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 :)
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: 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.
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: Replying to both at once
Date: 2008-01-19 01:29 am (UTC)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
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
Date: 2008-01-19 01:52 am (UTC)Re: Replying to both at once
Date: 2008-01-21 01:45 am (UTC)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
Date: 2008-01-21 02:16 am (UTC)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
Date: 2008-01-21 03:39 am (UTC)Also, thanks for responding to my question on