seperis: (Default)
seperis ([personal profile] seperis) wrote2010-07-06 08:56 pm
Entry tags:

so the history of warnings 101, i could go for this

Picking up a thought from about three different conversations:

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a panel on warnings, not just common triggers, but the historical perspective on them as vehicles of exclusion in fandom and how they've changed in meaning and reason for existence. A lot of perspective on them during the debates the last time and now is still shaped by when they were used against slash or against certain types of fic, vids, etc. And I didn't know until some discussion enlightened me on this that VVC was at least partially founded on a period of time when warnings themselves were used to exclude, not to facilitate inclusion.

Now, we use warnings to make things more inclusive to other fans, but there was a time they were a form of social control, and it could be institutionalized in ways that marginalized.

In all the debates, I really didn't know that as more than an abstract thing, and when I was in Smallville, there were still slash websites under password and some authors requiring direct contact via email for their fic because that was the only way they felt safe. I mean, I feel as if I should have guessed that one.

Anyone have more information on that? I get the impression this was also an issue before regular 'net access as well and that it might have come from cons originally, but a complete perspective would be interesting to know about and read. A lot of discussion during these two debates makes a lot more sense if the original purpose of warnings was to restrict access and exclude certain groups of fans entirely.

And when I say, "I wonder if it would be worthwhile", I mean, "Please yes one day let's do that?" Any con; just someone take good notes and post them so I can read about it.

Re: long (possibly incoherent) reply, erk

[identity profile] tangyabominy.livejournal.com 2010-07-08 08:13 pm (UTC)(link)
:) Thanks for the awesome and considered response! I appreciate it. This is just one of those things I see from time to time going unquestioned in fandom - we protect the children, no one questions that that's a good thing, indeed if you do you're assumed to be wanting to harm the children, and you're bad. I just wanted to get the alternate opinion out there.
ext_9649: (Default)

Re: long (possibly incoherent) reply, erk

[identity profile] traveller.livejournal.com 2010-07-08 08:29 pm (UTC)(link)
I think it's an important distinction to make, and I really am glad you spoke up.