Last month, I once again explained the focus of the Vintage Teen Books group to members. As a result, several people went off on me, saying that I was wrong about the group's focus and that I needed to "do better" with my moderation.
I didn't write about all of the comments that members made. I now want to focus on one complaint that I skipped mentioning last month, since it had to do with gatekeeping. In fact, this came from the same person who had previously accused a member of being a "mansplaining male," detailed in my post about gatekeeping in the Facebook Groups.
What happened is that somebody looked up the book and found out about the overweight characters. They said that the book featured fat-shaming and bullying. Someone else responded to that comment saying that social norms were different back in those days and that the book should be read with an open mind. The first person then went off on the second person, calling them a "mansplaining male" and saying that they were trying to explain women and eating disorders. The first person then reported the second person's comment to the mods.
The person who had made the comment about the "mansplaining male" then complained last month about John Benton's teen books. John Benton was a reverend who ran the Walter Hoving Home in New York, and he wrote books based on the experiences of the girls who went through the program. The girls were drug addicts and prostitutes and were saved through their conversion to Christianity.
On May 9, this person wrote, "In light of what is going on with Roe v Wade and other issues in the news, I don't think they should be allowed again... books like those should not be posted because we would never know their complete content and don't know just from the summary how unjust women are being judged or talked to in them."
On May 9, I responded as follows:
This leads us onto a slippery slope. Books that are 20 to 40 (or more) years old typically have content that is now unacceptable. If we start disallowing content that could offend someone, then we will end up boxing ourselves in. I know this from past experience with other groups.
If we say that certain books with potentially objectionable content are banned from the group, then some members will start pushing for lots of books to be excluded from the group that shouldn't be, simply because they don't approve of those books.
I then looked up the books and added this response:
I read some reviews. I don't see a problem, and I don't want the post taken down. We will not start censoring which books within our focus are mentioned in this group.
Many books in this group have themes or passages that are now offensive. We might as well disband the group if we start disallowing books that could offend some members.
If any books seem offensive, my suggestion is for members to scroll past the books and ignore them.
I thought that settled it. Meanwhile, I had become curious about the books. I wanted to know exactly what was in John Benton's books that made the books unacceptable for discussion. I ordered four of the books so that I could see what they are like.
I read one last week. I liked it a lot, so I decided to purchase the rest. I then posted about my actions in the group. That led to what happened on Friday. On my post about the books, the member who had complained on May 9 made this statement.
with the OVERTURNING of R v W today, I am leaving this weird group that is supposed to be about safe young adult lit!
They also stated, "[T]here are gay members of this group!" followed by "who won't feel safe in this group for long!"
I was initially quite puzzled. I wrote:
I find these statements to be perplexing. Many members of my groups are gay. I am protective of those people and will not tolerate homophobic comments.
This book, Denise, does have some very offensive statements about gay men. I cringed when I read them. When I review this book in the near future, I will mention that the book contains offensive homophobic statements. I will not quote them. I don't want those statements in my blog or in this group.
I finally realized that this person made an assumption about what I think about gay rights because I am reading some books written by a Christian. Furthermore, they are making assumptions about what I think about the Roe v. Wade decision and are tying it to what Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion. What I am reading has nothing to do with current events. The two should not be conflated.
Someone asked what the Supreme Court decision has to do with the group. I wrote:
Some people are so sensitive that they cannot stand anything that contradicts their own view of the world. I've been in this position many times where someone wants the group to be different. They eventually leave when they can't change my mind. I do feel that it's best that she decided to leave since these books upset her so much.
What she doesn't understand is that if I start agreeing to ban discussion of what she wants, then other people who have different world views will ask for certain books to be banned from discussion. I can think of quite a few books that deeply religious people might dislike, like all of the Dark Forces and Twilight Where Darkness Begins books. I'm not going to say that certain books are okay and others aren't other than enforcing the main guidelines of the group.
After I wrote my explanation of why the person complained about John Benton's books, a second person, who took me to task last month, decided to have another go at me. This second person is the one mentioned in my previous post who said that I was "nitpicky, impersonal, and unwelcoming." I almost removed that person from the group last month. I decided to give them another chance since it was possible that they were just having a bad day. They told me this:
I find your philosophy puzzling. Surely the point is that the content is not condoned or validated by its presence in the group, and that's why. That makes sense. [T]his should be explained to be people who are upset. You did try a little, but then you belittle the person. Not necessary.
Since it is now apparent that this person has a problem with me and will not stop, I have removed them from the group.
I did later consider that placing a disclaimer in the group rules does have some merit. I subsequently decided that making a disclaimer would likely cause more trouble in the long run. The people who cannot stand anything that is not politically correct should just leave the group if they are bothered. Nearly everyone knows without being told that the moderators of groups do not condone offensive content found in old books.
I am fighting to keep the Vintage Teen Books group from being boxed in. That is what some of these people are trying to do. I cannot allow it to happen.
If I agree to ban books from discussion due to the mention of religion, abortion, or sex, then we will become more and more boxed in with cumbersome rules and fewer books allowed.
I have figured out how to clearly describe the focus of the Vintage Teen Books group: pre-2000 young adult books that feature characters of ages 15-19. All books that fit the criteria are fine, regardless of whether they feature werewolves, prostitution, or light fluffy romance.
I do plan to read and review John Benton's teen books. They are interesting to me. My favorite teen books are the ones where the protagonist has a real struggle. Girls caught in an endless cycle of prostitution and drug addiction struggle mightily. The books aren't for everyone, but I am enjoying them. John Benton's books have gotten me back into reading vintage books for the first time in nearly three months. I am not backing down.
