Feminism and what it means to me, or you

[dev_chieftain]

Followed la_vie_noire (a random whim! I remembered her from the olden days and went to check her current blog) to this very well-constructed list describing the kinds of abuse that women experience when speaking up for their own equality.

Here's the thing. I have experienced all of this abuse from people in person, because I'm loud and probably annoying, and I talk about this kind of stuff a lot. I am incapable of sitting through Avatar and not noticing that Sigourney Weaver (who I think of as Ripley, and most people probably also do) is playing a character who exists to show off the positive feminine qualities of a) being a strawman b)having motherly qualities c) not being as good at the job she trained her whole life for as A Man d) getting silenced in conversations by male characters, even those who by no rights would outrank her in a realistic depiction of the setting she is in and worst, e) dies ignominiously, after being the vehicle for the salvation of the "good guys". (Let's not even get started with my dislike of the noble savage story here, or the fact that we got around having ANY colored persons in the main cast by making them all pale-blue CGI characters (except Michelle Rodriguez, who ALSO died; or the fact that these so-called good guys were so good because they went around mindraping everything on their fucking planet. Let's just try to stick to the one, big problem of the sexism in this movie.)

The worst part about this abuse is that people who are otherwise completely rational, forward-thinking, intelligent, friendly, or even believe themselves to be in favor of equality and women's rights-- people who by all rights should be aware of this abuse-- are often the people who are the source of the abuse. To them, it's funny to joke about raping lady characters, and their friends are weird for 'overreacting'. To them, it's completely acceptable to have spent many years calling me, behind my back, "the temperamental one", because evidently, feeling passion about something automatically nulls the validity of my arguments.

These are people who would call me the volatile one, when they are best friends with someone who used to get into fights, or once beat someone with a golf club, or once got so angry over a debate about whether X Men 3 was good or not that they punched a tree. As an adult, not a teenager.

You know why I'm the volatile one? It's because I'm female. Not just because I'm female: but because I'm female, yet I act, talk, and think like they think a man should act.

Some of these people I have distanced myself from. Because you know what? I don't need to be friends with someone who can't be bothered to respect who I am, or to acknowledge me in conversations. Some of these people I've tried to stick by because I believe they're capable of learning from their mistakes, and understanding that yes, women really ARE being oppressed, and no, men really AREN'T being attacked as much as women.

You know what a big problem in society is? The lack of fluidity in gender roles. Because just as I get flak (called "butch" or "emotional" or "fat" or "ugly" by people because I am not their standard ideal of a woman), so do my male friends who have a gentle nature, like cooking, and think kids are adorable. I'm not even talking about my male friends who kind of want to wear dresses, or my friends who are biologically male, but have chosen to become female because they prefer it-- but you know what, all of those friends get just as much flak as I do. Men, standard men, can quit whining about how they're just as oppressed and I'm making a big deal out of nothing, because they are the ones that built this society, and they are not suffering this problem. But the women who want to be feminine shouldn't feel like being feminine means they have to stand by and "let the men talk" when conversations are occurring. The men who want to bake and like to paint and write poetry should not be called faggots and bullied and harassed by people around them just for feeling the way they do.

The thing that struck me most true about this article, for all that it reminded me of some pretty bad times with my real-life friends saying the same kind of shit described here, is the paragraph about female beauty being treated as the norm. I've been talking about this for the last few weeks in increasing agitation, actually, because everywhere I turn, I see only pretty women ever cast in anything. I don't feel like "weight" is the real factor here, in that fat men and women are equally treated as bad, though I will point out, not for the first time, that the "fat" woman model in Star Wars: TOR is just voluptuous and sexy, and the "fat" man model is actually HUGE. The only upside is that both models are still muscular, which somewhat soothed my ruffled feathers over this. Hollywood is the worst offender-- you often won't even see a man with a non-model face in movies. But you might see a haggard man, or a weird-looking man. You might see an old man. They'll all have actual lines and be interesting characters.

Women are 18-30, must be attractive, and must be dependent on men in this medium-- because women must be "beautiful". Worse, take it out of the movies, and my well-meaning so-called feminist friends-- the girls I can't really be VERY close with because they will say things like what I'm about to describe-- they'll express their support for me in ways such as 'don't worry, you're BEAUTIFUL' or tell me about how sexy and powerful I am.

You know what, I am sexy. And polyamorous, and bisexual, and powerful, and female.

NONE OF THAT has to do with my value as an individual. Nothing. I'm also overweight, I'm loud, I'm crass, I like to use words that are trigger sensitive and I laugh like a supervillain.

I'm smart, and I'm dedicated and I'm creative. I'm strong. I'm fast. I'm helpful. I'm caring. I'm passionate.

I have a violent temper that I keep carefully under control and have to fight to keep in check on my bad days.

I write exceedingly explicit porn, but I'm not ashamed of that.

I write exceedingly explicit psychological and bodily torture as plot devices in stories, and I AM a little ashamed of that. But I'm an author, and I find that conflict for my characters is REALLY INTERESTING. So I write it anyway.

And you know what my problem is? I don't mind if you call me beautiful, but 'beautiful' doesn't mean anything. My feminist friends clearly know jack shit about me if that's the first compliment that comes into their heads. "Beautiful" is just another way to keep women from ever being interesting, complete people on their own.

I was just talking to my dad on the phone yesterday, checking up on him and mom and making sure that I didn't actually scar them for life when I bought them Oglaf for Christmas (which, if you don't know, is a hilarious, racy webcomic made by the exceedingly witty and brilliantly artistic Trudy Cooper, of Australia).

The conversation went something like this.

Dev: How was the comic, did you guys like it?
Dad: Yeah, we both read it it! It was great.
Dev: Haha, yes! I love it, I'm really glad you guys aren't grossed out or anything. I just thought, "You know, what is that cultural weirdness where you treat your parents like they're higher-class than you and can't joke about porn?" I figured, you tell me fart jokes, why can't we joke about sex?
Dad: Oh, totally! Well, it was a lot of sucking and fucking, but the writing was still great. And the art was cool.
Dev: That's good, I'm glad. Hey, and you're not mad about me snarking Avatar when you guys made us watch it, right? I noticed you were pretty quiet, so I worried I might have offended you, been kind of a jerk, you know?
Dad: What? Oh, no! No, I understood.
Dev: Whew! Okay, good, because I was actually kind of worried! Not even a chuckle from you and I thought "er, I think maybe I'm just being a total JERK" haha!
Dad: Oh, no no. You were very funny.
Dev: Well, you know. Every now and then, a girl likes to be told if she's funny.

Which pretty much dovetails back into my point. What's the use in having my parents tell me if they think I'm beautiful? They think weird looking bugs are beautiful. Or fat babies! And if my parents can't even give me a meaningful compliment about who I am and not what I am, like some kind of chattel, what kind of message am I getting from society? Nothing good, that's sure.

Comments

[taithe]

I live right next to a certain part of Seattle, where gender roles are considered not quite as binary. I also had professors introduce students to intersex and transgender issues by actually having guest lecturers who were intersex or have transitioned. I feel very fortunate to have these experiences since they taught me a lot about gender outside of a binary system.

That said, the problems regarding gender and sexuality still prevail in society. I read an analysis about Hollywood, and how the nature of pirating has affected the way it produces projects. Hollywood pushes for sequels and stories that will sell predictably, which means having sexy female eyecandy and white heroes. That isn't to say without piracy Hollywood would be more progressive, but I think it's plausible that aspiring directors who want to be progressive will get shut out in favor of what still sells.

On the topic of beauty... here's David Mitchell calling out the show for criticizing a female politician solely on appearance. (it starts around 3:10) I think had a woman said it, people would've reacted quite differently. The point is still good, and I'm rather fond of Mitchell, but I wish I could've been as comfortable expressing myself as he was.

Despite being female, I get way more comments regarding my intelligence than my appearance (partly because I rarely make an effort to go beyond cargo pants and t-shirts), but that's not necessarily the case for other women. I don't think there's anything wrong with being told you're beautiful. But I agree that it's problematic when that's the first or singular attribute people associate a woman with. :\

I wonder if your feminist friends are trying to empower the idea of beauty, and take away some of its negative (possibly controlling) effects? As in, beauty is no longer dictated by man, but by yourself, and that your friends are nudging you to see it from that perspective? That's what I get from the feminists I've talked to at least.

[dev_chieftain]

I think you are probably right about my feminist friends-- and I really don't have anything against them trying to empower the word. But by emphasizing it, I feel like they're trying to take a different tack than I do in regards to these problems. I feel like gender normalization, just like culture normalization, would be the way to actually solve the problem of the inequality. But a lot of people feel threatened that they would lose the societal right to be feminine, or girly; or like they would lose their heritage, or their cultural history, in such a situation, and don't seem to agree that by making a point of their differences, they are actually making themselves targets and trying to make a system based around a concept of inequality as the fundamental standard. (If everyone is different, then how can anyone be equal? but if everyone has the same rights and potential, then everyone is equal-- and it's just what you do with those differences that defines who you personally are.)

I especially don't feel comfortable when I sit down to write, for example, and sometimes have trouble wanting to write female characters solely because I don't want to make them all ME, but I have trouble saying "okay, girl. What makes her interesting?" --this makes me a product of what I hate, because it shouldn't matter that she's a girl, yet I've been trained by the very stuff I like to think of women as only being capable of filling a very few roles-- roles I personally don't find very interesting, in many cases. And that can be tough! I've been working on that a lot in my own writing BECAUSE I recognized this problem in myself years back and was, well, horrified at it.

I think the Seattle community sounds pretty awesome! It'd be nice if more places were like that.

The thing about Hollywood (or anyone) claiming that piracy of films has affected the way they produce projects is, that's total horseshit. They can make excuses about it all day, but if the people in charge are old reserved assholes with racist and sexist prejudices, they're going to be the way they are regardless of whether movies are actually being "stolen" or not.

In the "Hollywood is so put upon" argument, I have a pretty damn hard time seeing where they get off bitching that people aren't-- what? Spending 30$ per person on the DVDs? Or is it spending 10$-- oops, I meant 13$ for those who do 3D-- per person per movie ticket? Perhaps it's the fact that we're not spending money on our basic television service? Because cable TV isn't wildly popular-- oh wait! it is. Additionally, anyone using the internet pays monthly for the service, and that fee generally costs 50$ a household as well. So where down this line is it that we're getting the right to see the movie? Because apparently, the 10$ didn't count-- and the cable TV cost doesn't count-- and the DVD cost didn't count. I don't pirate films, though I do use legitimate online streaming sites like Hulu to watch certain shows when they're available by that medium. I do like to purchase films and shows to show to my friends-- but if Hollywood had their way, I'd have to make each of my friends pay the full price of the DVD for these films back to the stores that sell for Hollywood before it would be permissible for me to show them to my pals.

The worst part is, I don't even watch modern films all that frequently. Many modern films cater to the exact opposite of what I want to see. I like old movies, which means I frequently spend 10$, usually less, on the DVDs for the things I want to see. The more Hollywood whines about how piracy is the reason they're failing, the less I care about them-- if they'd make movies I wanted to see, with decent writing and characters of all genders and races given an equally fair shake, then maybe, just maybe, I'd give enough of a shit to give them a try.

An addendum: Hollywood's also entered this era of washed out blah coloring on everything. Everything's always gray or brown. No thanks, guys, no thanks! /RAMBLE oh god I'm sorry

[taithe]

Hmm, maybe you could discuss that with them (if you haven't already done so)? I find chatting with friends helps clarify each other's perspectives.

Oh yeah, you're not alone! I know other writers who get anxious about that. Here's an interesting essay on why the concept of mary sue is sexist

I used to write a lot of female characters when I was younger. It wasn't until I got to fandom that I realized fans could be downright nasty about female characters (*cough* Gundam Wing *cough*). Although slash/yaoi fans get a particularly bad rep, having shipped het since forever, I can say the harsh judgment on female characters is not exclusive to one area of fandom. :\

That's part of the problem. No one wants to be accused of writing Mary Sues, and people seem terrified about putting too much of themselves into a female character. I don't blame you for having issues with it.

Well, I've never been too fond of Hollywood and SOPA has made pretty clear where their interests lie. The piracy aspect was something I read in conjunction to the complaint about how Hollywood is basically churning out sequel after tired sequel. I was thinking more along the lines of Hollywood not giving newer writers and producers the opportunities to tell decent stories that could deal with those "-isms". I saw a documentary on how easily a movie can be killed in several steps of the film process, and it was disheartening that potentially good films are so easily destroyed. That isn't to say Hollywood would've given those films a chance in a non-pirating world, but simply that they can use piracy as an excuse to not produce anything but the same bullshit.

[dev_chieftain]

There are certain qualities of the persons I'm thinking about that have led to me not being very close with them entirely unrelated to their views on feminism; that they are feminists is part of what keeps us in touch, really. The thing is, when people define themselves as feminists, and are using it to cover misandry, I feel like that's no better than misogynists trying to heckle me while I'm at a bus stop, or whatever; and unfortunately, these people are more of that sort.

I'm going to read that essay and then comment on it separately!

Man, it's so true. I actually also wrote lots of girls when I was younger; I think the reason I stopped is heavily related to fandom. I didn't feel like I'd be judged for writing girls, but through fandom I discovered slash, and I liked the idea so I ended up pursuing it. I think I kind of lost sight of the kind of writing I'd been doing before then as a result.

SOPA definitely makes it pretty frustrating to imagine going to see too many movies anymore. I really enjoy going to films or watching them in my home, but quite frankly, I can get my entertainment completely legitimately elsewhere, and that's what I intend to do. I think you're right that the problems would still exist without the excuse of 'piracy', because they did exist before the internet was big-- Hollywood is a giant marketing scheme, with the occasional neat idea thrown in there, right? But I'd hope more young directors will take a page from Terry Gilliam and avoid the biggest parts of that industry so they can make uncompromised products and put them out there. It's no easy feat, though, and I think authors go through similar things when they're trying to publish through big publishers for the same reason.

[dev_chieftain]

An interesting essay! Very accurate. I use the term "Mary Sue" to refer to male and female characters alike. Sherlock Holmes is one; Superman, too, not just Batman; how about every Arnold Schwarzenegger character in the 80's?

But anyway-- I feel like the essay gets part of the point, but not all of it. The problem is, there's nothing wrong with wish fulfillment characters BECAUSE all fiction has them. All of it. So the problem that actually exists-- the problem that the term Mary Sue is trying to identify-- is fandom specific. It's the problem we fans have with some other fan trying to upstage our favorite characters. Who cares if Bella Swan is the prettiest girl in her school and everyone loves her? It's a book series about her, and while I have no interest in it, the author clearly likes her enough to want to write about her. Fine, whatever. But if someone thrusts their self-insert, or even just an original character, into my Tiger and Bunny fanfic and makes that character the main deal, I feel pretty cheated. What's the deal, fandom author? This fanfic was listed as a Nathan/Antonio fic. I came here expecting Nathan/Antonio. What I actually get is Nathan and Antonio breaking up because they both love this random, made-up guy you added to the story?

Fandom doesn't like original fiction. I've tried to figure out why this is for years. Is it because it's false advertising? The author sure does seem to be using fandom as a playground, trying to test the waters and see if we like the original character (or characters) while pretending to give us the characters we actually already know and like and wanted fanfic of. Is it because it makes fandom jealous? Sometimes stories about original characters aren't bad at all, or worse, are very well written. What then? Do we hate the characters simply because of the false advertising, or do we hate them because the fic-writer is reminding those of us who cannot, or do not, write original fiction that we are wasting our time with a pursuit that is pretty much unpublishable?

It's even possible it annoys us because of wasted talent; or because some people make mental "claims" on characters (so either you're ruining their "OTP" or "Sephiroth is MY HUSBAND how dare you write him getting together with YOU"). But I think the real problem is that fandom doesn't like original characters, and the term is sexist, but the term fails to identify the reason WHY people don't like Mary Sues. So exploring the nature of the term doesn't get us closer to eradicating the problem.

[taithe]

Hah, I had a conversation with another fan just yesterday about how we disliked AUs that were pretty much original fiction except the characters shared the same names as their canon counterparts. The reason being is that it really IS false advertisement. If I wanted to read about an original character, I would read a published book.

The main draw of fanfic for me is to read about familiar characters in creative and interesting perspectives. When the canon characters are completely unrecognizable and their names can be replaced with generic ones, I feel cheated. I think saying outright that you're writing OCs is much more honest and preferable.

With OCs, I don't mind if their purpose in the story is to explore the canon universe. Right now HP fandom comes to mind, because I've read some excellent fics there with OCs. But the draw for me is still canon because it's about the Wizarding World, not so much the OCs themselves, that I found appealing.

I think it's telling though when a fandom criticizes female characters inside a canon as Mary Sue while ignoring the fact that male characters have just as many Mary Sue-ish qualities. I think the essay is criticizing this aspect of fandom behavior as well. After all, it's not just a phenomenon inside fic; it's how a certain subset of fans use a double standard to dismiss certain characters while elevating others. I saw a lot of this a few years ago, although less now that LJ has become more focused on Social Justice (and not necessarily in a positive way).

[dev_chieftain]

Well, I think it's right to be frustrated! I'm not in fandom to see Kotetsu and Barnaby enact their Japanese weeaboo fantasies with each other while Kotetsu dresses up in a kimono and practices being a housewife, and Barnaby goes on to write about his adventures as a mermaid in the Atlantic Kingdom. I mean, I'm sure that premise could be interesting, but I don't really feel like that's about the characters from the show, and like you I'd be unhappy to find that the AU had gone so wildly off-course that it was no longer distinguishable as actually a work of fans.

But yes! I also have noticed fan hatred of lady characters. What disturbs me most is that this is often the sentiment of female persons. They dislike the female characters frequently as a defensive thing against the idea that their favorite character might be in a relationship with the female character, etc. etc. One of the reasons I don't much care for anime is that Japan is an extremely sexist place, and has very few female characters treated in a way that I find to be acceptable. Anime fandom is also the place where I've seen the most vitriolic anti-female-character sentiment, so I think in some cases it's hard to define whether the sentiment is the real problem (as it's bad to hate the ladies just because they're ladies) or the lack of good female characters in the first place (I don't think that female stereotypes should be shunned, but when, say, a female character's only role is to whine at the hero and then look really sad for him but not say anything during the final battle, it's pretty hard to find much to like about her-- because there's not much to her character in the first place.

This isn't to say that I haven't seen anime that definitely break this stereotypical lack of capable or important female characters, but I have noticed that tendency, is what I'm saying.

Oh my goodness, though. I so hear you about being interested in the world even if the characters are wildly OOC, but I can't stand wildly OOC characters for very long no matter how interesting the setting becomes. It can be problem with my own writing, since I enjoy pushing characters' boundaries and then suddenly I'm sitting here going 'wait, this isn't even the same character anymore, I'm failing to do the 'fan' part.'

In prompt communities I especially have that problem, since a sickeningly large number of the prompts have a tendency to be OOC from the start.

[captainbubbles]

For what it's worth, I think you're beautiful. Not like, physically, because I have no idea what you look like (in my head you're the chibi!you in your icon), but, er, personally. Or whatever. You have a beautiful personality.

I'ma try this again.

"Beautiful" has a lot of meanings and connotation. Yes, there is physical beauty, in which far too much stock is placed, but there's also spiritual beauty. You care about people, and about fairness, and that's beautiful. You opened up to me when I was feeling vulnerable even though for all intents and purposes I'm a complete stranger to you. You're strong enough to let go of the people who are bad for you and you're all those other things you said too. To me, that's what makes a person beautiful.

So, when I say you're a beautiful person, don't take it the wrong way, okay? It's just another way of saying you're awesome. ♥

And uh. I sorry this comment is so awkward. I just wanted to give my two cents, but I already agree with the other stuff you say, so there wasn't much I could say beyond "iawtc".

[dev_chieftain]

It is super late and I may not be emotionally qualified to do more than smile dopily at you, but dopey smiling is happening. I wouldn't take offense at someone calling my personality beautiful; and you and taithe are right that I shouldn't have a knee-jerk reaction about it. My point was more that I think putting power in the concept of women needing to be "beautiful" to be successful is a bad thing, since beauty is not the be-all end-all of existence and no qualifier of success at being a person, but it is pretty nice to be called awesome. So thank you very much!

...I'm too tired to tell if I made any typos, so I apologize if there are some! Goodnight!

[captainbubbles]

Well who doesn't love being told they're awesome? Cause like. You totally are.

You've attracted my attention by mentioning Hollywood

[keylord]

Michelle Rodriguez DOES die A LOT in movies and apparently mentioned it in an interview, haha!

From An interview where she was asked how she felt about being typecast:
Oh baby, I was typecast the minute I did a film called Girlfight years ago. That has nothing to do with anything, it just has to do with… you allow yourself to be typecast. If I decided I didn't want to be typecast tomorrow I'd just go do an indie film where I play some poor girl who goes through some excruciating experience and win myself an award for crying or being raped [breaks into laughter] or playing someone with mental illness. But at the end of the day I'm not in it for the acting. If I were in it for the acting then I would be worried about people not giving me the opportunity to express my vast array of emotions on the screen.

I could give two shits. I only wanna be someone I respect or someone that I consider interesting or fun. I'm here to entertain people and make a statement about female empowerment and strength and that's what I've done for the last 10 years, and people can call it typecast, but I pigeonholed myself and I put myself in that box for saying no to everything else that came on my plate. Saying no to the girlfriend, saying no to the girl that gets captured, no to this, no to that. and eventually I just got left with the strong chick that's always being killed and there's nothing wrong with that.

OH MY GOD CUTE SLUG GIRL ICON YAYYYYY

[dev_chieftain]

Michelle Rodriguez! Michelle Rodriguez, the fact that your strong girls die is a negative message that implies strong girls can't survive because girls should not fight, so there is DEFINITELY something wrong with that.

HOWEVER being typecast as the strong girl is awesome and I love you for it!