Just because I have enjoyed the controversy over the dumb fan girls and coffee shirt and the amount of outrage it got… This is my friend (and self styled geek girl feminist) Amber Love’s take. It’s more or less in line with how I feel about it. (not exactly. But hey that’s the beauty of being an individual)Very good read.
About that fangirls/coffee shirt & other shirts out there…
Lately the pop culture community has been voicing their outrage over a t-shirt sold at Wonder Con. Our community, it seems, will get outraged about anything including the most benign things like me…
Thanks!
Amber “disowned” me because I questioned her on something once. It’s a shame.
Chris, there are some days I absolutely love you. Today is one of those days.
Dude, That was supposed to be a private thing!!!
Yeah, I’m gonna stick with being outraged, thanks.
you know, if the coffee shirt had a picture of grumpy cat, i think not a frell would be given.
I think you’re wrong.
ok… maybe a frell or two… but then someone is going to be offended by anything. Also, how do you pirate fanboys? Or is it “jolly rogering” them?
I shouldn’t have replied here at all since this is already happening over on my wall.
I read that as “I’m not offended so nobody else should be” but maybe I’m missing something.
huh, I read that (albeit quickly) and i think she was quite clear that she was expressing her own opinions and take on it… and that she personally didn’t think it was worthy of as much hate and outrage as it’s apparently engendered…. but i haven’t been following the whole saga. I guess the “vote with your wallet” section could be considered the “you shouldn’t be offended” but then i read that as “if you are offended, don’t buy it.” Kind of like “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t have one.”
I’ll try to find your thread on it later Jameel. (EDIT: it’s here for those that want to play along https://www.facebook.com/TheMegabee/posts/10203043060891103?stream_ref=10)
Barbara, I didn’t say the shirt isn’t offensive and I think I said it pretty clearly. The saying is alienating but it’s hardly the same kind of crisis as rape threats against any woman in the business who dislikes the art and stories of certain comics or the way female characters are treated or the way women in the business are shushed when they have opinions. There are bigger problems than a shirt no one was even wearing.
Oh sure! It’s small peanuts in comparison to a ton of other injustices. But that doesn’t mean that people are wrong if they are unable to ignore it. Then again, this is only the second conversation I’ve involved myself in about this, and the other seemed to be arguing that it wasn’t even offensive (or that it was equally offensive), which I disagree with.
But speaking of equally offensive, I have to say I’m not offended by your shirt, mostly because I honestly don’t get it! “I pirate fanboys?” “I skull and crossbones fanboys?” “I wish fanboys would die?” “I want to plunder the booty of fanboys?” Is it positive or negative? If the fangirls shirt were equally confusing I doubt there’d be as much uproar. 🙂
LOL – I was confused by the shirt too. I happen to love skulls & bones and study things about them here & there so since it was where the heart normally goes, I thought it meant “love” but I’ve been questioned on it.
There is one point she makes in her argument that is pretty important (and one I tried to express, but not as succinctly in the other thread). Fangirl is NOT synonymous with “female fan”, either in denotation or in generally understood (within the fan community) connotation.
So my main two points and the reason I posted Amber’s article are:
1) What Jameel is getting at (and I think the way he phrased it exactly in his version of the post): is outrage a limited resource. He says no. But to me it kinda is. Or, well, maybe more correctly, effort is. The geek microculture tends to self-police very harshly. It tends to treat all problems, SPECIFIC TO IT as though they are world bending (and that’s ok). But they’re not, and there aren’t enough hours in the day for me to worry about everything. I’m not saying someone else is wrong to be mad about it. I don’t think Amber is either. I’m saying this is a minor thing.
There is an inclination among microcultures to assume everyone’s morality is the same, or that there is an absolute right or wrong. There isn’t. There is an inclination among microcultures to say “you’re not outraged. What the fuck is wrong with you? You need to understand how this is horrible or you’re part of the problem” and that isn’t true. Which brings me to point 2.
2) What Strauss just said. The problem is that often people conflate offensiveness with an ism (sexism, racism, whateverism). Gendering is not a crime. The particular brand of feminism I most often see in the geek microculture tends to assume it is. This is a whole big discussion that could be had outside this post. But my point is The shirt in question doesn’t say I hate women. It says I hate fangirls. In order to be offended by it, you have to make the leap that fangirls is a universal jump to include all women. Or even all women who are “fans” (which in this case is synonymous with geek, I guess). So a question of terminology comes into play.
If the shirt had said “I like my women like I like my coffee, and I hate coffee,” I’d totally say THAT was sexist. I still wouldn’t care as much as some people I’ve seen outrage from. But I’d agree that it’s more egregiously sexist. If the shirt had said “I like my blonde women who are annoying, unbathed, of radical right wing politics, happen to be fans of any sports team from Boston, enjoy hip hop music, are between the ages of 22 and 35, cheat on their taxes, go to comic book conventions, cosplay, enjoy the music of Julio Iglesias, and have killed more than three members of my family the same way I like my coffee and I hate coffee” would that be sexist? No, because it is a list of a very specific thing that the wearer hates. It is still offensive. Especially if you meet that description. How many qualifiers have to be removed from the list before it becomes sexist?
To look at another version of the problem. It’s the difference between saying: “I hate women” or “I hate black people” and “I hate bitches” and “I hate niggers.” All are offensive things to say. And nothing is wrong with being outraged if someone has a shirt that says it. The person bought the shirt for your outrage. BUT, in being labeling the phrases as offensive because they are racist or sexist you are implicitly identifying your belief in-line with the subgroup for the term to be true. In other words you are saying all blacks must be niggers and all women bitches (or at least you are making the claim that that’s a common enough belief for it to be construed that way). In the case of bitches and niggers, you can probably get away with that. in my super long description in the previous paragraph, you can’t. In the case of “fangirl” its questionable. Different people have different connotations of the term. Which means it (and feminism) is not as universal as some people like to believe. And that is why the outrage is overstated.
We disagree fundamentally on the idea of limited outrage.
Jameel: I know. That’s why I said that (and use you as the example… I knew you’d take it the right way)
Is fangirl the female equivalent of fanboy? If so, then the shirt is sexist because it’s limiting hatred of people who exhibit certain behaviors to females. If not, then the very word is sexist, because it’s stating that certain behaviors are only notable (and, in this case, objectionable), when they occur in females, or that those objectionable behaviors only occur in females.
To answer Chris’s question “How many qualifiers have to be removed from the list before it becomes sexist? “, the answer is “Just one – the gendered one”. Or, to be less flippant, If you have so many qualifiers that the presence of the gendered term is irrelevant, it stops being sexist.
Michael: If “fangirl” is not synonymous with “female fan,” then what does it mean, and why is the “girl” part important?
And… how does any comment about “fangirls” exclusively not automatically count as a comment about one gender only?
I might be some kind of crazy person, but I think that comments that generalize a gender – even if it’s only a portion of a gender – are antiquated, offensive, and run contrary to what we know about human beings, as well as being against the general spirit of inclusiveness that we consider positive as a culture.
Jeff: I sort of half agree with you. It depends on what you mean by sexist. I would say the shirt IS sexist. Because (to ME) the shirt’s message is “I don’t like women who PRETEND to like geeky things because they’re not real women” but that’s how *I* read it. I read it as “real women don’t like these things and therefore they are not genuine.”
By the same token, I also don’t like the insinuation that people often make that “I don’t like women with boob jobs” because to me that means “women who get breast implants have something wrong with them and don’t understand their place as women in the world” and is just as offensive to me as “I don’t like women who want to have careers.”
BUT the other way to look at it is “I don’t like fangirls” is synonymous with “I don’t like blond women.” which is NOT sexist at all. That’s a qualifier on the personal tastes of the wearer. I mean, it’s mean… sure. But it’s not really sexist or certainly not in the same way.
Chuck: I think fangirl is a description of a particular level of fan that is female. I’m NOT saying the shirt isn’t offensive. It is. I’m saying that the offense isn’t limited purely based on the gendering. That is only one component of it. Hence my ridiculous specific list before.
Chris, I certainly was not trying to argue that the shirt meant anything other than “real women don’t like these things and therefore they are not genuine”, because that clearly is the meaning of the shirt. I just wasn’t laying out my entire case for that yet.
But, thank you, because I was actually searching for that phrase to disagree with the idea that “fangirl” and “female fan” are not synonymous. Regardless of denotation, context and connotation matter, and the context and connotation of “fangirl” (at least, when used by people who would wear this shirt) is exactly that the “female fan” does not exist, so therefore all who claim to be female fans are really fangirls. Which is really just a way of saying “my masculinity is threatened by the idea that a woman could be equally passionate about this traditionally male-dominated activity”.
yep. that I agree with
BUT, to look at it another way, I mark it up to exactly the argument (on a less grand scale) of wanting to wear the confederate flag memorabilia. Complicated. Offensive. NOT cut and dry. And far from the most important issue in the racism debate. And in that situation, I was also on the side of “I get it, but I don’t have the time to be as outraged as other people are”
The term “fanboy” has been around for a long time as a put down, I just see a fangirl shirt as a recognition that women too can be fanboys.
…and if the shirt said, “I like my coffee how I like my fangirls and fanboys,” I would be praising it as inclusive.
Still odd, because there’s a whole different problem in Nerdom of “exclusion based on level of engagement/knowledge,” but that’s a different fight.
That’s the ambiguity of it. Fanboy can be a putdown or a generic signifier. Fangirl is the female equivalent and therefore can be either. So if you read the terms that way, it becomes less ambiguous… BUT because of other goings on in the geek community, there’s a different context. Many people explicitly believe that “women can’t be real geeks.” And that’s where the problem arises.
“Fangirl”, in common parlance, is a subset of “female fans”. I tried, in the past thread, to define the term, and fumbled through it, in part because definitions are hard. Rather than fumble through that again, I am going to paraphrase the Supreme Court: “I can’t define the term, but I know who the term would be applied to when I see such a person.”
So, yes, the term does exclusively refer to fans that are female, but it does to refer to all fans that are female, just as pit bull exclusively refers to dogs, but does not refer to all dogs.
But you knew all that, so looking closer at your question, the “girl” part isn’t meaningfully important, except to clearly differentiate from the word “fan”. The behavior of a “fanboy” and a “fangirl” is, observationally, not identical, but usually similar enough that a single word could describe it. “Fanbrat” maybe? It doesn’t quite roll off the tongue as easily, but it is a close approximation.
It is more nuanced than that, because, stereotypical as it may seem, gender usually does play a role in how fanboys and fangirls interact. Fanboys, for either cultural or biological reasons (or likely some combination) tend to be more anti-social and toxic. Fangirls, for likely the same reasons, tend to be more exuberant. Both can be off-putting, thus the reason a generic term easily could exist.
“I can’t define the term” means the word is useless. It means it’s kinda not a word. I know what a pit bull is. I still don’t know what a fangirl is, except I guess they’re “more exuberant,” which I know for a fact also describes so-called “fanboys” in my experience. But I knew the word was useless coming into this, because it is generally meant as either a straight-up insult or as a tongue-in-cheek compliment.
One salient point – OF COURSE gender plays a role in how so-called “fanboys” and “fangirls” interact! We live in an extremely gendered society. It’s not like that goes away because Gene Roddenberry decided female Star Fleet officers would wear pants (after a season of short dresses, of course).
But you kinda proved my point for me. You used the word “tend,” which means, as I pointed out in my blog post, that the creator of the shirt is using gender as a placeholder for a set of behaviors or opinions.
Using gender as a placeholder for a set of behaviors or opinions is sexist, and it’s offensive, and it should be insulting to our intelligence as human beings. And if geeks/nerds are supposed to be smarter than average, it should be *REALLY* insulting to our intelligence.
“I can’t define the term” doesn’t mean the word is useless. That’s a whole big argument on language and semiotics that is a big direction I don’t want to go right now.
but Strauss’s “I know it when I see it” is the problem, and the problem the court had when that came up with obscenity. That assumes that everyone will “see it the same way” and well… we don’t.
Well, we do use gender as a placeholder – and it’s usually the male gender. Isn’t that what this is essentially all about? Rather than the traditional, non-provocative “fanboy” male putdown, they changed it to “fangirl”, which is suddenly socially unacceptable. The implication seems to be that criticisms aimed at men are ok, but the same criticism aimed at a female is unacceptable. Arguably I think this is an empowering shirt for women – it acknowledges that women are a large part of the geek culture, and it allows them to voice their dislike of fellow women who are or act like fangirls.
Chris Maverick: When the word is meant to define an extant object, or a set of extant objects, then, dammit, it should be easy to define. The classic case of “pornography” is an argument about a concept. It’s not a linguistic disconnect – it’s an ontological argument.
Similarly, this is an ontological debate about a category of persons, but since these persons are meant to be extant and classifiable, then it should be easy to describe them.
All one need do is to gather all the fangirls together and figure out what they have in common. You don’t even need to physically gather them – you could do a spreadsheet.
I’m just asking for that spreadsheet.
John Muir: You won’t find me arguing in favor of male placeholders nor male exclusion nor male alienation. I wouldn’t like a “fanboys” shirt, either – it similarly implies that males can easily be described by their gender.
Opinions, behaviors – these are the things I’m generally in favor of attacking. Gender, sexual orientation, race, disabilities – these are things I’m generally not in favor of attacking. I find the dichotomy rather a simple one.
Also, you used the term “fangirls” which means I want to ask you to define it.
I don’t think fanboys/girls is all that vague of a concept. Isn’t the definition simple – clearly the unifying elements are: obsessiveness with parts of geek culture and elements of social maladjustment. People who steer every conversation to their obsession, etc., things like that. I’m no psychologist, but I think it’s a real and meaningful term.
I don’t really buy your argument that a “fanboy” tshirt implies that males can easily be described by their gender. First of all, I’m not even sure what you mean. Males can be described by their gender – because male is their gender. But beyond that, the descriptive part of the phrase is “fan” – it is literally the adjective modifying the noun (boy). It is simply the nature of our language that we do not have short & compelling gender neutral nouns. If we did, these things would be non-issues.
I’ll walk into the carefully laid, obvious trap. There are only two traits that all fangirls have in common: “fan” and “female”*
Though that doesn’t tell the whole story because there are plenty of traits that the majority have in common (possibly even NEARLY all). Since I think you and I have a similar, if not identical, understanding of the meaning of the word, enumeration of those traits, even if I was qualified** to do so, isn’t worth my time.
But, in the most simple terms, I do not think “fangirl” is implicitly an insult to all females. I’ll agree that it is a term that relies at least partially on gender preconceptions (as you pointed out very well, that is hard to avoid in our society). I also believe the original shirt was INTENDED to be both insulting and sexist, but that belief is based on reading further into the story and seeing the company’s response and marketing scheme.
* = Since the term is also used insultingly to refer to some men, even the “female” trait isn’t 100%
** = Obviously I can’t gather all fangirls everywhere and interview/study them, no matter how entertaining that sounds.
I have to go to school and do stuff… I’ll read the last several posts and whatever comes after in a few hours whenever I get back… place nice while I’m gone
What really kills me, Michael, is that I totally know that you and I agree on the actual particulars of what the problem is and isn’t, but you will defend to the death the right for every asshole out there to use the word offensively because a few people might be saying it benignly. 😉
Also, you know enough about sample size to know you wouldn’t need all the fangirls everywhere! C’mon, you know how studies and statistics work!
The term “fanboy” does not refer to all male fans, it’s refers to obsessives. Its female equivalent, “fangirl”, would not refer to all female fans either, just obsessives.
John Muir: Perfect! If there is no difference between “fangirl” and “fanboy” by your reckoning, then I won’t bother you anymore. I really only have a problem with “fangirl” being distinct from “fanboy” in a way where gender has an effect. If gender has no impact on your definition, then uh… carry on.
Let me just add: I can see how a t-shirt putting down fangirls might appeal to sexists, but on its face (in my opinion) it is not sexist and is really just a female version of a sentiment usually reserved for males…but of course females feel this way too and will be drawn to tshirts like this just like men would, and the “fangirls” makes it more female centric.
Ugh. I got lost between two different threads and forgot I was discussing slightly different things in two different threads. In terms of my personal opinion, “fangirl” and “fanboy” are essentially identical terms, but that is because I try not to use either term offensively. In terms of my perception of general use by the fandom populace, the terms are not identical (similar, but not identical), and “fanboy” is actually the more derogatory of the two (which is really a point for the other thread, not this one, but why I got lost in nuance that didn’t entirely address Chuck’s question).
Mike, you are familiar with the concept of the fake fan girl, right? And you’re aware that some very influential creators have propagated it?
Now, with those things in mind, what do you think the perception of those shirts will be?
John Muir: I realize now that you’re only seeing part of the thread, limited to what’s here. So there might be some answers as to why I even care in the first place found here:
http://www.mistergone.com/blog/2014/the-curse-of-the-fangirl/
I will like that article every time it comes up.
I guess that depends on where the shirt is showcased. I’m ignoring the case of “the average street”, because I think in that case most people would look at the shirt and not understand it. I suspect your major concern is comic book conventions, and in that genre, I will profess my ignorance. I have been to one, ever, when I was 19. But, from what I do know, I can see your concern.
My instinct was to think of the shirt at an anime convention, where the concept of “fake fan” is a thing, but “fangirl” isn’t associated with that concept. In fact, in that context, “fangirl” is essentially the opposite of “fake fan”.
That is probably the main disconnect. My main familiarity with the term arises from a different cultural perspective. The culture is still sexist, but in different ways. Furthermore, my main familiarity with “fanboy” comes from an entirely different cultural perspective, video games, which is sexist in yet another way. And despite the latter being very anti-female, the term “fanboy” has become almost demonized in that culture that almost makes “fangirl” look pleasant.
So, there you have it. In my corner of geekdom (geekdom has a LOT of corners), which is actually a comparatively wide corner, the shirt is deserving of eye rolls, but isn’t even close to say “Dick Wolf” offensive (I am probably misusing that terminology, since I am only passingly familiar). In your corner it is apparently horrifying.
Dick Wolf created the Law & Order television series.
Chuck: I can’t fault anything in the article, those are all valid points. I wouldn’t buy a shirt like that, whether it said “fanboys” or “fangirls”, because it’s putting down other people. Looking now at Tankhead’s site and shirt selection, there does seem to be an emphasis on “manly” images and a dearth of geek culture joke shirts, so maybe this was sexist in intent.
Speaking as an adult-type female, who is not eyeball deep in any fandom, (other than an appreciation of well crafted storytelling), as an exceedingly misogynistic boys’ club mentality of fandom. Regardless of the general term of ‘fangirl’ being more about the squeeing and obsessiveness, the overt message that I take away from the ‘fangirl=coffee’ shirt is that ALL fans who happen to be female are irritating stereotypes that need to be kept out of the clubhouse. NO GRLZ ALLOWD.
All that being said, I have enjoyed reading the debate on Mav’s list, from everyone, especially Jameel’s statements. I don’t usually hear the male perspective on feminist issues at length, and I have appreciated the dialog.
Thank you. I had great teachers.
There are multiple definitions of “fangirl”, not all of them terribly offensive, and not all of them sexist. Because context matters, I’m still convinced that, as used on this shirt, it is intended as one of the more offensive and sexist meanings. Going back to Chris and Amber’s original take, which is that this does not deserve the outrage. I’m not involved enough in online circles outside my own friends to know what’s going on, but I do think that Chris and Amber are right to say, “This is stupid and offensive, but it’s not a big enough deal to get worked up about it.”, because there are much bigger battles to fight. Jameel and Chuck are also right to say, “This is offensive, and I am going to stand up for those who are feeling devalued by it”, and those who are personally feeling devalued by it because they’ve been called “fangirl” by boys who think that girls can’t be true fans have a right to be offended by it, and deserve the support of people like them who will fight on their side so that they may be treated as equals. And if it just so happens that some people say, “I’m tired of being treated like a second-class citizen, and this is where I draw the line, and, oops, I’m letting my years of pent-up rage and pain out as a righteous rain of hellfire on this idiot”, well, that’s what you get for being a sexist idiot.
In context, I read “fangirl” as synonymous with “fake geek girl” and that is why I find it offensive (read: aggressive, painfully wrong-headed, sexist; “you’re just faking your fandom in order to sleep with True Fans… and so why won’t you sleep with me!”) Fanboy isn’t an equivalent to fangirl, because all that baggage isn’t part of it.
Michael, when did you read the company’s reply, and when did you read about their marketing scheme?
Alaska time!
Some time yesterday. I think even before I made my first post on your thread (not entirely sure). If you look back at that post, you’ll note I started by saying something to the effect of “the company is probably in the wrong”. But, since the original posting of the article was made before any company response, my comment was based on the original outrage, which I felt was an overreaction and suggestive of hypocrisy.
I’ve been a pretty deep-immersed nerd for 20 years and I know a lot of female nerds (artists, gamers, cosplayers, otakus, you name it) and I had never heard of the concept of the “fake fan girl” until about a year ago. Of course – I’m a man. But my fangirl friends / acquaintances have been open in pointing out when they are mistreated for whatever reason in nerdy circumstances, and I read fan boards that can’t tell if a guy of a girl is looking. I’ve seen some of the rape threats aimed at them because they were posted publicly.
So I’ve been around the block a few times and I still have to ask: How pervasive is this “you girls are fake fans” thing? Is it a general fandom thing? A Star Trek thing? Comics? Cosplaying? Ponies?
Mike, why didn’t you reply to the link I’d actually posted? It contained the company’s reply.
Edit: Whoops, you did! I apologize. Please disregard this tangent.
Matt, ask Trix and Scout about their experiences. Or, hell, the very vocal response to Windblade.
Matt Greenbaum: I’ve seen it… just about everywhere, but it varies. There’s a similar problem in the tech world, both professionally and at the hobby level. With cosplaying, I’m outside that scene, but there’s a lot of “if your costume is amazing, then you obviously are a fake geek.” In comics, scifi, fantasy, D&D, RPGs, minis games… I don’t know, I think I see it a lot. For some reason, your “authenticity” as a female nerd is often inversely proportional to your social skills and confidence… but that’s anecdotal and somewhat joking. 🙂
It isn’t necessarily genre specific, but it is much more prevalent in some genre of fandoms than others. Star Trek / Star Wars is actually probably the worst side of it. Anime and role playing games probably have the fewest examples (for different reasons). The female nerds you quoted are probably those least affected by this issue.
It also isn’t exclusive to nerd fandoms. Sports are a place where the problem is prevalent, though men are also commonly harassed for being “fake fans” in sports. The question: “Who / what is your favorite?” is actually usually a subtle probe testing if you are a real fan.
Also, the “real fan” thing isn’t universally directed at women. Part of why the Star Trek / Star Wars fandom shows the problem so well is because, while women get hit harder by it, almost everyone in the fandom does fact checking, which just means the “additional” checks for women are that much more grating. Anime, video games (favorite Final Fantasy game, for example), and comic books are also nerd genres that tend to have a lot of “fake fan” checks.
Jameel – I was referring to Trix actually. Though maybe it was more a matter of her saying that TF fandom in general is less exclusionist / rapey than others that led me to believe the “fake fan” thing wasn’t as prevalent.
The Windblade matter was a disgrace, and I have to think it was made worse by Simon Furman basically trying to kick women out of the fictional universe altogether. And then people just author-intent worshipping him and going along because of that.
…..not that that makes it any better mind you.
I mean, you kind of become a fake TF fan yourself if you are so desperate to kick the femmebots out that you’re willing to say the MALE ROBOTS AREN’T MALE. I promise you that was never said by anybody in the history of the fandom until Mairghread told Simon he had hurt peoples’ feelings. And then it was all “shared delusions of a faked past, ahoy!”
You’re not wrong.
When a fake-fan-boy fails the cred check, what happens to them next?
I’m pretty sure this question is directed at me, though I only even raised the specter of the concept to answer a “Point of Fact” question from another. I’ll answer out of politeness, but I am not at all invested in this conversation direction.
Answer: It depends on the environment. Ostracization, almost always. At a sports bar or a club (“fake club scene fans” are a thing, too), possibly some minor physical assault (alcohol level usually increases that). Over the internet, harrassment for sure. Sometime death threats.
bunches to catch up on… reading back…
Chuck: I’m getting lost in the analogy of classification. It might not be important but it *feels* like you’re making an important point. Are you arguing that pornography is an object and therefore *IS* easily classifiable but people as non objects aren’t? I personally believe that people are objects but and porn is a concept and that neither objects nor concepts are necessarily easily classifiable. That might matter. It might not… I’m not sure because I’m not totally following what you’re saying
John Muir: I disagree that fanboys/girls are easily classifiable. I think its pretty clear from the discussion both here and in H. Jameel Al Khafiz’s post that people have varied (if similar) definitions. And I think that disconnect is a large part of the problem no matter which side you come down on.
Enh, that was one of those Socratic questions, and wasn’t directed (solely) to you Mike. Obviously, my implication is that I think what would happen to a fanboy is–very much quantitatively and to a lesser extent qualitatively–very different from what would happen to a fangirl. And if you (or someone else) disagree with me on that assessment, that is a bit beyond my “agree to disagree” line and into my “I need you to understand that you are mistaken” territory.
(The good news is that this is sort of the lynch pin of my argument here, so if you’re not going to buy it, you can safely ignore anything else I’m going to say on the subject because it’s not going to click, and if you are going to buy it, I think I can convince you of the rest of my viewpoint (or at least work it down to a level where I can agree to disagree.))
Michael Strauss: “There are only two traits that all fangirls have in common: “fan” and “female”” – That I will agree with totally.
“Though that doesn’t tell the whole story because there are plenty of traits that the majority have in common (possibly even NEARLY all). ” – That i will 100% disagree with, but I think that’s a common misunderstanding among the populace INCLUDING the fangirls. I think the problem with classification, even self-classification, is that “I denote myself as a member of Box A, therefore everyone in Box A is just like me.” Are all fangirls into comics? Are they all into cosplay? Are they all into computers? Are they all into Star Trek? Even if you remove the gender aspect, you’re still making explicit connections that I don’t think are fair. Everything I said there implies that the fangirl is a necessary member of the “geek subculture” or more specifically with the “comic and sci-fi fan convention subculture” and I’m pretty sure that the makers of the shirt are making that assumption as well. But, I said before (actually, I think on Jameel’s version) that I call my wife, Stephanie, a “Johnny Depp Fangirl” all the time. And I don’t think she even takes it as an insult. But she has very little connection with the comic community. She likes some comic books, but very few. She hates comicons almost unilaterally, she doesn’t particularly care for most sci-fi. When I go out of town for a convention, she comes with me, but drops me off, takes the car and enjoys other parts of the city. I say she’s a fangirl specifically because I know that even though she doesn’t give a damn about comics, she’ll be right in-line with me to see Sin City 2 on opening night just because Depp is starring in it. And if I happen to set up at Wizard World Botswana or something, and she hears that Johnny Depp is at the booth next to me, she’s totally going to want to go to get his autograph (and maybe leave me for him). And to me, that level of fan is OK. In fact, it’s great!!! But, if she showed up at Wizard World just to get Depp’s autograph and see the Pirates of the Carribean panel, she would end up being SPECIFICALLY the kind of “fangirl” that the shirt is meant to insult. She’d be not accepted, not because she was female, but because she isn’t a “real geek.” (and she’s not).
The problem is, there IS a double standard. Because if a MALE shows up at Wizard World just to get one specific autograph and they don’t really care about comics other than that, pretty much no one cares. They might make snide remarks in general (there’s a lot of that actually… San Diego takes a lot of flack for being commercial and not really about “the comics” anymore) but no one makes T-shirts calling out the “fan boys” because it’s easier for MALES to pass as “real geeks” and they just get ignored. That’s the sexism part. And that double standard is what leads to “fangirl” more often being thought of as an insult than “fanboy.”
Chuck Werner and John Muir: “Perfect! If there is no difference between “fangirl” and “fanboy” by your reckoning, then I won’t bother you anymore. I really only have a problem with “fangirl” being distinct from “fanboy” in a way where gender has an effect. If gender has no impact on your definition, then uh… carry on.”
That’s the disconnect I was talking about in my previous post. And language is tricky that way because I DON’T think everyone means the same thing by the same words. In fact, I know they don’t. There’s whole disciplines of study devoted to it. But the fact is, even though they words should be synonymous except for gendering, the presence of the assholes that Chuck mentioned right before that, confuse the issue.
H. Jameel Al Khafiz: “Mike, you are familiar with the concept of the fake fan girl, right? And you’re aware that some very influential creators have propagated it?
Now, with those things in mind, what do you think the perception of those shirts will be?”
Nailed it! And that’s the real problem here. The outrage comes from not the shirt as it is written but for the implicit connotation that “fan girl” means “fake” and that’s where most of the sexism comes in (see my Steph and Depp example). And that’s unfortunate and bad. But it’s complicated and it’s why discussions like this are important, rather than just waving out arms and saying “sexist! Shame on you!!!”
Chuck Werner: I love your blog post. I would have linked to it if I’d seen it before Amber’s. And like her, I agree with a lot (but not all) of what you said. Admitting that I just read it and haven’t processed it as well as I would like to if I had time and didn’t want to get through all the comments here and get back to my paper I need to be working on, this is one of the things that really stands out to me as particularly astute:
“In truth, the psychology behind my conclusion was much simpler – it’s the psychology of identity. If girls did not like comic books and games, that made it twice as special to be me (because 50% of the population was disqualified).”
Yes! Exactly. And that’s not symptomatic of geeks. It’s not symptomatic of sexists. It’s an unfortunate symptom of human nature. It’s why people don’t want gay marriage. It’s why we founded a country to get away from British rule, but then had slaves. It’s why we can’t elect someone who isn’t Christian president. We, as a people tend to not actually fight for equality. We fight for the right to be in the empowered majority. The two things have an important but subtle difference. A group cannot really be “empowered” unless there’s a dispowered group below them. Basically… yeah, people suck. We try to sort of fix that through social change, but that’s a slow and arduous process and it’s not as universal as we like to think, because there’s no absolute “right direction” for the change. Things just sort of happen organically, being nudged in the directions that fit the specific moralities of activists. If you get enough activists with the same “general” agenda pushing in the right direction, you can move the needle a little. But when the group pushing gets bigger, the subtle differences in the agendas of it’s members make it harder to reconcile into one overarching direction. But unfortunately, for the most part, people don’t notice. So they assume they’re all still pushing in the same direction. And when those differences come into play, it causes confusion.
Michael Strauss: “That is probably the main disconnect. My main familiarity with the term arises from a different cultural perspective. The culture is still sexist, but in different ways. Furthermore, my main familiarity with “fanboy” comes from an entirely different cultural perspective, video games, which is sexist in yet another way. And despite the latter being very anti-female, the term “fanboy” has become almost demonized in that culture that almost makes “fangirl” look pleasant.”
that’s why I brought up the definitions thing in the first place. On the other thread it really seemed like Strauss was trying to make an important point. And the fact that I didn’t totally agree with him didn’t matter nearly as much as the fact that I felt like Jameel and Emily were assuming he was being intuitionally obstinate.
I still think I don’t quite agree with him. But that part of the point is valid and important.
Michael Strauss and Chuck Werner: I am familiar with Dick Wolf, creator of Law and Order. I am not familiar with it as an insult. and urban dictionary has a definition that sorta kind fits (its at least about sexism) but doesn’t feel like what Strauss or Chuck meant exactly. So someone please enlighten me.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dick+wolf
ok, I think I’m caught up now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny_Arcade_%28webcomic%29#Rape.2Fdickwolves_controversy
I haven’t read up on it, so I am only passingly familiar with this controversy (unfamiliar enough to not even get the name right).
thanks.
I suggest reading up on it. It’s a textbook example of how NOT to handle that sort of thing.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Dickwolves
Also how is the Strawberry Shortcake comic on Wikipedia?!?!? PA got C&Dd on that; does American Greetings not know about Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is an educational information and journalistic source (arguably). Fair use laws apply and make the rules different.
Somehow I doubt I could, say, put Metallica mp3s on the wikipedia page about the history of napster and get away with claiming it’s for educational purposes about the controversy.
Metallica mp3s in total? No. 10 seconds of a song if relevant? Yes. Fair use laws are very specific.
It’s the whole work. Their claim about the work was their character being represented in a way they did not like, i.e., as a dominatrix, which is still the case in the “portion” of the work (i.e., the whole thing) on wikipedia. I don’t see how the C&D directed at PA could be in any way valid without the works appearance anywhere being equally susceptible to a C&D.
Oh. I get what you’re saying. But the rules are different for visual art (comics) and audio. Music is easy to cut up and still get the context so the law allows you about 15 seconds to make your point without infringing on copyright. Images are harder to deal with.
And they’re different for parody and advertising and news releases too.
For instance a strip club once used one of my photos to advertise a Super Bowl party. I C&D’d that no problem. WPXI used one to talk about a controversy involving the model in it and I had no recourse.
In fact the news says SuperBowl all the time. So does Wikipedia. Budweiser always calls it “the Big Game” because they can’t say SuperBowl without paying.
There are laws protecting parody and if PA wanted to push their luck they might have been able to get away with it. But it’s often not financially worth it.
Wikimedia has more money than PA does and American Greetings knows that. So why bother to fight a battle they clearly can’t win?
Here’s a bunch of fair use cases if you’re curious. http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/
When it comes to the dickwolves affair and all the people who laughed at the joke in public, up to and including when Mike brought it up again last year, I will once again quote one of my favorite films, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre:
“There’s them that laughs and knows better.”
In general I am against policing comedy. Will I say that rape jokes can never be funny? Nope. Sexist jokes? Nope. Racist jokes? Nope again. Sometimes I might even think any of those things can be funny. And there are those that would call me part of the problem when I do.
Hell I even make offensive jokes here. All the time actually.
BUT when you make an offensive joke you take on the responsibility of dealing with the ramifications. Freedom of speech, absolutely. But that doesn’t mean freedom from criticism.
Example… The NAACP has for a while called for a moratorium on the word “nigger” and it’s variations in comedy and music even by black performers. I think that’s stupid. There are uses where that word is appropriate and useful for emphasis, comedy or anger. But when you say it you necessarily run the risk of losing a portion of your audience. As an artist this is your responsibility to manage and decide.
It is also often a defense mechanism for, say, an ethnic minority, an overweight person, or a known rape survivor to make those jokes themselves – so they can attempt to control the subject’s presence in conversation. It would actually hurt tremendously to have someone direct it at them with callousness and mockery – but by saying it themselves first, they hope to avoid surprise triggers and signal to other people that they shouldn’t joke about that now because it’s been done.
MORE PERTINENTLY: whether or not you think the dickwolves joke was appropriate or funny, the nonpology responses and mocking of victims afterwards was very very ugly. And making it into a running gag for literally years was really why PAX earned a lot of its bad rep.
Let me clarify: From what I’ve seen of the Dickwolves thing (which is just a little bit of internet searching) I didn’t think it was particularly funny (but then I’m not actually a PA fan). But my opinion of the actual comic is irrelevant.
I think rape is an important cultural issue. And so I think media and culture (including comedy) has not only a right, but actually an artistic responsibility to deal with it. Thus, I’m just as behind PA’s right to make fun of it, as I am behind, say Law & Order:SVU’s right to dramatize it. Similarly, I am as behind the KKK’s right to use the word “nigger” as I am behind Jay Z’s right.
To look at another recent controversy, I’m very much in favor of what Invincible did this month (even though I don’t read it): http://www.bleedingcool.com/2014/04/09/rape-and-the-modern-superhero-comic-invincible-110/
BUT, in doing so all five groups risk the loss of fans. I totally support people saying “I don’t want to listen to Jay-Z anymore” or “I don’t want to read Penny Arcade anymore” because of what they’ve said.
If I have a problem with PA, it’s that they backed off at all because of controversy. Making a Team Dickwolves shirt is basically embracing your controversy and saying “here’s the stance I’m taking” and when you start apologizing (or nonpologizing) because your lawyers are saying “look, you’re getting bad press” then you’re saying you don’t actually believe in your message.
So yeah, if you want to use rape humor, I say go for it… And let the chips fall where they may. But when the chips start falling, be ready to deal with the fact that people may not want to give you any more chips. (ok, that metaphor broke down a little at the end)
also, the invincible thing I linked to is interesting and people should check it out. I meant to link to it the other day.
I don’t think PA had a real message to believe in. They dug in their heels because they didn’t comprehend it was a real issue at first, were baffled that people had their feelings hurt, then reacted uber-defensively to criticism as is the wont of many grown men who were bullied too much as kids.
(Takes one to spot one).
Making a “Team Dickwolves” shirt basically said to 1-in-4 women and 1-in-6 men that they would be actively mocked and derided unapologetically if they spent money to go to PAX. Given the pretty darned male-centric demographics of their audience, the numbers of multiples-of-6 that would be there, that’s why I said there were those who “laughed but knew better.”
Tangential: This Week in Geek Feminism (and this t-shirt thing didn’t even rate.) http://geekfeminism.org/2014/04/25/a-week-in-the-life/
Oh, i agree… I don’t think they were trying say “rape is funny!” by the original strip.
I do think that it looks like when the backlash started they were saying “Freedom of Artistic Expression is the utmost of our rights as Americans! Power to the people!!!!!” and then when they noticed that they were losing money over it, it became “uhhh… err… sorry we didn’t mean that.”
its why I was “behind” the Duck Dynasty dude’s right to say the idiotic stuff he said. I was behind his right to stick to his guns. But I was equally (actually even more so) behind the rights of the fans to say “fuck, that dude. I’m not watching his stupid ass show anymore.”
Oh, and, Robin / Nightwing got raped on-panel by some lady hero character…. Tarantula, I think.
Dale: I’m confused what I’m looking for. Just the absence of the fangirl=coffee shirt in the update?
Matt: Oh sure… there’s been lots of comic rapes. you’re talking about #2 on this list: http://www.cracked.com/article_19786_the-6-creepiest-sexual-encounters-in-comic-book-history_p2.html but it wasn’t as explicit as the invincible one, and they sort of tried to double-talk their way out of it “It’s not rape. It was just non-consensual sex” (Wha?!?!?!?)
there’s also the question of what happened to Batgirl/Barbara Gordon in the Killing Joke. I actually PREFER to think she was raped. I think it makes the storyline stronger. Saying she was sexually assaulted but not raped so as to make the story less offensive (which is the going line for that story) weakens it. It says “we don’t want to deal with this hard issue.”
Well, yes; that and that femgeeks (many of which get accused of being fangirls as well) did, as the original post suggested, have bigger problems to deal with (which doesn’t excuse this, blah blah, etc.)
oh… well, yes, I think it certainly makes that point.
(well, doesn’t make that point and therefore implicitly does)
Kirkman’s handling of the criticism of his use of rape in Invincible doesn’t give me a lot of faith in his ability to write the story with the care it needs.
heh… well, I mean, there’s a reason I don’t actually read the comic.
The “punch up” rule of comedy comes to mind.
Not sure if you mean, what I think you mean. Define?
I give him credit for depicting f-on-m rape as what it is: a violent crime, not soft-porn slapstick. Refreshingly few commenters online seem to be replying with “erection is consent,” though zero would have been better.
Note that under U.S. law, though, that wasn’t rape – it was a different category of crime known as “forced to penetrate,” which goes under the umbrella of sexual assault. There’s a mindboggling CDC report concerning how common it is, which renders the improper classification really, really arbitrary and hard to defend. Andrew Sullivan has also blogged about this, though didn’t reach an emotional conclusion (as to whether it’s “real” rape or not).
That’s my thing, Matt. I’m not a fan of the book. I’m not a fan of a lot of things. I appreciate the attempt to deal with it one way or the other. As Jameel said, maybe it won’t be done well. Sure, but I don’t think we can “wait for the good stories” to talk about an issue. You kinda just need people to take a shot at it one way or the other.
You don’t attack groups lower than you on the social ladder.
Yeah, that’s what I thought you meant. How is “rape of men” that? (it’s sounding like you possibly read some article that I haven’t?)
That was branching off of an earlier statement. Sorry for any confusion.
oooooh… ok, yeah. I’m with you now
Facebook really needs threading godammit… It’s 2014. Didn’t we solve this problem for usenet like a couple decades ago?
FWIW, here is the CDC report bullshittishly categorizing such acts as not being under the “rape” column; it starts on page 28 of the PDF.
Note that even penetration of a male victim wasn’t categorized as rape either until 2012 when Joe Biden led an update of the Justice Dept. definitions.
That was the same update that also said it was possible for a wife to be raped by her husband and that it no longer mattered whether or not the woman had screamed for it to “count.” The original law, from 83 years earlier, said otherwise.
Two-thousand-freaking-twelve. I guess better late than never, but, seriously, the government gave us pictures of the alcohol clouds of Titan before it gave us that. As the kids say, “smh.”
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
The “male rape is a joke” thing is part of the culture that feminism is fighting to change.
Jameel – ideally, yes. But reality doesn’t always live up to ideals. In India, feminism fought to change rape laws specifically to exclude both male victims and female perpetrators – and won. One of the advocates of this was crass enough to suggest that if it were a bigger problem, more men (regardless of perp gender) would be coming forward.
This, in the world’s second most populous country, with well over a billion people. No more male rape victims. A poem comes to mind… it ends with “and then there were none.”
http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Only-men-can-be-booked-for-rape/Article1-1021702.aspx
Every movement makes mistakes. Let’s hope this is one of those that can be reversed.
Yeah, sometimes people are bad at feminism.