the idea of calling up someone just to explain to them that Furry is a WAY OF LIFE and they're DOING IT WRONG. O_o

I remember how some groups were very in-your-face one way or another on parts of the fandom (ohhhh the Plain Vanilla Furs 9_9 ) but I always thought that the Pawprints approach of "We're going to make a fanzine for PG-rated art and y'all can do whatever you want with your own fanzines" was pretty nonconfrontational. I guess not everyone agreed. v_v

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

Re: Nonconfrontational:
It seems that way, up until someone who's eager to get his picture or story "published" in every possible fanzine he or she imagines the work might be accepted in submits it to Pawprints Fanzine ... and we say, "Sorry, that doesn't fit into our theme," or, "Ngh ... sorry, but no sex scenes, no rape, and it doesn't make it better if there are KITTENS at the end of the story -- please, this isn't that sort of fanzine!"

At that point, it doesn't matter how well the existing material sets the tone, or whether I clearly enough established the submission guidelines. Someone is just going to see this as "I just got rejected." Or, "He just told me to alter my story." Or, "He just had the nerve to tell me to cover up the naughty bits on my masterpiece." (And I can sympathize with the latter, when a "little change" means restarting from scratch.)

Even worse was when it was someone TuftEars knew personally or made a connection with at a convention, and hence felt obliged to get that person's work into the fanzine, and yet that person just didn't seem to "get it." There were, alas, unpleasantries over that sort of thing.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

I did the rounds briefly, and stumbled across this blog entry by Brian Keene. Looks like this ties into that same article. (OBLIGATORY WARNING: He uses naughty words.)

[rowyn]

Thanks for the link, cool post. :) I liked that he decided to prioritize time with his son over the career move.

[jordangreywolf.livejournal.com]

By the way, I just saw this on someone's Facebook update: Handy Flowchart: "Are You a Real Writer?"

[rowyn]

Heehee!