Unprovoked, but not sudden.
Oct. 6th, 2011 12:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dagas_isaDisclaimer: Personal opinion, not specifically addressed to anyone or as a response to anyone. Also, not prescriptive past the personal level. Just finally writing down ideas that have been tumbling in my head for literally months now.
I get weary of the impression I have (accurate or not) of critiques of sexism with regards to female characters as being an excuse to dislike or refuse to engage with them.
To clarify and unpack:
1. In themselves, I have little to no investment in other people's preferences. It takes all kinds.
2. I do not believe that portrayals of female characters are beyond critique or criticism, from a feminist or social-justice point of view.For that matter, I do not believe that it is inherently misogynist to dislike particular female characters for any reason that could be applicable to a character of any gender[1]. I just think mixing the two is a bad idea.
3. If, in a given canon, someone prefers and identifies with one female character over another, it is not that one female character represents all that's good and right in a female character and the other is irredemiably sexist. After all, they were usually both written by the same group of people with the same values and the same environment. That doesn't make a preference invalid.
4. However, that fact does make it extremely difficult to show how one female character is "doing it right" and the other one is "doing it wrong," since they're both part of the same contextual whole.
5. This doesn't mean that sexism doesn't exist or affect the way women are portrayed in fiction, it just means that individual female characters are not the root of the problem. And in fact, I am willing to bet that there's not a single female character who exists that someone couldn't tear apart under a vengeful feminist critique.
6. And, oh yeah, using "feminism" to explain why one female character is better than another one in the same canon is shady. "Personal preference" is not a phrase that needs banished from the face of the earth.
7. If someone almost always prefers male characters, then that preference should be owned because it will affect what types of sexism someone is willing to tolerate in what amounts, and what will get ignored. [2]
8. Conspicuous and widespread absence of female characters (both a complete lack of any at all and a lack of those who aren't accessories to male characters) is as much a product of sexism as stereotyped female characters.
9. And when female characters are written around male characters more often than not, it's very likely that the parts of her portrayal that are sexist specifically revolve around giving male characters something. She's a love interest because he needs one (and when there's a 3 male characters and 1 female character, one het romance = 2 unattached males, no unattacted females). She misses the shot, because if she doesn't he doesn't get his heroic moment later on.
10. Oh yeah, and male characters are actually confined to just as narrow a set of personality types and gender performances as women. Only male characters are seen as individuals rather than as (often interchangable) male characters, so this doesn't actually get pointed out. And when it does, it's dismissed as "what about the men" whining rather than as something that just might be connected to the portrayal female characters. [3]
11. This is apparently because sexism makes contexts around male and female characters different enough that something that's fine or even positive for men is subject to criticism in women. Which I understand but..
12. The extra scrutiny and higher standards female characters (and RL women) get held to is also part of the different contexts that surround male and female characters.
13. As is the expectation that women and female characters should conform to someone else's expectations of what a "good" woman or female character should be (and let's face it, should look like), rather than judging her by being a decent human being or doing interesting shit or by whatever traits a male character would be judged by (since it's very likely not his gender performance).
14. And so, I do think, for people who are looking to make feminist critiques to widen their scope and look at contextual factors rather than individual traits and look at how things are working holistically at a canon and cultural level.
15. And also, there are different ways of actually dealing with sexism with regards to female characters, of which writing long meta about individual female characters and how they're problematic and should be dismissed is just one of the easier ones.[4]
16. And if someone is more interested in fun-times and escapism than critique, then own that. Someone wanting to read and write m/m doesn't directly affect me and more than my wanting to read and write about female characters does them. Someone who explains why my favorite female character (or a character I would love if I knew her) sucks and should be ignored at all costs does.
[1]Though, I will say, I would prefer if people who do dislike individual female characters to leave misogyny out of it. "I'm not misogynistic, but..." has the same ring as "I'm not racist" in that anything after that is almost inherently going to connect, whether or not there's anything there in the actual statement.
[2] And vice-versa for people who do prefer female characters. If certain people aren't side-eyeing me for my high tolerance of fan-service, I will be shocked.
[3] In short, gender essentialism is a multiple lane highway of suck, complete with off-ramps and overpasses. It's also a dedication to gender essentialism and preserving masculinity plays a part in keeping trans and non-binary people from actually being present.
[4] Given my druthers, I'd rather see more stories that bestow agency upon female characters rather than critiques that assume an inherent lack of it. But that probably gets all twisty in questioning whether a canon male POV is an objective telling of events, or just the version he'd tell in the bar on a Saturday night.
Preemptively, I reserve the right to lock entry or disable/screen comments.
I get weary of the impression I have (accurate or not) of critiques of sexism with regards to female characters as being an excuse to dislike or refuse to engage with them.
To clarify and unpack:
1. In themselves, I have little to no investment in other people's preferences. It takes all kinds.
2. I do not believe that portrayals of female characters are beyond critique or criticism, from a feminist or social-justice point of view.For that matter, I do not believe that it is inherently misogynist to dislike particular female characters for any reason that could be applicable to a character of any gender[1]. I just think mixing the two is a bad idea.
3. If, in a given canon, someone prefers and identifies with one female character over another, it is not that one female character represents all that's good and right in a female character and the other is irredemiably sexist. After all, they were usually both written by the same group of people with the same values and the same environment. That doesn't make a preference invalid.
4. However, that fact does make it extremely difficult to show how one female character is "doing it right" and the other one is "doing it wrong," since they're both part of the same contextual whole.
5. This doesn't mean that sexism doesn't exist or affect the way women are portrayed in fiction, it just means that individual female characters are not the root of the problem. And in fact, I am willing to bet that there's not a single female character who exists that someone couldn't tear apart under a vengeful feminist critique.
6. And, oh yeah, using "feminism" to explain why one female character is better than another one in the same canon is shady. "Personal preference" is not a phrase that needs banished from the face of the earth.
7. If someone almost always prefers male characters, then that preference should be owned because it will affect what types of sexism someone is willing to tolerate in what amounts, and what will get ignored. [2]
8. Conspicuous and widespread absence of female characters (both a complete lack of any at all and a lack of those who aren't accessories to male characters) is as much a product of sexism as stereotyped female characters.
9. And when female characters are written around male characters more often than not, it's very likely that the parts of her portrayal that are sexist specifically revolve around giving male characters something. She's a love interest because he needs one (and when there's a 3 male characters and 1 female character, one het romance = 2 unattached males, no unattacted females). She misses the shot, because if she doesn't he doesn't get his heroic moment later on.
10. Oh yeah, and male characters are actually confined to just as narrow a set of personality types and gender performances as women. Only male characters are seen as individuals rather than as (often interchangable) male characters, so this doesn't actually get pointed out. And when it does, it's dismissed as "what about the men" whining rather than as something that just might be connected to the portrayal female characters. [3]
11. This is apparently because sexism makes contexts around male and female characters different enough that something that's fine or even positive for men is subject to criticism in women. Which I understand but..
12. The extra scrutiny and higher standards female characters (and RL women) get held to is also part of the different contexts that surround male and female characters.
13. As is the expectation that women and female characters should conform to someone else's expectations of what a "good" woman or female character should be (and let's face it, should look like), rather than judging her by being a decent human being or doing interesting shit or by whatever traits a male character would be judged by (since it's very likely not his gender performance).
14. And so, I do think, for people who are looking to make feminist critiques to widen their scope and look at contextual factors rather than individual traits and look at how things are working holistically at a canon and cultural level.
15. And also, there are different ways of actually dealing with sexism with regards to female characters, of which writing long meta about individual female characters and how they're problematic and should be dismissed is just one of the easier ones.[4]
16. And if someone is more interested in fun-times and escapism than critique, then own that. Someone wanting to read and write m/m doesn't directly affect me and more than my wanting to read and write about female characters does them. Someone who explains why my favorite female character (or a character I would love if I knew her) sucks and should be ignored at all costs does.
[1]Though, I will say, I would prefer if people who do dislike individual female characters to leave misogyny out of it. "I'm not misogynistic, but..." has the same ring as "I'm not racist" in that anything after that is almost inherently going to connect, whether or not there's anything there in the actual statement.
[2] And vice-versa for people who do prefer female characters. If certain people aren't side-eyeing me for my high tolerance of fan-service, I will be shocked.
[3] In short, gender essentialism is a multiple lane highway of suck, complete with off-ramps and overpasses. It's also a dedication to gender essentialism and preserving masculinity plays a part in keeping trans and non-binary people from actually being present.
[4] Given my druthers, I'd rather see more stories that bestow agency upon female characters rather than critiques that assume an inherent lack of it. But that probably gets all twisty in questioning whether a canon male POV is an objective telling of events, or just the version he'd tell in the bar on a Saturday night.
Preemptively, I reserve the right to lock entry or disable/screen comments.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-06 09:08 pm (UTC)Honestly, that is half the reason I write fanfiction. To either give side characters a voice, bestow agency, queer things up; essentially, put in all the things I wished I'd seen in the original canon.
But yeah, a lot of this baggage is baggage I also have, so it's interesting to read.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-11 06:01 pm (UTC)When I write fanfiction, I don't think I really try to aim for a sort of feminist or queer reading so much as it's bringing out the things I like which are usually the women having relationships and doing shit.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-07 10:41 am (UTC)14: Yes. Yes, exactly. I am much more inclined to take seriously discussions of how a show is getting something right or wrong than I am discussions critiquing an individual character.
15: Oh, good heavens, yes. Meta about how a character gets something right, for one. And I mean long, intelligent meta that takes into account the problems and flaws and discusses how important the character is anyway. (Also, stories. Lots and lots of stories. But you already clearly know that.)
In short, I agree! Important, thoughtful baggage.
no subject
Date: 2011-10-11 06:26 pm (UTC)I have a lot of thoughts on the whole framing critique as objectively right or wrong (not because there aren't things to criticize, just with the ease that that kind of framing can become a weapon for other things like genrewars or shipwars), but I definitely think there needs to be more discussion that gets into the nuances.