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

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.

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.

Re: one

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

i suggested on cesperenza's lj that the words 'history' and 'identity' in Value Stmt #2 change places:

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

Re: one

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

That was you? Thank you. We are currently considering that change.

Re: one

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

thank you :-)

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

Re: one

[alchemia.livejournal.com]

Second'ing boogieshoe's suggestion.

Re: one

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

boogieshoes' suggestion isn't a bad one. I'm playing around with the wording myself and, who knows? I might come up with something. If I do, I'll send it in.

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 boogieshoes’ changes, it’d read something like:

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

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

We have, in fact, already considered the sequencing option you suggest, and decided it didn't work for the reasons I gave in an earlier comment in this thread -- where we came from has so deeply influenced the ideology of the OTW and why it came into being. This heirarchy of values may change in future, as fandom changes and the OTW changes in response. If you would like the idea to be reconsidered before then, please send it through to Community Relations.

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 boogieshoes's suggestion is a good one, and it's currently under consideration.

Re: one

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

The problem then, I guess, is that the OTW board comes from a different place than I do, and I don't really know or understand what that place is. Ah well. I suspect I already knew that.

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.

Re: one

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

Thank you for agreeing to put your thoughts together to send along to Community Relations; that will be helpful.

Sorry my last reply was a little abrupt -- I was fitting it in between teaching sessions.

To explain further: my previous comments to alias_sqbr in this thread were largely made up of my own opinions and what I'll be working towards within the OTW as a concerned fan and willing volunteer. You were asking for official word or debate, which isn't appropriate in this forum for the kinds of reasons I mentioned before.

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_news. This will be an ongoing process, but due to the need for checks and balances and given we all have real lives etc, the Organisation will often move at a slower pace than fandom tends to in informal interactions -- especially while the Organisation is still inventing policies and procedures. As these are settled, things should go much faster, especially once the ToS are complete.

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 otw_news, you'll see that we have a chat session scheduled for tomorrow. In that forum, your questions would be appropriate, and an official transcript will be created and posted so that all interested parties can read it.

Re: Replying to both at once

[alias_sqbr]

Ah, see, I had a feeling you hadn’t 100% decided who you represent yet, and that’s fair enough.

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 boogieshoes.

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

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

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.

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: Replying to both at once

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

Okay, to answer in a little more detail:

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.

Re: Replying to both at once

[alias_sqbr]

Yeah, fair enough that you aren't really in a position to answer this stuff definitively, thanks anyway I understand things a lot better now.

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: Replying to both at once

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

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.

Yes, otw_news comments go directly to the Community Relations committee.

The idea of more chat-style discussions, and more general discussion/suggestion threads hosted on otw_news are ideas we're considering -- we're still inventing our outreach too, trying to find a balance between the more formal needs of a non-profit Org, and the free-for-all discussion preferred by fandom. We still have some work ahead of us in getting the balance right, but we intend to keep trying stuff until we find a combination that works.

signs of a policy I didn't understand and you hadn't explained rather than the fact that you're still figuring things out

We opened our metaphorical doors as soon as we could, so that fandom could get directly involved in the creation of the Org. We are not like stereotypical corporations in that regard. We want to serve fandom, and to do that we must be by and for fandom and co-operatively invented by fandom. That's the stage we're in now.

In fact, the website isn't even the final version; it's stage two, and has barely anything on it yet compared to what we have planned. It's practically a shell. So, yeah, the set-up isn't even close to anything like finished, and won't be until the end of the year, I'd guess. And even then, that's just getting the ground floor built; after that, there's a whole heap of other projects that have been suggested.

Speaking just for myself, I expected criticism at this stage. Perhaps not quite so much, and certainly not for some of the reasons given, but certainly that it would come from every quarter. But then, I've heard what people say about WASFF, and I've also seen the good and bad of how that's turned out.

Re: Replying to both at once

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

Also, thanks for sticking up for us; I saw one of the comments you made about me being a real person. :)

Re: Replying to both at once

[alias_sqbr]

You're welcome :)

I think people are being way too paranoid about you guys. I mean it's one thing to say you're doing everything wrong (a guaranteed complaint against any organisation doing anything ever) but I don't get the assumptions of malicious intent. Even if I didn't know you personally, everything OTW has done and said seems to me to quite obviously come from a love of fandom. If I didn't think you were interested in doing what's best for fandom I wouldn't bother complaining when I think you're doing it wrong :)

Re: Replying to both at once

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

The OTW sees most of the criticism as a good thing for exactly that reason; we want people to engage and help, and a lot of the critique so far *has* been helpful in honing the Org's policies, wording, and general thinking about how to approach things.

I'm not sure where the more vitriolic mistrust is coming from either, but change is scary, so it may in part be motivated by fear, which is understandable enough.

Re: Replying to both at once

[alias_sqbr]

I was pondering, and I think part of it is that unlike most fandom groups you're deliberately not coming across as amateurs, but as a formal, professional organisation (and for very good reasons). I think that set off people's automatic "Evil Corporate Overlords" alarms :)

Also, thanks for responding to my question on otw_news!