Fandom as a female space

[sqbr]

So there's a been a lot of discussion on metafandom about fanfic-fandom as a female space, both wrt OTW and (looking back) in general.

This has bugged me a bit, especially when I've seen some of the practical implications. Nothing I have to say here is all that new or exciting, I just feel better getting it out.

Now with respect to OTW my main problem is that they claim to be speaking for all creators of "transformative works", many of which (like machina, parody etc) do not come from "primarily female communities". But I'm assuming this contradiction will be ironed out one way or another in time (I asked on their feedback page, so we'll see) and don't feel too comfortable giving them crap about their policies until I'm sure of what their policies are.

(EDIT: I am so totally not accusing OTW of the stuff I'm complaining about below, it's just that discussions about OTW stirred up general-fandomy-people's nasty opinions.)

Unlike a lot of people, I have absolutely no problem with fanfic-fandom being a feminist space, or a safe space for women (I only wish it were true of sff fandom). And the fact that most fanfic is written by women is a basic fact that's silly to deny. Men who come in going "But..you guys should stop talking about kissing and start doing more explosions!" are being equivalent to a tourist complaining about those silly chinese people putting soy sauce on their pasta instead of bolognaise(*).

My problem is when fanfic-fandom is treated as equivalent to "women's spaces" like the women's room at uni. (EDIT: this isn't quite what people are doing, certainly noone says men aren't allowed. Here's the best essay I could find on the subject after a brief search, and here's the same basic idea expressed in a much dodgier way)

Unlike deliberately female spaces, fandom isn't defined as being female, it's just the
collection of everyone who likes fanfic etc. As it happens it has ended up mostly female for historical etc reasons, but that's different from a social group which was deliberately and explicitly created to cater to one group. There are plenty of all-gender social events for non-female people to go to, but if a man likes fanfic then it's not like can just go to the "mens fanfic club" and discuss it there, this is all there is.

I'm trying to think of examples...the best I can think of is that childrearing used to be "women's work" and is still pretty much done just by women. This has led to single fathers being excluded from parenting rooms and parenting groups which just assume that everyone who wants to use them is female.

Similarly, gay men and trans or genderqueer people are often excluded from fandom-y things along with the straight cisgendered men, with the argument that fandom is a women's space and they are not women, so they should shut up. I've seen it happen a bunch of time, and I don't like it.

On the whole, it seems to me that the not-women(**) in "female spaces" are more likely to be the sort to buck traditional gender roles and so be already marginalised in the wider society. Defining these spaces so rigidly that these not-women are excluded or marginalised here is beyond just defending ourselves from the patriarchy, it's perpetuating the patriarchy in it's oppression of a different group.

(*)And from the sound of things, a lot of male academics in this area are like italian chefs going on about how Marco Polo invented pasta, and who only reference the chinese at all to smirk about how they have no idea how to cook pasta sauce. To extend this metaphor past breaking: at the same time, that doesn't change the fact that spaghetti bolognaise is delicious, and not everyone who likes it hates China (or soy sauce) *is now hungry*
(**)And self identified women who don't fit the everyone's definition of "woman", like transwomen.

Note: I have a new policy of cutting down my internet time quite dramatically, so this was written on the fly. Sorry if it's all crap! EDIT: Haha, and now I've been metafandomed. Hi guys, I appreciate the comments but may be slow to reply :)

Comments

Re: one

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

Chiming in late here. And I feel as though I'm repeating some of what's been said but...

Part of what is causing all the fuss is that, as you say, you are trying to cover as much as possible. But at the same time, it's sounding like your vested interests are in just a few places, and those places are the areas of fandom that are female-dominated. You're saying, point blank in OTW's values statement, that fandom's identity is valuable because it is not male, or queer, or anything . And that is exclusionary.

Now, I know that it's not be meant to taken that way, but it can very easily be read that way. And I honestly don't think you can say that you value IDIC if you're also stating a preference for the values and history of one group before all others.

Would someone who is a member of a fandom that is not and never has been traditionally female, read that values statement and then feel comfortable approaching OTW for help? Would they feel confidant that, all other things considered, that they'd get the same treatment as someone in a female dominated fandom? If money is tight, who gets first dibs?

That's the litmus test. I think the language of that one statement needs to be changed so that it would pass the test 99% of the time. We can still honour that fact that great swathes of fandom are female and that this is awesome and unusual, but as an organisation trying to work for as many fans as possible, you also need to assign positive value to the spaces that aren't female.

Re: one

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

We can still honour that fact that great swathes of fandom are female and that this is awesome and unusual, but as an organisation trying to work for as many fans as possible, you also need to assign positive value to the spaces that aren't female.

How? That is not meant as a dismissive question: I genuinely would like you to send your suggestions for change to the OTW.

No one person wrote those statements; many people have worked on them, more have critiqued them, and the OTW is still open to changing the wording again (and I hope the Organisation always will be open to such changes, as fandom changes).

However, what we have now is the best wording we can currently think up which fills both our intended mission and is as inclusive as possible given that mission.

If you can think of an alternative wording that does those things better, please send it to Community Relations. It will be read and considered.

Re: one

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

i suggested on cesperenza's lj that the words 'history' and 'identity' in Value Stmt #2 change places:

We value our *history* as a female-dominated space, and our *identity* of rich creativity[...].

as a woman, in all the senses that count, i find this so much more inviting than what's on the page now. the main problem i have with what's there now is that 1) i really *don't* value fandom as a female dominated space - i'd be doing this if there were no girls here tomorrow, and i'd be happy and 2) frankly, *i'd* rather be valued for *what i contribute* than for a genetic quirk i can't actually control. i didn't have a choice in being born female, and i don't contribute to being female, and therefore, having value as a female is kinda useless. it's *far* more flattering and appropriate to have value *as a contributor*.

perhaps the most ironic thing about the paragraph above is that yes, i'm fully cognizant of the fact that the reason i *can* have value as a contributor in most spaces is because feminists have fought for my value as a woman to be the same as the value of a man. it just seems really weird for that intrinsic value to supersede now, especially in an area that's not exactly subject to hiring quotas...

-bs

Re: one

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

That was you? Thank you. We are currently considering that change.

Re: one

[boogieshoes.livejournal.com]

thank you :-)

i know wording values stmts and such is hard, but as i've said elsewhere, that's the very reason i think nitpicking it now is important. and this particular section has caused the sort of reaction that indicates it's important enough to be a major factor in OTW's success.

i feel kind of weird pimping my own wording in various lj's, but i've come to the conclusion that this is important enough to fight for. i know OTW wants to be as inclusive as possible, so it's really important to have the right wording - for all of us.

-bs

Re: one

[alchemia.livejournal.com]

Second'ing boogieshoe's suggestion.

Re: one

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

boogieshoes' suggestion isn't a bad one. I'm playing around with the wording myself and, who knows? I might come up with something. If I do, I'll send it in.

The thing I'd suggest straight off the bat, though, is changing the actual hierarchy of values. Move value 5 (IDIC) to position 2, and bump the others down a level. This would mean that your value statements reads as “what we do - who we are – where we come from”. Where we came from is important, yes, but it's not as important as where we are now.

With boogieshoes’ changes, it’d read something like:

1. We value transformative fanworks and the innovative communities from which they have arisen, including media, real person fiction, anime, comics, music and vidding.
2. We value infinite diversity in infinite combinations. We value all fans engaged in transformative work: fans of any race, gender, culture, sexual identity, or ability. We value the unhindered cross-pollination and exchange of fannish ideas and cultures while seeking to avoid the homogenization or centralization of fandom.
3. We value our identity as a diverse community that is rich in creativity and commentary, and honour our history of being a predominantly female space.
4. We value our volunteer-based infrastructure and the fannish gift economy that recognizes and celebrates worth in myriad and diverse activities.
5. We value making fannish activities as accessible as possible to all those who wish to participate.

Re: one

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

We have, in fact, already considered the sequencing option you suggest, and decided it didn't work for the reasons I gave in an earlier comment in this thread -- where we came from has so deeply influenced the ideology of the OTW and why it came into being. This heirarchy of values may change in future, as fandom changes and the OTW changes in response. If you would like the idea to be reconsidered before then, please send it through to Community Relations.

The reason OTW has formal channels of communication is so that if something happens to individual members (if I get sick, for instance, or Sophie, who isn't a member, deletes her LJ), your ideas still get through to the right place. So while I do appreciate that you want to discuss this here, this isn't an appropriate venue (sorry, Sophie).

I agree that boogieshoes's suggestion is a good one, and it's currently under consideration.

Re: one

[dr-jekyl.livejournal.com]

The problem then, I guess, is that the OTW board comes from a different place than I do, and I don't really know or understand what that place is. Ah well. I suspect I already knew that.

I will type up my thoughts on the values order, and on the perils of focusing too much on what was instead of what actually is, and send it on, though I would prefer open, rather than closed, discussion with the board on this issue. It's perhaps the most contentious issue to come up so far (now that the bandom stuff has more or less died down, anyway) - perhaps OTW should open an official, public dialogue channel rather than waiting for commentary to come to you.

Re: one

[cupidsbow.livejournal.com]

Thank you for agreeing to put your thoughts together to send along to Community Relations; that will be helpful.

Sorry my last reply was a little abrupt -- I was fitting it in between teaching sessions.

To explain further: my previous comments to alias_sqbr in this thread were largely made up of my own opinions and what I'll be working towards within the OTW as a concerned fan and willing volunteer. You were asking for official word or debate, which isn't appropriate in this forum for the kinds of reasons I mentioned before.

Speaking for myself, I may open up some discussions about upcoming issues in my own LJ, as it would help me to hone my own opinions before they are discussed within the Organisation.

I can also tell you that it is OTW policy to read and consider all suggestions, and changes have been made because of ideas that have been sent to Community Relations or left in otw_news. This will be an ongoing process, but due to the need for checks and balances and given we all have real lives etc, the Organisation will often move at a slower pace than fandom tends to in informal interactions -- especially while the Organisation is still inventing policies and procedures. As these are settled, things should go much faster, especially once the ToS are complete.

OTW should open an official, public dialogue channel rather than waiting for commentary to come to you

Yes, I agree. This kind of outreach will become more common as the Organisation develops. If you look at otw_news, you'll see that we have a chat session scheduled for tomorrow. In that forum, your questions would be appropriate, and an official transcript will be created and posted so that all interested parties can read it.