![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
safety is an illusion
There's been a lot of chaos in the SFF literary crowd this week - in a lot of geek-adjacent spaces, quite frankly, but the SFF circle is the one that's closest to me. Sexual harassment, men being creeps, none of it is very new, but the most recent situation has bothered me personally in ways I've been struggling to put into words.
The thing is, when I'm in convention space, I worry constantly about being seen as weird, as creepy, as someone who doesn't belong. All the talk of Barcon and networking and all that makes me freeze. If I approach an author or agent or other professional whose work I enjoy, will they be annoyed? What do I have to say that's worth their time? Will I come off as too eager, too loud, too rambly, too something to be taken seriously? Will my anxiety get the better of me? Will my ADHD make me look like a flake? Will my brain freeze and make me forget anything remotely intelligent I might have to say?
The advice I get, over and over again, is just to give it a shot, to have confidence - that we're all anxious, we're all nerdy, we're all afraid we're doing something wrong. That nobody is judging the way I'm afraid they are; that if they are judging, they're not worth my time anyway. I'm not unique - a lot of people struggle as I do. Ultimately, I usually chicken out; it's easier for me to go to panels and listen to what people have to say there, and to keep to myself otherwise. But if I do ever get my writing to a place where professional networking is a good idea, I worry about my ability to do so without giving myself an anxiety attack.
I watched on Twitter this week as, up until Friday, the SFF pros I follow decried a group of men who used their positions as published authors to make people feel unsafe, to talk about how power dynamics work, how people - often men - can use their position in the industry, and/or their relationships with other pros to get away with things they shouldn't, how everyone should be made to feel safe enough to interact in these networking spaces. And then, I watched as a situation unfolded that was obviously messier than the last ones, but ultimately involved the same pros who had talked about safety and inclusivity up until now circle the wagons around friends, turn the whole thing into something that felt to me, as an outsider, like a slightly misogynistic, sometimes ableist attack on someone who threatened one of their own. "Believe accusers" was appended with "... unless that accuser is someone we think is creepy." Suddenly power dynamics didn't matter, all because ... they like the dude in question? To someone like me, looking in, it looks like we've found the line at which "believe accusers" and "respect power dynamics" cease to matter, and it's disturbing.
I don't know the actual details of the situation, and quite frankly, they don't ultimately matter. This is not about someone's messy relationship, it's about how it looks for this group of industry professionals immediately circling the wagons and deciding that this person who very clearly has far less power than they do is "creepy" or "mentally ill" or "power hungry" or whatever else without even considering whether their friends might have also been in the wrong. What it tells me, here on the fringes, is that this community is not safe for me, even those who have said all the right things up until now. It says the benefit of the doubt only extends as far as your friend circle begins.
This is not about the specifics of this situation, which side is right or wrong. It's about the way the reaction played out on social media, the way it looks to those who haven't been directly involved. It's about a powerful, respected author gathering testimonials to rip the accuser to shreds within hours of the accusation being made public, and possibly before it was even posted. It's about a community that spent a day making the bulk of the question about the conflict between two AFAB individuals while letting the man in question just ... disappear from the conversation. It's about a community that just reacted, that didn't think before they spoke, who could not bring themselves to sit and think about their own biases and how their platforms would boost a narrative that may not look to outsiders like the righteous justice they think it is.
"Believe accusers, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt ... unless we already don't like that person." Duly noted, SFF folks. You've carried a message that more than a few people who aren't already part of your insular community will take with them.
(Note: edited later to reflect the fact that the accuser in question is NB, sorry for not realizing that sooner!)
The thing is, when I'm in convention space, I worry constantly about being seen as weird, as creepy, as someone who doesn't belong. All the talk of Barcon and networking and all that makes me freeze. If I approach an author or agent or other professional whose work I enjoy, will they be annoyed? What do I have to say that's worth their time? Will I come off as too eager, too loud, too rambly, too something to be taken seriously? Will my anxiety get the better of me? Will my ADHD make me look like a flake? Will my brain freeze and make me forget anything remotely intelligent I might have to say?
The advice I get, over and over again, is just to give it a shot, to have confidence - that we're all anxious, we're all nerdy, we're all afraid we're doing something wrong. That nobody is judging the way I'm afraid they are; that if they are judging, they're not worth my time anyway. I'm not unique - a lot of people struggle as I do. Ultimately, I usually chicken out; it's easier for me to go to panels and listen to what people have to say there, and to keep to myself otherwise. But if I do ever get my writing to a place where professional networking is a good idea, I worry about my ability to do so without giving myself an anxiety attack.
I watched on Twitter this week as, up until Friday, the SFF pros I follow decried a group of men who used their positions as published authors to make people feel unsafe, to talk about how power dynamics work, how people - often men - can use their position in the industry, and/or their relationships with other pros to get away with things they shouldn't, how everyone should be made to feel safe enough to interact in these networking spaces. And then, I watched as a situation unfolded that was obviously messier than the last ones, but ultimately involved the same pros who had talked about safety and inclusivity up until now circle the wagons around friends, turn the whole thing into something that felt to me, as an outsider, like a slightly misogynistic, sometimes ableist attack on someone who threatened one of their own. "Believe accusers" was appended with "... unless that accuser is someone we think is creepy." Suddenly power dynamics didn't matter, all because ... they like the dude in question? To someone like me, looking in, it looks like we've found the line at which "believe accusers" and "respect power dynamics" cease to matter, and it's disturbing.
I don't know the actual details of the situation, and quite frankly, they don't ultimately matter. This is not about someone's messy relationship, it's about how it looks for this group of industry professionals immediately circling the wagons and deciding that this person who very clearly has far less power than they do is "creepy" or "mentally ill" or "power hungry" or whatever else without even considering whether their friends might have also been in the wrong. What it tells me, here on the fringes, is that this community is not safe for me, even those who have said all the right things up until now. It says the benefit of the doubt only extends as far as your friend circle begins.
This is not about the specifics of this situation, which side is right or wrong. It's about the way the reaction played out on social media, the way it looks to those who haven't been directly involved. It's about a powerful, respected author gathering testimonials to rip the accuser to shreds within hours of the accusation being made public, and possibly before it was even posted. It's about a community that spent a day making the bulk of the question about the conflict between two AFAB individuals while letting the man in question just ... disappear from the conversation. It's about a community that just reacted, that didn't think before they spoke, who could not bring themselves to sit and think about their own biases and how their platforms would boost a narrative that may not look to outsiders like the righteous justice they think it is.
"Believe accusers, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt ... unless we already don't like that person." Duly noted, SFF folks. You've carried a message that more than a few people who aren't already part of your insular community will take with them.
(Note: edited later to reflect the fact that the accuser in question is NB, sorry for not realizing that sooner!)