Women, Men, SFF part deux

[Callan S.]

@Callan: I'm actually not sure what you're saying here?

Well, you'd said

It's the difference between calling someone an asshole or whiny troll versus using language about their sexuality/race/etc.

I suppose I'd extend the question to asking who gets to judge which is which. And why one seems more grown up?

[Callan S.]

I understand that you somehow completely and totally lack the capacity for this empathy given that this has been told to you over and over again for the last 9 months, but perhaps other people will see it for the self-evident truth that it is.

Lacking your particular type of empathy, yes. And what you call empathy is the only type you'll stand anyone to have. That's your sort of empathy.

[Chaldanya]

I suppose I'd extend the question to asking who gets to judge which is which. And why one seems more grown up?

You can't see the difference between calling someone an arsehole and saying that they are a stupid cunt and deserve to be raped (which btw happens to women who blog all the time). You really can't see the difference? Interesting.

N

[thistlepong]

Lacking your particular type of empathy, yes. And what you call empathy is the only type you'll stand anyone to have. That's your sort of empathy.

I dunno, man. Empathy's a pretty standard concept. If you're doing it right the difference between the two contexts is kinda undeniable.

[Nukelavee]

SQL ate this last night, oddly, it was still in control v mode. So:

From N K Jemisin

I have a suspicion that it’s because women are popularly perceived as being good at collaboration. Ergo collaboration is “feminine”, ergo working alone is more macho, and ergo a woman being a good leader isn’t really a strength because she’s just “following her nature”. ::sigh:: I’ve known so many strong women in my life, and they’ve shown strength in such a variety of ways.

And this is what gets annoying - this kind of idea. It's so flawed, yet, hey, it's about minimizing women, so...

It's crap. Teamwork or collaboration isn't feminine, it's human. It isn't a concept attributed to a single gender, it's part of why the species is where it is, because we are social animals.The lone hero stands out, because any human loner is an odd beast. It isn't macho because they lack a feminine quality, it's macho because leaving the troop is masculine.

Working as part of a team is far too central to too many masculine dominated areas to have her reading on it.

It's looking too hard for something that can be discussed in terms of gender roles, and stereotypes.

Damnit. I'm on a rant about critics again, and sliding off topic.

I think people forget sometimes, heroes are unnatural, so trying to define what makes a good one (or any character, really), male of female, is actually trying to dictate what a good character, strong woman, whatever, is. It's like we are trying to create our own archetype. And, in a century, it will seem as contrived and distorted as current ones are now.

Plus, it dictates the stories told, because somethings just aren't possible with a limited palette of personalities.

eta -

Sure, it's a high signal to noise ratio, but we do talk gender because of her. Theres always people who's idea of talking about books is actually talking about themselves talking about books, but at least the books do get through sometimes, and i'll take what I can get.

Well, I've lost track of which blog is being refered to, but...What's wrong with people talking about the books, as teh books, and not as examples of whether or not they advance an agenda?

I mean - my reaction to the linked post isn't discussing gender, really, it's an unholy desire to point out just how brutally flawed the premise is.

No logical reason for warriors and soldiers to be male, other than questionable loyalties of captured brides and ownership issues? Really?

I'm not certain there is a real signal in there among the noise. But, she expects that concept to be seriously considered?

[Kalbear]

See, Callan is viewing it entirely from the perspective of someone throwing the invectives. He can't understand the actual damage that these words can cause; to him, if someone insults, it's just an insult. Rape threats are the functional equivalent of telling someone they're a doo-doo head to him. And why wouldn't they be? Why would he be worried about a rape threat? Why should anyone else if he isn't? To him, all of it is clearly just words used to show their displeasure. He doesn't literally understand why it would be a problem.

I really loved this quote (from Scalzi's discussions of Valente's piece)

‘Cause the thing is, you and the guys you hang out with may not really mean anything by it when you talk about crazy bitches and dumb sluts and heh-heh-I’d-hit-that and you just can’t reason with them and you can’t live with ‘em can’t shoot ‘em and she’s obviously only dressed like that because she wants to get laid and if they can’t stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen and if they can’t play by the rules they don’t belong here and if they can’t take a little teasing they should quit and heh heh they’re only good for fucking and cleaning and they’re not fit to be leaders and they’re too emotional to run a business and they just want to get their hands on our money and if they’d just stop overreacting and telling themselves they’re victims they’d realize they actually have all the power in this society and white men aren’t even allowed to do anything anymore and and and…

I get that you don’t really mean that shit. I get that you’re just talking out your ass.

But please listen, and please trust me on this one: you have probably, at some point in your life, engaged in that kind of talk with a man who really, truly hates women–to the extent of having beaten and/or raped at least one. And you probably didn’t know which one he was.

And that guy? Thought you were on his side.

[Nukelavee]

That is a great quote.

[Sci-2]

ETA: If I understand Callan's argument, he's saying that at some point anyone can claim language is targeted not at them as a person but some group they belong to. Which I think most people can agree on, but that isn't the point of Valente's piece or her point about Watt's.

=-=-=

Working as part of a team is far too central to too many masculine dominated areas to have her reading on it.

It's looking too hard for something that can be discussed in terms of gender roles, and stereotypes.

Nuke, I feel like you and her are saying the same things? I don't think Jemisin believes men are incapable of collaborating, but rather the idea of collaboration is looked down on because it is seen as "womanish". Being able to team build is a strength that women recognize in each other, and I've seen in more women than men. It's sort of startling how many projects I've seen tank because some guy had to be the big man.

I also think she's looking at Urban Fantasy, where man or woman there is a lone-wolf component that, as you say, has more to do with what the readership is looking for than masculine/feminine perceptions.

In any case, I usually read Jeminsin's tone as questioning herself, exploring why things might be, not telling it like it is...except in the clear situations where she really is laying the often hilarious smackdown.

[Nukelavee]

Sciborg -that's exactly where I disagree with her - that collaborating is looked down on as "womanish".

Seriously, look at any organized military force - soldiers, clearly a masculine role stereotypically, and it's ALL about teamwork, and espirit de corps.

Football, hockey, hunting.. sailors...

If anything, female teambuilding is overlooked or under rated, simply because of teh tasks involved.

In terms of validity, it's as lacking as her idea that matriarchal societies would use female troops, because loyalty/ownership of females wouldn't be an issue. I mean, I'm not claiming her example never existed, I don't know, and it would surprise me if it didn't have some truth behind it for that culture - but extending it to cover larger ground? No.

But, it does support her worldbuilding...For the record, I don't have a problem with what she creates, and, no, I've never read her books.

It might generate interest in the overall topic, but, to me, using such poor examples to make a larger overall point seems deeply flawed.

[Grack21]

OK, I'm lost. What are we arguing about?

Saying you're going to rape someone is bad. Always. Did someone one say that was OK? DId I say that? FUck no. Don;t rape people. Shit. WTF. This planet, sometimes...

[Sci-2]

Jeminsin had a blog post about this board a while back. It was not....positive. I don't blame her a bit though.

Damn, do you have a link? I'm not gonna lie, I'm interested in this for childish entertainment and gleeful snark, no nobler purpose lies in my heart at all.

ETA:

Nuke, I agree with you that she doesn't make a definitive case for her views on women used or not used as soldiers or on collaboration being seen as negative b/c it's feminine.

But, at the same time, I think it's important to note that she is not trying to be the expert on that or on collaboration being looked down on as a feminine trait. My sense is she is exploring, mulling over, not lecturing.

There's also a difference between a sports team competing against another team and the encouragement of people in conflict to work together. A good example of the latter would be Mina in Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentleman. (The comic, not the abysmal movie)

I'll note that I've seen the charge of "female" strengths - like talking down violence or encouraging communication - being underrepresented in SFF elsewhere.

[Grack21]

I'll look. It was a loooong time ago. I think there may be a link to it in the original 100k Kingdoms thread.

[Grack21]

It's someone where in the comments on this one: http://nkjemisin.com/2011/02/feminization-in-epic-fantasy/

[Sci-2]

Thanks -> That wasn't as snarky or mean-spirited as I'd hoped, but then I think Jemisin is a good bridge between the usual fantasy depictions and the desire for something more diverse/nuanced.

Jemisin also manages to be very positive even when talking about the negative. She's good for the genre, and I'm hoping I like Killing Moon.

[Grack21]

Thanks -> That wasn't as snarky or mean-spirited as I'd hoped, but then I think Jemisin is a good bridge between the usual fantasy depictions and the desire for something more diverse/nuanced.

Jemisin also manages to be very positive even when talking about the negative. She's good for the genre, and I'm hoping I like Killing Moon.

That's because she's SANE. :P

[Nukelavee]

Like I said, I'm really not a fan of that style of criticism, or analysis.

I have to admit, again, my current interest in this topic, and her, is less about specific points, or her attackers (because, hey, it's clear they are in the wrong when they get throwing shit the way they do), and more about the role of teh critic, and the effects they can have on art.

Meh. should I start a new topic on that?

[Sci-2]

Hmm, I'm interested in your ideas Nuke but I'm having trouble understanding so whatever you think is best. New thread is cool, here is cool.

[Kalbear]

On collaboration - she isn't talking about hierarchical systems with clear leaders and order; she's talking about equals coming together and cooperating. In that, that is definitely seen as feminine.

The army and sports (which are modeled after military orders) are clearly not collaborative; they are top down with clear leadership and defined roles.

[thistlepong]

What really vexes me about this form of criticism is that it's basically pissing to stake out your spot. People want their personal reading of something to be the accepted one, if enough people support this, it becomes the right interpretation. And then, the critic gets to dictate what is written. If a critic has a big enough name, artists want his support, and cater to his views.

Wherever you decide to rant about critics, please consider backing this up with... anything.

[Kalbear]

Thistle pong, isn't it obvious? After all, that's why twilight is so beloved by critics.