rm | sundries, now with extra nutrients

How "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" contributes to sexual assault.

The journalism (and journalists) behind the Rekkers revelation.

Hey, can we get the Dragon*Con roll call? It seems likely that Patty will not be coming along this year as she'll be taking her comps, and it's probably better if I'm out of her hair for that. So who all do I have to hang out with?

Willow killed a deer!

For those of you not following along at home, it's emerged that a series of events happened at a con wherein some con attendees were hit on in a predatory way, invited up to a room under false pretenses and effectively walked in on an orgy and/or a sex show and then had some degree of trouble leaving the room because the doorway was blocked by a naked woman.

When the people who were made uncomfortable by this spoke to the ConCom, they decided to ban the folks responsible for the situation from the con in the future. This was all done discretely and no one except those involved ever would have known about it until the responsible parties tried to register for the con again, were told no, and then the issue got taken public, both by the folks banned from the con, and by people who experienced the original problem. Some of this happened on an anonymeme. I hope that's a reasonably accurate summary; considering it's a lot to read and not my fandom (SPN), I'm working from a deficit here. All the links that eventually get you a picture of events are can be found on unfunnybusiness.

Subsequent to all of this tumbling out in the last 24-hours or so, a whole lot of pretty fucked-up conversations have sprung up off this thing, that are relevant no matter what spaces you play in, or how you play.

1. There's been a sea of frigging victim-blaming, asserting that the people who wound up at the sex-show/orgy were at fault for going up to someone's room and/or being freaked out and/or not just getting over it.

That's not okay.

Have you ever been to a con? You meet random people, they say they have booze and fanvids and whatever in their room and you and your friends go check out their room party. People do it all the time, especially at smaller cons where people at least feel like they more or less know everyone.

Not to mention, if someone gets my friends and I up to a room party under false pretenses, I have the right to be like "what the fuck?" I have the right to be uncomfortable. I have the right to decide that someone else's idea of a good time isn't mine, and I damn well have the right to be pissed off or freaked out if it's then made difficult for me to leave in a manner that invades my personal boundaries.

I also have the right to change my mind about whether I want to be a part of something and to be upset when that change of heart is not respected.

2. The sea of victim-blaming has, of course, been followed by a swathe of people accusing those who were uncomfortable with what transpired of sex-negativity. There's also been slut-shaming. Neither are acceptable.

To be frank and non-poetic, this completely pisses me off.

Newsflash: I can like sex just as much as the next person or more and still not want to wind up at a surprise sex party.

Newsflash: No one has to like sex the same way you do or as much as you to be cool. People are allowed to be sex-negative. Lots of people have good reason to be sex-negative. I hate this thing where we decide on a few acceptable standards of sexuality and if you don't meet them you aren't cool. Knock that shit off.

Newsflash: Your so-called sex-positivity is no excuse for bad manners. You don't need to slut-shame in order to address someone using their sexuality to be harmful to others.

Newsflash: Just because someone enjoys porn doesn't mean they want to enjoy your porn.

3. An anonymeme was involved and that makes a whole lot of people say this isn't worth taking seriously.

Look, in general, I fucking hate the anonymemes. I range from not getting it (why can't you just use your name to say what fic you don't like?) to thinking their primary purpose is for bullying. I don't visit them anymore, because they make me upset and that's silly of me and I don't have the time for my emotional response to these things.

That said, this entire incident has brought home to me that anonymemes actually can have value beyond random amusement: harmless and not.

The fact that this involves in anonymeme is no reason to take this less seriously.

Anonymity does not inherently devalue speech, especially in a case like this.

Going to a ConCom with an issue is hard.

I've done it exactly once, and I think you all know me as loud, self-confident, and as someone who often feels very little mercy for those I feel have wronged me. But you know what? I felt like a fucking asshole the time I had to do it. And, I had to be bolstered by my friends who saw the incident in question. I was certain I would not be believed, that my concerns would be dismissed as either female hysteria (an exceedingly unpleasant feeling when you're me and you're dressed like Captain Jack, let me tell you) or BNF diva bullshit. Neither of those things happened, and the situation was dealt with discretely, but dude, it SUCKED. So if you're getting all up on someone for not feeling comfortable stepping forward and dealing with this issue in public, instead of, as they did, discretely with the ConCom, You Just Don't Get It.

Because you know what? I should have gone to ConCom at another con last year, when I was cornered and harassed and prevented from getting to programming I was on, because a man and his son felt they had more right to stop, touch me, and pose for pictures with me, than I had the right to go do what I was there to do. I was a Guest at this con, and I didn't go to the ConCom, because I'm a minor Guest and again, didn't want to look like a hysterical woman or a diva. But what they did was wrong and threatening, and I should have said something.

If it's hard for me to say something, it's hard for ANYONE to say something. Period.

All of the above brings us to our next point: large swathes of fandom (yes, even the parts of fandom that are mostly female, and, in this case, especially the parts of fandom that are mostly female), hate women.

bookshop says it all exceptionally.

But I need to do more than just link to this. I need to add my voice to it. Because it sucks. I am in a fandom with an entire genre of stories labeled "Gwen-bashing" because some people hate the main female character on Torchwood just that much.

Now here's the deal. Out here in the real world, if Gwen existed, I doubt we'd be friends - she's so normal, I don't know what we'd talk about. Actually, I doubt I'd be friends with any of the Torchwood team. I wouldn't stand up to Jack enough for his taste. I'd have a thing for Ianto and have trouble making eye contact and he'd hate that. Owen's probably a dick to any bird he doesn't want to screw. I'd make Tosh nervous. But I don't hate any of those characters for that, and I certainly don't need to write reams of stories about how Gwen is stupid or selfish or getting in the way of Jack and Ianto's true love. And, quite frankly, it offends me that other people do.

Look, I don't have the best self-esteem. I expect other people not to like me, and I expect to be punished for my nature. And sometimes, it feels better to quietly insult and berate myself than to take a deep breath and get over it. That's my damage. And it's pretty deep and fundamental. I fake rising above it well, and sometimes I even do. But it's a real, pervasive part of the experience of being me, just as my experience of stories is a real and permeable part of my own narrative is fundamental to how I experience the world.

One of my favorite quotes is by Sei Shonagon: "I have knelt on this book until my knees bled."

This quote speaks to me of two things -- of disappearing and also too of demanding my place in the world, and the terribly high costs of both.

I submit myself to stories; I kneel to them without care for myself: fictions, and also my own narratives of my own life. I disappear into them. I erase myself. As a writer and an actor I value this skill. As a person who has chosen (historically with reluctance) to be their own master, I also recognize it as a character trait that's often dangerous that I am blessed to be able to put to good purpose. I am only able to experience narrative as a sometimes holy thing because sometimes, too, I hate myself.

But I also create stories. I put my blood into them. I make them true. I make them breathe. I make them, and through them, myself, something you can't look away from. Blood is wrath, and blood is love, and blood is life.

So when

bookshop talks about female erasure in fandom, I nod in self-knowledge. I nod at my own internalized-misogyny, no less present for its complexity because of my genderqueer status (which is not the simple result of said internalized-misogyny). I nod, knowing the power of personal erasure; I nod knowing what it is to crave that. I know, I know, I know this thing.

But what is good -- even in some very convoluted and not necessarily healthy ways -- for us sometimes as individuals, is terrible for us as a collective culture.

I have knelt on this book until my knees bled. And then sometimes I stand. And I hand it to you. A lot of people despise me for that, but someone has to go to the borderlands and bring the stories back. And there is a cost, but it need not be our permanent selves or public self-flagellation through the humiliation of the creations of others.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

delchi.livejournal.com

I have to ask this, not for any other reason than for my own curio. What , in your view, makes a show misogynist? Is it just the lack of female characters or does it require that the female characters have stereotypical roles or re presented in a less than front row manner?

As a person who writes , I would hate to think that I would be labeled a misogynist simply because I had few or no female characters in a work.

To me , Buffy on television has always been typical TV T&A that was designed to make ratings, despite good writing and a kinda interesting storyline. This is why I rarely watched it and every time I try it just reminds me of Baywatch ( another show I loathe).

Stargate Atlantis, which I likes quite a bit, had IIRC a woman director running the whole stargate operation , at least one female warrior type and several scientist types. I can't say much for the others, I never really got into them.

To me in order to be misogynist you have to show a defined hatred of women/girls. Simply leaving them out would not qualify to me ( IMHO ), unless it was intentional ( say the writers get together and declare 'no women in this show, they just screw things up' or some such )

I think we have come a long way by example, taking say Star Trek the old series where the female characters were either in stereotypical roles ( telephone operators, sex objects, seductresses, or 'just there' walk on parts ) to Star Trek TNG ( Tasha Yar , the Troi family, and more than a few underground fighter types ) and DS9 ( the religious leader .. I forget her name ).

Would you consider Firefly misogynist? I understand some people have issues with the Inara character or the sex trade as it is shown in the show ( hell even the reboot of Battlestar Galactia left out the sex trade that was in the original ) , but as a whole is it considered misogynist?

From:

heron61.livejournal.com

What I've seen of SGU (which I'm watching regularly) and what little I saw of SG-1 & SGA was simply that the shows were strongly male focused, telling the stories of the male characters and largely dealing with the female characters in their effects on the male characters. So, I'd call these shows somewhat misogynist because they had little to do with female characters other than as sidekicks or assistants. It didn't look much better than the best parts of old Trek, which is pretty sad. In this day and age, shows that feature female characters pretty much exclusively in the background are not IMHO OK.

OTOH, there are plenty of popular shows that are far more misogynist - hitting the low hanging fruit here - Supernatural is a truly impressive example - every female character on the show is either a dead victim in (at most) a few episodes or a dead villain in a few episodes, or at absolute best, seemingly good, but turns out to actually be evil and is killed by the protagonists. I'm not exaggerating a bit when I describe that show as being about two white guys traveling the US finding dead women and people of color and then killing even more women and people of color - it's that bad, and it's a darling of fandom - ick.

Another example is Eureka - I watched the pilot and that was enough for me - a town of superscience geniuses and genius kids - all of which were male - they also had wives and daughters, who were not superscience geniuses - with the exception of the woman running the hotel & what looked like brothel - who was revealed to be evil at the end of the episode. That's misogynist TV.

I have some issues with Whedon's occasionally rather relentless focus on rape, but no I didn't find Firefly to particularly misogynist - the society was, but it was also clearly not an idealized or even a particularly good society.

From:

delchi.livejournal.com

Interesting bits .... I'll have to take a look at some of these shows. As I mentioned before , in SGA the head of the whoel program was a woman, and I recall there was one not-form-earth woman fighter ( she actually reminded me of a klingon ) and there was the head scientist from SG-1 who crossed over into a almost relationship with the geeky science guy. Does that change anything ?

Eureka, I watched a few episodes of ... as I recall the sheriffs daughter was one of the genius kids, although she did work as a waitress.

I am limited in me exposure to Whedon's work but I don't recall rape in any of it other than the implied threat of rape twice ... once in the last episode of Firefly , and once or twice in the movie when discussing reavers.

My puzzlement is that by definition misogynist implies hatred , distrust or contempt. Simply leaving them out of the story IMHO does not equal misogynist writing... maybe backwards or non modern but still not hatred. Perhaps if it could be proven that their being left out was on purpose that would be one thing - but other than that it just seems like a cultural bias and not hate.

If a story was focused mainly around male characters , like say a show like Oz , set in a all male prison , would it be considered misogynist simply for not having female characters .. even though the plot would not support them?

I would dare to say compare things like All In The Family with Gunsmoke. Archie Bunker was clearly misogynist in his contempt for women, distrust of them doing anything other than menial or expected tasks, however Gunsmoke was about cowboys , cattle, horses, and gunfights.

When I started writing CHOWN I specifically requested guidance from RM about how to introduce female characters ( and some of them of alternative sexuality ), because as part of the plot I wanted to show the eventual increase of women in the hacker / underground scene. That is not to say that they are not present - they are - but they are usually understood (incorrectly) to be girlfriends or hangers-on.

Again , these are only my opinions, and are presented for discussion/debate.

From:

heron61.livejournal.com

I am limited in me exposure to Whedon's work but I don't recall rape in any of it other than the implied threat of rape twice ... once in the last episode of Firefly , and once or twice in the movie when discussing reavers.

There's a moderate amount in Buffy & Angel, and rape is pretty much what Dollhouse is all about. However, there's almost none in Firefly.

My puzzlement is that by definition misogynist implies hatred , distrust or contempt. Simply leaving them out of the story IMHO does not equal misogynist writing... maybe backwards or non modern but still not hatred. Perhaps if it could be proven that their being left out was on purpose that would be one thing - but other than that it just seems like a cultural bias and not hate.

I also include denigrating and dismissing women under that term, and using that definition, I'd then say that shows like the various Stargates are clearly products of both a misogynist culture and ingrained & (at best) unconscious misogyny among the people creating them. OTOH, various geeky shows that I've watched briefly, like Supernatural are IMHO clearly product of either creators with huge misogyny issues or who are deliberately creating the show for a seriously misogynist audience. It's also not the only example of such shows that I've seen. For example, the first two episodes (I quit after 2 eps) of the new Bionic Woman wasn't quite as bad, but were still pretty darn misogynist in a way that's well worse than what I've seen in SGU. For reference, here's the post I made about the premier of The Bionic Woman when it came out.

What I see on SGU (the only Stargate the I've watched more than 2 eps of) is that female characters are get considerably less focus & if the script calls for a character to be a random victim, the character is almost always female (and is in fact usually the Senator's daughter, who is as much a plot token as a character). Unlike many shows, there are competent and non-useless female characters, but they are also very much secondary characters.

If a story was focused mainly around male characters , like say a show like Oz , set in a all male prison , would it be considered misogynist simply for not having female characters .. even though the plot would not support them?

Not at all, simply because it's by definition set in an all male environment.