More Wendig on Sexism & Misogyny

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I think this is a great article.

 

[EloiseA]

re: More Wendig on Sexism & Misogyny

Thanks for the link --

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

re: More Wendig on Sexism & Misogyny

Ugh. That's what I get for pre-passout posting. Any chance a mod can fix the title?

 

[Brian G Turner]

What title FH?

 

[Toby Frost]

A small question. This makes perfect sense when dealing with characters in a semi-realistic setting: the soldiers in Aliens, for instance, are in space, but they are convincing soldiers. But what about characters who fundamentally aren't realistic at all?

Two examples: Jack Sparrow and Catwoman. Although they pretty much look like what they are based on (a pirate captain and a burglar/ninja type*), neither looks convincing. Make either look like what they really ought to resemble, and they would look considerably more practical, more battered and, importantly, much less attractive. Portrayed as a realistic burglar, Catwoman wouldn't look anything like Catwoman and probably would be hard to spot as female at all. A convincing Jack would probably look like a crazed tramp with a bunch of knives.

(One thing that always strikes me is that default male SF combat gear is essential army kit. For women it's... a wetsuit? You can actually see this in present-day walking gear, where women's stuff is much closer-cut than men's. I am told by friends who do serious walking that there's no practical reason for this).

So: do we keep these sorts of characters are they are, and remain aware that they're cartoon figures? Are we then acknowledging that the rules of what's allowed might change from setting to setting? Fine, there are some lines that will almost never be worth crossing, and some things that should never be done. But, say, in a setting where barbarians tend to look like Conan, and not like actual Germanic tribemen (or have any ability to feel cold), what do the ladies wear? Or are caricatured settings like this just out the question?

(Actually, Conan the Barbarian is an interesting one. It has three female characters, as far as I recall: one is a dopey princess who flops around most of the time, possibly drugged and certainly brainwashed; the second is a witch who seems to have a rather predatory sex drive, which I gather goes with being evil and/or magical; and the third is Conan's colleague/love interest, who is rather well-portrayed and seems a good foil for him. But anyhow...)


* I'm not sure that there is a precise word in English for this. I'm thinking ninja, assassin, spy - basically, a stealthy, athletic infiltrator who isn't an overt soldier, and is dressed to go silently and unseen).

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

This was a fascinating, heart-felt series of statements. (I can hardly say "essays" since they are more in the form of random thoughts, but that's fine.)

The thing about "genderflipping" book covers was a real eye-opener. In a similar way, it disturbs me that some bookstores now have sections that are labelled, without any irony, "Chick Lit." Apparently everything else in the store is for men. (Imagine if there was one small section for "Dude Fic" in your local bookstore.)

Thank you for the link.

Toby Frost:

You make some excellent points. One can't expect comic book characters to be realistic at all.

What concerns some of us is the degree to which admittedly unrealistic female characters are sexualized to an extraordinary degree. The "chain mail bikini" (besides being ridiculous for any number of reasons) is one example. How often is there a male character in such revealing clothing? How often is there a male character with an outrageously enormous penis, clearly visible through skin-tight clothing, in the same way that so many female characters of this type are shown with outrageously large breasts?

Some balance is all I ask. I don't object to the sexualization of Barbarella, for example, because we have the equally sexy and scantily clad Pygar.

 

[sknox]

I'm glad to hear Victoria object to "Chick Lit" as a category. When I first saw the term, I was appalled and embarrassed. I couldn't believe it was a serious category. I continue to be appalled and embarrassed to see it being used so widely.

But, there has been "women's literature" for a very long time without there ever being a "men's literature". In fact, now I think on it, I'm starting to feel a bit left out. There's GLBT literature. Which letters ought to appear in random order because we don't, you know, want to imply precedence.

Without a "men's literature" section, how will I know I'm getting gender-appropriate literature?

Then there's the non-gender-specific section, Literature.

I'll stay over here in the Historical Fantasy section, from where I may decide to launch a campaign for Dwarven Literature. Harumph.

-= Skip =-

 

[Rolynd]

Hmm. I didn't think it was a great article. Too much of the "white knight" about it. I'll be honest I'm completely lost as to what is sexist and what isn't in genre fiction after the past couple of weeks. I mean, I can tell when something, like those old sf guys at conferences talking over female authors, is very definitely condescending and sexist.

But everyone has different ideas about what is sexist and what isn't. I'm just not going to think about it in my writing. I'll just write the characters that I want and hope that the good intentions are apparent even if the character inadvertently offends.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I have no problem with the term chick lit. Or lad's mags, for instance. All they are are category terminology. I love chick lit and read it when I need my brain zoned out and a comfort zone. Plus, Irish fiction has a massive chick lit section...

I sometimes think it's easy to get ourselves tied up in knots about things. I face no more sexism is a bookshop than I do in my everyday working/ordinary life. Sometimes I read what people class as sexism - and most isms- and rise my eyebrows and wondered what happened to getting along and tolerating difference? I shall await the storms of protest...

 

[Drakai]

I think the issue of sexism in storytelling is being made a bigger problem than it actually is. Yes, it exists ; yes, somethings need to be changed but there are a lot of things that need to be changed that are more important than this subject.

I recently watched the video series about the tropes vs women in video gaming and it had the same problem too. Yes it's a problem, but you are making it a bigger problem than it actually is. Writing believable(not realistic) characters is more important for example, and if people actually did this, there wouldn't even be an issue of sexism in writing.

Of course, there are a lot of valid points, I really liked the coverflipping thing and I love the Hawkeye Initiative.

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

sknox -- It seems to me that the reason we have "Women's Literature" and not "Men's Literature" is the same reason we have "African-American Literature" (here in the USA, anyway) and not "White Literature," or the reason we have "Gay Fiction" and not "Straight Fiction."

Literature, like so many other human activities, is, by default, considered to be by and for the dominant class in society. The less dominant class is considered to require a special label. (Consider the fact that "man" is used to mean both "human being" and "male human being.")

In the best of all possible worlds, such labels will never been necessary.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

What title FH?

Already fixed. In my tired daze I left off the 'n' in misogyny. Looked really odd.

 

[ZombieWife]

sknox -- It seems to me that the reason we have "Women's Literature" and not "Men's Literature" is the same reason we have "African-American Literature" (here in the USA, anyway) and not "White Literature," or the reason we have "Gay Fiction" and not "Straight Fiction."

Literature, like so many other human activities, is, by default, considered to be by and for the dominant class in society. The less dominant class is considered to require a special label. (Consider the fact that "man" is used to mean both "human being" and "male human being.")

In the best of all possible worlds, such labels will never been necessary.

Loved reading this post. We don't see "Straight While Male Fiction" because that's the accepted norm, the (as you call it) dominant class in our society. I'm from the U.S., so I'm only speaking for my own country here. It's from that which we deviate and it's a hard pill to swallow at times. As a woman, I don't want people to say, "Yer a mighty fine lady writer," I simply want people to say, "Yer a might fine writer."

I remember reading a poll on another writing board that asked people this question:

Would you read a debut sci-fi/fantasy author that was a woman?

The strong majority of men said "No," and they backed it up with things like:

• Women can't write battle sequences.
• Women only care about romance.
• Women can't write blood/guts/grit.
• Women have too much purple prose.

It's unfortunate that these misconceptions exist and shows a reader's very limited exposure to solid genre fiction written by women.

I loved this article, but then again, I'm a big Chuck Wendig fan. I don't feel like he's being too "White Knight"ish, I feel like he GETS it when so many men simply do not. Many men do not get it. That deserves repeating. Wendig mentions that he got hate mail for some of his comments against misogyny. Eeesh. But then again, this is a country where many of the far right (not all right-wing conservatives, but many) make memes about women voting democrat because "they vote with their girlie parts." I live in a swing state. You'd be surprised at the mixed bag I get just walking down the street.

I'm so glad that Fishbowl shared this. It was a great read and I shared it on my Facebook immediately.

 

[Boneman]

Actually, reading it made me think far more about my own characters (female and male) than anything I've read before.

And I think back to how many conferences I've been to where there was only one woman on a panel, and how well (in the UK) the panels have gone. When I went to WorldCon in Reno, the only panel I did go to, had three men and two women, and the audience got really pi**ed off with one guy who tried to answer every single question that came from the floor. He was a published author, but I'd never heard of him, and didn't bother trying to find any of his work after...

 

[Kissmequick]

I think the issue of sexism in storytelling is being made a bigger problem than it actually is. Yes, it exists ; yes, somethings need to be changed but there are a lot of things that need to be changed that are more important than this subject.

I recently watched the video series about the tropes vs women in video gaming and it had the same problem too. Yes it's a problem, but you are making it a bigger problem than it actually is. Writing believable(not realistic) characters is more important for example, and if people actually did this, there wouldn't even be an issue of sexism in writing.

Of course, there are a lot of valid points, I really liked the coverflipping thing and I love the Hawkeye Initiative.

I don't know -- it may not be a big problem for you, but it can be a big problem for me. Dismissing it as not that big a deal when numerous women are saying, yeah, it's a big deal....isn't so nice? (ETA: So all those death/rape threats, and the 'game' of punching that lady until she gives in are not a problem? They are if you play games because that can be the reality of playing a game if people know you're female. You want all that, and more, oh so much more, while you're trying to frag some pixels?)

And yes, just writing believable characters would be great as long as they aren't all straight, white guys. Because only having straight white guys in your book is, straight away, not believable in most circumstances. (Or is all the women are just simpering background etc)

What problems would you say need more attention (and why can't we address them both/all at the same time)? It's an easy one to deal with. Just treat women like real people, with real opinions. See? Done? Try it wit POC and QLTBG too, and there, we're doing great!

Because tbh I'm sick and tired of being told I'm overreacting, or it isn't that important or whatever. That's just another gambit in the poker game of shutting me up*

(*This will never happen btw.)

 

[Drakai]

I don't know -- it may not be a big problem for you, but it can be a big problem for me. Dismissing it as not that big a deal when numerous women are saying, yeah, it's a big deal....isn't so nice? (ETA: So all those death/rape threats, and the 'game' of punching that lady until she gives in are not a problem? They are if you play games because that can be the reality of playing a game if people know you're female. You want all that, and more, oh so much more, while you're trying to frag some pixels?)

And yes, just writing believable characters would be great as long as they aren't all straight, white guys. Because only having straight white guys in your book is, straight away, not believable in most circumstances. (Or is all the women are just simpering background etc)

What problems would you say need more attention (and why can't we address them both/all at the same time)? It's an easy one to deal with. Just treat women like real people, with real opinions. See? Done? Try it wit POC and QLTBG too, and there, we're doing great!

Because tbh I'm sick and tired of being told I'm overreacting, or it isn't that important or whatever. That's just another gambit in the poker game of shutting me up*

(*This will never happen btw.)

That's exactly what I meant by more important issues. If people wrote more believable characters and settings, there would be no issue of racism, sexism and such because real life people aren't like that.

And that gaming thing might be regional because I have never seen gaming women mistreated.

 

[Kissmequick]

That's exactly what I meant by more important issues. If people wrote more believable characters and settings, there would be no issue of racism, sexism and such because real life people aren't like that.

If they write believable characters who aren't just straight white guys -- the thing is, that's the default. There's very little of anyone else, so clearly people are not doing it off their own bat much. And, um, well yes, yes there would because people are like that*. But it's in how you treat it.

I'm still not sure what you mean by more important issues though (I mean I know there's lots of important issues, but I don't get what you mean in particular). Have you an example?

And that gaming thing might be regional because I have never seen gaming women mistreated.

Tricky -- many servers are global rather than regional. But it happens. A LOT. Which is part of what the sexism in gaming video was to be about -- and ofc all the 'people' who ranted/made death/rape threats at her for just talking about it...kinda proved that. I mean, who does she think she is? A gamer or something? ><


*Unless you're being sarcastic! Hard to tell sometimes.

 

[Ursa major]

Yes, crude misogynist sexism never happens in the real world (see photo of the menu at the bottom of the article).

Disgusting behaviour.

 

[mosaix]

Yes, crude misogynist sexism never happens in the real world (see photo of the menu at the bottom of the article).

Disgusting behaviour.

I see the excuse was:

"I created a mock menu myself as a light-hearted joke, however as I said I never produced them for public distribution,"

Totally fails the 'so what?' test.

 

[Toby Frost]

The way I see it, as far as the obligations on writers are concerned, this is like wearing a hard hat on a building site. You don't have to subscribe to Hard Hat Weekly, and you don't need to know every argument as to which particular type is best. And that doesn't make you a bad person. But at the end of the day you do need to wear a hard hat, and if you refuse to do so at all, it may be the case that you oughtn't to be there.