Requires only that you continue to read this thread: Benjanungate II

[Rorshach]

1) I don't think the post was meant to excuse RH's behavior; it was more to vent about the difference in treatment when someone who does something bad is a woman of color.

I read it, twice, and when I get to wording like this

To make this fury and fight one that is a stand against bullies, instead of a demonstration of racism.

I'm uncertain as to whether you're right. Because the bullies here do not include RH, who is, by all accounts I've read, a textbook case of a bully. Whether she (?) belongs to one, two, three or Idontknowhowmany minority positions, her bullying is ... bullying. And her (? ) apoligies look, to me at least, like what a bully presents when caught. This goes no matter what group you belong to.

It also includes stuff like

I’ve let this post sit since first bashing it out. Since then, Laura J Mixon has taken it upon herself to write a bloody brief of evidence on all that the victim has ever done wrong. It has two (2) appendices, and I have no intention of reading it.

which seems to say that RH's bullying is uninteresting. How can it be? Is it excusable because she belongs to a minority? Is it not interesting because it would remove the premise for the post? I don't know, but it ... sort of makes the writings irrelevant. The points might be good, but the examples used are, to me at least, invalid.

[SpaceChampion]

I think where social justice movements fail currently is its entanglement with identity politics.

Social justice should focus on actions, reactions, behaviour, events, processes, negotiations, deliberation, fairness. Identity politics focuses on power, agency, respect, representation, voice, relationships, control, and of course identity. But when the twain get entangled, all we get is a shitstorm of identity politics talking about tone and definitions, and two sides trying to define each other in binary, black and white terms -- which is thing that their opponents do.

"I'm not a feminist but...." is heard from everyone who believes is gender social justice but does not want to dip their toe into the identity politics of it. That use to bewilder me, how do you be for social justice but not identify with it? I think people intuitive know it only leads to the shitstorm.

Philosophically and psychologically speaking, those who believe in social justice are constructivists, treating civilization as something to be negotiated and constructed. Essentialists, their opposites, believe philosophically and psychologically speaking, that roles and worth and identity are absolutes. If you're poor, you must be lazy. If you're gay, you must be sinful and too weak to resist your base instincts, thinks the essentialist. If you say something racist, you are a racist. Is that the constructivist who believes in social justice saying that last one, or is it the essentialist? It is the constructivist, ceding the field to the essentialists, by ascribing identity to their opponents instead of focusing on the acts that they want to correct. In my opinion, constructivists who believe in social justice who engage in identity politics have lost the battle. Essentialists want to change the way that constructivists think, to think in black and white terms, and identities. They're winning.

[Zorral]

Naipaul links to Dalrymple. No big deal, just thought I'd mention.

Fixed that! :)

Thank you! :cheers: (It's almost that time of day, isn't it? to hoist a couple?)

[Darth Richard II]

Larry,

Reapectfully, her post clearly refers to RH/BS's behavior and while she says, over and over, that "the victim" did bad things she then goes on to say, repeatedly, "being a bully doesn't mean you aren't a 'victim'". I'm sorry that implies that those currently sharing their stories of RH/BS's antics are somehow victimizing RH/BS. That is too far.

Ok, my internet is shitting it self at the moment, so I'll be brief because I don't want to rewrite all this.

I agree with ser scott. This is victim blaming 101. THe post also starts off with false accusations against Sullivan/Williams that have been denied and disproven 100 times over. RH has never been doxed. Connecting to pseudonyms is not doxing. People need to look up what that is before they start throwing that term around.

[Shryke]

I think where social justice movements fail currently is its entanglement with identity politics.

Social justice should focus on actions, reactions, behaviour, events, processes, negotiations, deliberation, fairness. Identity politics focuses on power, agency, respect, representation, voice, relationships, control, and of course identity. But when the twain get entangled, all we get is a shitstorm of identity politics talking about tone and definitions, and two sides trying to define each other in binary, black and white terms -- which is thing that their opponents do.

"I'm not a feminist but...." is heard from everyone who believes is gender social justice but does not want to dip their toe into the identity politics of it. That use to bewilder me, how do you be for social justice but not identify with it? I think people intuitive know it only leads to the shitstorm.

Philosophically and psychologically speaking, those who believe in social justice are constructivists, treating civilization as something to be negotiated and constructed. Essentialists, their opposites, believe philosophically and psychologically speaking, that roles and worth and identity are absolutes. If you're poor, you must be lazy. If you're gay, you must be sinful and too weak to resist your base instincts, thinks the essentialist. If you say something racist, you are a racist. Is that the constructivist who believes in social justice saying that last one, or is it the essentialist? It is the constructivist, ceding the field to the essentialists, by ascribing identity to their opponents instead of focusing on the acts that they want to correct. In my opinion, constructivists who believe in social justice who engage in identity politics have lost the battle. Essentialists want to change the way that constructivists think, to think in black and white terms, and identities. They're winning.

No, it's more that people opposed to things like feminism have spent decades and decades badmouthing the idea and associating it with strawmen and such to discredit it. To the point where it's worked in many cases.

[Zorral]

I dunno. It does seem to me that in the typical USian manner, this blow up has quickly turned into the typical USian binary, Me/We = Right Her/You Others = Wrong. Team this, team that. One or the other and nothing in between or even something else. It seems to me, at least, there is a lot of unreliability in both sections of the binary as it has developed, and the wider the blow up spreads, the actual facts of what was done -- or not done, and by whom, to whom -- are getting drowned by what is a rapidly rolling tsunamim of misinformation, misunderstanding of what facts there are, and by now even outright lies and falsehoods.

What’s weird about so much of this, including the latest tracking of the growing dimensions of the controversy, is that mostly, for those who aren't participants in those Other Communities, which would be, it seems, most of us, or at least, say, me, is how most of us, or at least, say me, first made the acquaintance, so to speak of RH, which is the RH blog.

That people began following that blog is because the blogger usied the same language to excoriate the grimdark male authors use in their fascinated, detailed descriptions of relentless abuse, humiliation, torture, etc. of female victims, for no reason at all except to establish “we’re not Tolkien!” These authors are everybody’s faves, starting with You Know Who, going on to That Guy You Know and That One, and That One — and those are valid points, as is the criticism.

This is not in anyway to condone the abuse and so on performed by those other personas with which I, at least, had no knowledge in communities that not only I didn't participate in but didn't know existed. About the point the RH blog moved upon attacking other kinds of writers, I stopped following the blog, because instead of making real points that had the right to be made -- and in a way that was darkly funny in the same way that grimdark claims -- it was no longer interesting either.

However -- it’s interesting, from a sociologist pov of course, that a woman is receiving far more abuse for abusing male authors than the male authors and Reddit, Gamers, MRighters etc. get for actual abuse of women of any sort who are nails who catch their attention — who have been doing it longer and with larger scope -- and, in fact, do actual damage to very many human beings who happen to be women, right down to, you know, actually killing women.

As observed at the top, I'm not defending the other personas that weren’t RH, or even RH's later incarnation, who in those personas evidently harassed and threatened.

But the performative critical stuff on the earlier RH made points that others, no matter what they might say in private, wouldn’t say in public.

I dunno. This is another of an endless series of blow ups in the field, that began long before the internets, but this seems to have a particular internet flavor, and thus the scope of this blow up is blowing into entire communities who would never have heard of it, and in ignorance and in less often full information,it is being discussed and judgments are being made. It’s just one after another of these things, which then leads one to wonder WHY this particular field, its communities and the associated fields such as comix, gaming, etc. provoke these kinds of blow ups so often?

It does lead to speculation that might be because they are at core popular culture entertainments, and popular culture reflects the entire milieu out of which popular culture emerges? And good grief, with decades of Limbaugh (whose hate is often dismissed with, "he's not a news person, he's an entertainer! he being a comic!), Fox, and all those many other ilks spewing hate speech of every kind against everyone and anyone they feel like -- that this is the milieu. It shouldn't be surprising then, that it has spawned many other hate speech sorts in many other communities and venues.

If this is so, how does one go about changing the milieu that creates these entertainments? Can it be done at all?

[Arthmail]

I can never seem to quote properly on this board. It always messes up.

Anyways, some interesting articles.

Elizabeth Bear had a great post. Also, drama farmer is now a term I am going to use whenever I can.

[Arthmail]

Zorral: I'm sorry, I might have misread, but you are interested that there is more blow back against a female abusing male writers than males for Reddit and Gamers? Because she actually went after women of colour more than anyone else. It has nothing to do with the endless other problems that abound, and this, if it is how I read it, is a blatant deflection.

She was the most horrible to the people she should have been aligned with, and she went after easy targets.

Ultimately I have no problem, and never will have a problem, with doxxing people that are internet assholes of the highest order. Anonymity only goes so far in my book, and serial abuse and predatory practices are not grounds for protection on any level.

[Sci-2]

Is this really a blow up? Or just a bunch of blogging authors?

Outside of this board I don't see anything about this on varied Geek sites. Gamergate seems to be the only thing main stream media is tracking that is related to the SFF community.

[Darth Richard II]

She wasn't just abusing male authors though. The mixon article has tons of stats on that.

[Darth Richard II]

Is this really a blow up? Or just a bunch of blogging authors?

Outside of this board I don't see anything about this on varied Geek sites. Gamergate seems to be the only thing main stream media is tracking that is related to the SFF community.

Uh, yes. I can't think of a SFF site were it is not being talked about.

[Darth Richard II]

Zorral: I'm sorry, I might have misread, but you are interested that there is more blow back against a female abusing male writers than males for Reddit and Gamers? Because she actually went after women of colour more than anyone else. It has nothing to do with the endless other problems that abound, and this, if it is how I read it, is a blatant deflection.

She was the most horrible to the people she should have been aligned with, and she went after easy targets.

Ultimately I have no problem, and never will have a problem, with doxxing people that are internet assholes of the highest order. Anonymity only goes so far in my book, and serial abuse and predatory practices are not grounds for protection on any level.

Doxing refers to posting someone's real life address and SSN and such, not what has been done here.

[Sci-2]

Uh, yes. I can't think of a SFF site were it is not being talked about.

I recently went to i09, Tor, and SFF World over the last few days. Didn't see anything about this, but I may have just missed it.

[Darth Richard II]

Well Tor isn't going to talk about it for obvious reasons, not sure about SFF world but I could have swore I saw it mentioned on io9. Some more profession sites may be keeping quiet because from what I understand the uk police are involved, so it may be a legal matter.

[Zorral]

I think where social justice movements fail currently is its entanglement with identity politics.

That's a provocatively interesting observation, much worth pondering, before I shoot off at the keyboard to agree, disagree or something else. :)

Uh, yes. I can't think of a SFF site were it is not being talked about.

Yah, there's many places where this is discussed, not to mention sf/f writers weighing in on their own blogs -- some of which have been linked to in this discussion, including Laura Mixon's, whose husband is Steve Gould, who is the president of SFWA.

It was being discussed in those places long before it showed up here, which is how I learned of the blow up in the first place. As well as from some friends, including one who was a victim. That was last spring and summer already.

The discussion is seemingly to grow incrementally, like the populations infected with ebola this summer and fall. One of the ways to judge this is that commentator above who said the police were involved. Exaggeration ripples outwards, disinformation proliferates.

[polishgenius]

It hasn't got the media attention that gamergate has, but that's partly because, however pertinent the criticisms of all kinds being highlighted by this in the SFF community, in terms of readers, writers and reviewers, the level of discourse within it is, on average, considerably more mature than that within the gaming community. And thus the blow-out has stayed relatively low-key and not attracted the attention of more mainstream writers.

I'm pretty sure this was said earlier in the discussion when the two were compared, but basically the entirety of gamergate is a disgrace.

[Zorral]

Often the first mainstream media that writes of these sf/f blow ups is the UK Guardian.

I am rather expecting to see it there any day now. I could be wrong! :)

Editing for UPDATE on this: Go here.

When RH's blog first went up, most people had no idea about the previous history of this / these persona(s), and how they abused some writing women and women of color. However, there was a huge reaction on the blogs, etc. to it, mostly infuriated that SHE would dare write about OUR FAVORITE MANLY MALE MALENESS WRITERS like that! How could she be allowed to get away with that? RH was terribly excoriated at that time in a lot of venues.

One of them, however, did take some points about what she said, thought about them, and came to the conclusion that she was right in some ways. If I am remembering that correctly. This came along about the time a lot of women just couldn't stand reading about women being raped to death one gd more time, ya know?

RH blog was talked about a lot just about everywhere sf/f writers socialized and / or were gathered professional ly. I hadn't been attending these things much or at all due to my own deadlines etc., so I never learned about Winterfox, etc. at that time.

[Little Valkyrie]

However -- it’s interesting, from a sociologist pov of course, that a woman is receiving far more abuse for abusing male authors than the male authors and Reddit, Gamers, MRighters etc. get for actual abuse of women of any sort who are nails who catch their attention — who have been doing it longer and with larger scope -- and, in fact, do actual damage to very many human beings who happen to be women, right down to, you know, actually killing women.

Well, she's One of Us in online fandom. I saw her in action on LJ as an obnoxious troll, and then later on as well, and so she's been a plague on communities I take part in. I avoid lots of heavily sexist dudebro places because I don't want to deal with them. So for me it's a case of self-interest in the spaces I enjoy, rather than trying to do something absurd like change the minds of /b/ or argue with John C. Wright. (Conservative fandom is having some Schadenfreude about this whole thing, sigh.)

Also it's funny to read that post from Nick Mamatas now, because he wasn't exactly covering himself in glory in the first phase of the whole affair.

[SkynJay]

Zorral thank you for saying it so much better than I have tried to.

In so many ways this should not be a fight. I have seen not one person condone RH's actions outside of her blog. Certainly not around here as it has been condemnations all around. And as Darth has pointed out several times that is what this is actually about. Years of harassment through various forums and social media.

Yet the discussion keeps coming back to the blog. Over and over. And because of what we know now we are tying people to her in any way possible (honestly people, Cat Valente's article from two years ago?) Her persona fooled so many but it is required now that everyone completely condemn her most public one- admit that absolutely no value can be found in her blog what so ever, that her vitriol couldn't possible ever lead to a discussion despite it sparking three threads on this very forum.

It has long ago left any kind of outrage for the victims of her harassment (and I can't be a hypocrite as that is almost always the case when it comes to social outrage). It is now about righting past wrongs, even those that were tucked safely into her blog. Look only at Mr Lawrence who re tweets link after link about her, insinuates one of our posters was a little too 'chummy' for his liking, and responds to a reddit discussion about her harassment history with review quotes that never left her blog.

RH/Winterfox is most probably a horrible person and is certainly a horrible public persona. But had she been an up and coming author who did all these horrible things without having the public blog component this would already be over. I still maintain a huge amount of the outrage is coming form those who hated her blog, hated that she got away with being outrageous, and are absolutely thrilled she is getting her comeuppance. And she should, and if cyber bullying laws were a bit stronger she should most likely have even stronger punishments coming her way.

But for a great many people the greater crime seems to be her writings, not her actions. Because that is what is being routinely condemned.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Skynjay,

My problem are attempts, like Tessa's, to attempt to draw an equvilence between RH/BS's actions and those of people now talking about RH/BS's actions. That's a false equivience if ever there was one.