Blokes

[avevale_intelligencer]

Bear with me on this.

Thinking about the Jonathan Ross thing that happened yesterday (it's all over the net--basically, the co-chairs of Loncon 3 announced that Jonathan Ross would be presenting the Hugoes, various fans objected, one concom member resigned, the internet exploded, Ross withdrew and the dust is still settling).

On the one hand, since I know that Jonathan Ross is a genuine fan, my heart does go out to him; if I had been on the receiving end of that much rejection from the community I love I would quite simply be dead, no question. I couldn't not sympathise.

But he's brought it on himself. By being a bloke.

I'm not using the word here as I sometimes use it, as a mere equivalent term to "man." Technically, I'm a bloke; I've got all the bits. That's not what I mean. A bloke in the sense I intend here is a specific kind of man, an example of a specific kind of mindset. As with most things, there is a spectrum of blokiness, and not all blokes are exactly the same; but by their deeds shalt thou know them.

Blokes, to some extent, still live in the sixties and seventies, when it was good to be a bloke. You worked hard, you got paid, you went down the pub with your mates and drank pints till closing time, you staggered home and passed out and woke up the next morning ready to repeat the process. You liked cars, and football, and rock'n'roll, and everyone you knew liked the same things. Because everyone you knew was a bloke. Some of you were from different parts of the country, and you called them Taffy, or Mick, or Jock; maybe some of you were from different parts of the world, and you called them Chalkie, or Sambo, or some other funny nickname, and if they didn't object that meant they were blokes too. As long as you were all blokes together it was all right.

And then there were women.

You're getting the idea. Look at Carry On films. Dig up, if you can bear it, Des O'Connor's immortal ditty "Dicka-Dum-Dum." Blokes have never stopped thinking of women that way; as a separate species, not entirely human, put on earth to be the object of blokes' desire precisely up to the point at which they metamorphose into "the wife," at which point all desire ceases and is transferred outward once again. The sixties and seventies were heaven for blokes; women were becoming "liberated," which to the blokish mind translated as "available," since it hadn't quite penetrated yet what they were supposed to be being liberated from. Fashion was going mad, films were displaying more and more acreage of female flesh, it was all happening.

Well, the seventies passed, and so did the eighties and so on, but the bloke never died. He learned cunning, he changed his spots for pinstripes, he memorised the Nice Guy phrasebook, but he's still out there and he still doesn't think women are quite human, quite worthy of the respect he'd give another bloke. He still thinks groping a strange woman is all right, as long as he grins cheekily and sort-of apologises afterwards. He still thinks he has the right to judge a woman based on her appearance, because, well, it's all put on for him, isn't it? And he still doesn't quite get why calling people Chalkie and Sambo isn't funny any more, or making fun of foreign accents, or bragging about how he wouldn't kick her out of bed, as long as the wife doesn't find out, ho ho. Phwoaarrr.

I'm going to be honest here and say that I don't understand how anyone can still be a bloke now, in this time, in this place. I mean, there's some bloke in all of us--I still enjoy some of the Carry On films--but we don't wave it about in public, for goodness sake. Surely we know too much now. Surely we've learned, or we're starting to learn, or something. Surely by now it's obvious, at least to people as evidently savvy as Jonathan Ross, that we're all one species, all equal, all entitled to respect and courtesy, all entitled to feel safe in our own communities...

But by their deeds shalt thou know them. Blokes abound, in and out of fandom. Every week some new storm blows up about someone, usually male, behaving inappropriately towards women, or gay people, or trans people. And in among the criticism are more blokes talking about "PC gone mad," or wondering why we're being so "petty and vindictive," or prophesying that nobody will like us if we can't take a joke.

Well, so be it. Because there are two possibilities that arise out of incidents of blokish behaviour. One is that the man is a genuine bloke who doesn't know any better, in which case it's time he learned that that stuff doesn't go around here any more. And the other--and I think the more likely in this case--is that the man is playing at being a bloke because he thinks it's funny. Because he thinks other blokes will think it's funny. Because he wants to be seen as a bloke by other blokes, even though he isn't one. Maybe, if challenged, he'd say he was doing it "ironically." Not that that makes a difference.

If Jonathan Ross really doesn't know any better, then, as I say, he has my sympathy, and I hope he learns better. But if, as I suspect, his blokishness is put on...then he really did bring this rejection on himself.

Comments

[eintx.livejournal.com]

I don't know.
I've seen that JR business on Twitter yesterday, and I looked him up because I had never heard of him. And yes, from what I learned he's been "bloky" and should not be encouraged.

On the other hand I have two problems with the matter:
The first one is the "He behaved bad in the past so he won't behave now" thought, and you just can't know that.
The second one is the underlying attitude of "This con must be a tolerant place, which means only people can come and help whom the majority tolerates". Um, no, this is not really what it means.

There was a decision the organisers made, and a furious mob changed it by insulting a person into withdrawal, and no matter if the person deserved it, it does not feel good to me.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

It's not up to us to give him another chance - it's up to him to satisfy all of us that he deserves that chance. And his twitter stream does not suggest that is the case. He has hosted events such as the Empire Awards (and made a disaster, I am told, of one of the pop awards, but I don't follow pop music nowadays.) In Zander's phrase, there is nothing more 'blokey' than the Empire Awards, unless it is the SFX awards.

Then there's the fact that his wife -- a Hugo winning screenwriter - is in fact better qualified from an SF point of view to host the Hugos. No one at the time seems to have considered asking her or, even, and this might have diffused the problem, asking them to do it as a team, though the announcement used her name as if that somehow made Ross more qualified.

If Jeremy Clarkson were interested in SF, would you think it was okay to ask him to host the awards? It's on the same level. In fact, we know Clarkson can moderate his language, while I am not so sure about Ross.

[eintx.livejournal.com]

Perhaps his wife didn't volunteer?
Or they expect her to be nominated, and hosting an award for which you are nominated would be silly?

I looked up Jeremy Clarkson, and yes, he seems to play in a similar league.
But I probably haven't made clear enough that it's not the disputed person who bothers me. I'm sure finding ten or a hundred more unsuitable hosts will be easy if one goes looking for them.

What I don't like is the way and the method.
A crowd ready to lynch, er insult those who don't fit in is not my idea of tolerance and freedom.

Even if he behaved bad at the first place. "He started it!" sounds a bit too much like kids in the sandbox, not like intelligent adults in a democracy.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

In fact, most of the early criticism, on Facebook and the Twitter feed, was of the Con Chairs for inviting him, without consulting anyone, I might add. They even kept it from the committee until mid February, presumably because they knew that at least one member of that committee was known to be a diversity activist and would argue. She did, on the basis that this was in contravention of the Con Com's avowed aims of making Loncon a safe space and of aiming for gender parity at least. When it was clear the Con Chairs would not move on this, she resigned. She did not, however, break the imposed silence on the subject until the morning she knew the announcement about Ross would be made, when she published her resignation letter.

Many people learned about it at the staff meeting (where I am told it was greeted with a stunned silence) or from the Loncon Facebook page or their announcement on Twitter or even, Ghu help us, on Pharyngula. There was nothing orchestrated about the response which was overwhelmingly that Ross was the wrong person and could Loncon please explain why he had been invited. As secritcrush said to me on my LJ, the damage to Loncon's reputation has already been done. I assure you Ross's reputation isn't damaged any more than it was already...

[eintx.livejournal.com]

Yes, if you're talking about the posts that have now been made private, I read them.

But I don't see what your answer has to do with my comment. Did you click the wrong button?

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

You said:

"What I don't like is the way and the method.
A crowd ready to lynch, er insult those who don't fit in is not my idea of tolerance and freedom."

What I just said is: "That is not the way it happened."

[eintx.livejournal.com]

No? Only because the response was not "orchestrated"?
And because some people did indeed voice their disapproval in a civilised way?
It's good that they did, and perhaps if the style of communication had stayed like this nobody would have been damaged.

It's really just a personal feeling.
I find decisions that base on what a crowd is shouting on the internet disgusting. (Or maybe it's the crowd I find disgusting.)

Even if the result is good for the event and makes more people enjoy it - how can I trust a fandom that apparently thinks offending someone who caused offense before is okay?

[hrj.livejournal.com]

Ah, the "tone" argument: "If you'd just express your hurt and outrage in a manner acceptable to me I might take it seriously." *sigh*

[eintx.livejournal.com]

No - of course I take people seriously if they yell at me.
I only think communication is easier and usually more effective if they don't.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

it isn't good, any way you slice it. This started out as a bad decision, and once it was made there was no good way out of it. The internet, as has been said, is always very; reactions get multiplied and amplified and re-echoed. What looks like a mob is just one individual after another adding their reaction to a list.

But there have been very many reported incidents in sf circles lately of women being harassed, and pressure has been put on con committees to adopt a clear policy on preventing such incidents. This was utterly foreseeable and avoidable, and nobody much comes out of it very well.

[eintx.livejournal.com]

Then what they should have done is tell the host who volunteered "It is very important that this event will be free of harassment", and he would either have agreed or have said "Oh dear, I wasn't aware of that! I'd better quit!"

And as I wasn't there, they may well have told him and I don't know.

But accepting someone and announcing his name and then watching lots of individuals who behave like a mob shouting "But this means there will be harassment! Everybody knows that!" until the person steps back - no, sorry.

[the-changeling.livejournal.com]

But that's not the issue that was highlighted. It might be how it then ran, but it isn't what started it.

What started it, was that when a committee member was told that the decision had been made to have Person A as host, the committee member responded that it was a controversial choice AND SHOULD BE PUT TO THE COMMITTEE FOR DISCUSSION.

The chairs then said "No." And made it clear that the decision stood even if people were going to be upset. They acknowledged that they KNEW at least one committee member would be upset.

Committee member then said "I'm sorry, I can't work with this, without criticizing the decision, therefore I'll resign so I can speak freely and say I think it's a bad decision that will casue problems"

Decision was announced. Two things happened side by side. As the decision went out, cries of disbelief and outrage flew through the air.

The committee member said "I'm sorry, I have to resign, in order to say I don't agree with this."

Do note, the outrage happened independently and INSTANTLY.

Person A then started to reactive blog about the problems arising on Twitter THUS PROVING HE WASN'T THE RIGHT PERSON IN THE FIRST PLACE.

This is about the Chairs of Worldcon deciding they could have a controversial person to host the Hugos and no, they weren't going to open up the decision and actually discuss it with their own committee.

That's the issue. If they'd opened it up to the committee as they were asked, a private response from the committee would have likely stopped this in its tracks.

But no. "We're chair. Our decision. Not listening to you." *sigh*

All words in quotes paraphrased my me.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Thank you. This was what I was trying to say, but you put it better.

[inamac.livejournal.com]

Indeed. There were several steps missing that could (if not would) have defused the situation. The Chairs could have got an assurance from Person A that they would abide by the published diversity and anti-harassment policy of the con (which they should do with any attendee/panellist/presenter).

The Chairs could then have discussed this with the committee - with that assurance in place.

Person A could have refrained from comment, or assured people that they would abide by the con principles.

None of this happened. Result - storm.

[hrj.livejournal.com]

"The first one is the "He behaved bad in the past so he won't behave now" thought, and you just can't know that."

Right, you can't know that. You can only project future behavior on the basis of past behavior. And just perhaps, the rights of the award nominees not to worry about having their Big Night tarnished by some MC thinking it's funny to crap all over them is worth equal consideration to JR's feelings. Or was this not about the Hugo award nominees at all? Maybe I missed the part where the award ceremony doesn't have anything to do with them.

[eintx.livejournal.com]

Yes, you can do that, but you may still be wrong.

If everything that matters was what we did in the past, nobody would ever be able to learn and to change. (I have no idea whether JR did, mind you. As I said, I don't know him. This is not about him and not even about his hurt feelings, it's a more general thing. About the internet and mobs and manners and how we all deal with each other.)

As far as I'm concerned I'm glad that the past is not the only thing that matters but that there are second and third chances in life.

And no, the nominees' Big Night should not be tarnished, I agree.
I just didn't think this bloke had so much power.
Hell, if I were a writer and knew that the host of an event might try to make stupid jokes at my expense, I'd prepare two or three clever answers, and that would be it. And if I didn't need them - all the better!

It's nobody's fault, but I'm getting a bit tired of the victim-attitude.
"Oh, if this evil man is there, I won't be able to go there!" Why not? Go there and teach him a lesson.

[themis1.livejournal.com]

I would have been happier about the whole thing had it been properly and democratically decided. Instead, the chair(s) appear to have taken a unilateral decision without consulting their committee and properly debating who should host the Hugos. Had this happened, I wonder if fandom would have had the chance to suck in a collective breath, think about it for a while, and then let it out slowly and give a more considered response. I personally believe the chairs brought this media disaster on themselves.

I saw someone yesterday defending Ross' past behaviour on the grounds that nobody complained until the Daily Mail raised it, which seemed to indicate that there are still people out there who think BLOKE behaviour (and yes, I agree with you 100% as to what it is, Zander) is OK so long as only a few misguided victims make the mistake of being upset by it, and the majority don't think about it at all. That really does worry me. (And yes, spellchecker, there is a u in behaviour.)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think that's exactly what went wrong. The internet dogpiling was unpleasant, but we've all been here long enough to know that that is what happens on the internet. It wasn't by any means unreasonable to expect it, and it's clear that to some extent at least the con chairs did.

A stupid, avoidable fiasco.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Nail head, meet hammer.

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

I don't know enough about the con fiasco to comment, but that's an excellent description of Blokishness.

[batyatoon]

My husband calls that "being a Guy." I know people who use the term "Dudebro," and I have picked that up as well.