Women, Men, SFF part deux

[Sci-2]

I think you guys are missing Valente's point. She isn't agreeing with Moon's comments, she's saying there's a certain subset of language reserved for attacking females rather than males.

People have said all kinds of things about Priest, but the majority - if not all - the language seeks to paint him as embittered and jealous.

Something like "rabid animal" has a different connotation, and while I and likely Valente doesn't think Watt's is sexist/racist/homophobic her point is that for an author to use such language furthers the specific ways in which women are attacked/dehumanized.

[Grack21]

Well, I'll be honest, I've never heard "rabid animal" as being something specifically slurred towards women, so I'll take your word for it.

[Callan S.]

Something like "rabid animal" has a different connotation, and while I and likely Valente doesn't think Watt's is sexist/racist/homophobic her point is that for an author to use such language furthers the specific ways in which women are attacked/dehumanized.

No, see this is where I think you (a general 'you', not specific) get a sexist attitude developing the other way.

When the women is throwing around names at people (not at ideas, at people), what sort of names are, in childish return, fair game? If none, and if you don't crack down on the person (in this case a woman) for throwing names to begin with, that's sexist bullshit! If you poop into your hand and throw it, expect to have poop thrown back! That poop is not another way women are attacked and dehumanised, once they've entered the arena. Indeed, putting on a pedistal is another way of dehumanising - actually no, women aren't on a pedistal, their equally down in the muck with the rest of us. It's actually, in a childish way, treating everyone as equals - once your in the dung arena, everyones an equal target! If you want to deliniate and say some things are thrown rocks (death threats, for example), I'd agree. At worst I think Watts ate something with nuts in it before he threw that poop. Probably almonds.

Let me be clear that I have focused on one point in the post - even if I prove that part wrong, that does NOT mean the rest of the points are proven wrong. There is nasty rock throwing and knife stabbing going on as well, elsewhere, when the person (who happened to be a woman) merely threw poop. Poop should be faced with poop! Childishness from one party isn't an excuse for raw violence from the other.

[Grack21]

No, see this is where I think you (a general 'you', not specific) get a sexist attitude developing the other way.

When the women is throwing around names at people (not at ideas, at people), what sort of names are, in childish return, fair game? If none, and if you don't crack down on the person (in this case a woman) for throwing names to begin with, that's sexist bullshit! If you poop into your hand and throw it, expect to have poop thrown back! That poop is not another way women are attacked and dehumanised, once they've entered the arena. Indeed, putting on a pedistal is another way of dehumanising - actually no, women aren't on a pedistal, their equally down in the muck with the rest of us. It's actually, in a childish way, treating everyone as equals - once your in the dung arena, everyones an equal target! If you want to deliniate and say some things are thrown rocks (death threats, for example), I'd agree. At worst I think Watts ate something with nuts in it before he threw that poop. Probably almonds.

Let me be clear that I have focused on one point in the post - even if I prove that part wrong, that does NOT mean the rest of the points are proven wrong. There is nasty rock throwing and knife stabbing going on as well, elsewhere, when the person (who happened to be a woman) merely threw poop. Poop should be faced with poop! Childishness from one party isn't an excuse for raw violence from the other.

You put that so much better than I ever could.

Poop. The universal metaphor.

And i do Agree with most of Valentine's post. The whole ROH situation touches a nerve.

[Kalbear]

There are people in this thread who are equating rape and death threats with calling someone an asshole.

And getting upset because some other people, like women, don't see that as an equality.

[Sci-2]

ETA - sectioning replies

@Callan: Your analogy seems a confirmation of your original point, so I'm not sure how it addresses what I said about distinguishing between language that applies specifically to women versus the attacks rendered against Priest.

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

But it's best to take this up with Ms. Valente, as I don't feel overly comfortable guestimating the nuances of her position.

=-=-=

@Nuke: You mentioned something I should have replied to, strong female character versus a good depiction of a female character. I don't think a character has to be strong to be a good character.

I was thinking more of women who exist as porn plot devices or damsels in distress.

[Grack21]

There are people in this thread who are equating rape and death threats with calling someone an asshole.

And getting upset because some other people, like women, don't see that as an equality.

Um, I'm talking about when Watt called Moon a rabid animal. Last time I checked that didn't conist of rape or killing.

[Grack21]

ETA - sectioning replies

@Callan: Your analogy seems a confirmation of your original point, so I'm not sure how it addresses what I said about distinguishing between language that applies specifically to women versus the attacks rendered against Priest.

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

But it's best to take this up with Ms. Valente, as I don't feel overly comfortable guestimating the nuances of her position.

Well, ROH does use language about sexuality and race. That was my point.

[Kalbear]

Callan , we know scientifically that some words are far more damaging than others especially when people are primed. For instance calling a white guy honky is less provocative than calling him an asshole, at least for most. For someone who has been dealing with instirutionalized racism their whole life racist remarks are a bit more painful.

Do you think an aboriginal calling you whitey (or asshole) is the equivalent of you calling them an abo?

[Kalbear]

Um, I'm talking about when Watt called Moon a rabid animal. Last time I checked that didn't conist of rape or killing.

Why did you think I was talking about you?

Well, ROH does use language about sexuality and race. That was my point.

Do you think you calling a black man an n-word is the equivalent of them calling you a honky? Do you think that you calling a rape victim a bitch is the equivalent of them calling you an asshole?

(I'm fairly certain I know the idiotic answer; I just want to hear him say it)

[Grack21]

Why did you think I was talking about you?

Do you think you calling a black man an n-word is the equivalent of them calling you a honky? Do you think that you calling a rape victim a bitch is the equivalent of them calling you an asshole?

(I'm fairly certain I know the idiotic answer; I just want to hear him say it)

Do you actually think someone being called a rabid animal is equal to calling a black man the n word?

And are we not allowed to say bitch now? Does that have some connection to rape that I missed?

Edit 1

Of course they're not equal. Does that make it ok for me to call people assholes? And really, you equate ROH posts with just calling someone an asshole?

Selective memory at work again.

[Nukelavee]

Kalbear - yeah, trust me, Whitey can carry a lot of weight. Doesn't really belong here, but, on the few occasions where I've been on the recieving end of that - trust me, there's a certain quality to being hated as a symbol the enemy. If you've never felt it, it's hard to describe what I mean- there's blame in there, too.

There's also a certain contempt.

Context is everything, and delivery. It's why blacks can call each other things we can't, and it generally passes.

This is why I avoid these sorts of blogs, and people who like to deconstruct in too fine of detail: I just want to read good stories, if teh writing sucks, and that includes bad characters of any gender..I can get that on my own.

But other people get far too invested in analyzing literature to support their views, and in their views; you might as well shit in the baptismal font as disagree with them. And fans.

I hate critics as a species. Self important creedlers, all of them.

At some point there, I totally lost teh direction of my post.

Right.

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.

It makes for terrible art, and writing.

People doing shit they should never attempt, sucking up to teh critics.

I don't think anybody sits down and says, hey, I'm going to create a bunch of stereotypes and just go thru the motions...

Shit. They do. Kinda fucked that one up.

Anyways, most writers write as well as they can, maybe there just aren't many writers who can do the whole job well.

[Sonic The Hedgehog]

Do you think you calling a black man an n-word is the equivalent of them calling you a honky? Do you think that you calling a rape victim a bitch is the equivalent of them calling you an asshole?

I knew the way some of these bloggers used insults and the way their critics used insults was different, but I wasn't able to articulate why until reading this.

The negative remarks just aren't on equal footing. People think they are, because they read a woman say something derogatory about men, so they think saying something about women is the same, because it's all sexism. But a remark about men doesn't carry the years of oppression behind it, and is like a novelty experience compared to how women are constantly insulted.

Rather than the earlier mentioned feces metaphor, I think a gun shot metaphor would be more apt. Insults hit us and some hurt more than others, but generally they don't slow us down. It's like victims of prejudice have been shot though. If they punch you, it hurts a little, but no lasting harm. If you punch them, you're hurting someone who's already been wounded. Aiming for that sore spot with more insults about sexism exacerbates damage to someone who needs to heal. Yeah, sexist remarks can hurt the person who wasn't shot too, but certainly not as much.

I guess you could ask why someone who's hurt would keep on throwing insults even though they know they're susceptible to more harm. Because even if they lie still, or ask politely for the people to stop hurting them, it's going to happen anyway. The blogs that have been linked could be as nice as lambs in their criticisms, and the comment sections would still aim for the sore spot and call these women sexist names.

So they may as well push back until everyone understands that no amount of attacks will make them go away. A few innocent people might get hit in the crossfire, but hopefully most of those people will realize it's the act of a person fighting to stay standing and to be accepted, instead of dog-piling on with everyone else onto a person that's already hurt.

At least I think that's how it is. I'm not sure if I have the right of it, but part of the reason I read some of the blogs mentioned in this thread is for the insight into this topic. So hopefully I'm at least somewhere near the mark of understanding this.

[Galactus]

"rabid animal" has slightly different connotations too since moon is thai. Lots of baggage there.

[Lyanna Stark]

Well, I'll be honest, I've never heard "rabid animal" as being something specifically slurred towards women, so I'll take your word for it.

I don't think it's really about "rabid animal" so much as when people are criticising women in that regard, they tend to try and not attack them with rational argumentation, but try to dehumanise them, or depict them as "lower standing humans", i.e. comparing to animals, claiming they suffer hysterics, or use sex as a way to bring them down from an intellectual sphere down to a baser, more animal side.

It enables the attackers to ignore or evade any rational argumentation almost completely, since instead of the issue at hand, the character of the woman is put in question and you might see it as her right to argue is put in question with it.

One common way this is phrased in this very forum is that women are "over reacting" when bringing up complaints about sexism. IT's really a milder form of the good ole female hysteria, i.e. women tend to be over sensitive, prone to hysterics and to...over reactions. Instead of arguing against the logic, the woman's character is put into question by this as well. Or her very nature.

EDIT: Or, just check the summary of my custom title. ;)

[Datepalm]

I think you guys are tying yourself into knots to keep from agreeing with Valente - she voicing an opinion that is almost self evident and frankly rather unremarkable, but she's one of those feminzis and uses language like "suppression of voices" and "minority narratives" and whatever else is hip in identity politics these days, so we musn't agree with her!*

Get over it - all she's saying is that when women voice a strident, uncompromising, hell, even offensive opinion, they will encounter reactions that will often be far more vitriolic and degrading than what a man will, and in particular this will take the form not of engaging with their position, but of declaring they have no right to make it heard at all.

The fallout from Priest, as far as I can tell, consisted largely of mild agreement through to watching-a-train-wreck-delight through to largely good natured reaction in the form of 'well, he's grumpy!'. A bit of psychoalaysis is the meanest thing anyone said, from what I saw.

Compare, OTOH, the reaction when Seanan Mcguire (Mira Grants) new book shipped early in physical copies but not in ebooks, (or something, there was a kerfluffle anyway):

I was called

...a bitch.

...a whore.

...a cunt.

...stupid.

...greedy.

...ungrateful.

...narcissistic.

All of these were mix-and-match, with "greedy," "bitch," and "cunt" being the most popular. "Greedy bitch" was the most common, followed by "stupid bitch," "greedy cunt," and "stupid whore." One person kindly suggested that sexual violence would be the appropriate response to my forcing Amazon to withhold ebooks. Another offered to slap the stupid out of me. And several stated that they would now be pirating all my books, because I had given up my right to their money (I had a right to their money?)..

These, presumbaly, are people who WANT to read her book. They're her fans. Thats just the language thats out there, that men don't have to contend with. GRRM and Jordan got called a lot of nasty names over the late releases and such. No one ever offered to rape them.

*I think identity politics is a stunningly useless way to affect change, but its useful to examine to get the lay of the land and see what needs to be done.

[Galactus]

Pretty much. Cat Valente's piece is pretty much self-evident.

Now, she did a amazingly bad job of picking examples (for a variety of reasons) but that doesen't actually undermine her point: Women gets called a lot of nasty things men aren't, over comparatively small things.

[Nukelavee]

Hmm. In hindsight, my last post looks like I was implying if people don't want to get nasty flames, they should stop criticizing; I'm not.

I was posting under the influence. oops. I get scattered.

I like Sonic's view on why these pissing matches get so heated. I think another factor is, the person on the bottom/target, knows their attackers don't feel the same damage from their terms, so, things escalate as they try to find something that causes as much pain as what they hear.

but she's one of those feminzis and uses language like "suppression of voices" and "minority narratives" and whatever else is hip in identity politics these days, so we musn't agree with her!

Likely true. I, personally, find the language vexing simply because, well, I've always hated that sort of jargon, in any field; I really do have a low opinion of those sorts of critiques.

It is pretty disgusting people go so overboard in discussions like that. I'm fairly sure it is a feeding frenzy, people wanting to show they can wax vitriolic with the best of them. or worst, really.

On the other hand - going back to my semi related point - I think a lot of "majority" people could use at least one experience where they face what I said about "yeah, sometimes "white" does carry a lot of weight", so they can understand teh depth of feeling and hurt that underlies a lot of other people's experiences.

[Grack21]

I don't think it's really about "rabid animal" so much as when people are criticising women in that regard, they tend to try and not attack them with rational argumentation, but try to dehumanise them, or depict them as "lower standing humans", i.e. comparing to animals, claiming they suffer hysterics, or use sex as a way to bring them down from an intellectual sphere down to a baser, more animal side.

It enables the attackers to ignore or evade any rational argumentation almost completely, since instead of the issue at hand, the character of the woman is put in question and you might see it as her right to argue is put in question with it.

One common way this is phrased in this very forum is that women are "over reacting" when bringing up complaints about sexism. IT's really a milder form of the good ole female hysteria, i.e. women tend to be over sensitive, prone to hysterics and to...over reactions. Instead of arguing against the logic, the woman's character is put into question by this as well. Or her very nature.

EDIT: Or, just check the summary of my custom title. ;)

See, I think that's the point Watts was trying to make. That Moon isn't exactly open to rational discussion. I'm pretty sure it was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek, but fuck, I don't know the man personally. Whether or not he knew it had negative connotations as you guys say I have no idea. It's honestly a new one to me, IF he did it on purpose that would certainly change my opinion about his response.

And honestly, I agree with Valentine with the exception of that one quibble. I keep saying that I do but people seem to be glossing over that part of posts.

[Sci-2]

Lyanna: Heh, love the "Metaphysically Inferior" bit.

As an aside Mamatas finally tackles the Criteria Question.

Well, now that the dissent has been thoroughly routed on the subject of Valente's post, we could probably move on to some other aspect of gender and SFF.

Curious if anyone has a good fantasy romance to recommend.