Censorship and 'Censorship': Who Gets to Speak?

Hello hello!

In the increasingly surreal absurdist comedy that is current international politics, the issue of free speech has been awfully prevalent. With the new development of sensitivity readers and an outsized backlash to their existence, as well as cries of outrage over the cancellation of Milo Yiannopoulos' book contract, a lot of people have taken these as 'attacks' on free speech. Meanwhile, Beauty and the Beast is being banned from certain theatres because the character Le Fou will be openly gay.

There will be people who say that these actions are on par. Neil Gaiman, who I love and respect, wrote an essay to that effect about nine years ago.

There was a time when I would have agreed with that essay, because after all, who does get to speak? Is there really a difference between public censorship and government censorship? Is refusal of a business to deal with an individual really censorship at all?

The thing is, all taboo or unpopular comments are not created equally. The people who would like to have the freedom, or 'freedom' to support violence and harassment against others are eager to make the claim that they're doing so for the sake of provocation, but it's funny how they never stand up for, say, the gay or 'ethnic' people who are also saying socially unacceptable things.

"Censorship" versus lack of support 

Censorship refers to the practice of an official, government-led organization removing or culling content for the sake of a moral agenda. Refusal to allow a speaker or publish a book due to protesting is not government censorship, it's a decision for the sake of consumers. That's well-trodden ground and I don't plan on tramping it into smoothness yet again. Rather, I'd like to focus on the real issue - that all 'unacceptable' speech, as I'm going to call it, is not created equally and does not come from equally supported, safely-positioned, societally enshrined sources.

Who's the target? 

For a long time, the broad left and the liberal segments of the right have grappled with the idea that people want to voice and discuss things that aren't socially rewarded. Sometimes these things are simple, like, 'black people are treated badly', and sometimes these things are basically underage teen girl porn by famous authors.

There's a certain idea that's been prevalent since the 90s; namely, that offending people is automatically good or moral in some way. In television, from my understanding, there's a weird attitude of equality in terms of who is allowed to be targeted for offensive jokes, which gives the inaccurate idea that all groups have equal weight in choosing targets. With this idea, offending everyone is fine, even moral, because it 'makes people think' or 'shakes them up'.

But pretending that all ugly speech is created equally is a fallacy that has allowed the proliferation of hate speech and violence of various kinds. It comes from the same idea that everyone is born with the same opportunities and advantages, when that simply isn't the case. Black people in the USA die four years earlier than white people, Trans people experience disproportionate rates of mental illness and violence, leading to a shockingly low life-expectancy - roughly age thirty. Simply being born or developing a particular set of circumstances has a drastic effect on people's lives.

It's an ugly but empirically proveable fact that being a woman subjects one to greater risks of sexual violence and limits career advancement, that being transgender has the same results but multiplied, that being disabled in any way  results in a lower lifespan, that being a sex worker carries both danger and stigma, and that being a person of colour, or fitting into intersections of any of these groups, has a magnified effect of inequality. I haven't cited every one of these ideas to avoid turning my post into link soup, but it's not hard to find support for them.

Who gets to say what?

The problem comes from the fact that some people are used to hearing certain things on a regular basis, and some experience disproportionate harm from these things. A black woman listening to a "n---" joke from a fellow black comedian may experience commiseration in the context of talking about a shared experience. The same joke from a white comedian plays into historic and present inequalities, and even if it's intended in a friendly way, can reinforce those inequalities.

With that in mind, considering the audience targeted by a certain piece of art is essential to deciding on whether or not to support that art's expression. The time has come for us to choose which 'free speech' we're going to support, and I personally plan to use the audience and targets to determine the people I'm going to stand behind. The idea of 'punching up' compared to 'punching down' is unquestionably vital here. Sometimes intersectional nuances can make it difficult to choose a side, and in those cases, a full-force attack is less necessary than a careful, mediated conversation. But in a lot of situations, the people experiencing blocks and resistance tend to be those disempowered by social circumstances.

"But everyone protests things!" comes the counter-argument. "We need to be able to say awful things just in case..." 

In Canada, as well as many other countries, hate speech is punishable by law and considered separately from other forms of free speech and self-expression. In the US, that is not the case, and it's because of a refusal to acknowledge that saying ugly things about people who can be harmed by them is different than annoying people.

It's really worth considering why it's so important to demonstrate one's freedoms by vocalizing aggression or violence towards others. Since white people and men in general tend to be protected by social structures and the way laws are enforced, it's vital to realise that things that hurt our feelings seldom hurt us in ways that leave a lasting impact. Feelings do matter, but in the context of violence and poverty, refusing to be criticized because it's annoying seems awfully greedy.

What does this mean for writers? 

Those of us who create content play a role in creating culture itself. Instead of being upset about sensitivity readers, it's better to embrace them and appreciate their role in helping us improve our fiction and ensure its fairness. Sure, there will be times when an issue is nuanced and sticky and effects a couple of groups of people on the sharp end of prejudice, or when people from the same group have multiple differing opinions on content. For example, Asian people are divided over Madame Butterfly and Miss Saigon, which provide casting opportunities but reinforce prejudiced ideas. While it's seldom possible to please everyone, doing the best to satisfy most people, or at least the important people, is generally advisable.

As for situations where portraying a troubled or troubling character is 'part of a story', it's important to think about one's own 'artistic integrity' in the context of the social world we live in. Where have your ideas about this character come from? Art can feel like magic sometimes, but treating it as an uncritiqueable sacred cow both cheapens its quality and lets creators get away with not challenging themselves or their beliefs. At the end of the day, it's not easy to strive for equality, but it's the right thing to do in so many ways - and that's why I support some forms of challenging media and art, and refuse to support others. Milo Yiannopoulos can get phuqued.

***

Thanks for returning to the nest. Leave a comment and say hi! I want to hear from you. Keep up with the new releases by getting on the mailing list. Buy my books on Amazon, and keep up with me on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and the original blog. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out!

Why I Hate Men

Hello hello!

Before I get down to brass tacks, two notes apply. First, I will be talking about harassment and violence in this post, as well as sexual assault. Second, when I talk about men, I am referring to cis and mostly heterosexual men. My experiences with trans men are more limited, and further, trans men do not have the systemic access to power that their cisgender counterparts do.

If you don't know what "cis" and "trans" mean, go here! Or even here. I will also be talking about patriarchy and male privilege, so before you tell me those things don't exist, please click on the links and do some research, so we can all save some time.

I hate men. 

First of all, #NotAllMen. For one thing, my romantic partner is a man, and some of my closest friends, the people I trust most in the world, are men. But still--in the space of a few years, I've gone from decrying criticisms of patriarchy and saying that patriarchy isn't a real thing, to actively participating in misandry and criticizing popular masculinity without remorse or apology--as much as possible, anyway.

How did that happen? How did a nice, egalitarian woman end up "hating men"? 

Well, feminism has definitely played a role in it, but there's more to it than that. It's given me a lens and a mirror, to reflect on and inspect my own feelings and thoughts. What I slowly discovered was that there were an endless number of habits I'd taken on that were solely for the sake of keeping men comfortable in conversations.

And more, I wasn't the only woman doing this--we were all doing it. From automatically defending men in conversations about rape and abuse, to citing "but I know so many decent guys", to folding into and agreeing with men's opinions whenever they piped up about a topic--even if those opinions disagreed with our own. If a man was upset, I, or someone else, would immediately try to comfort and console him. That doesn't sound like a big deal, but when you add all of that up, it results in a lot of emotional labour.

It goes deeper, too. Take those tendencies away from the allegedly banal setting of Facebook, and contextualize them within relationships. It's hard not to agree with one's father out of a sense of filial duty, even if one disagrees. Worrying about a partner's needs over one's own, even when they would willingly listen to your objections or requests.

As I started to notice those habits of my own, I noticed them in the women around me, too. People who don't fit in the rigid and limited gender binary, such as my trans friends and friends who don't like gender labels, STILL had many of the same habits of consoling men and being timid about expressing their own opinions.

This sounds like quibbling, says part of my brain. Isn't it making something out of nothing? But that part is still subject to all this socialization. How can we talk about any feminist issue when our complaints are downplayed? It's easier to say a woman is entitled and whiny than it is to admit that there are cultural links between, say, child marriage in the much-criticized Middle East and groupie sex culture from the 1970s.

It sounds minor, but these aren't the only habits I've developed. Every woman I know habitually treats walking alone as a small test of will. We carry our keys and memorize how to punch people and make sure we know where our Swiss Army knives are in our purses and pockets, "just in case". The chance of sexual assault is just treated as a fact of life, something to dread but accept as a risk. Women plan their routes around trying not to be alone, and go to bathrooms as a group, for just this reason. It becomes unconscious--until, at some point, one wonders why they always reach for a knife or a cell phone when walking alone, and considers that maybe, just maybe, that's messed up.

But what about men? 

Men themselves have reacted in a variety of ways to my changing perspective. A lot of my male friends have expressed discomfort or protested my opinions. More disconcertingly, the same friends will use pretty manipulative arguments to counter my own. Invoking the sacred bonds of friendship--all the more ironic when one has barely talked to a person in private, if ever--and using personal attacks were the most common "counter arguments" I saw. Fortunately, a surprising number have supported this misandry and verbal defiance of societal training, for which I am endlessly grateful. Every time a man does not attack me, verbally or physically, I am relieved.

When I was younger, women would bully me. I hated women, and trained myself to think that men were somehow better; more logical, more objective, and kinder. As I've grown up and started expressing uncomfortable opinions, I've found that male socialization is pretty much the same as female socialization, and that men gossip and express indirect aggression and use personal attacks, too. But where women eventually learn that these attacks do more harm than good, men don't--and I think a lot of women let men get away with them because we're trained to comfort them.

Now that I've actually been on the internet for a while, too, I've noticed that men or apparently male commentors tend to be more dogged and persistent in their attacks. After a while, I could tell the gender of "anonymous" commentors pretty easily just from the style of their comments.

But why kill all men? 

First of all, misandry is mostly a performative thing. At no point would I or any other feminist I know of pick up a gun and just start blasting men left and right, gunning them down. Nor would I suggest that feminists, including myself, go around dealing out rape to fix up gay men and make them like women. Nor would I say that women have the right to keep their male partners in line, as god intended, using force if necessary. Nor would I say that men are obligated to perform sexual services at our whim, and to keep the house clean. I wouldn't say that men need to look good at all times or they're slobs, and deserve harassment. I would not turn a blind eye to abuse of a man by his female partner because "that's just their relationship". I would not assume that his job is to be at home, raising the kids, or in the back of the church, remaining obedient and silent. I would not assume that a man is "asking for it" with the way he is dressed. I would not follow around and harass a man on the internet until he wrote many tearful blog posts about his harassment and stalking. I would not kill men because they had rejected me. I would not say men should not be believed when they say they have survived ugly incidents of sexual assault.  I would not say that men are complaining too much when they ask for more speaking parts in movies, or say that men's mere presence is ruining science fiction and video games. I would not support legislation against male reproductive rights, questioning whether men should be forced to care for accidentally sired children and deal with them from the first moment the cells start to divide--claiming, of course, that clusters of cells and children or babies are the same.

But apparently, men will do this to women, and when we complain about their treatment, continue to say that they're being unfairly maligned. And so that is why I "hate men": it is my way of whistling in the dark, of dealing with the statistical fact that about 1 in 4 North American women are sexual assault survivors--including too many of my friends to count. Being a woman means living under siege.

And you know what's worse? Change "men" to "white people" and "women" to "people of colour", or apply the pattern to disabled people, and the propositions still 'work'. Our world is messed up, and we need to change it.

And I do mean "we". For women, that means striking back against our training and tearing down our fears. For men, that means giving women room to speak, and a willingness to be uncomfortable, and even to give up some power. So, men: let women make jokes in which you are not shown in the best light. Strike back at your own sense of entitlement. Listen to black people, and First Nations people, and Asian people, and brown people (in no particular order) when they talk about their experiences. Listen to trans people and nonbinary people. Listen to disabled people.

Listen. Consider. Do not assume you are right.

Just listen.

***

\Thanks for returning to the nest. Leave a comment and say hi! I want to hear from you. Keep up with the new releases by getting on the mailing list. Buy my books on Amazon, and keep up with me on Twitter, Facebook,Tumblr, and the original blog. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out!