Fandom as a female space

[alias_sqbr]

So there's a been a lot of discussion on metafandom about fanfic-fandom as a female space, both wrt OTW and (looking back) in general.

This has bugged me a bit, especially when I've seen some of the practical implications. Nothing I have to say here is all that new or exciting, I just feel better getting it out.

Now with respect to OTW my main problem is that they claim to be speaking for all creators of "transformative works", many of which (like machina, parody etc) do not come from "primarily female communities". But I'm assuming this contradiction will be ironed out one way or another in time (I asked on their feedback page, so we'll see) and don't feel too comfortable giving them crap about their policies until I'm sure of what their policies are.

(EDIT: I am so totally not accusing OTW of the stuff I'm complaining about below, it's just that discussions about OTW stirred up general-fandomy-people's nasty opinions.)

Unlike a lot of people, I have absolutely no problem with fanfic-fandom being a feminist space, or a safe space for women (I only wish it were true of sff fandom). And the fact that most fanfic is written by women is a basic fact that's silly to deny. Men who come in going "But..you guys should stop talking about kissing and start doing more explosions!" are being equivalent to a tourist complaining about those silly chinese people putting soy sauce on their pasta instead of bolognaise(*).

My problem is when fanfic-fandom is treated as equivalent to "women's spaces" like the women's room at uni. (EDIT: this isn't quite what people are doing, certainly noone says men aren't allowed. Here's the best essay I could find on the subject after a brief search, and here's the same basic idea expressed in a much dodgier way)

Unlike deliberately female spaces, fandom isn't defined as being female, it's just the
collection of everyone who likes fanfic etc. As it happens it has ended up mostly female for historical etc reasons, but that's different from a social group which was deliberately and explicitly created to cater to one group. There are plenty of all-gender social events for non-female people to go to, but if a man likes fanfic then it's not like can just go to the "mens fanfic club" and discuss it there, this is all there is.

I'm trying to think of examples...the best I can think of is that childrearing used to be "women's work" and is still pretty much done just by women. This has led to single fathers being excluded from parenting rooms and parenting groups which just assume that everyone who wants to use them is female.

Similarly, gay men and trans or genderqueer people are often excluded from fandom-y things along with the straight cisgendered men, with the argument that fandom is a women's space and they are not women, so they should shut up. I've seen it happen a bunch of time, and I don't like it.

On the whole, it seems to me that the not-women(**) in "female spaces" are more likely to be the sort to buck traditional gender roles and so be already marginalised in the wider society. Defining these spaces so rigidly that these not-women are excluded or marginalised here is beyond just defending ourselves from the patriarchy, it's perpetuating the patriarchy in it's oppression of a different group.

(*)And from the sound of things, a lot of male academics in this area are like italian chefs going on about how Marco Polo invented pasta, and who only reference the chinese at all to smirk about how they have no idea how to cook pasta sauce. To extend this metaphor past breaking: at the same time, that doesn't change the fact that spaghetti bolognaise is delicious, and not everyone who likes it hates China (or soy sauce) *is now hungry*
(**)And self identified women who don't fit the everyone's definition of "woman", like transwomen.

Note: I have a new policy of cutting down my internet time quite dramatically, so this was written on the fly. Sorry if it's all crap! EDIT: Haha, and now I've been metafandomed. Hi guys, I appreciate the comments but may be slow to reply :)

Comments

[alias_sqbr]

You and alchemia's posts and comments did a lot to help me understand this stuff, so thank you :)

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

"men's "transformative works" are, you know, nice and all, but they tend to lack the subversive blah-dee-blah of the stuff women make."

Ecch. That would just be annoying.

"Look at the way sf fans act as if speculative fiction is the only genre to really explore the limits of the human spirit or whatever."

Yeah, the old "literature of ideas" spiel. As if there aren't any ideas anywhere else.

The sum total of it all is "isolate any group of like-minded individuals and before long someone starts talking absolute bunk and most of the people listening quite astonishingly find themselves in agreement". Which is why "spaces" can be a dumb idea.

I don't really like media fandom, though. Or fanfic, or ... so I should really shut up now.

[kyuuketsukirui.livejournal.com]

You're much more coherent than I have been! I find I'm either enraged (such as with jassanja's post) or mostly just unable to gather my thoughts well enough to get across what I want to say. But now you've said it for me! :)

[alias_sqbr]

That's because you're a big smelly man :)

[paradox-dragon.livejournal.com]

I have been known to insist on fanfic fandom as a community of women. Not exclusively that, and not necessarily that for all eternity, but I think it's a relevant distinction. I haven't really been following the OTW debate, but I was paying attention back when the focus was on Fanlib and the exploitation of fandom, and in that case it made a lot of sense to acknowledge the parallels between the aforementioned exploitation of fandom and the historical exploitation of women and marginalization and discrediting of women writers.

I have to admit, I get really fed up with the double standard applied when association with women seems to automatically devalue a genre (I would include fanfic in this, but for a "real world" example, take romance writing), but any insistence on a genre being "women's space" is seen as exclusive and inflammatory when it is used in a positive way or brought up by the women themselves.

I by no means think that men or anyone who steps outside the traditional definitions and roles of gender should be excluded from fandom, provided they don't go about swirling a metaphorical cloak of patriarchy and privilege behind them, in which case I think they should be excluded because they're dicks, not because they aren't women. On the other hand, I don't see how calling fanfic fandom a primarily female space excludes men (marginalizes them, maybe, but I think it's more a matter of acknowledging their conspicuous absence and the reasons for that) or that there's any giant female conspiracy to boycott guys in fandom.

In my point of view, fanfic fandom is a tiny female-dominated space in a ginormous male-dominated space called Earth. I don't think the women of fandom go around hunting for males to identify and then exclude. I think that issues of gender in fandom get brought up mainly when there are issues of oppression and privilege (i.e. Fanlib) that disadvantage those women and are perpetuated mainly by men (not even male fans, but often outsiders). I see the definition of fandom as women's space as being more about preventing male intrusion (from the larger world, where men are hugely privileged and prone to act that out when stepping into communities that don't grant them that privilege) than male participation (and yes, I do think a male fan is being intrusive if he demands that fandom change to suit his tastes; if he doesn't make such demands, I think he'll be largely gender-invisible). No one's stopping fanboys from writing what they want and posting it, but if they are upset that female fans are not interested in reading what they're interested in writing . . . well, I don't care, frankly. Tough shit. Also, yes, some of those men are oppressed in other ways (i.e. queer), but that doesn't negate their male privilege.

This all makes me sound far more confrontational than I actually am, and I'm not writing this to argue with you, or to talk about how women are pure and good and inclusive and men are intrusive brutes. In short, I think that gender is largely a particularly nasty sort of fiction, but it's a fiction with great significance in the world in which we live. I don't think that the risk of men feeling excluded outweighs the need to analyze and challenge the ways in which women and their work are perceived, commodified, marginalized, and degraded.

I take your point, however, about how "transformative work" is not limited to fanfic, and I do believe that presents a problem. However, I think that consideration of the role that Fanlib played in the creation of the OTW sheds light on that; I do not know enough about the continuing debate to say whether or not gender is a consideration that should be reduced as the organization broadens its focus.

[alias_sqbr]

Cool! Be warned, I post a lot of weird random crap :)

[alias_sqbr]

I find it's a lot easier to stay calm and wait until you have your thoughts in order when it's someone else's oppression :/

[alias_sqbr]

Mm, oh yes I like most of what OTW is working towards (I've yet to hear a single compelling argument against the archive), and I agree that there's something really nice about the way fanfic/media fandom works vs a lot of other fandoms which is probably not coincidental to the gender balance, but they have some way to go before I feel comfortable with how they express themselves.

As someone on the journal: are you expecting there to be many articles on non-female communities like machina and AMVs?

[alchemia.livejournal.com]

So does most of my flist :)

[ataxi.livejournal.com]

Well, to be honest, I do actually tend to like the majority of the fanfic that I read ... which is limited to the output of relatively subtle authors like bantha_fodder, and in her case I only read the works "transformed" from canon in which I have an interest: Narnia, Dune.

I can't verify from recent personal experience that there's a giant ocean of substandard fanfic out there, I can only go from secondary sources on that one!

Life's short, why waste it on trash. Most of the original texts that become focal points of the fanfic community are sub-par anyway. Bad TV and book series. Probably it's partly because the ficcers see those texts as in more urgent need of being rescued by reconstruction, as was the original Trek ... and as wasn't the, y'know, James Joyces and Angela Carters of this world.

[alias_sqbr]

I have to admit, I get really fed up with the double standard applied when association with women seems to automatically devalue a genre (I would include fanfic in this, but for a "real world" example, take romance writing), but any insistence on a genre being "women's space" is seen as exclusive and inflammatory when it is used in a positive way or brought up by the women themselves.

Same. In fact I think we agree on a lot of things. We may even agree on pretty much everything and be shouting past each other :)

And as I said in my post, I'm definitely not objecting to fandom being called a "primarily female space" (well, except with the fact that this gets a bit ambiguous when we're talking about OTW, but I think we agree there)

I'm not entirely objecting to it being labeled a "female space" (which is different), though I'm still figuring out quite how I feel about that. I've seen lots of people who see it as a female space express themselves in very inclusive ways which affirm the role of women without trying to belittle or marginalise not-women, and I'm sure you do it that way too. I certainly enjoy having a female dominated nerdy place to hang out from time to time after the fierce maleness of nerd circles in general, and see how precious and rare that is and why people want to protect it.

What I'm objecting to is the minority of women who do define fandom as a "female space" in an exclusionary way and who automatically pigeonhole anyone who doesn't 100% fit their idea of "female fanficcer " as male/part of the patriarchy and thus the bad guy (heck, this has happened to me as a gen fan)

The world may "belong to men". But it belongs, specifically, to straight cisgendered men, and gay/trans/genderqueer etc "men" don't tend to get the full force of male privilege. And a man who is being all obnoxious and priviligey doesn't deserve our time..but that doesn't describe all not-women with a dissenting voice.

Look, I agree that people whose taste doesn't match that of the majority of fandom (and this includes myself) have to just put up with it. But if it's not a matter of taste but of heterosexism or whatever then I think people have a right to speak up and rock the boat, even if they are male.

To give an example: I think gay men and transpeople etc have a right to express an opinion about how the group they're a part of is presented in fanfiction in the same way that women have a right to express an opinion on how they're presented in fiction aimed at men, especially since it's not like there's a subgenre of fanfiction aimed at gay men or whatever that they can go read instead.
That said, I think presenting it as a simple case of straight people fetishising homosexuality is as wrong as seeing it as a simple case of men putting down women's writing. I'm not saying we have to agree with their opinions, just that they have a right to express them without being shouted down or ignored, and this doesn't always happen.

[alias_sqbr]

Oh, yes, most fanfic is terrible, but that's because there's no proffesional authors between you and it (and look at how badpublished fiction is). On the plus side, even the really amazing stuff which could be published if it was original is 100% free :)

I pretty much only ever read stuff that has been recced to me or was written by someone I trust to be good (and again, only from canons I know and like, though the sheer weight of Stargate stories overwhelms me from time to time)

But to be honest, from what I know of your taste I can't see you liking much of the really good fanfic either, I mean if Lois McMaster Bujold is too girly and light for you... :)

I can't verify from recent personal experience that there's a giant ocean of substandard fanfic out there, I can only go from secondary sources on that one!

I can link you some if you like :D

[penchaft.livejournal.com]

Oh man, people getting into arguments about whether slash writers fetishise homosexual sex and romance or not is hilarious.

(I like only learning about things when it's through wank!)

one

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

I don't remember what I specifically replied to Dave when he asked me. My opinions may even have shifted somewhat since then, as I am reading the questions raised, the criticisms and discussions, and thinking about them.

I do have responses to a few of your specific points; I can tell you where I'm coming from with regards the OTW, but keep in mind that the Organisation is bigger than the sum of its parts.

--First up, the OTW does not "claim to be speaking for all creators of 'transformative works'".
That would be an impossible task just on the face of it, as fandom is not a cohesive unit; but also, not all transformative works are fannish. For instance, pro-writers have used similar sources and techniques, and so have "fans" of things outside of what is commonly understood to be fandom in this context of "media/sf/rpf" (and how I wish we had a better name for this part of fandom, which is narrow enough to distinguish fans of transformative works from the broader fandom of convention-goers and so on, but still wide enough to allow people clearly working within this context to feel included). For example, I went to Keating the other night, and it has a lot in common with RPF, but clearly is not arising from the same tradition, and its writers would not fall under the charter of the OTW (for that work anyway, perhaps they are closet slashers :).

What the OTW is attempting to do -- our mission -- is to serve fans of these kinds of transformative fan works, if they wish to use our services. "By fans for fans," that's the motto.

--Regarding this idea of primarily female space: no one at OTW, as far as I'm aware, has ever said that non-female fans have no value or are unwelcome to participate in the Organisation. In my opinion, it is possible for the OTW to value the historical roots of the fanfic/vidding/fan-art/meta part of fandom we're discussing, which as you say, is and continues to be primarily, but not exclusively, female, while also valuing other creators of transformative works. They aren't mutually exclusive ideas -- we can value both. We may well make another change to the wording of this aspect of our Values statement -- it's something we are still actively considering and fine-tuning.

There are several reasons the OTW makes a positive statement about valuing the predominantly female nature of this part of fandom, among them: this aspect of our history has been a big influence on our fannish traditions and values, and hence the values of the Organisation; female-centred arts communities are still unusual in the wider culture, so it is worthy of notice; and leaving it out is a kind of silencing of a central part of how we came to be.

two

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

--As for this idea that the OTW may not cover every conceivable type of transformative fan worker, I would hope that the Org is flexible enough to consider each request for help on its merits, and without favouritism or consideration of whether that person is a "voting member". That is certainly the goal I'm working towards.

That said, there's no reason the OTW should be the only fanservice organisation of this kind, and I do think it's a little unreasonable that some detractors seem to want it to be. There is plenty of space for another organisation of a similar nature but with a different focus, or even several such organisations. To make a comparison to a local example: there is no reason there cannot be a WASFF equivalent in every state of Australia; but it is not WASFF's job to create such groups, or to fill the lack.

The OTW is a little like an online WASFF, albeit with a larger mission and greater number of fans who may potentially choose to use our services; and I'm sure OTW will get just as much flack as WASFF ever has -- and it should! These kinds of fannish organisations should listen and be responsive to the needs of their community, and should be accountable to the community being served. Non-profits are somewhat unwieldy structures in this regard, as they do have a tendency to react slowly; however, the offset is that they last and last, so there is time to get it right as long as there are willing volunteers to do the work.

To continue the comparison: when I look at the impact of WASFF, I see that WA's convention scene is very healthy and vibrant, and I think that is in part thanks to the umbrella WASFF offers. OTW will have many similar strengths and weaknesses; what I hope and am working towards is that the strengths will far outweigh the weaknesses. Other members of the OTW will have slightly different priorities and dreams, and I hope that all of those different voices mean that the Organisation will work towards other equally worthy goals as well, and remain focused on fan service and helping as many people as we can.

Replying to both at once

[alias_sqbr]

Ah...good point about you guys not referring to professional transformative works, just fannish ones. The word "fan" appears enough times on the site that I can't claim this as anything but me being dumb :)

And I actually don't really have a problem with the "primarily female space" thing if you're just talking about the fanfic/vidding/fan-art/meta part of fandom, for all the reasons you state.

BUT...what about the other parts of fandom, that are both fannish and not primarily female? Or, for that matter, any that are both fannish and primarily female but are not connected to the whole fanfic subculture?(*) Are they not really OTWs area but you might represent/study them if it comes up? If so I think it should be made clear. Or do you see them as merely off-shoots of the female bits of fandom? Because I don't agree, and even if this were so you're still going to alienate and confuse less historically minded creators of machina etc.

I'm not worried that men are being excluded, I'm worried that everyone from these other fandoms is being excluded by an organisation that on the surface seems to include them. I mean I don't think it's a huge deal if it gets made less ambiguous once you guys have more time to work on your wording, which is why it's not the focus of my rant. But every time I've seen a "OTW is for all of us!" post I find myself thinking "Yes but are they for me(**)?".

And I realise OTW can't cover everything, I'd just feel happier if I knew what was and wasn't covered. To use your example, the "WA" in "WASFF" lets people from Victoria know it's not really for them, if they called themselves "The Science Fiction Association" and you had to dig to find out that they only covered WA, well...that would be less good.

Anyway, whoever you do and don't represent I still think the OTW is a good and necessary thing on the whole. I really don't understand the people bagging on the archive: it's free open source software! Designed especially for fanfic! How is that not a good thing? (I mean I'll understand once it comes out if they have specific holes to pick, but I can't see anything wrong with that in principle :))

NB: I am now at home with crappy aircon which is making me much grumpier than I was when replying to everyone else, sorry if this is curt!

(*)I don't really know of any, to be honest, but they could be out there somewhere :)
(**)As a creator of parody comics and Neverwinter nights modules etc, not just as the creator of more obviously acceptable fanart

Re: Replying to both at once

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

You don't at all come across as curt, just interested.

It seems the main contention you have is this: "And I realise OTW can't cover everything, I'd just feel happier if I knew what was and wasn't covered."

So would I... except I do worry that if the OTW makes that kind of statement too early it will exclude fans unnecessarily, and that is the last thing the Organisation wants to do.

I understand why fandom wants the OTW to pin down exactly what will and won't be covered -- so that people can decide if they are included or not, and hold us to our word. Both reasonable things, especially in the face of corporate entities who are renowned for their weasel-word ways.

The problem the OTW faces is that we won't know what will fall under the Organisation's umbrella when it comes to the transformative works on the fringe of our charter until several things have happened, such as: the formation of our Terms of Service, which will be done in consultation with the community, as we plan to open the drafts for public comment; a real fan comes to us for help with an actual borderline case; and we have a better idea of what our yearly budget will be.

For instance, despite all our plans, it may turn out that we will flat-out not be able to afford to offer more than a referral to another body, such as the EFF, when it comes to legal matters.

The biggest problem, though, is that the "transformative works" part of fandom is hard to pin down and define. Believe me, we have been trying.

By their very nature, transformative fanworks tend to break boundaries and celebrate differences. The OTW values that -- it's certainly one of the things I love best about fanfic -- but how on earth does the OTW describe the breadth of fanworks of this nature, let alone weigh in on what "counts" and what doesn't? And how does the OTW do so, while still making it clear that it's not here to offer services to pro-writers, or other parts of fandom that already have infrastructure (like conventions, which often have WASFFs or whatever), or fans who may be creating art, but not art that is playing with works in active copyright/trademark (or libel/slander in the case of RPF), and so on?

Wherever the OTW draws the line (a metaphor problematic in itself, as fandom seems more like overlapping circles in a venn diagram to me, with the same fan often being both a transformative worker and, say, a convention fan), there will undoubtedly be a fan who is creating something that exists outside of the "line" and yet is still creating the kind of thing the OTW wants to welcome into the Archive.

For all of these reasons, the definition of the OTW's mission is something that will undoubtedly be reconsidered regularly throughout the lifetime of the Organisation, no matter how long that ends up being. But I don't think there will ever be a simple answer to your question, just due to the nature of fandom and fanworks.

Of course, if you have ideas about how this dilemma can be resolved, please do contact the Community Relations committee and let them know you want to get involved. That's the beauty of this kind of Organisation -- everyone working for the OTW is a fan, and has the same kinds of concerns you do. The Content Committee isn't something I'm actively involved with at the moment, but I know they have looked for volunteers from time to time to help with the ToS, so there may well be a way you can get more actively involved.

Or, if you don't have time to get involved, you could still offer your own suggestions. Email them to Community Relations (comrel@transformativeworks.org), or talk to me about them next time we meet and I can pass them on.

[moon-very-thin.livejournal.com]

"Similarly, gay men and trans or genderqueer people are often excluded from fandom-y things along with the straight cisgendered men, with the argument that fandom is a women's space and they are not women, so they should shut up. I've seen it happen a bunch of time, and I don't like it. "

I'm curious. Do you (or anyone else here)have linkable examples of this phenomenon? It's just that in my own experiences of various fandoms over the last decade I have never seen it arise, and I'd like to educate myself.

It may be that my female privilege in fandom space makes me blind to it. Heaven knows, I'm aware enough of the frustration of male friends not *getting* how exclusionary so many spaces can be to a woman on the basis of gender.

I respect OTW's acknowledgement of the feminine-nature of fandom because things like FanLib and the official BSG vidding challenge etc have so frustratingly ignored the experiences of the feminine majority by super-imposing a masculine-centric view of fandom.

However, in those cases it's a case of foreign affairs rather than domestic - dealing with non-fannish organisations who have certain ill-informed assumptions about the gendered nature of many aspects of fandom. I'd be very grateful if I could hear the opinions of men in media fandom who feel unfairly excluded.

[alias_sqbr]

Well, I'm a woman too so am not the best person to ask :) (I actually feel a bit weird answering the question for this reason, so anyone with a better grasp of this stuff is free to correct me)

The perception has been growing for a while, to be honest I first noticed the "the only people who aren't women who like what I like are male chauvinist pigs" attitude when it was (indirectly) used against me (as a woman who likes plotty gen and science and other boyish things), and this meant that when people like alchemia complained about this sort of attitude marginalising them I had a certain base sympathy, and I started to think about what fandom would look like from a gay male/transgendered/genderqueer perspective. (For example, telling someone who was born a woman and has gone through hell and high water to gain any acceptance as a man that they're an "honorary woman" for liking fanfic and not being a misogynist is kind of rude..)

The only ones I have an actual link to are the rant I linked to above, and the comment that sparked this rant, where a (I think) FTM transexual was talking about feeling marginalised and was told that "being a dude in fandom is kind of like being a straight ally at a queer social event" (which I won't link to since I think the person who posted it feels a bit embarrassed about it now in retrospect :))

In general women are a lot less directly aggressive than men, so it's more subtle than the open misogyny you get in male spaces. But there have been several times I've seen gay men or trans people say that they're not comfortable with the way their group is portrayed by slash and they got an immediate reaction of "This is by women for women, if you don't like it then sod off" and "It's impossible for me to be prejudiced against gay men because I'm a lesbian" without any attempt to look at whether or not slash perpetuates homophobic/transphobic etc attitudes. I mean there is also a lot of very intelligent discussion about the gender/sexuality etc issues in fanfic, but that doesn't negate the bad stuff.

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

I totally hear you on the Not Playing Nice part. It's worse than herding cats.

Which brings me to what, on reflection, I think my fundamental problem with the gendered language is: I don't actually see fandom as a female space. It's far too big and diverse to be laid claim to by any one faction. There are women here. There are men, too. There are also people who identify as neither. We all have space under the fandom umbrella. Sometimes the spaces overlap; sometimes they don't. Basically, I see I see fandom as a neutral space, and also I think any organisation that purports to try to support fandom should try to preserve that neutrality.

I've met Cathy, but only in her capacity as a SMOF. I think I gave her some of my Contreau as a bribe at a fan olympics a couple of swancons ago. I would like to know more about the board's fandom credentials - what their gateway fandom was, what they're currently active in, what do they produce now, what have the produced in the past... Get an idea of where they're actually coming from in relation to my own experiences.

Re: one

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

Chiming in late here. And I feel as though I'm repeating some of what's been said but...

Part of what is causing all the fuss is that, as you say, you are trying to cover as much as possible. But at the same time, it's sounding like your vested interests are in just a few places, and those places are the areas of fandom that are female-dominated. You're saying, point blank in OTW's values statement, that fandom's identity is valuable because it is not male, or queer, or anything . And that is exclusionary.

Now, I know that it's not be meant to taken that way, but it can very easily be read that way. And I honestly don't think you can say that you value IDIC if you're also stating a preference for the values and history of one group before all others.

Would someone who is a member of a fandom that is not and never has been traditionally female, read that values statement and then feel comfortable approaching OTW for help? Would they feel confidant that, all other things considered, that they'd get the same treatment as someone in a female dominated fandom? If money is tight, who gets first dibs?

That's the litmus test. I think the language of that one statement needs to be changed so that it would pass the test 99% of the time. We can still honour that fact that great swathes of fandom are female and that this is awesome and unusual, but as an organisation trying to work for as many fans as possible, you also need to assign positive value to the spaces that aren't female.

Re: one

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

We can still honour that fact that great swathes of fandom are female and that this is awesome and unusual, but as an organisation trying to work for as many fans as possible, you also need to assign positive value to the spaces that aren't female.

How? That is not meant as a dismissive question: I genuinely would like you to send your suggestions for change to the OTW.

No one person wrote those statements; many people have worked on them, more have critiqued them, and the OTW is still open to changing the wording again (and I hope the Organisation always will be open to such changes, as fandom changes).

However, what we have now is the best wording we can currently think up which fills both our intended mission and is as inclusive as possible given that mission.

If you can think of an alternative wording that does those things better, please send it to Community Relations. It will be read and considered.

[dkompare.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I'm not sure what to expect! I'm guessing that most of the initial wave of submissions will come from acafen on and around LJ, but I do know that the editors have indicated that they're interested in material that ventures further afield.

My own academic kink is for pieces that look at the cultural politics of transformative works in an institutional way (i.e., economic, legal, etc.). I'd love to see stuff on copyright and fair use applied to specific instances, whether fanfic, machinima, or (say) DJs crafting mash-ups.

[dkompare.livejournal.com]

Through all of these discussions, there's a fascinating conflation of things like genre, affect, narrative, and style with gender and/or sexuality. That seems to be how our culture is encoded (I'm not gonna say "hard-wired," because much of that line of thought is BS). Thus, for example, not only is the idea of fanfic constructed very differently from "outside" and "inside" fandom (speaking very broadly), each construction immediately implies particular codes about gender and/or sexuality.

Like you, I'm a gen fan, for the most part. I totally get slash, and value it as a mode of culture, but it just doesn't do anything for me. More or less the same for shipping (to an extent). I find myself wondering if that's because of my gender and sexuality, or if that's because of my taste formation (not high or low, but relative to all sorts of stuff in culture), or something else, and I'm not sure.

So, then, as someone who considers himself a fan, but isn't into slash or shipping, I've had a difficult go of it on LJ. I'm not going to "pass" as someone who is into it, but I am familiarizing myself with more concepts and issues, because I am very interested in the broader endeavor of fandom, or, to be more precise, if less proper, "fannishness."

To flip this on its head, one of my former students (now getting her PhD in Communication Studies) is a het female whose fannish passion is professional male sports. Not in a sexual mode (that's secondary, according to her), but as sports, i.e., as a "guy" would typically do. She's found it incredibly difficult to find a place in this world, as male privilege locks out or shuts down women's perspectives, and dominant discourses of femininity (and feminism) tell her she's either supposed to only be in it for the "hot guys" or reject it altogether. The upside is that she's found it an incredibly fertile ground for exploring issues of gender, passion, expertise, and marketing in contemporary culture!

Anyway, I think I'd like to see more discussion (in general; this particular discussion is very engaging!) about what makes some artifact or practice "male" or "female" or "gay" or "straight," and what about the folks who say "none of the above, thank you"? I'd like to do this without dismissing the problem of the very, very real politics of gender bias and male privilege in the world overall, but still get at the "stuff" that makes stuff gendered in the first place.

[alchemia.livejournal.com]

Some examples are just not worth anyone bookmarking- one sentence, buried in a lengthy thread on some other topic.

The good thing about the rant alias_sqbr linked to is that it wasn't deleted (unfortunately, all the replies from wonderful fen pointing out how offensive it was were deleted). Often times, the entire post is deleted/locked, so that we can't point back to it and say, see, this happens (Example, someone involved with slash fics made a homophobic post, and when confronted about that, locked the post. The only proof it happened is that someone else wrote about it (http://mawaridi.livejournal.com/507339.html) in their own lj.)

Sometimes entire journals are deleted, because the fan is tired of the wank and disrespect of their identity. Usually this is a man or transman who presents in ways that others read as too feminine are accused of "really being women" who deliberately trying to deceive fandom. There's a post in response to this here (http://pauraque.livejournal.com/239554.html).