Teleen's Journal

I was going to cut this, but couldn't decide where, so scroll if you don't want a rant with mentions of misogyny, homophobia, and racism.

You'll notice that I used AND instead of VERSUS in my subject line because unlike what seems like most of the rest of the Sherlock Holmes-loving world, I like them both.

Shocking, I know.  Blasphemy!  I, a woman of thirty-six years and reasonable intelligence, can actually like two shows about the same character who have completely different approaches AT THE SAME TIME!

My sarcasm, it is showing.  Mostly because I'm more than a little irritated that someone actually blocked me on Facebook over this shit (a while ago, actually, this rant has been building for that time - I figured I should get it out before it boiled over).  For that, I think they are an asshat.  They were also an LJ friend and guess what?  I blocked them from this journal.  Because I can be online petty too.

For the record, it took me a few episodes to get into the groove of "Elementary."  I wasn't sure about having Joan instead of John (for probably a lot of the same misogynistic reasons as those who absolutely refuse to watch it, even if I didn't want to admit it) and was even less sure about Jonny Lee Miller's ability to play Sherlock.  Guess what?  He pulls it off.  He is not Benedict Cumberbatch, but he's not TRYING to be.  Miller is is own version of the character.

I started to compare them, but there is no comparison - they might as well be playing completely different roles.  Well, what do you know?  They ARE playing two different roles, neither one doing a "better" job at it than the other.  They each capture Sherlock Holmes in the modern world, they simply approach it very differently.  And I like them both.

Did you hear that?  I.  Like.  Them.  BOTH!

It bears repeating, because I don't feel like I should be forced to choose here.  There is no "side," no "right" or "wrong."  They're both good in their own way.  They each have strengths and weaknesses, neither of which do I wish to discuss at length, mostly because I've seen "Elementary" more recently and so right now I like it more.  When "Sherlock" comes back, I'll probably like it more for while I have it.  It's a matter of changing gears, not fucking RELIGIONS.

Also for the record, I don't give a flying fuck about CBS "not being true to the character" by moving him to New York and giving him an amazing woman partner.  Nor do I give a flying fuck about those who say that CBS "just wanted to cash in on the popularity of BBC's "Sherlock."  Um, yeah - that's what TV networks do.  And sorry boys and girls (I would say men and woman, but the people in this "debate" have shown themselves to be little more than silly children), but neither concept is anymore "true" to Conan Doyle's work than Robert Downey Jr.'s version is.

Fact: John and Sherlock may be your slash OTP, but in the original, Victorian-era canon, they were friends and Watson was married.  To a woman. 

Fact: in the BBC's "Sherlock," both John AND Sherlock have shown attraction to women.  That's not to say that they can't also love each other romantically (hello, bisexual poly woman here), but they are not shown as sexual towards each other.  If anything, Sherlock is shown as being more asexual, with the exception of Irene Adler.  There have been a lot of jokes about John and Watson getting or being together in "Sherlock" canon, but as others have pointed out far more eloquently than I, "bromances" and "winks to the camera" do not equal gay inclusion. 

So sorry slashers, it's not homophobia to turn Watson into a woman for a new TV show.  For "Sherlock" fan fiction, I can see the argument because writers are changing the canon gender of a character because they don't like the idea of two cis-men together. 

For an entirely new show, no, though I do see where you're arguing from.  Your argument is flawed, but I see it.

Fact: the backlash of misogyny and racism against Lucy Liu since "Elementary" came out has been disgusting in the extreme, especially since she is made of total awesome in the role.  Martin Freeman can kiss her beautiful ass, as well.  Don't fucking tell me he was joking.  It was unfunny, m'kay?

To be honest, all of this bullshit (along with the mods of horror at the most popular "Sherlock" LJ site) have kind of turned me off "Sherlock."  I'm not saying I won't watch it (though it's now rather in the category of "liking a problematic thing"), but I'm avoiding the fandom even more ardently since I got blocked on Facebook for telling someone I felt they were missing out* to summarily dismiss "Elementary," because they were "completely opposed to Watson being a woman."

Why?  There is no answer to that question that I've seen so far that isn't rooted in misogyny.  Somewhere.  Yes, Watson was canonically male.  But canonically, both Holmes and Watson lived over 100 years ago, so canon is pretty much out the window the moment writers take a modern take on it.

Vaginas are icky, I guess.  And heaven forbid a vagina come anywhere near beloved characters that have been redone and remade so many times I think that only "The Three Musketeers" have them beat for variety of productions.

Finally, to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying that anyone has to watch or like either show.  However, I am saying that it's possible to enjoy both without it being some epic battle over who is more awesome.  And I also think it's wrong to judge something without having watched a single fucking episode.  Now, there are those who say that one can judge something by its previews ("Battleship," anyone?), but when most of the negative press has more to do with casting decisions than actual acting critiques, I start to smell a misogynistic, racist rat.

*The person argued that I wasn't respecting their judgment by saying they were missing out.  They're right.  I wasn't.  And I'm not apologizing for it, especially since they blocked me on Facebook over it because they didn't like my telling them (fairly nicely, I thought) that they were full of shit. 

1) The author who originally warned for "boy kissing boy" wrote back to me and thanked me for letting them know about how offensive people were finding it.  He or she is a class act, :).  I'm thinking about going through and PMing the authors over there who are the worst offenders and trying to change this on a grassroots level - thoughts?

2) On my post at fanficrants, someone commented to let me know that warning for slash is banned at the sherlockmas community, so it's not the entire fandom that's made of fail, just the largest community, but even so - not everyone, :).

3) My (so far unofficial) boycott has gotten a few people to bow out of joining fail!community or to not join at all, so I'm pretty pleased about that too, :). 

Thanks everyone, for your support.  The correspondence with those maintainers was really making me feel like I was somehow in the wrong (even though I knew I wasn't, if that makes sense?) and so I really appreciate all of you helping me get grounded back in reality again, :).

 This contains a discussion that may trigger those who have an identity that is other than heteronormative.

My First Message

In perusing your community, I've see a number of stories that are warning for slash, boy kissing and other generally offensive things.

I'd like to know the mod position on making someone's identity a warning in your community. I think that at the very least, it should be frowned upon.

For those who don't want to read slash, fine, but the 'slash' part is covered in the pairings. Either that, or you could add a line with 'contains' for identity-centric items like slash, BOY KISSING, or BDSM.

The only things that should be be warned for are PTSD triggers like rape, incest, pedophilia or torture. Putting m/m relationships in the same category as horrific acts like these only perpetuates the idea that there is something WRONG with m/m relationships and furthers homophobia in our society.

At this point you might be thinking, "Oh, we're just a fan community, get over it!" Or, "PC thought police."

If you are thinking these things, you are partially correct, but given the number of teen suicides that have happened because of a lack of acceptance in mainstream society of their basic identity, I would think that you would want to err on the side of doing no harm first and protecting the rights and feelings of bigots second.

Not everyone has to read slash, but warning for it as if there's something wrong with it only adds to the pain of those for whom homophobia is an intrinsic part of their lives.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Teleen

Their First Reply

Hello,

We actually got another message about this yesterday, and it's something we'd like to clarify. It is & never has been implied nor stated that we want people to warn for slash, or any part of the GLBT spectrum. Being long-time slash writers & readers ourselves, myself (name redacted) identifying as asexual for all intents and purposes and Iced being bisexual, it would go against our nature to do so.

However many members of the comm can be new to fanfiction & fandom in general, and as such can make well intentioned, if misguided warnings when pressed to list them. In this case, the writers likely don't know that it is bad form to list slash as a warning. It has nothing to do with mod policy, it's simply a mistake made because they don't know better.

Other writers enjoy listing "cute" warnings ("boy kissing" "[character name] being sneaky") to the great exasperation of the mods, but we don't have time to hunt down every single one and be the one to rain on their parade. Note that the only thing we require in headers is warnings and rating, and as such there are a lot that of writers that get skittish and list every single thing they may think is offensive to any type of sensibility. And while fluff is lethal to a certain population, we'd rather have to tolerate some of the less intelligently thought out warnings than have none whatsoever.

Believe me, we'd be just as offended as you are if we sensed homophobia of any kind. Strict rules are in place to prevent flaming & intolerance, offenses which end in banning. We simply do not have any time or patience for prejudice & we have a zero tolerance policy for it. However, it's our judgement that these warnings are not errors of hostility. If you'd like to discuss further, feel free to PM me directly (name redacted).

My Second Message

Okay, I see where you're coming from, I really do. There are a lot of posts and it can be difficult to keep track of them all.

However.

Ignorance is not a good excuse for essentially saying the following:

DANGER: homosexual romance.

I can also understand being new to fandom and wanting to warn for everything under the sun (heck, check out the tags for trauma_rec_fic sometime), but having slash in the warning line is made of fail no matter how you slice it.

It's homophobic, whether it MEANS to be or not. Intent is not the issue. I would assume that someone who's writing slash isn't blatantly homophobic (one would hope, anyway). The issue is a GLBPTQ teenager coming to your community as a natural part of exploring their identity and seeing that some people feel that it needs to be warned for, because it's bad. In our society, you only warn for bad things (see icon).

I'm not expecting you to catch every post, but making an announcement that it's not cool to warn for slash and give all of the reasons why (as well as alternatives, like using the pairing or a 'Contains' line to give people a heads up as to what's in the story) would at least make it clear to those who come to your community that it's not cool and y'know HOMOPHOBIC to do so.

Homophobia isn't just about calling someone the 'f' word or saying it's disgusting. It's far more subtle. It's someone saying, "That's gay," to mean something bad. It's the entire thought process that culminates in being able to slur someone by calling them the 'f' word because somehow those qualities are bad.

Warning for slash is telling the world that it's something that others need to beware of and so long as people let "little" things like this slide, GLBTQP persons will always be on the fringe. So long as someone's basic identity is seen as possibly disgusting enough to require a warning, GLBTQP people will never be truly accepted.

Again, I see where you're coming from. I just can't agree that it's something that's as unimportant as you seem to feel it is. If you're as anti-homophobia as you claim to be, you'll make an announcement and an addition to the rules, making it clear that warning for slash isn't cool in your community.

That way, when you do happen to catch people warning for it (not in every post, but I have to assume that you'd at least catch some of them), you can say that you asked nicely that they not do so because warning for someone's identity is bad.

If you don't have the time to do this, get more mods. Someone out there would be willing to go through each post and put a mod note on it asking that people not warn for slash. Hell, to be brutally honest here, a part of me is tempted to just go through every post in the last couple of weeks myself and PM any author that did this, telling them it's offensive (and why) and asking them nicely to change it.

I've PM'd for faily warnings on other communities when I've come across them just as a private reader and the urge to do it here is strong, very strong. I haven't done it here because it seemed to be such a community-wide issue that I thought I'd come to you all first.

When I'm offended, I PM authors and let them know because no one learns anything without someone actually saying something and most of the time, people are actually very apologetic and willing to change things when asked privately and politely. You're making me feel as though that's what I should have done in the first place, just gone through and let each one know why their 'cute' warning wasn't so cute and why it hurts to see it.

From your response, I'm almost getting the feeling that you somehow don't want to hurt community morale or discourage participation by actually doing some real MODDING.

You're making it clear that you don't want to expend the effort required to actually stop subtle homophobia in your community and I have to say that it's very disappointing, :(.

I also have to say that simply because you (or one of the other mods) has a queer identity, that doesn't automatically mean that you're not capable of homophobia. I have a queer identity and I still am having to train myself not to use the word 'gay' as a negative in any context.

It's difficult to retrain oneself when society has programmed one in homophobia on such a deep and fundamental level, but we have to try, or what's the point?

I just took a look at your community info because I wanted to get a clearer picture of your issues. Your community is five months old and already has close to 5,500 entries, so I can understand not being able to keep up. You need more mods. I'd volunteer, except I'm not sure that my help would be appreciated at this point, :).

Still, with over 6,000 members, I'm quite sure you'll be able to find some more help if you're willing to ask for it.

The alternative is to continue to let this slide and make it clear that in your community, GLBTQP identities will always be on the fringes, :(.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Teleen

Second Reply

Let's not go with the ignorance argument then. In that case, I have the strong feeling you were not around for the last modpost, where in the comments we were asked to clarify what, in the context of the community, warnings are and what they aren't. For your benefit I will let you know:

What warnings aren't: public kink shaming, a place to joke about serious issues, a place to bandy the word "enticements" instead (as many were doing before we suggested to writers that sobriety was more appreciated, especially with things like dub con and non con being listed thereafter)

What warnings are: a tool to let the reader know what's in a story.

Believe it or not, some people don't want to read about m/m or f/f (or variations thereof). Note that I am not conflating slash and kink, though both can be part of one's identity. Warnings do not have an inherently negative connotation, except you seem to believe we are enablers/not socially conscious enough when forcing people to be decent to each other in the comm has garnered us more wank and attacks than if we let it stay in its more generic fandom acception free-for-all state. We don't care that we still get shouted at by both sides (the ones who want to keep their more ignorant and ill-conceived, if carefree warnings and the ones who want this space to be a font of progressivism). It's expected when we make rules that make people unhappy that they can't have complete and utter control over what information is in their submissions. Iced, of a number of occasions, has suggested in comments that warning for slash may not be the most sensitive thing the author could do, and was promptly ranted at by readers. Yet if we make another modpost declaring slash isn't to be warned for, we'd still get shouted down for one reason or another, so if it's to be done by any way, it'll have to be quietly.

I appreciate that you're very passionate on the issue and it's clear you've encountered it in other fandoms, but your definition of warning obviously subscribes to the idea that warnings are negative, which is a pretty narrow way to look at it, and your entire argument is based on it. Intent doesn't seem to have any currency with you, but when you compare that people warn for something as innocuous as fluff, it's hard to argue that it's with pointed, belligerent maliciousness. That's just a fact. You want to impose the full spectrum of social implications on the comm, but it's not possible given our position, and if it is, it shouldn't be news that someone on the interent doesn't match up to your own personal ideals.

Warnings are not negative, but we'd still like to do something to phase out the idea that slash needs to be warned for, you don't need to bite our heads off about it. There is a lot more internal discussions that you don't see, so implying that we're idle and doing nothing about it is patently untrue and incredibly offensive. We're busy? Yes. Understaffed? Sure. Expect at least a little self regulation/expect people to use their heads so we can focus on other things? Absolutely, though that doesn't work out all the time. We're not refusing to expend effort (plans for PMing were already in the pipeline long before your friendly PM), so I'd suggest not projecting the darkest possible design on us.

We do the best we can with only the two of us, why? Because there aren't many people we trust to be able to reject/delete posts that aren't strictly on topic or appropriate. We don't want anyone who is ruled by the egos of posters, and even when we did have more mods, they quit because they couldn't handle the pressure of so much content & being pulled in many directions at one time. I'm going to be frank here, I don't like having to listen to soapbox rants, even if I agree with the social context of your argument. Accusing us of allowing the GLBTQP to "remain on the fringes" makes me more angry than it makes me want to work with you to achieve something.

Final Message

A WARNING is negative BY DEFINITION:

It's not narrow - it's REALITY.

I refer you to the dictionary definition of the word:

2. "something that serves to warn, give notice, or caution: We fired a warning at the intruders."

Please, I'm sincerely BEGGING you with no sarcasm whatsoever, look it up. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/w