![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rowynIt is 1:20AM, and I have insomnia induced by a sore throat and exacerbated by all the tea I drank in an effort to soothe my sore throat. So I am going to write about something that's been on my mind.
This is inspired by the current kerfluffle over the Hugo award's current short-list nominees, described in this post by John Scalzi, and in particular by![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
haikujaguar 's commentary on the Hugos. But millions of more words have been written about this! Google will give you all of them if you like. And now I will add to the heap, because I have something to say that I haven't yet seen elsewhere.
Part of the stated reason why the slate nominations happened was that a significant number of conservatives and libertarians felt that a vocal segment of fandom was unfairly biased against their work because of their personal political ideology.
Some of the frequent responses to this contention have been "There is no liberal conspiracy in fandom" and "I don't see any discrimination against conservative writers in fandom". This is the part I want to talk about.
Political demographics are difficult to generalize; people often overlap in some areas but not others. I have friends who vote Democrat at the same time that they believe feminism is wrong because it represents reverse discrimination. Labels like "Democrat", "liberal", and "Social Justice Warrior[/Cleric/Wizard/Thief]"* have some overlap but they are by no means identical. For myself, I'm a libertarian who votes for Republicans more often than Democrats, and I believe strongly in social justice. Individuals defy easy categorization.
With this caveat in mind, my perception of SF&F fandom has always been that the majority of it -- say, 70-90% -- has a generally liberal bent. This was my perception when I was a proudly liberal teenager, it was my perception as a 30-something convicted libertarian, and it's my perception now as a muddled 40-something libertarianish whatever. My politics changed from ones which were mostly in line with the majority to ones which were frequently at odds with them.
By liberal, I mean things like the following:
I don't know if my assertion that fandom tends liberal is a controversial proposition. If your experience is otherwise, I'd love to hear it!
Also, I want to note that I am talking about the politics held by the people in fandom, which is not the same as the politics espoused by sf&f books. Most authors do not write books to push a particular ideological slate, and if they do, those books mostly flop. Because even members of the choir find preaching kinda dull. One might find hints of an author's politics in their fiction, but if they write about politics in their blog at all, it's much less subtle there.
Anyway, for the sake of demonstrating my point, I am going to grossly oversimplify politics and assume that fandom is 80% liberal and 20% conservative.
Let us further stipulate that liberals are exactly as likely to hold negative stereotypes of conservatives as conservatives are to do so of liberals. That's been my personal experience, as someone who has more-or-less been on both sides. Also, conservatives and liberals both perceive "the other side" as being more intolerant of political diversity than their side. We are all human, we all notice slights made against us more than those directed at others, and humans are all inclined by nature to think at least a little worse of people who disagree with us on important topics.
Furthermore: let's assume that most conservatives and most liberals are of good will, and only a minority of either group believes those in the opposite group are stupid/ignorant/evil. We'll say that just 10% of either group will badmouth the other.
Last, let us stipulate that people who are among those of like mind will speak more freely. That is, in a group of mostly conservatives, the 10% who will badmouth liberals are more likely to speak up than if they were in a group of mostly liberals, and vice versa. Let's say that 50% of the time they'll make a derogatory comment if they're in the majority, and only 20% of the time if they're not.
To sum up my assumptions:
I actually saw an analysis very similar to this one within the last month or so, but on women in tech rather than on politics in sf&f. I have been searching in vain for if for the last few days, so I am replicating it (badly) instead.
Now, let's take a population of 100 sf&f fans at a con, and break them out into, let's say, 16 different groups of random size, in 15 chunks. The 16 represents different panels/social events/mingling in dealer room/etc. that are all going on at the same time, and the 15 chunks are different blocks of time during which another set of events will happen.
We have 72 liberals, and 18 conservatives. These individuals never say anything bad about conservatives or liberals. Then there's the 10% who may badmouth the other side, designated with an x: 8 liberals and 2 conservatives.
Sample spreadsheet showing how many derogatory comments about their politics the conservatives hear, and how many the liberals hear, over the course of a given convention.
Don't like my numbers? This has all the formulas used to calculate them. I'm not using this one as my example because the random numbers regenerate every time anything's edited on it, and it's laggy because there're so many interdependent formulas. But if you want to check my work, or if you want to copy it and crunch numbers based on different assumptions, be my guest.**
In my sample: at the end of the con, the average conservative has heard his ideology disparaged almost 4 times. The average liberal: 1 time. The conservatives are hearing four times as much politically-related abuse as the liberals.
I want to reiterate a few of the assumptions behind this analysis:
THE CONSERVATIVES HEAR A LOT MORE BASHING ANYWAY.
When conservatives say "I feel like the sf&f fandom is hostile to me", you can believe them even though you do not think that liberals are bad people. You don't have to believe that there is a liberal conspiracy. You don't have to believe that conservatives are being singled out for abuse. You don't have to believe that you, personally, are the one doing the bashing.
All you have to accept is:
Human beings, by their nature, are inclined to bond with those perceived as similar, and to dislike those perceived as different. There's a study showing that babies will root against a puppet because the puppet doesn't like the baby's preferred food. Seriously. BABIES. Over FOOD preference. That's how deep this rabbit hole goes.
But that doesn't mean this struggle is hopeless and we'll always be victims of our human tendency to discriminate. After all, very few adults will wish someone ill because they like bacon better than chocolate, or vice versa. My country, America, has been on a long slow path towards eliminating prejudice based on a number of grounds. And it's slow, and painful, and some days it feels like we haven't gotten anywhere. But we have; however bad discrimination against people of color may be today, it's nothing like it was a century ago. In my lifetime I have seen "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" be incorporated because it was an improvement over the way homosexuals had been treated in the US military, and seen it overturned 17 years later because it was still discriminatory and we could do better.
So if you don't like the idea of people being made to feel unwelcome because of their ideology, then here's my advice:
Listen to what the people who share your ideology say. Imagine how you'd feel if someone described your positions the way you hear theirs described. If you hear someone mocking other points of view, or insulting them, or treating them as stupid/evil/ignorant: speak up. Say that you think it's unfair, or unkind, or whatever is appropriate to the situation. Maybe you won't be able to make the original speaker re-think their words, but you will let anyone listening who felt marginalized by the statement know that they aren't alone.
This is especially important when "your side" is the majority voice, but even if you're a minority within a given context, showing some empathy for the other side seldom go amiss.
For the curious: I mostly finished this at 5AM, and decided to try to sleeping before posting so I could proofread it. I managed to sleep for perhaps 40 minutes. Insomnia, I have SO MUCH BIAS against you right now. GRRRR.
Anyway, apologies for being long-winded and incoherent. I blame sleep dep, sore throat, fever, and nausea. Corporeal form, you are letting me down today.
* I know SJW started life as a slur, but as a Social Justice Cleric, I rather like the label. Plenty of self-identified liberals and Democrats are not deeply concerned with social justice, and it's handy to have a way to differentiate. Also, it sounds great. Adventuring Party on an epic quest for Social Justice! Anyway, I consider myself to be One of These, so if you are offended by it, please understand I do not mean it in a disrespectful way.
** Please bear in mind that I made this spreadsheet at 3:30 in the morning while sick and unable to sleep. If anyone does dig into it and discovers I munged some formulas, please let me know! I will be grateful. Any mistakes are due to sickness and/or sleep deprivation and not because I was intentionally fudging to make my point.
EDIT:ckd found the link to the Ian Gent's blog post about sexism in tech, which is what inspired my post, and which has the original model illustrating "the Petrie Multiplier". Thank you, CKD!
This is inspired by the current kerfluffle over the Hugo award's current short-list nominees, described in this post by John Scalzi, and in particular by
haikujaguar 's commentary on the Hugos. But millions of more words have been written about this! Google will give you all of them if you like. And now I will add to the heap, because I have something to say that I haven't yet seen elsewhere.Part of the stated reason why the slate nominations happened was that a significant number of conservatives and libertarians felt that a vocal segment of fandom was unfairly biased against their work because of their personal political ideology.
Some of the frequent responses to this contention have been "There is no liberal conspiracy in fandom" and "I don't see any discrimination against conservative writers in fandom". This is the part I want to talk about.
Political demographics are difficult to generalize; people often overlap in some areas but not others. I have friends who vote Democrat at the same time that they believe feminism is wrong because it represents reverse discrimination. Labels like "Democrat", "liberal", and "Social Justice Warrior[/Cleric/Wizard/Thief]"* have some overlap but they are by no means identical. For myself, I'm a libertarian who votes for Republicans more often than Democrats, and I believe strongly in social justice. Individuals defy easy categorization.
With this caveat in mind, my perception of SF&F fandom has always been that the majority of it -- say, 70-90% -- has a generally liberal bent. This was my perception when I was a proudly liberal teenager, it was my perception as a 30-something convicted libertarian, and it's my perception now as a muddled 40-something libertarianish whatever. My politics changed from ones which were mostly in line with the majority to ones which were frequently at odds with them.
By liberal, I mean things like the following:
- pro-gay marriage
- pro-choice
- favors universal health care
- tendency to dislike Republicans more the Democrats (many fen, like much of the US, are not enamored of either party)
- favors regulation of big business
- favors environmental protection
- favors government assistance programs for the disadvantaged
- opposes tax subsidies for big business
I don't know if my assertion that fandom tends liberal is a controversial proposition. If your experience is otherwise, I'd love to hear it!
Also, I want to note that I am talking about the politics held by the people in fandom, which is not the same as the politics espoused by sf&f books. Most authors do not write books to push a particular ideological slate, and if they do, those books mostly flop. Because even members of the choir find preaching kinda dull. One might find hints of an author's politics in their fiction, but if they write about politics in their blog at all, it's much less subtle there.
Anyway, for the sake of demonstrating my point, I am going to grossly oversimplify politics and assume that fandom is 80% liberal and 20% conservative.
Let us further stipulate that liberals are exactly as likely to hold negative stereotypes of conservatives as conservatives are to do so of liberals. That's been my personal experience, as someone who has more-or-less been on both sides. Also, conservatives and liberals both perceive "the other side" as being more intolerant of political diversity than their side. We are all human, we all notice slights made against us more than those directed at others, and humans are all inclined by nature to think at least a little worse of people who disagree with us on important topics.
Furthermore: let's assume that most conservatives and most liberals are of good will, and only a minority of either group believes those in the opposite group are stupid/ignorant/evil. We'll say that just 10% of either group will badmouth the other.
Last, let us stipulate that people who are among those of like mind will speak more freely. That is, in a group of mostly conservatives, the 10% who will badmouth liberals are more likely to speak up than if they were in a group of mostly liberals, and vice versa. Let's say that 50% of the time they'll make a derogatory comment if they're in the majority, and only 20% of the time if they're not.
To sum up my assumptions:
- SF&F fandom is split 80/20 liberal/conservative
- The typical liberal and the typical conservative are both tolerant of political differences
- But a small fraction -- 10% of liberals and conservatives -- will make derogatory remarks about the other side
- That 10% will make derogatory remarks 50% of the time when in a group of mostly their own side, and 20% of the time otherwise
I actually saw an analysis very similar to this one within the last month or so, but on women in tech rather than on politics in sf&f. I have been searching in vain for if for the last few days, so I am replicating it (badly) instead.
Now, let's take a population of 100 sf&f fans at a con, and break them out into, let's say, 16 different groups of random size, in 15 chunks. The 16 represents different panels/social events/mingling in dealer room/etc. that are all going on at the same time, and the 15 chunks are different blocks of time during which another set of events will happen.
We have 72 liberals, and 18 conservatives. These individuals never say anything bad about conservatives or liberals. Then there's the 10% who may badmouth the other side, designated with an x: 8 liberals and 2 conservatives.
Sample spreadsheet showing how many derogatory comments about their politics the conservatives hear, and how many the liberals hear, over the course of a given convention.
Don't like my numbers? This has all the formulas used to calculate them. I'm not using this one as my example because the random numbers regenerate every time anything's edited on it, and it's laggy because there're so many interdependent formulas. But if you want to check my work, or if you want to copy it and crunch numbers based on different assumptions, be my guest.**
In my sample: at the end of the con, the average conservative has heard his ideology disparaged almost 4 times. The average liberal: 1 time. The conservatives are hearing four times as much politically-related abuse as the liberals.
I want to reiterate a few of the assumptions behind this analysis:
- THERE IS NO LIBERAL CONSPIRACY.
- 90% OF LIBERALS NEVER BASH CONSERVATIVES.
- UNDER GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, LIBERALS ARE NO MORE LIKELY TO BASH THAN CONSERVATIVES.
THE CONSERVATIVES HEAR A LOT MORE BASHING ANYWAY.
When conservatives say "I feel like the sf&f fandom is hostile to me", you can believe them even though you do not think that liberals are bad people. You don't have to believe that there is a liberal conspiracy. You don't have to believe that conservatives are being singled out for abuse. You don't have to believe that you, personally, are the one doing the bashing.
All you have to accept is:
- Liberals are in the majority in fandom
- Liberals, like conservatives, are human beings and some of them -- a small FRACTION of them! -- will speak ill of their ideological opponents.
Human beings, by their nature, are inclined to bond with those perceived as similar, and to dislike those perceived as different. There's a study showing that babies will root against a puppet because the puppet doesn't like the baby's preferred food. Seriously. BABIES. Over FOOD preference. That's how deep this rabbit hole goes.
But that doesn't mean this struggle is hopeless and we'll always be victims of our human tendency to discriminate. After all, very few adults will wish someone ill because they like bacon better than chocolate, or vice versa. My country, America, has been on a long slow path towards eliminating prejudice based on a number of grounds. And it's slow, and painful, and some days it feels like we haven't gotten anywhere. But we have; however bad discrimination against people of color may be today, it's nothing like it was a century ago. In my lifetime I have seen "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" be incorporated because it was an improvement over the way homosexuals had been treated in the US military, and seen it overturned 17 years later because it was still discriminatory and we could do better.
So if you don't like the idea of people being made to feel unwelcome because of their ideology, then here's my advice:
Listen to what the people who share your ideology say. Imagine how you'd feel if someone described your positions the way you hear theirs described. If you hear someone mocking other points of view, or insulting them, or treating them as stupid/evil/ignorant: speak up. Say that you think it's unfair, or unkind, or whatever is appropriate to the situation. Maybe you won't be able to make the original speaker re-think their words, but you will let anyone listening who felt marginalized by the statement know that they aren't alone.
This is especially important when "your side" is the majority voice, but even if you're a minority within a given context, showing some empathy for the other side seldom go amiss.
For the curious: I mostly finished this at 5AM, and decided to try to sleeping before posting so I could proofread it. I managed to sleep for perhaps 40 minutes. Insomnia, I have SO MUCH BIAS against you right now. GRRRR.
Anyway, apologies for being long-winded and incoherent. I blame sleep dep, sore throat, fever, and nausea. Corporeal form, you are letting me down today.
* I know SJW started life as a slur, but as a Social Justice Cleric, I rather like the label. Plenty of self-identified liberals and Democrats are not deeply concerned with social justice, and it's handy to have a way to differentiate. Also, it sounds great. Adventuring Party on an epic quest for Social Justice! Anyway, I consider myself to be One of These, so if you are offended by it, please understand I do not mean it in a disrespectful way.
** Please bear in mind that I made this spreadsheet at 3:30 in the morning while sick and unable to sleep. If anyone does dig into it and discovers I munged some formulas, please let me know! I will be grateful. Any mistakes are due to sickness and/or sleep deprivation and not because I was intentionally fudging to make my point.
EDIT:
ckd found the link to the Ian Gent's blog post about sexism in tech, which is what inspired my post, and which has the original model illustrating "the Petrie Multiplier". Thank you, CKD!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 01:28 pm (UTC)very nice. I'm here via @mcahogarth's pointer, and have added you as a friend so I can see more of what you write.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 01:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 02:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 03:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 03:06 pm (UTC)And I'd like to stress that many of us who criticize SJWs are great admirers of social justice workers. In the broadest sense of the phrase, "social justice" is a goal for anyone who isn't completely self-obsessed. The important part of SJW is "warrior"—it's the belief that all's fair in war which make SJWs hated, feared, despised, and pitied by people on the left and right.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 04:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 04:48 pm (UTC)In other words: is it really about their politics, or is it about them being unsavory human beings who spew vitriol against women, people of color, LGBT, etc?
I don't have the answer to that. But I've seen some of the horrible stuff these authors have said, and I can safely say for my part that my dislike of them has nothing to do with their politics and everything to do with the hateful stuff that comes out of their mouths and from their keyboards. I see a very marked difference between MCA Hogarth (which is how I came to this post and whom I have nothing but respect and love for) and, for example, Vox Day, who called NK Jemison a "half-savage": http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/04/13/vox-day-says-his-totally-not-racist-comments-have-been-taken-out-of-context-in-context-theyre-even-worse/
no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 05:13 pm (UTC)One person I knew remarked in a blog post that Republicans who say "I have friends who are gay" must mean "they know gay people who are idiots." Well, I am pansexual and I am friends with Republicans, so this person was essentially telling me that I was an idiot. I doubt he saw it that way; I doubt the implications of his statement ever crossed his mind.
The trend I'm talking about in this post isn't about why a specific individual might attract negative attention. It's about how whenever you have two groups of unequal size that have a degree of animosity between them, the smaller group will inevitably suffer more from that animosity. It's not about whether the bigger group is meaner or the smaller group deserves it: it's just the way the math works.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 05:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 05:44 pm (UTC)Inevitably the people that are best examples of their ideology are the ones that remain silent because they don't want to be abused for their beliefs. I wish more of them would speak up. I want to hear about political ideas from people who aren't raving lunatics. From both sides. I lean left, but it's mostly for social reasons. I register no party, because both scare me.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 06:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 08:34 pm (UTC)So you go to a convention that 'everyone knows' is for liberals, and you think it's safe to speak your mind there, for the FIRST TIME EVER. This is why people go to conventions -- to meet up with like-minded people and speak without embarrassment.
But no! A few conservatives snuck in to be offended and now they're whining, and trying to steal *this* space as a place to pretend to be the victim too. And it's 'pretend' because their victimhood is 'I heard someone say something I don't like' as opposed to 'the law is against me and people are going to beat me up'.
It reminds me of one of Micah's victim posts where she talked about going into a game shop and described various awkward attempts to make her feel welcome as *attacks*. And then she was offended. And then everyone was uncomfortable with her because she was offended. She *completely ruined* the night for a dozen people, but she was the victim.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 10:46 pm (UTC)Thanks for a very thoughtful post (in both senses), and for confirming that fandom has a considerable majority of liberals; I thought maybe it was just my own Flist, since I'm not interested in MilSf.
As for "no liberal conspiracy" -- who said there was one? The attitude/s the Pups are complaining about don't need a conspiracy, they're very open.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 11:02 pm (UTC)-Liberals - 24%.
-Conservatives - 38%
-Moderates - 34%
I can't imagine that 80% of Sci-fi/Fantasy writers/readers identify as liberal, when it's so hugely skewed from the general population. Sure, perhaps higher than 24%. But 80%? I think the reason conservative Sci-fi/Fantasy authors sell so many books isn't because they exclude their values from their books, it's because they don't have to hide them.
I also think these are all mainstream American* beliefs:
-Women should have equal rights to men
-Racism (defined as personal hatred of others based on the race) is intolerable
-Homosexuals should be equal to Heterosexuals (10 years ago this was a fringe belief)
In mainstream America, people honestly believe that racism and sexism are mostly "over" and are a relic of the past. They judge racism and sexism as "motivation based". If someone says something that contributes to a system where certain races are valued less, it isn't seen as "racist" unless the person making the statement had hatred in their heart and did it on purpose to hurt someone. That's where the "but my friend is X!" argument comes in. "See, I am not motivated by hate!" But even if someone isn't motivated by hate, they can unknowingly perpetuate inequality simply by not being aware of it, because that is a part of the social system they were raised in.
Take the Lego Movie as an example. Endearing kids movie. Main male character meets main female character for the first time. She's tresspassing. He's going to call the authorities... but he's so struck at her beauty he doesn't do anything and she get's away with it. Later when he's talking to her, he is so struck by her beauty that he ignores her and starts fantasizing about her. Doesn't that convey a message about the value of women being in their beauty? I've talked about this with my friends and none of them really noticed it - because it's so ingrained in our culture that it's normal. And bringing it up is "just ruining the fun". I personally think you can like something while accepting it's flaws.
There is a very small vocal minority who don't agree with those three things. But the truth is they aren't representative of mainstream America.
Honestly - If I see someone in a comment on an article post "conservatives are...!" or "liberals are ...!" or "progressives are ...!" or "insert buzzword are ...!" I immediately discount anything they say, as it's a strong signal that the person is there to fling insults and isn't interested in hearing other viewpoints or having a discussion. They just want to vent. And that venting is usually full of vitriol.
*I know this is a US-centric term that doesn't make sense to the world because America is a continent, not a country. But that's how we self-identify.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-14 11:53 pm (UTC)But I'm glad you like the post. :)
no subject
Date: 2015-04-15 12:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-15 12:50 am (UTC)Now that I'm looking into - evidently, it's one of those on-and-off again things that have been debated for over 100 years, and never taken hold:
"We of the United States, in justice to Canadians and Mexicans, have no right to use the title 'Americans' when referring to matters pertaining exclusively to ourselves." - James Duff Law, Here and There in Two Hemispheres, 1903
no subject
Date: 2015-04-15 12:54 am (UTC)In the broadest sense of the phrase, "social justice" is a goal for anyone who isn't completely self-obsessed.
It's good to hear this. I agree that 'war' is a bad metaphor for striving for an equal and just world, even if I don't feel that SJWs deserve the venom directed at them from some quarters. But yeah, declaring "war" on concepts (like the "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs") has a pretty terrible track record. :/
Also, off-topic:
*fangirlish squee of delight* (eeee Will Shetterly liked my post!) Hiiiii I love your books! *^_^*
no subject
Date: 2015-04-15 12:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-15 12:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-15 01:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2015-04-15 01:05 am (UTC)I don't know. I try not to flinch at the labels; I know plenty of great people who vote Republican and equally great people who vote Democrat. And people on both sides who act like total jerks when it comes to politics. Debate doesn't bring out the best in most humans. :/
I'm sorry to hear about your family being so awful on Facebook. I can't imagine what that's like. My family is far more liberal than I am (mostly in the sense of "they believe that government is a good way to solve a lot more problems than I do"), but we manage to be civil to each other.
no subject
Date: 2015-04-15 01:15 am (UTC)Same here. So much same here. (Or, sometimes, "Well, Congress is X, so we need the President to be Y so they'll deadlock." Except where apparently it used to be that this meant compromise, now it tends to mean even more deadlock and nothing getting done. O:p )
It's one reason I stay registered with the party I no longer feel much kinship for -- so in primaries, I have a chance to vote for someone who won't terrify me too much if they win.
O:(
no subject
Date: 2015-04-15 01:18 am (UTC)Anyway, it sounds like you're happy that conservatives feel unwelcome in fandom and want it that way so they'll stop invading your space, so I guess the status quo is working out for you. I mean, except for the part where they don't always accept that they're not wanted and stay away, and instead complain about it.