Response to frauleinninja, professorfangirl et al.
Sorry - couldn't figure out a way to easily/quickly cut'n'paste from your long and thoughtful comments, so anyone just picking up this thread will have to find that material on their own! (BTW, this all reminds me of why I prefer verbal discussions over blogging or message boards or similar venues: I am relatively long-winded and try to provide sufficient context to make meanings and intentions clear - something that in my experience is often lost with the quick short messages often seen in social media, especially if tone of voice and non-verbal cues are lost, and it takes me too damn long to write all this! I do find this all fascinating though, and for today it really allowed me to avoid the discomfort I feel actually writing my SpockLock fan-fiction!)
First - I just added the following to one of my original posts of several weeks ago. The first line was from the original:
Females with an unresolved Electra complex can message me privately - ;-)
5/9/2014 (several weeks after the above was posted) - just realized that these old posts are editable. My strong preference is to not 'edit out' comments that some, most or all people may find objectionable on whatever grounds. I said it, and I don't think it should 'mysteriously' disappear once it has been made public. Having been told that in this case, some have found the parting remark objectionable, I do sincerely apologize to those who feel that way. By way of explanation I am a psychologist who likes word play and 'idea-dropping' and I thought my emoticon was sufficient notice that the comment was tongue-in-cheek especially since the 'sexual agency' of women at the con was fairly self-evident to me. It also followed the comment that I hadn't been on tumblr long enough to be able to message others and conversely, that others could not message me. Hence there was little likelihood in my mind that anyone would take it seriously. I am now more aware that these postings are very public (duh!) and will be seen by many with different levels of awareness of social justice. When I err, I tend to think that it will be on the side of making what I consider to be a wise-ass humorous remark, even if that remark appears to be rooted in some antiquated misogynistic attitude.
Regarding the photo op: thank you for the explanation of the conventions of taking pictures and the sometimes stated but often unstated assumptions of those taking pictures and those in the pictures being taken. I was discourteous in not explicitly asking those whose pictures I took for permission to publish them publicly, and I apologize. But I was not aware while taking them that I would even write about the con - only after it was over did I think that that other Sherlockians would find it of interest. And it has long been a journalistic/publishing precedent that pictures taken in a public place are often shared publicly. It is true that I was aware that some cultures believe that photographs somehow capture their soul and in that case I wouldn't even take a picture without consent. However both when I took the picture and when it was published on ihearofsherlock.com, I was unaware of the discomfort of some cosplayers being identifiable in published photographs (as I read about on other blogs and sites about fancons). And apparently I made a similar though non-sexist faux pas in not acknowledging that the pictures I published in another ihearofsherlock posting (221b Baker Street in Reading, PA) though they were provided to me by and with the explicit permission of the person I was writing about (they did not show him or his wife). As a courtesy at least I should have mentioned that and not left the impression that I personally took them. (However he was not offended and was pleased that his faithful re-creation of Sherlock's and Watson's sitting room was given the publicity - but I digress.) Serious questions: would it have been preferable to blur their faces since I did not get their names and contact information for permission to publish? Would a male photographer asking for names and contact information of females he photographed been seen as possibly sexist? If my deerstalker and tee-shirt identified me as probably being part of the 'in-group' and therefore okay to take pictures, should the absence of Sherlockian regalia (on male or female photographers) be a tell-tale sign to cosplayers to question whether they should allow photographs by that person? Life in the 21st century has gotten complicated - no wonder some of us would prefer that it always remains 1895.
And interestingly I wasn't consciously aware that those women had more power in the situation than me. I honestly thought that they and I were equals as Sherlockians gathered together to enjoy activities together, even with different perspectives, ideas, values and experiences - we were all there to share our love of Holmes and Watson and their relationship, no matter how defined.
I do not believe that I change the meaning of an image when I publish it. People will bring to the image their own meaning. Yes, some of them (many? most? how do we know?) will have misogynistic views which are inappropriate. They would not 'get' the playful sexual agency in that context even if they read the non-sexist article that accompanied the photo. Personally I read ihearofsherlock.com for all the viewable and readable content (never got into listening to podcasts for some reason though). Depending upon my conscious level of social activism at the time, I might or might not ask myself, “Is this reinforcing or challenging existing sexist structures?” as you suggest. In this particular case you are doing a good job here on tumblr and your comments have made me personally more aware of the issue. I do not feel expert enough to make a similar case on ihearofsherlock.com.
I was not aware that many cosplayers design and sew their own costumes. That is a wonderful talent to have. Personally I can sew buttons on shirts, use iron-on patches for tears, hem my own pants, and do some light mending. I don't think I am being particularly sexist when I say that I am only slightly better at changing the oil on my car (though just once I accidentally started to drain the transmission fluid - oops!) or doing minor woodworking repairs - I am pretty much a klutz mechanically. If I were to seriously cosplay I would have to find someone with those talents to cobble together a costume for me. I regret not giving credit to those of you who worked so hard to make those costumes and provide us with some visual bling and entertainment. If any of those in the picture want to self-identify or ask me to identify them I would be happy to do so. I appreciated that Marilynne McKay added their 'bunny' names, but do not know if convention suggests that tumblr usernames (if they are different) or other pseudonyms or even 'real' names be mentioned as well.
professorfangirl - I'm sorry that I wasn't clearer. I was referring to 1) your quote from Rainer Maria Rilke, and 2) your blog title which includes 'Bordello of Learning.' I can't think of an instance where 'bordello' doesn't have a sexual connotation, whether used ironically or not. We live in a sex-obsessed culture and realistically it is part and parcel of our shared humanity and dealing with our own sexuality (and that of others' - even the sexists) is a lifelong affair (again, pun not intended).
Lizzy - I truly don't understand why posting the picture (especially without comment) on a personal blog or on Facebook is okay if posting the same picture on a blog like ihearofsherlock.com with appropriate comments is a faux pas? While some blogs and parts of FB can be private or restricted to friends, many offer more public exposure than the limited readership of IHOS.
I also don't understand when you said:
"But simply being open-minded does not, as PFG says more articulately than I, immediately categorize all of your actions as righteous. It’s very frustrating to see how cruel we can be to each other, in the online female-dominated space, how we can hold each other to such high standards of being wholly un-problematic in absolutely all things we say and do, not allowing anyone to mess up and make mistakes in vocabulary or nuance, and to then see everyone being so willing to let the problematic statements of a nice, well-meaning man slide because he is still learning."
I would like to put some context on 'righteous.' Merriam-Webster defines it as "acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin" and the Urban Dictionary as "A state of extreme perfection bordering on divinity that bestows moral authority upon the subject."
Is that what you perceive that all? most? some? of you in this female-dominated space do to each other? Monitor all the things you say and do to be sure that it is 'righteous' in regard to sexist language? What percent of tumblr Sherlock fandom is female?
The 'likes' and more specific comments about any 'problematic statements' of this "nice, well-meaning man" I just interpreted as politeness and conviviality. It felt pretty good and accepting.
I have prattled on. For anyone who likes to get in the last word, this is your chance because I won't be responding on this thread. I have spent enough time, enjoyable as it has been, in serious discourse. I have a lot of writing to do, and I do find fiction writing challenging enough. Onward and upward to lighter fare.
So I end with two cute items. Around 1970 I purchased a little 5x7 poster which quoted a woman affiliated with some activist religious order - let's call her Sister Mary Stigmata (righteous note: name stolen from The Blues Brothers I think). It said, "I would not like to have lived without ever having offended anyone."
Secondly, my mentor in graduate school at the University of Regina was Duncan B. Blewett who named a contagious outbreak, resistant to almost all forms of treatment, 'reginismus.' Initial symptoms include a suspicion that the Universe is conspiring to do something nice for you or that you may be following someone with loving intent. This can be accompanied by feelings of excited anticipation and joyous wonder. Often broad smiles are followed by uncontrollable fits of giggling, sometime resulting in full attacks of sustained levity. Advanced cases may include bliss or an unbearable lightness of being, often ending in terminal elation.
The contagion is easily spread by the exchange of fluid bodily motions such as handshakes, hugging and kissing - even seemingly innocuous cheek-to-cheek contact. Should you not be experiencing any of these symptoms, please seek out immediate attention from the nearest person with a smile on their face and open arms. A good way to infect someone without direct contact is to internally feel as good as you possibly can, aim your outstretched index finger at the victim, and as you press your thumb forward, simultaneously direct your compressed psychic energy at them with a sly twinkle in your eyes.
Many people report experiencing these life-enhancing symptoms for days, weeks, or even months, though often in less intensity or frequency . . . unfortunately. So be aware of people you don't know smiling at you or laughing with you - the bliss you experience may be your own.
Catch you on the flip side.
