fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2461 ]

[ SECRET POST #2461 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2461 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 070 secrets from Secret Submission Post #352.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

That depends on whether the work was actually misogynistic or you were just being an entitled idiot. The Hobbit is not misogynistic because it's got no prominent female characters and shoehorning in one, while butchering other established and beloved characters in order to do so, does not deliver a less misogynistic message. It just makes me want not to see the movie at all and never bother to listen to you.

...who brought up the Hobbit?

"entitled idiot"

Charming ad hominem there.

Tolkien is a product of his misogynistic time and society, and such things are inevitably reflected in a creator's work. Yes, he lived in a society where a story with no prominent female characters could pass wholly unquestioned. Yes, shoehorning a prominent female character into the movie adaptation of The Hobbit would disrupt the story and make the movie a poor adaptation. Does this make it wrong for women to be uncomfortable with the fact that the movie contains no prominent female characters and yet is highly acclaimed and well-received in a society that's supposedly improved in its misogynistic tendencies since Tolkien's time? Hardly. Does this make it wrong for these women to express that discomfort? Not at all.

Tell me you're parodying sjws, please.
I'm a woman and I'm not uncomfortable with stuff that contains no prominent female characters and is highly acclaimed and well-received. There's nothing inherently misogynistic about that. Many other women aren't, either, so those that complain about it shouldn't pretend that they speak for everyone. I care for a good story and a good story is not determined just by the presence of prominent female characters. If you're going to take a well-loved canon and butcher it for the sake of your agenda, it's going to backfire on you.

I am curious about what precisely you mean by "sjw," as it is a rather nebulous term you're throwing around in quite damning fashion.

I have never, ever heard anyone expressing such discomfort claim to speak for everyone. I have never, ever heard anyone expressing such discomfort undertake campaigns to force the production staff of The Hobbit to "butcher" the story for the sake of any "agenda," feminist or otherwise. Is there some threshold of realism at which people must stop expressing any wish for things to be different than they are?

You've never heard anyone expressing such discomfort claim to speak for everyone, but you said "women" in your earlier post as if all women think like you?
Also, you've never seen the campaigns on tumblr? Thankfully nobody takes them seriously, but they can be pretty unnerving all the same. There's a difference between wishing for things to be different and forcing your views on others via harrassing them.

You did not answer my question about the term "sjw."

I thought the "some" was clearly implicit in my comment, but in my experience it is a common reaction in some circles to take umbrage if it is not stated outright. My apologies for forgetting this and neglecting to make it more obvious.

I have not seen any such campaigns, but I must ask: if no one takes them seriously, why are they so unnerving to you? You seem to be taking this very personally.

There certainly is a difference between wishing for things to be different and forcing one's views on others through harassment, but again, I have never seen any such harassment over the Hobbit issue. I would not be surprised if such harassment were a cause occasionally taken up by some radfem lesbians intent on shaming heterosexual women for taking interest in men's stories over women's stories (such is sadly common in another, entirely unrelated fandom in which I am active); however, I am sorry that you would allow that to irrevocably tarnish your perception of a movement that has accomplished great things, although such a reaction is hardly unjustifiable.

Sjw = social justice warrior. The kind of person that pushes for a female or a black character to be shoehorned into a story solely because they're a female or a black character, to the damage of the story itself, in the name of a 'representation' not owed.

They can get pretty unnerving to witness, especially when they attack things that are dear to you or behave like hypocrites. For example, by other people's account since I don't follow that series, those that make a character black in the SnK fandom (even though said character is white) and complain that those who don't share their colouring are racists, or those who draw some character a few tones lighter are racists too.

I don't let them tarnish my view of the whole movement, btw, no worries there.

I fail to understand how making a character a minority could be to the detriment of a story when, provided the character is handled well, it should make no difference. I also fail to understand why it is a problem that minorities desire greater representation, and am curious as to why you would use the term "owed" (or scare quotes around representation, for that matter).

I try not to take "attacks" on things that are dear to me personally. I accept eloquent criticism of those works because such criticism is usually well justified. There is no such thing as a canon with no problematic elements, and if I allowed criticism to dissuade me from enjoying my fandoms I would have no fandoms left to enjoy. I acknowledge that there are problematic elements in my fandoms, but I am not the creator, and I cannot change the canon that has already been set down by the creator and publicly disseminated. I can disagree with it, but I can do nothing about it except in my fanworks.

Could you explain what you mean by "behave like hypocrites"?

Ah. As a SnK fan I can only assume you must be referring to Ymir, who (although I have not seen her depicted as black) seems to attract the most racewank. The truth is that the only character whose race is canonically given is Mikasa (who is called, somewhat vaguely, "Asian"). However, Ymir is canonically depicted with a darker skin tone than many of her peers (particularly in certain situations that are spoilers), but (as with many characters who are not pale) is often depicted as pale in fanart. Considering the history of whitewashing, I feel it's perfectly understandable that persons of color might feel uncomfortable about that and not want to associate with such people. Such a subconscious thing shows the presence of those unexamined attitudes that result in casual prejudice, and considering minorities are faced with that every day, why would it be something to which they would want to leave themselves open in their leisure time?

That's why I said shoehorned in. It's the same as that Tauriel character in the Hobbit movie. It does make a difference. It is not handled well and it tarnishes other established, beloved characters too, if you've read the book and you've learnt about Jackson's script it's pretty clear how. Which means that other than not seeing the movie, I'm going to recommend the Rankin-Bass version instead, which respects Tolkien's work much more.

I say owed because no private-owned media owes you or me anything. Minorities can desire greater representation but if a creator decides to make an all-male, all-white cast that's fine, since it's their freedom to do so and they don't owe anyone anything. Same if they decided for any other type of cast. Accusing people of being racist because they don't bend over for you does not make them racist, or any other isms, no matter how much you rant. You want something that's tailored to you, you make it yourself, especially since no one's stopping you, as you yourself said you already do with your fanworks.

I hardly saw eloquent criticism in my fandoms that was well-justified. Also re-read my own post, I described it there when they behave like hypocrites.

Actually most complaints I've seen were about some guy named Marco whose skintone looks pretty light to me. Not wanting to associate does not give them the right to attack and "casual prejudice", really? In my experience when people whine about casual prejudice they whine about not being treated special.

It has been some time since I've seen The Hobbit or read Tolkien's ouevre, so I cannot speak on that matter. However, change is an inherent aspect of adaptation. While I often fall more on the purist side of things, I find to my surprise that most changes are rarely without at least a little charm, and indeed wholly faithful adaptations can be dull even if the source material has been shifted into a completely different medium.

No, privately-owned media companies don't owe anyone anything, but it is certainly quite reasonable for minorities to be unhappy about the fact that the systemic prejudice in Western society is reflected in the fact that the overwhelming majority of media are made for wealthy able white heterosexual cismen, particularly since this reinforces ideas about what sells and thereby creates much higher barriers of entry into mainstream media for minorities who might want to make a difference without depending on others to do so for them. This is a well-documented problem across multiple media industries.

A well-justified argument does not have to be one you agree with; it simply has to be well supported. Additionally, I have reread all your posts in this thread and do not see hypocrisy addressed.

Ah. If you are of the opinion that attempting to even out a playing field that is inherently designed to disenfranchise certain groups is demanding "special treatment," it seems it is fruitless to continue this conversation. I regret that you feel this way and hope that you might someday reconsider.

If you don't know what you're talking about then inform yourself before making vapid talk.

No one is or should be forced to care. I'm glad that the Japanese don't care for the western market, their creative freedom (relative to the west, that is) is what has given the world so many beautiful, beautiful works.

The hypocrisy is addressed. They attack anyone who doesn't agree with their personal idea and makes the character white (even when, you know, the character IS white or looks so) or points out that they've made a character with light skin, black. All the while expecting people to accept their blackifying because yes. They're entitled assholes and I wish them the worst.

Ah. So you're a possessive Tolkein fan, then. That explains a lot.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2461 ]

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans

Re: Because Americans actually listen to Americans