What I'm Saying Is, The Search For Equality Is Pretty Messy

[A. E. Lowan]

Another offering from Chuck Wendig, curiously enough fairly light on the 4 letter words because he's addressing a pretty serious topic. I'll admit, I'm guilty of objectifying men in movies and fiction - this essay draws that into question in a very fair, in my opinion, light.

What I’m Saying Is, The Search For Equality Is Pretty Messy « terribleminds: chuck wendig

 

[Guy]

I think the idea of total equality is like the idea of world peace - a pipe dream that completely flies in the face of human nature.

Well, now that I think about it, maybe we can have a sort of equality - everybody objectify everybody.

 

[Svrtnsse]

The blog post made me think of this post from a while back.
Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is

The comments are a bit depressing, but the article is interesting.

 

[Mythopoet]

I found a lot more value in Whedon's speech than in Wendig's post. Whedon has identified a real problem, but doesn't come up with a real solution to it. Wendig is confused (to put it lightly) about both the problem and the solution.

 

[Scribble]

Whenever a modern, sensible man speaks about feminism he's going to get it right, and he's going to get it wrong. Inherent in equality is an idea of fairness, and the world will never be fair. It isn't fair that women have to deal with what they have had to deal with, and it isn't fair that men in this age have to watch every word they say, and as fair as they try to speak, will be found wrong on some account.

There is no fair, there never will be, but we can get things fairer than they were in the past, and fairer in the future than they are now. Feminism is a word that helps achieve that fairer...ness.

 

[Feo Takahari]

For reference, Whedon argued that the word "feminism" creates the idea that it's possible to "not be a feminist." If you're against equal rights for black people, you're not "not a [something]ist," you're just a racist, and as such classified as "on the wrong side of history" (his words.) He thinks we shouldn't be creating a division between people who're feminist and people who aren't, but people who're sexist and people who aren't. (A fair number of people seem to be assuming this is something only a straight white man would say, but I've actually heard this discussed by feminist scholars before.)

As for equality, history isn't what makes things equal or not equal. If someone on Tumblr is objectifying women, call them out. If someone on Tumblr is objectifying men, call them out. Tumblr feminists have a very bad habit of discriminating against gay men while thinking they're being positive towards them, and it's not exclusively up to gay men to tell them when they cross the line.

Edit: I just realized--is this topic against site rules? I'll stop posting in it if I'm getting into disallowed territory.

 

[Mindfire]

I actually agree with Joss as far as the word feminism is concerned. First there's the obvious red herring of "does supporting feminism make me less masculine or somehow equate to self-betrayal?", which I think is where many men stumble with the word (as I have in the past). But ignoring that, there are still reasons why someone like me, who embraces and tries to pursue justice and equality, might shy away from the word feminist.

Justice and equality are noble concepts with inherent value. Feminism, however, is a word that represents an ideology. And like any ideology it comes packaged with a lot of stuff. It's a word that comes attached to a long history of scholarship, research, theories, books, quackery, blogs, comment threads, and tumblr posts- some with merit, some without- that I'm not wholly familiar with and don't really want any part of. It comes packaged with a community and subculture that I don't belong to, don't feel welcome in, that tends to harbor concentrations of individuals with opinions opposed to my own in ways that have nothing to do with gender equality, and that- in the event I do join the discourse- requires me to learn and use an extensive lexicon of "polite*" jargon (that to me only serves as a stumbling block and a barrier to entry) lest I accidentally offend someone and afterward be flagellated for it.

So yeah. I support justice. I believe men and women, all people, are created equal. I despise the abuse of power. I admit I have blind spots where these things are concerned. But I don't subscribe to the body of feminist ideology and scholarship. I don't belong to feminism.

Some people will counter with the classic objection that "if you believe women are people, you're a feminist- deal with it." To which I say: no. That's just a false dichotomy that rationalizes giving people a label they don't want.

Joss is right. We need a new word.

*If I were to be less charitable, I might say "politically correct".

 

[Devor]

Edit: I just realized--is this topic against site rules? I'll stop posting in it if I'm getting into disallowed territory.

I haven't had a chance to read the article, and nobody has flagged it for discussion, but I would suggest bringing the topic towards being relevant to fantasy before the thread goes too far in other directions.

 

[Scribble]

Joss is right. We need a new word.

*If I were to be less charitable, I might say "politically correct".

Humanist includes males, females, as well as the gender unspecified. That seems forward thinking.

However, in the future, we may have a blurring of humanity's definition as we move into various cyber-extensions and possibly bio-engineered modifications. In our future enlightenment we may even want to include all conscious creatures within the umbrella of equality.

It gets complicated. Feminism is a word, and like any word it doesn't do any good or bad by itself - it's all in how you use it.

 

[Mindfire]

Humanist includes males, females, as well as the gender unspecified. That seems forward thinking.

However, in the future, we may have a blurring of humanity's definition as we move into various cyber-extensions and possibly bio-engineered modifications. In our future enlightenment we may even want to include all conscious creatures within the umbrella of equality.

It gets complicated. Feminism is a word, and like any word it doesn't do any good or bad by itself - it's all in how you use it.

I don't like the word humanism either, given it's association with atheism. Also, I agree with Joss in that what we need is not another "club word"- and humanism is definitely that, coming with an ideology of it's own- but rather a word that makes a plain distinction between just and unjust, like "racism".

As for transhumanism... not delving into those murky waters.

 

[glutton]

As for transhumanism... not delving into those murky waters.

Transcendence.

Universalism - not sure what the existing definition of that term is but it sounds good!

UNIVERSAL ENLIGHTENMENT... or even OMNIVERSAL.

Um, sounds like things a stereotypical fantasy/anime villain would say... carry on.

 

[Devor]

I never understood why we need words beyond sexist jerk, jackass, and a******, myself. They roll off the tongue and even have that nice progression to them, when you want to show the degree of the offense.

 

[Mindfire]

And muddying the waters of this whole debate is the fact that tumblr has become the super soldier serum for ideologies, such that- in the words of Dr. Erskine from the Captain America movie- "good becomes great, bad becomes worse". Except on the average, tumblr tends to make everything worse.

 

[Scribble]

Transcendence.

Universalism - not sure what the existing definition of that term is but it sounds good!

UNIVERSAL ENLIGHTENMENT... or even OMNIVERSAL.

Um, sounds like things a stereotypical fantasy/anime villain would say... carry on.

Universalism it is!

... but now that we have a term to include everyone, everything, how do we keep the jerks out?

 

[glutton]

Universalism it is!

... but now that we have a term to include everyone, everything, how do we keep the jerks out?

Brainwash them into non-jerks... cause you know, that's what 'Universal Churches of Truth' etc. tend to do. XD

 

[Scribble]

Brainwash them into non-jerks... cause you know, that's what 'Universal Churches of Truth' etc. tend to do. XD

Borderline, glutton, borderline

Humans have the wonderful capacity to create soaring ideals, yet we cannot escape our instinctual primate social psychology. Hilarity ensues.

 

[glutton]

Borderline, glutton, borderline

I was referring to things like the villain Magus' Universal Church of Truth from Marvel comics, or a similarly named villainous organization from some fantasy book I read... lol

 

[Jabrosky]

With regards to the whole discussion about sexually objectifying either gender, I believe a lot of commentators get this issue confused. Some seem to think that any portrayal of women (or men) in a sexually attractive light is inherently objectifying, but I always understood that the problem had more to do with reducing either sex to reproductive functions. If a writer describes his female protagonist as having a nice ass, for instance, it doesn't necessarily follow that this heroine can't do anything other than twerk. As long as he reserves those descriptions for a few appropriate scenes and has the heroine do things other than twerking or anything else sexual, I wouldn't accuse him of objectification.

 

[Steerpike]

Some seem to think that any portrayal of women (or men) in a sexually attractive light is inherently objectifying, but I always understood that the problem had more to do with reducing either sex to reproductive functions.

I think this is what it is. These sorts of characters have no real agency, they're just reduced to sexual objects. Characters can certainly be described as sexually attractive, both in physical and other terms, and indeed the idea that you couldn't include sexual or sensual characteristics of a female character (for example) seems to me to be just as problematic as the hypersexualization we so often see. Just make them real people. Give them agency, motivations, complexities, and so on, and don't just reduce them to embodiments of sexuality.

 

[Sheilawisz]

The nature of this thread does not go against the rules of Mythic Scribes.

However, the subjects and ideas discussed here can be sensitive and it's always a good idea to keep in mind The Guiding Principle which says: The guiding principle is to treat others with respect and dignity, and to foster a positive, welcoming and family friendly community.

Let's keep the thread oriented towards Fantasy Writing, and avoid the road that leads to political issues.