![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
linaerys' journal about male privilege in fandom. You'd think--you'd think--that in fandom this wouldn't be a problem, especially as women are the movers and shakers in fanfic especially, but it's there. Don't believe me? Check out the link she provided to this meta commentary by cereta. It's such absorbing reading, and it really explains in non-RAWR-I-AM-A-MAN-HATING-FEMINIST way how inisidious male privilege can be in any setting. Fandom, with its anonymity and the ability to build up people without bias against who they are physically (thanks to the popularity of the internet as the exchange medium), ought to be better than it is. Very sad.Then there's this link to Rangell's blog. Just you're good ol comics-loving gal. And she makes the effective argument that comics have really fallen down in creating female heroes or norms in comic book worlds that are on equal footing with men. Today's post is specifically about how you don't have to lose male readership to get more women into comics--i.e. making the stories equally appealing is not discriminating in favor of women, it is leveling the male privilege that treats comics-loving (really, any geek-habit-loving) girls like strange anomalies (we're not, and we're not going any where).
Know what it got me thinking of (hint: the icon is a clue)? Battlestar Galactica. The women on that show? They manage to be equal, they come from equal, and there is nary a sense that any of them are some ball-busting feminazis because of it. This show represents the sexes as not only equal in rights and distinctions, but in promotions and in time devoted to individual characters. It's sometimes subtle or otherwise explained away by the plot--the fact that Gaius Balter is nowhere if he's not with Six-in-his-head--and sometimes it's a smack in the face--Adama and Roslin are the leaders (uh, well, yeah, you know what I mean).
Know what else is awesome about these women? They are not made sympathetic to us by reassuring the male-privilege-focused that they can be brought low or given backstories of sexual abuse and rape in order to make them "feminine" again. Save for the abyssmal, and best forgotten episode "Black Market," this remains so throughout the series. Boomer, Roslin, Cally, Dee, Six, D'anna, Kat, Racetrack, Admiral Cain? They are women, not victims. They have tragedies--deaths of loved ones, disease, betrayals, secrets, hard decisions, cruelty--but not one of them has come across pain or discrimination solely because they packed tits under their shirts.
Then there's my gal.
Starbuck has a history of abuse, and she has many, many problems stemming from it, which I will not deny. But look at her abuser; her abuser was her mother. This takes the stereotype of the infantilized woman, victimized as girl by her father/other male figure and held permanently in terror of men as a result, and twists it on its ear. It makes what is a tragedy--the abuse of a child, and worse, the abuse of a child by her parent--tragic again. The tragedy is that Starbuck is the most amazingly strong person--man or woman--and she might have been that much stronger--were it not for the abuse. Conversely, the tragedy could be that she would not be as strong as she is were it not for the fact she was challenged so harshly from the outset.
With Starbuck's mother as the abuser, there is no "other" to hate (i.e. men). Starbuck has no problem with men or testosterone-driven activities--she loves both and seeks out both. What's most important is that she doesn't swing the other way and become a woman-hater, thus trivializing and marginalizing the conflicting, confusing emotions an abused women would have towards other women, especially other women in power. The show takes pains to show that women do not suffer in Starbuck's estimation because of her mother--life is never so simple; you don't hate whatever gender that once caused you pain (anti-feminists take note). Her respect for Roslin is clear, as is her admiration of Cain. It sidesteps the trap that either the woman is the victim (the princess to be rescued) or the villain (the wicked witch). This is important to do for any character, and it's a shame that Battlestar Galactica stands out instead of blending in with a host of other types of fiction and media with similar representation of women.
Battlestar Galactica stands out for another reason on the gender front: the diversity of the fans. Amongst my friends, I'd say it was perfectly equal. This is a product that appeals to guys and women, and doesn't stop appealing to one when it starts playing up allegiance to the other. When it's good, all the fans I know, men and women, love it. When it's bad (and "Black Market" again I look in your direction), it's hated by all who watch (that that episode also imbalances the gender-equal nature of the show is actually completely coincidental to the reasons I and most fans hate it).
If we can all agree that Battlestar Galactica is amazing and not feel that the men or women or Cylon are being built up/torn down in order to cater to the male/female/future toaster demographic, why can't comics? Why can't movies? Why can't fandom? Why can't the world?
Profile
- trinityvixen
- Cult of Olmos
Comments
Moreover, she doesn't just mouth off and then not act; she defies orders and then does something to make up for it, always. Most of the people ever in a position to be in charge of her know this, and they know ultimately a) where her loyalty lies will never really change, and b) that the way to get her to do something is not to rely on discipline so much as to trust her to figure out that their way is best. It's counter-intuitive to military structure, but Kara must have been able to suppress it along the way to have gotten as far as she has (she could not have gotten through officer training without being able to take any order).
Also, note when she jumps to follow orders, even from people she's currently pissed at. And, since it's usually Apollo, take Apollo. He get hers her to work by basically being more tactically, strategically incllined, so as to reign in her ability to suit a plan. His ability to keep up with her in the cockpit, too, also explains some of it. But, basically, unless the person issuing the order can prove to her that he or she is as skilled as necessary for her to take the order seriously, yeah, she can be a weeee bit insubordinate at times.
Except for the noir episode, which I think we'd all be better off forgetting.
BSG could use some acknowledgement of the existence of queer characters, but it is head and shoulders above other shows in terms of gender equality.
And we love them both for it. Baltar never stops being a fascinating study of a really smart guy beset with paranoia because of his weaknesses and lack of ethics. He's smart, he's the one we should trust with data, but he's weak and he's not the one we should trust with any duty that requires sacrifice.
Ellen Tigh...my Gods, I love that woman. She's a floozy, a drunk and a promiscuous woman, but she's also savvy enough to recognize that her limitations don't have to be the boundries of her fame or recognition (pushing her husband along, baiting Zarek). Plus, every time she shows up, something is made more fun. "Sacrifice," where Lee grabs her into the bathroom and she goes right along, 'cause, hey! Hot young Adama! Love Ellen Tigh.
I never really noticed the absence of queer characters, but you're right about that. It's interesting that people seek out friends of other genders most of the time--Starbuck hangs with Apollo or Helo. Helo works with Boomer or spends time with Starbuck. Apollo has Starbuck and Dee. Dee had Apollo and Billy. They're not all romantic interests (even when Apollo and Starbuck forget that, they're still friends first), but there is some distancing of same-sex friendships unless they're professional (Adama and Tigh, Zarek and his underlings, etc).
Makes you wonder about the Cylons. The women are the ones shown to be waking both Boomer and Six in "Downloaded," with the men in the background. Is that putting women as nurturing or just accepting that women are best at comforting other women? Or is that goo the craziest aphrodisiac to ever smother a toaster? These are interesting questions.
That's really interesting and I never noticed that! I wonder if it's because of what Ron Moore has done with gender equality. I wonder if HE noticed he did it. That said, I love when Chief and Helo are together. They just have crackling rivals/friends/WTF-is-with-our-love-live
I've decided Gaeta may be gay, just for fun. Don't see a boyfriend for him, though.
Also, I think it's pretty clear that we're meant to draw some parallels between the Cylons and the conservative element of society. They do have somewhat more differentiated gender roles, esp. with the *shudder* baby farms, and the obsession with religion, so it seems to make sense that they would embrace traditional gender roles duing the birthing process too. Hrmmmmm.
(and this is totally irrelevant, but I tried to write a bunch of stuff set in the "one year later" period where the Chief mentions trying to talk Helo down to New Caprica, and it broke my heart to even write that).
I've decided Gaeta may be gay, just for fun. Don't see a boyfriend for him, though.
You know, that doesn't mean anything to who he is, and I dig that. That's what I did about BSG in general--what sex you like to have and with what organs? Irrelevant! How you control your desire or keep it from getting you into trouble (and not just as a euphemism for TEH MAKNNG OF BEBBIES)? Essential. The drama comes from choices of person not choices of partner (Starbuck in trouble for Gaius, Helo in trouble for Boomer, Chief doubly in trouble for his tendency to pick women in the military...).
Also, I think it's pretty clear that we're meant to draw some parallels between the Cylons and the conservative element of society. They do have somewhat more differentiated gender roles, esp. with the *shudder* baby farms, and the obsession with religion, so it seems to make sense that they would embrace traditional gender roles duing the birthing process too. Hrmmmmm.
What I want to know is whether or not they've sent out agents in the same way that Boomer went out. Why not send a Leoben or a Doral out to impregnate a woman with Cylon child in the same manner they got a Cylon pregnant with a human child? You don't have to do the baby farm if you get someone to love the Cylon. That's a real weakness in their thinking and/or indicator of their gender bias. I'd like to think that, given that CapricaSix and Boomer 1.0 were the leaders of the rebellion against the old Cylon way of thinking, the gender bias doesn't exist for Cylons, but there's not much evidence to support that. The circumstances are highly prejudicial and all weigh in against that.
I have to wonder, then, what Three means when she says "God loves me!" and what she's done as a female Cylon to merit it. The funny thing? She's the best evidence that there isn't a gender bias among the Cylons. She even calls them "the Cylon," indicating that they are one. Hrrrm, indeed...
...
I click back further to get it straight from the horse's mouth and see nothing but sheepish whisperings about "vibes" and "undertones". Blow things out of proportion much?? Is that really what you want to cite as enforcement of "male privilege"? I don't usually see privilege leading to pathetic snivelling.
As for link #2..."so ubiquitous that it's invisible"?? That's like one of the so-called proofs that God exists. I find nearly every objective claim in that post spurious at best. Anyway, if fandom really is so female-dominated, like she says, is it necessary to take issue with a random idiot here or there going, "HEY! Quit it! Aww!"? Go on about your business! I swear people just like having something to bitch about...(now that's REALLY meta!)
There's a quote, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity." The parallel here is, "Never attribute to social injustice what can be attributed to individual rudeness/stupidity/cluelessness." Because the polite thing to do (for the complaining fool) when you don't like what the board is doing is to leave, not whine about it. This looks less like less a case of "male privilege" than "human selfishness".
Human stupidity is boundless, I will not argue otherwise. That this kid needs to figure out he is the only one who will watch-dog what he sees or does not on a daily perusal of fandom is not a view point different from the one espoused by myself or the writers of the articles themselves. I might see it as contentious, then, how you've written this comment putting me down as a sort of conspiracy theorist feminist and then stated my own opinion in another sentence. Makes it look like we don't agree. Could be you're doing that on purpose. Of course, being smarter than that, I know there's just oversight there, and I don't take issue with it (except, of course, to just, you know, remind you that you did it, even without consciously knowing).
That's a lesser trespass but still an example of what these writers mean--it doesn't have to be malicious. There are still hurt feelings and pride. You, being educated, have risen above it. Don't assume the plurality of either gender has. And don't forgive ignorance with that get-out-of-sexism-free pass of saying that, so long as they didn't mean it it's okay. I'm sure most sexism, like most incidents of racism, are unintentional, are remnants of a less tolerant era. That's not your fault. But consider that we don't require people to commit a crime before we tell them "that's not okay." We expect them to know without doing it that a crime is not tolerated nor tolerable in our society. Yet we're not going to give someone a pass on unacceptable behavior by saying "(s)he didn't know better," so why should we give it a pass when it comes to relations between the sexes?
A better truism would be, "Never assume stupidity is a suitable excuse." Period.
History--it's the study of dead white males because of past sexism, not present. There have been very few women before about 1900 that made a significant impact on the world because very few were permitted by society to rise to a position of great power or education. The ones that do (e.g. Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I) are studied in the normal history discipline.
Television preferences--TV studios target the 18-45 male demographic because we're supposedly "brandable", meaning that we're more able to be persuaded to buy junk. Frankly, I don't consider that a compliment to 18-45 year old men.
Are there plenty of individuals with an attitude of "male privilege"? Sure. There are also plenty of individuals with a "female privilege", "white privilege", "black privilege", or "______ privilege" mindset. I prefer to call it a "human selfishness" mindset, though possibly "male privilege" is more often shown because society does a poorer job of teaching men to restrain themselves.
So:
-I'm not taking issue with slamming the sort of jerk who thinks the slash community should conform to his preferences.
-I'm taking issue with considering him representative of men in some way different from how he's representative of humanity in general.
Yes, Western and Eastern history is a celebration of male privilege, there's not much we can do about that (save sending some Amazons 21st century technology and telling them where and when to press the right buttons). We can change that by emphasizing the alternative cultures (and isn't it sad that anything not out of Western Europe or America is alternative?), celebrating diversity. The problem is, when we do that, people see it as a threat. I shit you not, there was a town in North Carolina that threw a "Heterosexual Pride Parade." As if hetero assholes (like me) don't get all the press anyway. That's where this guy was coming from, and he's not alone. His constituency just tends to say that the thing that's not theirs is dirty or wrong to hide--gays are sinful, abortions are against Jeebus, if you don't support Israel 100% it's anti-semitism (using political correctness to excuse a nation, no matter what its background should be justification for being shot).
Saying that men are considered more "brandable" is cyclical thinking, like Ragnell was talking about with comics--well, girls don't like comics, so there's no need to make them likeable for girls, and girls won't then read them, so there'll be no need to make them appealing...
Truth is? Women are just as stupid and slavish to consumerism as men are. Men get TV. Women get sold cosmetics. That's hardly fair. At least you get entertainment; we get the message reinforced that beauty is as good as it gets, baby. Talk about backhanded compliments; "You're not worth selling a TV show to, but buy this anti-wrinkle cream because your face is your best asset!" Sheesh, and you thought 18-45 year old men got it bad?
The real point of feminism, that gets lost in this kind of debate is that while I argue that this guy represents a reprehensible (and larger than you suspect) yet subtle portion of men who fall back on male privilege, I am not saying that the women who write "THEY ARE OPPRESSING MEEEEEE" are 100% right either. I'm saying I take issue with him, that I agree with their points, not that they are right a) to write slash without research (for the love of Christ, they don't even know how gay people are gay half the time) or b) assume that they're oppressed. I am mostly saying that I agree with their feeling that sexism and bias are background static that entitles guys like this to think saying the things they do aren't sexist--are the "norm." It's quite possible in rebutting ignorance that feminists, self-included, go too far sometimes, but that doesn't mean you have to argue they have no point or that they need concede that sexism isn't still around because there are a lot of guys who aren't sexist asshats reading their journals.
Big clue? If you're reading this, chances are good you're not sexist. Otherwise, you'd have said something more outrageous and less defensive. If you're willing to read it and hear it out, it means good things.
Don't know if that appeases some, but the so-present-it's-unfelt thing is still eerily real. Think about it like this: we do need things like women's studies and don't need to create a separate "men's studies" because educational histories show that almost all schooling is men's studies. Like we don't need "white history month" and do need black history month. We learn about dead white men more often than we study the contributions of dead, not necessarily white, not necessarily men folk--dead white guys (aka Western Civilization as we know it) are the default.
Just so, our culture starts with white man as its center. White man, specifically the young, usually affluent white man is the one to base judgment around. What he likes, what he wants. It's Feminism with a capital F (for crazy) to assume this hasn't changed a lot in the past few decades, but it's Ludicrous with a capital L (for..uh...ludicrous) to think that it's fixed. Again, it's not people I know who behave this way (and people I do know who do behave this way I go out of my way to avoid) so much as it's a saturated background whine. "Well, how come they get this?" "How come girls get so much help?" Et al. We've heard it before, and we're hearing it again (with all the talk of the girls closing the "education gap" and competing as well as the boys, there's talk of boys being left behind and maybe changing the system--again--so they can catch up, i.e. get their unfair advantage back).
If people would just go about their business, that would be swell--let the slashers write as they will. You don't want to read slash? Don't read it. It's your job to make yourself comfortable, not everyone else's.
But that's all besides the point. Even if he is a sexist neanderthal, he's ONE sexist neanderthal. You said yourself, "women are the movers and shakers in fanfic especially," so stop acting oppressed. In this realm, you run things, and condemning one individual en masse for harboring a view which he may not even actually hold is as bad a use of majority power as is possible in the context of blogs and chatrooms.
Yes, he is ONE neanderthal. The points of the articles are still valid, especially with the response they've gotten here. The slashers aren't oppressed. They aren't acting oppressed, they're just cheesed off that this kind of guy comes into the thing and starts whining and throwing his weight around and making demands. This is then contrasted against the more productive examples of cleaning up problematic idioms. If you want something not to be biased or to go a certain way, write it yourself or use your dollars to support those who do. That's a better way of doing it--voting or pledging support with your dollars. That's how girls have demanded more from the comic books they want and buy--they did it themselves or supported people who did it the way they wanted. There was none of this "You can't write a female character until you talk to us actual women" crap. Aside from the fringe feminazi, I can't imagine a woman doing it (and not a one would get away with it). Not only did this guy try to do it to a group that doesn't have any financial incentive to cater to him (I still believe in lowest common denominator ethics, for men and women), he had support! Men and women telling him he was right.
If his complaint had been these slashers are writing RIDICULOUSLY stereotypical gay as opposed to real homosexual characters (for the most part), then I'd have had more to agree with in his argument.
He was saying that these panels should cater to his discomfort with slash, and that slash was akin to rape. He was one jerk but his behavior was an example of privileged attitude at work.
And when we see in the wider world all the people who think that they should never even have to contemplate the HORROR of TEH GAY, we know that this yahoo is not alone.
He isn't alone. Slash as akin to rape? Rape of characterization at worst--like when they turn characters gay as an excuse to have hot men naked together short of a bath house. There's a confusion of "sex I don't like" with "OMG SO WRONG." That's why actual rape, which is, by definition, not sex that a man doesn't like (or else he wouldn't be raping someone), is often contested as a crime whereas THE BUTTSEXX that implies a man might like some pressure on or something inserted into his ass makes ass-fearful hetero-clowns uncomfortable and is therefore wrong.
What lesbians do, being unimportant women at the farthest end of the sexual stereotype, is completely not worth anyone's time unless they're hot and doing it for men's viewing. I've often heard it said, and I truly believe, that non-porno lesbian sex wouldn't appeal to guys at all. Because the pleasure they get out of watching? Really not important to the lesbians.
I may also adjust my earlier comment here to say that, upon review, none of the posts you link to actually connect THIS guy with a larger TREND of sexism. The one post is about this guy, and the other post is about a trend (and it's the latter I primarily question). It's really only in your post where a connection is drawn.
Those other examples also piss me off because of why you said, so in that at least, we are very much in agreement.