Skip to main content

The Experience of Diversity (and the blindness of privilege)

Last year I made a vow to myself that I would only read books written by authors who were not straight white men. By and large, with two explicit exceptions, I was successful in my goal. And I learned a bunch of things.

The first (and most important) thing I learned is that my reading habits were already moderately diverse; I made a list of ten of my favourite authors and nine of them were women, so I didn't really have to give up on anyone that I was particularly invested in.

The second thing I learned was that my "historical read" list is actually pretty white/straight/male, though; I often go back and read a book again for comfort's sake, to go over familiar territory and comfortable writing and try and find something new or at least interesting. That means I haven't been doing a bunch of rereading and that led to...

The third thing I learned, which is there are a LOT of non-cishetwhitemale writers in SF, both historically and especially currently. Just looking at the last two years of Hugo winners was a good starting point, but I've also been involved in a queer SF/F book club and that has been really eye-opening in terms of the depth of the bench where authors are concerned these days.

The fourth thing I learned, though, is that I am still blinded by privilege. I have a book by an author that I absolutely adore; it's Not Your Standard Fantasy Setting and I was very engaged and involved in the characters and their plights. The second book also features a female protagonist and I went on and on about how cool she is and how much agency she has, especially as a middle-aged woman (which is not by any means a standard protagonist in fantasy). What I managed to completely miss was that the internalized misogyny of the novel and the characters within it, with a bunch of implicit and explicit sexualized violence hanging over the heads of all the women in the book. Truthfully, I thought I was aware of that sort of thing, and I try to be careful about recommending work with troublesome aspects, but I was just completely blind to it. Which, yes, is a Privilege that comes from being a man and not having to deal with that sort of thing basically all the time.

The good news is, my friend called this out to me, and I've been able to reexamine my experiences and get better at seeing things I didn't see before. And there are lots and lots of authors and books that don't include that sort of background radiation in their stories.

So I'm going to follow my vow of 2014 with a vow of 2015: to read more diverse work, including more work by non-white authors, and try and read at least some work in translation (The Three-Body Problem, I'm looking at you!). And I'm going to try and be a better curator for my book club. Because those peeps be awesome, yo.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Money and Happiness as a fungible resource

Money really does buy happiness. Anyone who tells you differently has a vested interest in keeping you poor, unhappy, or both. I know this because I grew up on the ragged edge of poor, and then backed my way into a career in IT, which is where the modern world keeps all the money that isn't in Finance. So I am one of the extreme minority of Generation X that actually had an adulthood that was markedly more financially stable than my parents. And let me tell you: money really does buy happiness. To be clear: at 45 years old, I'm now in a relationship and a period of my life where our household is effectively double-income, no kids. I live in the city, but I own a house, and can only afford to do that because of our combined income. We also have two cars -- one new, one used (though neither of them is getting driven very much these days) -- and we have a small discretionary budget every month for things like videogames, books, and the like. What my brother used to call DAM -- Dic

Occasional Media Consumption: Man of Steel (2013)

Every so often, there's a movie where I watch it and think, "that was pretty bad", and then time goes by, and I see other people talking about it, and so I watch it again, thinking I was too harsh on it, and after watching it again, I think "not only was that movie bad, it was worse  than I remember". I try very hard not to hate-watch anything, movies or TV or whatever, because that's a waste of time, energy, and emotion. My expectation was that my first reading of this film was overblown, that my reaction to it was as an outsider, someone who didn't know the depth and breadth of the Clark Kent / Kal-El story, and who couldn't appreciate the subtleties or easter eggs or whatever. But in the intervening years, I've read a bunch of DC comics, and many of them Superman comics. And I've come to a conclusion upon rewatching this movie, one that surprised me given the budget, the cast, and the story being told. Rarely has any movie so misunderstood

Occasional Media Consumption: Justice League (2017)

So let's get this out of the way first: this movie is bad. I mean, it's bad . And not in the way that most superhero movies are bad, though it is bad in that way too: inconsistent characterizations, lack of understanding of motivations, weirdly-shot fight scenes, dodgy use of CG, etc. I mean, it is bad in all of these ways too, especially the whole thing where they digitally removed a mustache from Henry Cavill, who's honestly doing his best with a bad script and a character he's fundamentally unsuited to play. Gail Godot, in an iconic roll for her, suddenly shoved out of the way to make room for (also fundamentally-miscast) Ben Affleck's the Batman and Cavill's Superman, And Ray Fisher and Ezra Miller trying to introduce characters that honestly deserve their own movies. Jason Momoa's Aquaman got his own movie, but as far as I can tell he's just stepped into this one from a whole different universe and is basically pretending to live in the grim-n-gritt