parthenia | unpopular opinions no. 92:

Current Music: the crane wife

Entry tags:

ranting

unpopular opinions no. 92:

I feel I ought to have an opinion about OTW, just because of the sheer volume of posts about OTW crossing my screen, but I still don't really get it.

Also, the emphasis on 'female community' drives me fucking mental. Sorry. I have many female friends, I think many women are awesome, I can see that fanfic brings loads of women together in a wonderfully countercultural anti-capitalist way, and I think it's marvellous that female fans organise stuff in spite of their ladyparts...I even am a woman myself. But I just don't get it with claiming the femaleness of the fanfic writing community as some special condition in need of praise and attention.

I mean. It's mostly a product of the sodding subject matter, isn't it? The majority of open source code writers are probably male. Gamers are predominantly male. Do they spend their time warbling about what a quintessentially male community they've created, apart from the couple of female programmers and gamers who've wandered by who are a bit of an anomaly but are all right PROVIDING THEY PLAY BY OUR RULES???? DO THEY? Actually maybe they do.

GAH. GAAAAAH, I SAY.

OK. I know I'm out of line with many of you. I just think that our attempts to claim the moral high ground for our odd little hobbies are very strange indeed.

If I had more time, I would love to explore the world of machinima a bit more (films and videos made using gaming software, like World of Warcraft); my son watches simple Runescape videos on Youtube.

I love the fact that the Internet has helped all this amateur, underground culture flourish. I came across a site today with links to recent good machinima,like this rather nice music video. Beautiful texture. Note the quintessentially male comments on the video. *g*

ETA, post-metafandom linkage. Oh holy fuck. I did not intend a personal rant dashed off on a Friday to be listed by Metafandom (to the point where I nearly specifically said so). Still, this is the way of the interwebs. I will reply to comments, eventually. Please be nice.

ETA 2: Don't you lot have homes to go to? *clears glasses, wipes tables, starts to stack chairs*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I suppose a simple test is to try reading the phrase: "As science-fiction writers we are proud and honour our heritage of being predominately male" and ask if that raises any similar hackles.

That's a false equivalence. Because something would be offensive if said to, for, about, or in the name of Group A does not necessarily mean that it would be offensive if said to, for, about, or in the name of Group B, even when Group A and Group B are generally thought of as the two different kinds of Purple Beings.

"I wouldn't get on any bus with a driver wearing a cross" is different than "I wouldn't get on any bus with a driver wearing a turban."

Interesting - I would have thought the equivalence is pretty high, if we're talking about a gender distinction. That was the reason I didn't attempt to substitute "cross-burning hood wearers" for "female".

Would the statement "We're proud that the history of fan-fiction has been predominantly non-female" be any more valuable as a litmus test?

I'm not sure I get the distinction in your example, though - either statement seems discriminatory on religious grounds, on of Christians and the other Sikhs, and I'd expect both groups to see it that way.

I'm not sure I get the distinction in your example, though - either statement seems discriminatory on religious grounds, on of Christians and the other Sikhs, and I'd expect both groups to see it that way.

In the States, the subtext of those two statements would be very different. In the first case, frankly, you'd have to unpack the statement, because refusing to get on a bus because the bus driver is Christian doesn't make any sense. Something like 80% of the population is Christian. So you might be making an equivalence between publicly demonstrating faith and needing God's help to drive, or you might be saying you were afraid that any Christian who would publicly declare their faith might take the opportunity to proselytize while one is trapped.

The second statement would be about fear of terrorism because of someone's religious faith.

Would the statement "We're proud that the history of fan-fiction has been predominantly non-female" be any more valuable as a litmus test?

No. The difference between "We're proud of our history as women" and "We're proud of our history as men" is that the default assumption about groups of people (in American Standard English, at least) is that they are groups of men or mostly men. This is less true now than it used to be, and hopefully one day it won't be true at all, but it is the way we live now.

So saying "We're proud ... women" corrects a false assumption most of one's audience are making. Saying "We're proud ... men" reinforces something most of one's audience already assumed. "Non-female" says 'No girls allowed!'

This is interesting territory, and possibly linked through the "correcting a false assumption that most of one's audience are making" statement.

For the 4/5 of the world who are not Christian, fear of someone wearing a cross is, to a greater or lesser extent, greater than that of someone wearing a turban (actually, fear of someone wearing a turban being a terrorist is more or less restricted to people with no contact whatsoever with Sikhs, since they haven't been involved in any terrorist outrages outside India). Anyone professing to be a Christian would probably be linked with the current christian crusades in Afganistan and Iraq, and the wider Christian agenda of crushing any signs of Muslim statehood anywhere in the world (an assumption shared by a large part of the world).

So you made the assumption that I shared your perspective, which was a false one.

You're assumption that groups of people are seen as groups of men is, as you say, based on American Standard English (or at least, your perception of American Standard English) and seems from the minutely divergent standpoint of Standard English to be largely a false one - my default view of such groups as HR professionals, graduates in Law at Scottish Universities and junior doctors is that they will be female.

I'm tempted to offer an easy out, that you are talking about an American group (for I'm making the assumption that's what OTW are) and therefore my objections are mis-directed: if women in America feel, by default, excluded, then you, and OTW, are best placed to decide how you react to that.

But from any other point of view, it looks like special pleading: if "Non-female" means "No girls allowed!" then surely "Non-male" must say "No men allowed!".

But from any other point of view, it looks like special pleading: if "Non-female" means "No girls allowed!" then surely "Non-male" must say "No men allowed!".

1) That isn't what they said. "Woman" isn't the same as "non-male" and "non-female" isn't the same as "male."

2) My point exactly is that saying something about women may mean one thing while meaning another when said about men.

In a simpler example, the adjective "tall" refers to different heights for men and women, because "tall" means above average height, and the average heights are different for men and women.

my default view of such groups as HR professionals, graduates in Law at Scottish Universities and junior doctors is that they will be female.

Is this because you typically assume that groups are female, or because in your experience those particular groups are female? There are groups in America that people assume are female, but that's because those groups are or more often are.

If you had to picture the average ploomp enthusiast, which you figure they were male or female, without knowing very much at all about ploomp?

" 1) That isn't what they said. "Woman" isn't the same as "non-male" and "non-female" isn't the same as "male."

Not sure what you mean by "they" - I was referring to your comment that "Non-female" says "No girls allowed!"

Not sure I want to take this into "tall", either, or "heavy", "short", "thin" or "blond(e)". I was saying that a predominately female space is equivalent in terms of exclusion to a predominately male space.

Given that I know more law graduates are female than male, I'd tend to extend this to medical or accountancy grauates as an assumption.

I have no idea what a ploomp enthusiast looks like. I have no preconceptions about ploomp. Except that it sounds cuddly.

Not sure what you mean by "they" - I was referring to your comment that "Non-female" says "No girls allowed!"

I was still talking about OTW, and your statement about testing "we honur our female etc." vs a statement about honoring male etc. etc.

I was saying that a predominately female space is equivalent in terms of exclusion to a predominately male space.

I think you are wrong. I don't think you can say, "Well, if it would be bad when we treat group Y in such a fashion, then it must be wrong when we treat group X" that way. Sometimes groups X and Y are different, either because of innate differences or historical or social ones. And men and women are sufficiently different for historical and cultural reasons that saying, "Well, it would suck if men did it" isn't necessarily a reason for women not to do it.

I don't think you can say, "Well, if it would be bad when we treat group Y in such a fashion, then it must be wrong when we treat group X"

I think that's the divide in opinions, right there, and it seems to be pretty much unbridgeable. Personally, I find it really odd in a semi-corporate statement about fanfic, but there probably are instances where I would also feel that men's and women's situations were not reversible. I *know* i'm conflating various things here, but while I think it's interesting that this fan corner is full of women, I don't feel it should necessarily be a defining feature.

"Well, it would suck if men did it" isn't necessarily a reason for women not to do it."

Um, well no - that isn't what I'm saying: there are many things that men can do, and actually do, that women can't or shouldn't: pee standing up (possible but messy), produce semen, etc...

What I'm saying is that sexism applies to both sexes - a sexist action in one gender is sexist in the other. If you differ as to the definition of sexism, then we aren't really arguing about the same thing.

Also, and I'll post about this across in my own journal,the argument "It isn't wrong if we do it" is a very, very dangerous one.

Yes, that's exactly it.

I think what triggered me writing anything, even a poorly thought-through kneejerk, was the statement on the OTW site about the female heritage. I think this point is why - yes, women predominate in this particular area; but if you are setting up a group that appears to speak for all sorts of people who write fanfic or create videos or otherwise mash-up a source (which probably includes many male fans), then it seems kind of odd to bring up gender, full stop.

I wonder if Romance writers go on about female community in the same way?

IWell a lot of Romance writers are male, just as a lot of war writers are female...

True. What would be my place in this if I, as a fanfic writer who happens to be male (biologically and a fair bit mentally), decided I wanted to be part of OTW? (Purely hypothetically.)

Am I to be eyed with suspicion and hostility?

Tolerated with a sort of mild disdain, or constantly feeling as if I'm being watched for a screwup?

Welcomed, and then held up as a sort of "pet male", an example of "See! Males support us too!"?

None of which might be the case. (Though some of what I've seen would tell me otherwise, and that at the very least I might be treated as some sort of curiosity, like a colorful bug in a terrarium.) But bringing gender into it in the first place is what raises these questions. I used to be on fanfiction.net and was "homeless" for awhile after leaving it when they announced their "For the children!" sanitizing program, and later moved to adultfanfiction.net (where I have, ironically, only posted one fanfic with actual sex in it, the others easily being "rated R"). Neither site during my tenure ever brought up the subject of gender, that I've seen, so I've just generally thought "It's probably a wide mingling of males and females."

But OTW is making it very clear from the get-go that they're mostly female, and that they like it that way. So as a male going into that I'd feel in an odd situation no matter what, and from all indications that seems to be exactly what they were going for. I'm really not comfortable with that sort of... I don't know, premeditation from any sort of site I'm on, certainly not one where I'm putting my creative efforts up in hopes of receiving feedback from a supportive community.

*wanders in* I volunteer with OTW, and can tell you that we actually do have men on some of our committees now, and they're given exactly the respect and consideration they deserve, according to the value of the work they do for the org. We're not checking IDs at the door

Yes, but what I'm saying is the very fact that it's been made an issue at the door is what brings up these questions. Gender was brought into it as if it was a Very Important Thing, so it seems like I could be forgiven for thinking that the people in charge also considered it a Very Important Thing.

Had the whole matter of gender not been brought up, it would not have caused any thought or comment whatsoever, the same as it had not on the other fanfic-posting sites I've used. But it was, so it does.

I mean, saying you're not checking IDs at the door is all well and good, but it's still setting up a community where the sign at the door says, in giant big letters, "WE ARE A ______ COMMUNITY AND WE ARE VERY PROUD OF THAT" and then, in little letters on its own separate sign below that, "But if you're not _____ you can still come in, I guess we don't mind".

I mean, I've seen some people saying that OTW stating that fandom is predominately female isn't a problem or whatever simply because it's a fact. Well, if it's such a fact, why does it need stating at all? Wouldn't it be enough to be proud of being fanfic writers and, if one chose to be, secure in the fact that the majority were female, without stating it outright and thus making it an issue? Because making that one of the forward statements means that it's essentially coming off like the issue isn't fanfiction and whatever plans they have for it (posting, legitimizing, whatever), it's the whole female-dominated thing.

I just feel like many others seem to, in that if it's wrong to make these sort of statements in favor of one group (and I'd agree that it is) then it's wrong for any group to use the same sort of tactics. That it is just as hurtful and wrong to say "This country club has a tradition of being primarily male and we are proud of that" as it is to say "Fandom has a tradition of being primarily female and we are proud of that". Especially if at the end of the day they could have just said "This ____ has a long tradition" and left it at that, or even better, said "This _____ has a long tradition that we wish everyone to be a part of".

I think this is where I am on it. Yep. OMG is that the time? I must go and work.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

unpopular opinions no. 92:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject