Fandom as a female space
Jan. 16th, 2008 03:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alias_sqbrSo there's a been a lot of discussion on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
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 :)
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 :)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: one
Date: 2008-01-17 07:17 pm (UTC)We value our *history* as a female-dominated space, and our *identity* of rich creativity[...].
as a woman, in all the senses that count, i find this so much more inviting than what's on the page now. the main problem i have with what's there now is that 1) i really *don't* value fandom as a female dominated space - i'd be doing this if there were no girls here tomorrow, and i'd be happy and 2) frankly, *i'd* rather be valued for *what i contribute* than for a genetic quirk i can't actually control. i didn't have a choice in being born female, and i don't contribute to being female, and therefore, having value as a female is kinda useless. it's *far* more flattering and appropriate to have value *as a contributor*.
perhaps the most ironic thing about the paragraph above is that yes, i'm fully cognizant of the fact that the reason i *can* have value as a contributor in most spaces is because feminists have fought for my value as a woman to be the same as the value of a man. it just seems really weird for that intrinsic value to supersede now, especially in an area that's not exactly subject to hiring quotas...
-bs
no subject
Date: 2008-01-17 10:31 pm (UTC)Re: one
Date: 2008-01-17 11:04 pm (UTC)Re: one
Date: 2008-01-18 12:46 am (UTC)i know wording values stmts and such is hard, but as i've said elsewhere, that's the very reason i think nitpicking it now is important. and this particular section has caused the sort of reaction that indicates it's important enough to be a major factor in OTW's success.
i feel kind of weird pimping my own wording in various lj's, but i've come to the conclusion that this is important enough to fight for. i know OTW wants to be as inclusive as possible, so it's really important to have the right wording - for all of us.
-bs
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 01:36 am (UTC)But at the same time...someone has to defend girly things.
I'm glad you student was able to turn her experiences into a learning experience :)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 01:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 02:09 am (UTC)Oh, yeah, wow. No, I don't advocate that at all. I find the designation of female space valuable in an analytic way, not as a way of policing who can and cannot be in fandom.
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.
Definitely, 100% agreed. I mean, I think the intersection of privilege can be really complicated, and I definitely didn't mean to imply that just being a man prevents you from ever experiencing oppression or something (I mean, I'm a queer woman, but I'm white, and I'm USAmerican and middle class and cisgendered, so I am not really at the bottom of the privilege barrel, you know?). And abso-fucking-lutely, I think genderqueer and trans folks and pretty much everyone has the right to advocate for themselves in fandom, and I would not consider a them sexist for doing so.
When I said that experiencing some other type of oppression doesn't negate male privilege, I meant only that one can't assume that, say, a gay man is going to be completely not sexist because he knows what it's like to experience heterosexism, anymore than I'm going to avoid unintentional racism 100% of the time just because I know what it's like to experience sexism or homophobia. So, being gay or genderqueer or whatever isn't a defense against sexism, but neither is being male an automatic indicator of it (except in the way that all human beings sort of suck, and we all screw up, and deliberately or not we're on going to stomp all over someone whom we have privilege over at some point).
Also, for the record, I read a lot of gen and femmeslash and slash and het and various combinations of those, as well as tons of different fandoms and communities and authors whom I'll follow even into fandoms I don't know. I mention this because I have not seen much of such exclusionary talk about not-women in fandom, and I was wondering if the people saying it were focused in one particular area, and I've just missed them, or if they are particularly affiliated with OTW (in which case I'm freaked out), or what. The poster you linked to in your original post (the dodgy one) creeped me out, and I assumed that such opinions were pretty rare and that most of the "exclusion" of men in fandom was actually the result of privileged over-reaction the legitimate criticisms of sexism by women (this is what I've mainly seen before now, and that was the premise I was writing from when I made my first comment, which was ill-considered).
Re: one
Date: 2008-01-18 02:20 am (UTC)Re: Replying to both at once
Date: 2008-01-18 02:29 am (UTC)But as it stands the website and the statements of people who support it’s language don’t give that impression, it gives the impression that it’s fairly obvious who you do and don’t represent, and there is a definite conflation of “works which are transformative”=”stuff we respect and value”=”fanfic/fanvids etc”. There’s a big difference between “we respect you but you’re not under the umbrella of this organisation” and “what you do doesn’t count”, and until your comment I hadn’t noticed any effort to make the distinction or express even hypothetical interest in other fandoms.
I think you need something on the FAQ/About us page like “We respect the diversity of all transformative works and their associated communities, and feel that they are all worthy of respect and protection. This particular organisation currently has a focus on the (largely female) community surrounding fanfic and fanvids etc (often called “media fandom”), and since we are in our early stages it’s not clear how far beyond that community we will be able to extend out reach. However, we welcome the input of everyone from the wider community of fannish transformative works, and are very interested in forming close relationships with other similar organisations.” Of course one of the reasons I Don’t Do Committees Anymoreis the trouble caused by my preference for unvarnished, pedantic truth versus simple, positive spin, so you might not want to take advice from me…
I like the “female history”, “creative community” change suggested
I understand that you're just starting and can't be expected to know everything yet. And I understand that you also want to get the word out now, rather than later, so that people join and get involved and help you actually do stuff.
Unfortunately, this has led to an avalanche of unclear and somewhat contradictory information (the “Why I joined OTW” posts for example), which in turns leads to a lot of people asking questions, and there's only a small number of people who aren't sure of the answers yet to answer them. For example, I first asked about this on the official “Ask your questions here” post over two weeks ago, where only one of the seven comments has been responded to. This rather put me off giving further suggestions.
While I do think OTW is worthy and necessary, I don’t see myself getting very involved myself since I’m more interested in conventiony fandom and creating original works, fanfic etc is very much a sideline hobby for me and none of the OTW volunteer stuff I’ve seen has really been my bag. That said, I have been sticking up for you guys when people say blatantly untrue things like “None of them write RPF” or “I doubt any of them have any idea how to make this archive”. It’s been hard not just linking to those board members whose lj-nicks I know and going “See?” :)
As an aside: so you’re definitely not dealing with based-on-out-of-copyright stuff? That seems like a rather arbitrary distinction in all but the legal sense (where it’s perfectly logical) but fair enough.
Re: Replying to both at once
Date: 2008-01-18 02:58 am (UTC)You questions are being discussed. As I said before, the downside of these kinds of organisations is that they move slowly. I can give a fast answer because it's my opinion, but my voice is only one, and may well be over-ruled.
Can't reply to the rest in detail now, as I'm off to teach again in a moment, but the "not dealing with based-on-out-of-copyright stuff" is not a yes or no answer either. ToS isn't written yet! I imagine it will be welcome into the Archive, but there is unlikely to be a potential legal question to answer for those stories, so it isn't relevant to the legal part of our mission.
Re: one
Date: 2008-01-18 04:11 am (UTC)The thing I'd suggest straight off the bat, though, is changing the actual hierarchy of values. Move value 5 (IDIC) to position 2, and bump the others down a level. This would mean that your value statements reads as “what we do - who we are – where we come from”. Where we came from is important, yes, but it's not as important as where we are now.
With
1. We value transformative fanworks and the innovative communities from which they have arisen, including media, real person fiction, anime, comics, music and vidding.
2. We value infinite diversity in infinite combinations. We value all fans engaged in transformative work: fans of any race, gender, culture, sexual identity, or ability. We value the unhindered cross-pollination and exchange of fannish ideas and cultures while seeking to avoid the homogenization or centralization of fandom.
3. We value our identity as a diverse community that is rich in creativity and commentary, and honour our history of being a predominantly female space.
4. We value our volunteer-based infrastructure and the fannish gift economy that recognizes and celebrates worth in myriad and diverse activities.
5. We value making fannish activities as accessible as possible to all those who wish to participate.
Re: one
Date: 2008-01-18 06:40 am (UTC)The reason OTW has formal channels of communication is so that if something happens to individual members (if I get sick, for instance, or Sophie, who isn't a member, deletes her LJ), your ideas still get through to the right place. So while I do appreciate that you want to discuss this here, this isn't an appropriate venue (sorry, Sophie).
I agree that
Re: one
Date: 2008-01-18 07:20 am (UTC)I will type up my thoughts on the values order, and on the perils of focusing too much on what was instead of what actually is, and send it on, though I would prefer open, rather than closed, discussion with the board on this issue. It's perhaps the most contentious issue to come up so far (now that the bandom stuff has more or less died down, anyway) - perhaps OTW should open an official, public dialogue channel rather than waiting for commentary to come to you.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 09:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 09:44 am (UTC)I must admit, reading academic papers makes my brain hurt (how I got through my Phd I don't know, though at least with maths you can skip to the equations) so I probably won't be reading any of them, but it's cool to know they're being written :) (and then I can read the for-dummies versions on metafandom)
Re: one
Date: 2008-01-18 10:11 am (UTC)Sorry my last reply was a little abrupt -- I was fitting it in between teaching sessions.
To explain further: my previous comments to
Speaking for myself, I may open up some discussions about upcoming issues in my own LJ, as it would help me to hone my own opinions before they are discussed within the Organisation.
I can also tell you that it is OTW policy to read and consider all suggestions, and changes have been made because of ideas that have been sent to Community Relations or left in
OTW should open an official, public dialogue channel rather than waiting for commentary to come to you
Yes, I agree. This kind of outreach will become more common as the Organisation develops. If you look at
Re: Replying to both at once
Date: 2008-01-18 10:45 am (UTC)until your comment I hadn’t noticed any effort to make the distinction or express even hypothetical interest in other fandoms
Well, I'm discussing the issues as I see them, but those kinds of distinctions may end up being approached differently by the Organisation as a whole. The OTW's focus is on transformative fanworks and practices rather than individual fandoms, in part as there is no way to produce a complete/inclusive list of fandoms that would come under OTW's umbrella. I wasn't actually speaking of "counting" in terms of fandoms in any case, I was speaking in terms or borderline transformativeness of the fanwork (ie. a largely original work which riffs on a fairy tale as a repeated metaphor rather than a major plot point -- does it count as transformative work? Context would be everything in terms of whether it came under the umbrella: is it published by a fan as a fanwork, or for money in an anthology? etc.)
The Vision and Values statements are meant to be the big picture ideas of the OTW, and for that reason much of the detail of how things will work is still in a grey area. The ToS and other policy documents will focus on the nitty gritty, and in the process answer many of these kinds of questions. These documents will also have the most thorough discussion/comment process.
The FAQ is also still being invented, as the Org comes up with answers to newly asked questions -- yours has been passed along (I will check up on it). A new version of the FAQ is already on the drawing board, which will include things like the answers to the "Anti-fanfic Bingo" card.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 06:15 pm (UTC)Seriously, though, it's a great idea in principle, and I hope that we can persuade submitters to do up 50-200 word abstracts (in plain English) that can then lead to ongoing discussions threaded under each article online. Kind of like Flow (http://www.flowtv.org).
here from MF...
Date: 2008-01-18 09:05 pm (UTC)"oh, poor baby!"
If circumstances force you into an outsider's position, you will have to suck it up. it's a plain fact that you will always be the minority. Whining about it won't change it. Nothing, ever, will change it.
I wonder if falling remember what it was like to be the girl in a predominantly male space?
Re: here from MF...
Date: 2008-01-18 10:44 pm (UTC)And I agree that a lot of the men (queer or otherwise) who complain about fandom "oppressing" them are just having trouble getting used to being in the minority.
But...I still think it's wrong to equate fandom, where women happen to be in the majority, with a social setting which is specifically created as a space for women. The two situations have a number of things in common, but they're not the same.
For example: If a whole bunch of men decided to join the What women want party and policy started shifting towards what men wanted...that would be legitimate reason to complain and try to exclude them or something. Similarly, the mods of the deliberately slash-friendly
But if, tommorrow, every gay man in the world suddenly decided that slash sounded like fun and joined fandom, do you think it would be reasonable to exclude them? To complain when the general tone of slash went from "From women by women" to "from men by men"? (this is different from expressing nostalgia for the Old Days or forming "old skool, for women" subsets of fandom, both of which I think would be 100% reasonable) I do think it'd be fair to complain if those gay men then, as a community, started picking on or belittling the sort of slash which started things off, which is why I have no problem with the suggested change of OTWs values to talk about fandom's history as a primarily female space.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 10:53 pm (UTC)*reads numerous articles when I have better things to do*
Yes, like that. Sounds good :)
Re: Replying to both at once
Date: 2008-01-18 11:26 pm (UTC)Personally I think there needs to be at least a vague "Thanks for your input" response to people's comments, my default assumption when noone responds to my query isn't "Clearly my question was so probing they are all locked in deep thought about it" but "I guess noone read it" or "I guess it was so dumb they didn't bother replying", and this in turn means I almost certainly wouldn't have bothered making any further suggestions.
But I may go write an email to the community relations person now (about that and other things). That said, I really do prefer open, multi-person discussions, email is too formal and I think too slow for real-time chat :) To be honest I can't see how email is preferable to lj comments on a specific "leave your input here" post which (I would assume) is read by the same person. On lj I can point to a comment later on when discussing things with other people and make sure I'm not repeating an earlier, already answered question/suggestion.
I think I was misreading the whole OTW thing: the fact that you're such polished writers and webpage designers etc means that the site etc come across as a lot more final than I get the impression they really are, so it felt like ambiguities etc were signs of a policy I didn't understand and you hadn't explained rather than the fact that you're still figuring things out.
Re: here from MF...
Date: 2008-01-18 11:34 pm (UTC)yes, and they are so shocked by it!
But...I still think it's wrong to equate fandom, where women happen to be in the majority, with a social setting which is specifically created as a space for women.
OTW does not, IMO, make that equation. Perhaps a change of phrase would make that better-understood, but it seems to me that many people are intent on hating OTW no matter what they do or say.
I do think it'd be fair to complain if those gay men then, as a community, started picking on or belittling the sort of slash which started things off,
Oh, honey, they would and they do. It's not because they are gay or men, it's tribal behavior....
no subject
Date: 2008-01-18 11:51 pm (UTC)First off: this is DEFINITELY not an OTW thing, it's just that the OTW has prompted discussions of fandom as a female space and that stirs up all this other stuff.
Second: I'm in a somewhat odd position in fandom since I'm not really "in" any specific fandoms, I pretty much just read fanfic and metafandom and the ljs of various people I know and like (often for non-fandomy reasons or because they lead me to the good fanfic) So my experience may not be very representative. Also the fact that I see my geeky "home" as male dominated science fiction fandom rather than female dominated fanfic fandom probably affects my judgement.
That said....
The thing with the exclusionary talk: it's generally pretty subtle,a subtext implied during discussions about other things, such as fandom as a female space. I'm not saying there's people loudly proclaiming that we should kick all the transexuals out of fandom or anything. It's rather like the subtle "lies of omission" racism I've seen in feminism: a group of (mostly) well meaning, pro inclusiveness people are not going to be deliberately oppressive or spout a bunch of politically incorrect insults or anything, but we're not immune to simply not noticing how our behaviour affects other people and then getting defensive when called on it.
Since I'm a straight cisgendered woman I'm not the best person to notice these negative effects myself, but I have noticed the knee-jerk defensiveness and refusal to even stop and listen and try to figure out if anything bad is happening when gay men etc complain. Given that most men who complain about fandom are unjustified misogynists I realise that this defensiveness makes a lot of sense, but I still think we have to be more careful.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-19 01:10 am (UTC)