Sunday, April 8, 2012

Pedestal-ation by Absence?

Looking at an article here - I'll preface (and prime, a lil') by saying when one party acts childish, that isn't some sort of excuse for another party to give violent threats.

Plus I'm just focusing on the bit about the author Watts.
Requires Only That You Hate is regularly showered with hatred for her thoughts on science fiction and fantasy–she was called a rabid animal by Peter Watts, a luminary in our field, who received very little public condemnation for his statements. (A rabid animal! Because she thought a book was sexist! I thought humorless feminists were the ones who took things too seriously!)
Now I'm just focusing on this point. Even if I proved something wrong with it, that does NOT prove the other points to be wrong.

I 'spose what gets me when I start adding to the heap, is the absence of permission.

Lets take it for a moment that 'rabid animal' isn't a childish slur but actually worse. Okay, so he can't say that...what can he say, in childish response?

It's the absence of permission for any sort of response that makes me suspect a 'on a pedistal' type of sexism. That if a woman, pushes a cream pie into someones face, she is above having a cream pie then pushed into her own face as well? Even if 'rabid animal' is just too much, what is an okay cream pie to use? On that, nothing is said and...that leads to a pedestal.

Yes, this is all amongst abhorrent death threats and rape threats. But it's exactly in threatening situations where were reflexive responce is to start to give up/take away liberties in the name of security - ie, start putting certain peoples on pedistals. We really have to watch out for that.

Plus the "doesn't mean male authors get to unload loaded slurs at them" bothers me, in that why is the sentence only aimed at what men don't get to do?

Ultimately what strikes me is in the power of what is un-said.

No comments:

Post a Comment