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

[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.