After that now infamous tape of Donald Trump boasting about grabbing women’s private parts came out on Friday, film critic Devin Faraci — a self-described feminist and one of the more aggressive opponents of GamerGate — took to Twitter to excoriate Trump’s abominable remarks.
Then this happened:
In a series of tweets, @spacecrone told the whole story:
The accusation stopped Faraci in his tracks. He didn’t quite admit that it was true, but he also kind of did. And he asked for forgiveness for something he said he couldn’t remember doing.
This was on Sunday. Today, Faraci resigned as Editor-In-Chief of Birth.Movies.Death, saying:
This weekend allegations were made about my past behavior. Because I take these types of claims seriously I feel my only honorable course of action is to step down from my position as Editor-in-Chief of Birth.Movies.Death. I will use the coming weeks and months to work on becoming a better person who is, I hope, worthy of the trust and loyalty of my friends and readers.
He still hasn’t quite admitted to anything, but @spacecrone says she’s heartened that Faraci seems sincere in his contrition.
“I am really happy that it sounds like Devin is interested in getting help about this, and I’m open to any accountability processing that might be part of his treatment,” she told Variety.
I really hope this can be a moment of self-interrogation for all of us, myself included, about the ways we might use positions of power to silence people, and the ways we all turn away from things that might seem a little too complicated to deal with.
Faraci’s alleged assault is more proof (as if we needed any) that being on the “right side” on the issues — in Faraci’s case, taking on GamerGaters, calling for greater representation of women in the movie business, and so forth — does not automatically make you a good person. (Hugo Schwyzer, anyone?)
As it turns out (as it so often turns out) plenty of people — and not just GamerGaters — have been pointing out seriously assholish language (and behavior) from Faraci for some time. In the wake of @spacecrone’s accusation, writer and Bibliodaze co-editor @Ceilidhann set forth some of her issues with Faraci on Twitter:
Devin Faraci sexually assaults women, tries to goad people into suicide & cyber-stalks basically everyone but sure, fandom is the problem.
— Kayleigh Donaldson (@Ceilidhann) October 9, 2016
Honestly, the continuing silence over his years of bullying & attacks on this site & elsewhere make this round utterly unsurprising. https://t.co/ewLVAUxjoN
— Kayleigh Donaldson (@Ceilidhann) October 10, 2016
(By “this site” she means Twitter.)
Faraci's bullying & misogyny were blatantly clear to everyone for a long time & many still harboured him at the expense of those he hurt.
— Kayleigh Donaldson (@Ceilidhann) October 10, 2016
Naturally, the Gamergaters, have seized on Faraci’s alleged sexual assault as an excuse to attack, well, the same women they always attack.
It took less than an hour for my tweets on D*vin F*raci to be used by GG/MRAs as an excuse to attack Anita Sarkeesian & SJWs. Typical.
— Kayleigh Donaldson (@Ceilidhann) October 9, 2016
Because of course.
H/T — The Daily Dot, NYMag, GamerGhazi
This.
But, again, I go one step further: I hold people who claim to be feminists and feminist allies to a much higher standard than your average layperson.
Because we should know better. Like I said on page one, we’ve done the research, we’ve had the discussions, we’ve refuted the PRATTs.
Now, not every feminist is gonna be born with all the knowledge of our High Overlady Katie, so we should give each other wiggle room in certain cases.
Sexual assault, however, is not one of those cases.
@Lyzzy
Yeah, that’s it. At least most of it. I completely missed the train on the 2nd last part. Something about bondage? Not my jam, eyes glazed over. My problem, not yours, and thanks for the reply 🙂
@Alan
Fair enough
1)get off your high horse, thanks
2)remember when you said impact sports were OK for kids, cos you turned out fine? Yeah. That shit’s rushing back into memory
3)’the right thing to do’ is bullshit. Just as a phrase. I use it too, so glass and stones. It never means what it’s purported to mean. Just say that helping women/girls is more virtuous than men/boys. Not even gonna argue that, but ‘right thing to do’ is so fraught with moralistic, self serving nonsense
(Note: it’ll seem like I’m mad. I’m not. You asked me to just drop my thoughts, and this is what it’s like when I don’t filter. People have actually, cross my heart, said that my voice is inherently sarcastic…)
Re: gender/sex
Disclaimer: cisgender dude, not an issue for me
If you’re an EMT, and you’ve got a few minutes/seconds to save someone’s life, I’m not gonna hassle you about your word choice. Don’t be an asshole, obvs. But referring to a transman as ‘female’ in the heat of the moment while operating on his jibblies… I understand it is the point. AMAB would likely be better(?), but, again, I get it
The rest of medicine can cut that shit right out. It’s erasing and, most importantly, it’s not even helpful. If it’s important to you to know how someone is ‘shaped’, then just find out. How is ‘male’ more informative than ‘has a penis and testicles’. The latter actually says something. If genotype is important find that shit out too. And I watched House and Scrubs and shit. You don’t even hafta mentally log the entirety of a person’s anatomy. There’s notes. Fuck it, there’s a ‘chart’! I don’t see any legit reason for someone who’s not in some immediate, emergency situation to be so glued to essentialist language. If there is, I’m all ears…
@Axe
To put it more plainly I think that a lot of people do dominance/submission play as part of their usual understanding of “normal” (hetero-normative) relationships and that knowledge of BDSM (the abstract stuff like consent & limits thereof) can be an analytic tool to know when to say something / intervene. Not the most original idea I’m afraid but it works well for me.
@Lyzzy
Yo, it’s cool! ‘Sex as analogical teaching tool’ just ain’t my forte, is all. But I think I got it ?
Nothing’s new under the sun. Whatever works for you, buddy 🙂
@ axe
I have to confess I am a little confused here; but it may well be I’m missing something. So if it’s ok I’ll try to break down what I mean and maybe you can pick out where I’m going wrong?
If we start with what I understand to be the basic idea of feminism:
1. Women face a whole host of oppressions merely because they are women.
2. Feminism seeks to redress that.
For me (and I stress again this is just my own view, others may very well differ) the only justification therefore needed for men to support feminism is that’s it’s the right thing to do.
To me that’s a completely sufficient reason in its own. (ETA: To me it’s just a basic fairness thing really)
Now it may be that breaking down patriarchy also benefits at least some men; but like I say I just find it a bit unnecessary/off that that’s needed as a justification or selling point for feminism. To highlight that feminism does (or worse, should) address men’s issues seems (to me) to be at odds with the very idea of feminism.
Like I said originally, I understand the idea that ‘patriarchy hurts men too’; I (and again this is just a very personal view) just don’t think that should necessarily be a priority concern for feminists, and certainly not the reason men should support feminists.
@Axecalibur
I don’t think Alan meant “helping women/girls is more virtous than men/boys” when they(?) said “it’s the right thing to do”, but rather that it would be nice(r) if (cishet) men would take interest in feminist issues because they have compassion for women, rather than having to kind of “advertise” it and try to appeal to their sense of self interest to get them to listen what feminists have to say.
@Diptych
I’d really love to know more about sex configurations and myths based on (inter)sexuality. I also wouldn’t mind speed-reading trough pastebins if you prefer…
FYI this is a useful article. http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
@Valkyrine
Hiya, love the nym!
Yuppers! Again, no filter, and that’s why I try my best to apply mine. That way, folks don’t hafta clean up after my word vomit 🙂
@Alan
Your inputs 1) and 2) don’t produce ‘right thing go do’. They produce, as Valkyrine so wonderfully put it, “compassion for women”. Well and good. Your problem is that people are missing the point, but ‘the right thing’ is inherently pointless. And it’s just as self interested as ‘helps teh menz too’. You’ve decided what’s moral, and everyone should follow that cos reasons and you said so. It’s often combined with a heapin helpin of ‘do as I say, not as I do’. Calls to mind other ‘just so’ justifications for things…
Not that you’re doing that, but I hope you can see where I’m coming from here. ‘Right thing to do’ is an incredibly bad way to phrase ‘compassion for women’, especially considering ‘right thing to do’ helped create a world where ‘compassion for women’ is necessary in the 1st place
While we’re at it, I don’t like the ‘single, correct path to enlightenment’ idea. But that’s a whole other subject, and just as soon let it go
Nothing to add. Just wanted to say hello to @Valkyrine. Pls let me into Valhalla or Sessrúmnir when I go!
@ axe
I’m not so sure about that. 1) on its own might be enough for the compassion thing; but compassion can just mean having a basic sympathy. Which is all well and good but that doesn’t necessarily have any practical benefit.
The practicalities derive from 2), i.e. the efforts to redress 1).
I totally get where you’re coming from about assertions as to what’s ‘right’. Lots of people and ideologies we might find aborrent can make the same bald statement. I would say though that redressing a clear injustice is one basis for declaring something as right, so that would be enough for me to support feminism.
As for whether I’m therefore entitled to insist other people also subscribe to that view, maybe not, but I’d argue that I’m at least allowed to make a case for that.
And that’s back to my original point. I think all social justice issues (including obviously feminism) usually boil down to simple matters of fairness and (to me) that alone is a reason to support them. I don’t think that support should be contingent on some benefit to the supporter.
@Alan
Dude. Really? Nobody even… Don’t be that guy
@ axe
Sorry. Wasn’t suggesting you or anyone here were prohibiting me. Just ‘allowed’ in the general ‘arguable case’ sense.
@Alan
Yeah, it’s aight. As you might imagine, wording and implication are my bugbears. And considering the unpleasantness upthread, I’m more than a bit… prickly ?
@Lyzzy
Hi, and welcome in.
I’m not certain what conclusion that is?
@Valkyrine
Hello and welcome.
@Diptych
And we now have the technological capacity to actually keep track of all those variables on a patient-specific basis, which, outside emergency situations such as Lyzzy is discussing, should remove the need to make any assumptions at all. So long as you’re going to your doctor/clinic, they can* have all your specific information at their fingertips.
*In principle. In practice there are a variety of issues, but they are mostly resolvable as part of the massive reform U.S. healthcare needs anyway. In places with more functional systems, less change would be needed.
@Axe
I tend to find it useful in these types of discussions to frame it as ‘the right thing to to, to acheive goal or end condition X’. Because until you’ve defined what you want the outcome to look like, you can’t say what the correct course of action is. So, for instance, if the desired outcome is an egalitarian society, having compassion for the oppressed is the right thing to do. If, on the other hand, someone wants a society where all white men are considered equal, then compassion for people who aren’t won’t be on their list of the right things to do. That said, I do not in any way consider the second one to be a worthwhile desire, and anyone who has it is garbage, but this is how the world comes by so many conceptions of ‘the right thing to do’.
I kinda skimmed so I’m not addressing too many specific points brought up here, but I wanted to hit on a few things.
I am a cis male*, and I call myself a feminist. I’m not going to draw the line if someone would prefer I call myself an Ally; I’m more interested in the results then the Frequent Feminist Flyer Miles. I personally go with Feminist explicitly because the word has been so poisoned it has helped foster the whole “I’m not a feminist, I’m an equalist!” bullshit. I’m sick of people feeling they have to whisper that they’re a feminist; it is something that should be roared.
@Dalillama
You folks are all so nice and welcoming (even though I think this wasn’t my first post). Thank you all 🙂
Even though it’s ones own identity, it implies that there is a gender binary (at least to anyone who has some understanding of greek). Unless one owns that (i.e. isn’t attracted to non-binaries), this is kinda problematic to some of those people. But like I said, that’s a minor itch and probably best addressed by members of a relationship with non-binary people, not group discourse. I mostly brought it up to illustrate some of the limits of identity-based discourse.
@Lyzzy
I’ve encountered people who identify themselves as bisexual and mean that e.g. they’re attracted to men and nonbinary people but not women. I’ve also encountered people who, like me, don’t concern themselves with a person’s gender* in their attractions who identify as bisexual and insist that the term pansexual is a form of bi-erasure. I also have a personal difficulty modeling the mental state of someone who’s attracted to men and women but not enbys, other than by assuming they’ve got a lot of (possibly) unexamined transphobia going on.
@Dali
Nailed it! The 1st bit without the 2nd (or with the 2nd hidden in some other paragraph) makes me uncomfortable. But that’s my prollem, and I’ll deal 🙂
*raises hand* Just curious. What’s the asterisk mean?
@Dalillama
Yeah, as far as I know, there’s, like, three definitions of bisexuality and pansexuality.
1) Bisexuality is when someone is attracted to two or more genders; pansexuality is an attraction to all genders.
2) Bisexuality has genders factor into attraction; pansexuality doesn’t factor in gender.
3) Bisexuality and pansexuality are the same things with different names.
The only people I’ve ever seen suggest that bisexuality is just being attracted to men or women only are non-bi people, whether straight or gay or even pan. Cis people also have a hard time with it, but I think it has to do with the fact that a lot of them only see men and women as real genders.
Haven’t heard anyone’s opinion on pansexuality because no one knows what pansexuality is, which is one reason I’d really like it if a certain character from a very popular show would say he’s pansexual (and Hispanic) rather than have that tidbit be left in the creators’ commentary.
http://67.media.tumblr.com/f37adb8f5037c799bb33164972302686/tumblr_ntypbtq5fh1unx10go1_500.gif
Also Deadpool.
Dalillama, are you saying that you personally feel that the term “pansexual” is bi erasure? If so would you mind sharing why? I’m in the process of coming out as attracted to people regardless of gender / sex, and I’m still not sure what I want to (and/or should) call myself.
ETA of course anyone else with an opinion on this is also free to respond 🙂
@Dalillama
They would just be precise too, I guess. Mixing the sexual and the political is likely not the best of ideas as the feminist experience with “political lesbianism” shows. Philosophically, I have a huge problem with the notion of straight and gay but people seem much to invested in it to break away from that and thus shouldn't be criticized for their choices.
I have trouble understanding that. Does it mean it lowers your attractions political impact because the word pan is not widely known / otherwise powerless? Then I would argue that it’s the usual “Realpolitik (I only know the english sorta-equivalent “deal with devil”, sorry), similar to a trans woman throwing non-binaries under the bus. Or does it specifically defend the validity of the exactly-two-genders-attraction on a societal level? If so, why?
Non-transphobic reasons I could think of for not wanting to date non-binaries would be the ostracism they usually face, preferring a less complicated gender in a lover or liking polar gender interactions.
But, like I said, it’s all a minor point. Something to reflect upon as a possible boundary of identity-based politics. I really hope I don’t offend you and would like to shut up otherwise. I just cringe at the “two-actually-means-all”-memes sometimes, because I’ve heard it all before and in my experience it just isn’t true :-/
@Axe
It means I forgot to put in the footnote. :p
*I practice, I am extremely leery of dating cis men at this point in my life, but that has nothing to do with who I’m attracted to.
When…when was political stuff mentioned at all? People’s sexualities and genders aren’t inherently political? I’m confused now.
@Jack
I meant that expecting people to overcome their social conditioning and actually love/have sex with people of all genders because their usual boundaries are very likely a social construct is considered beyond the pale for most activists. Although I’ll admit that it was nice getting a few quys sceptic of their heterosexuality /heteronormativity before I could finally have gender affirming surgery.
The problems with blood donation drives where less fun though.