The, uh, Late Sunday Linkfest

[jhameia]

>_>

Anti-Racism: What Went Wrong? (Namely, too many white people took over. Oh irony!)

Columbus, Go Home!

PhDork fisks this "feminine-ist" article

A timeline of Geocities services. Epic.

The Pornography of Non-Rejection, or, why the fuck is Twilight so goddamn popular?

Ten Webcomics You Should Read and more recommended in the comments!

In Defense of using the term "Douchebag" as an insult, because you know, women aren't allowed to choose insults we use.

John Cho goodness. John Cho totes gives my Asian brothers hotness cred <345678

What is "authentic" Americcanness?

Ian McKellen on religious bigotry, out actors, and his epitaph.

Shakers of Shakeville had varying but great conversations on the Nova Scotian forms

Cripchick warns allies about the term "professionalism".

This just in: Family Friendly Workplace Politics Enhance Competitiveness. NO REALLY?

Adorable little video on the fall of empires

Horrible advice given to a woman who got ditched by her husband after she decided to keep her baby conceived when she was raped by her boss. Because, you know, men are assholes, apparently. Hugo Schwyzer, M. LeBlanc, Amanda Hess and Amanda Marcotte weigh in.

Here's a random academic sentence generator! Still Life with Cat has a an interesting take on what it does.

How Not To Be An Asshole, by the Czech

A quote on the loss of 'membership' to a group once you start speaking out against its -isms.

Zuzka on some academic chick who excludes feminists even though feminism is what gave said woman the right to belong in academia in the first goddamn place.

Comments

[ardwynna-m.livejournal.com]

I've only in the last month or so realized that 'douchebag' was meant to be a gendered insult. Like one of the commenters mentioned, my first thought was of anal douching (who says reading all that yaoi is unproductive?;P). I'd long known vaginal douching to be a big no-no and considered it a silly practice of days long gone by the time I first heard the word used as an insult.

Yay for John Cho! The ads for 'Flash Foward' were barely getting a rise and then all of a sudden, THERE HE WAS! What's that, Airbender casters, about Asians not drawing in an audience?

[fantasyecho.livejournal.com]

I consider "douchebag" to be gendered only in the sense that it is anti-woman. But then, we know that even women can have anti-woman tendencies, so it works really well, all 'round, as an insult for people of both genders.

Shakesville used to have a funny in-joke where they would cry, "Release the douchehounds!!" It's funny only because of its sheer absurdity, though.

[katherineokelly.livejournal.com]

You know I'm not fan of Twilight, but nor am I a fan of this (or most other) Twilight-bashing articles, for the very reason pointed out in the article you linked:

It’s understandable, and even a little disturbing that we expect women to be ashamed of having these kinds of sexual fantasies. After all, no one who has even an ounce of sophistication would deny that men have a right to watch all sorts of trashy porn without their general good taste being questioned.

As long as no one raises an eyebrow about James Bond or the countless tidal wave of Marty Stu male protagonists, then it's sexism plain and simple to demand answers and analysis for why women like Twilight. Many men like trashy absurd escapist fantasy. Many women do too. The very existence of articles like this, dissing women for liking this schlock reinforces the idea that women must explain and justify their desires, while men get free reign. Fuck that. =/

Secondly, the article criticizes the lack of sex:
In many romance novels, the sex is based around coercion, if not outright rape. In “Twilight”, there just isn’t sex.

A lot of erotica for women I’ve read avoids the infantilizing trap, and centers around female characters who know what they want and go get it.

Considering that first admission that sex is often a painful leverage tool about power plays that put men in the driver seat, why criticize Twilight for avoiding that realm altogether? What if waiting for sex is what the character wants?

The article author wants to see "female characters who know what they want and go get it", but what if they don't want sex?

I'm depressed by this idea that chaste girls are repressed and must be liberated. Only sexually active women are liberated. There are plenty of reasons why a woman might chose to postpone sex (or choose satisfying masturbation over unsatisfying sex). This notion that only sexually active women are liberated and chastity is worthy of ridicule really sickens me. Just as much as the feminists who think all women should be in the workforce and not choose to be homemakers. That very idea that "We know what you women need more than you do" smacks of misogyny whether it comes from men or feminists.

[fantasyecho.livejournal.com]

One of the main critiques of the chastity within Twilight is that the chastity is maintained by, and is in the control of, the male character. While within society women are expected to play the gatekeeper (which is tiresome enough), within these books, the male character is not only the gatekeeper, but he's pretty much calling the shots. The character, Bella, in Twilight DOES want sex - that's what the whole series centers itself on! Bella wants Edward pretty badly, and he holds back. This is the idea that the article analyses - the idea of women=gatekeeper being turned on its head.

There's nothing wrong with chastity, true. But there's something disturbing about the fact that control still remains within the purview of the male, denying the female character her agency. In a sense, this plays into the idea that people don't need to take responsibility for their sexuality, that there will be a gatekeeper.

There are some really interesting notes on the romance novel industry within the comments, if you haven't read those. But the thing about Twilight is, there just isn't sex - it's all about the unfulfilled desires FOR sex and frustration of getting past the gatekeeper.

I'm really not understanding where you get the idea that chastity=bad within the article. However, the point that we ask women to justify their desires, instead of men, stands. Did you bring it up in the discussion thread? Would be cool to see it discussed somewhere.

[katherineokelly.livejournal.com]

I didn't really get that "gatekeeper turned on its head" concept from this article at all. If anything, it seems to imply that Bella is not rejected, and gets everything she wants to the point that it's stupid fantasy:
“Twilight” speaks to that basic fantasy of being so enticing that rejection is impossible. Bella has not one, but two men who are so completely in love with her and only her that they can’t even think about anyone else.

I don't know enough about Twilight to know whether Edward's the one saying "no" to sex, but if that's the case, that would contradict the article's assertion that the chastity... reinforces the negative stereotype that women only care about romance and men only care about sex.

It's also a little silly if the article criticizes Twilight for being trashy fantasy while insisting that the Edward character should give Bella whatever she wants and how she wants it. Do you want characters to have their own spines and their own desires or not? Why is Edward not allowed to gatekeep on his own sexuality? If he's Mr. Chaste, that doesn't interfere with Bella's agency. She's perfectly in her own right to leave the dork and go find someone else who will give her what she wants. Her choice to keep staying with him is the problem, not Edward's decision not to have sex. I don't like the idea of guys giving it up when they're not ready for sex any more than I am seeing girls in that position.

Finally, I just don't see the clandestine machinations of male power in this. I see an author who's writing to a lusty fanbase and who needs a cheap source of conflict. Novels fall dead without tension. "Edward and Bella loved each other and gave each other exactly what the other wanted. The End" is not a book. The unresolved sexual tension is a cheap device to keep the readers horny and hanging on to read more. A comparable example that comes to mind is Scully and Mulder (sp?) from X-Files. Viewers want to see sexual tension between these two, but if they fell into requited love, viewers would lose interest.

Most stories are about the money, what sells and what builds tension. It's not a matter of indoctrination but lazy writing. And if this article was about Bella being denied, I came away with the opposite impression after how long the article's author spent complaining about the non-rejection/trashy fantasy angle.

...Which kind of brings me back to my original gripe that women's fantasy gets dragged through the coals like no male fantasy ever would. Feminist readers would complain whether Edward was making advances or being a cold fish. The only neutral ground is if he stays there passively and lets Bella take all the action, which would get accused of being non-rejection infantalizing trash fantasy. How's a woman who wants to read bad escapist fantasy to win?

(And PLEASE don't think I'm defending Twilight for its own merits. I dislike it for plenty of reasons, but I'm sick of people raking women's interests through the coals in ways that makes it obvious there is no possible way it could be written without criticism.)

[fantasyecho.livejournal.com]

Why is Edward not allowed to gatekeep his own chastity? SURE HE CAN! Except, he's not doing JUST that, he's also gatekeeping Bella. He carries her everywhere, he stalks her, he watches over her while she sleeps. If it was just a matter of his gatekeeping his own sexuality, then why even have a relationship with Bella at all? Within the text, it's also clear that Edward does want to consummate the relationship as well, but he doesn't dare because she's human and thus fragile and crushable and, you know.

Yes, it is indeed trashy fantasy, but these fantasies don't occur within a vacuum. What, really, is wrong with reminding ourselves of this little fact? I read single-title romances and write schlocky fiction, but I still do this knowing that I'm working with a specific cultural code.

As for this: "Which kind of brings me back to my original gripe that women's fantasy gets dragged through the coals like no male fantasy ever would."

It all comes back down to current structures, wherein male fantasies are perfectly normal and thus not criticized in mainstream critiques, whereas female fantasies are aberrant (http://tigerbeatdown.com/?p=579). I also have no clue what you're reading, but Shakesville has an entire series (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/07/apatowcalypse-now-party-like-its-1899.html) dedicated to critiquing Judd Apatow flicks. The Hathor Legacy also does regular critiques of male-centric fantasies, in both books and film. We don't do this to find fault with women or men, but to point out how all these fantasies continue to reinforce the status quo that keep the gender binary intact.

As for the "most stories are about the money" - well, they used that line of reasoning as an excuse to NOT have women-centric stories, to NOT have women leads. And Twilight has turned that on its head - if stories really are about the money, why don't we see a slew of Harlequin movies? (http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/) (OMG clearly I just hit on a brilliant money-making enterprise.)

[katherineokelly.livejournal.com]

If it was just a matter of his gatekeeping his own sexuality, then why even have a relationship with Bella at all?
That goes back to the idea that chastity=non-valid. They can have a valid relationship without sex. Given these characters' mental maturity (and the age of the series' YA readers), that's probably a good idea. The thing that squicks me out the most about the Bella/Edward relationship is what a stalker and control freak he is. Given this extremely unhealthy romantic relationship, the last thing they should be doing is adding dysfunctional abusive sex to the dysfunctional abusive relationship. Saying "Edward treats Bella like shit. And he doesn't give her sex!" is like saying, "The food at this restaurant sucks. And the portions are so small!" We don't need more of a bad thing.

as an excuse to NOT have women-centric stories, to NOT have women leads.
I realize all this, but Twilight, shitty fantasy that it is, IS women-centric with a woman lead, so tearing it to pieces just reinforces the "female fantasies are aberrant" stereotype. If shitty female fantasies like Twilight get too much negative press, what if publishers go back to 'playing it safe' and printing only more male-serving fantasies? Cut the ladies a break.

What, really, is wrong with reminding ourselves of this little fact?

Nothing. Twilight is unhealthy and lame. But it bothers me when an overflowing bucket of male fantasies that gets overlooked while the tiny thimble of female fantasies gets obsessed over and put on trial, especially by women. The examples you cite of male fantasy criticisms are extremely few and far between compared to the outright attack of all things female-centric. It seems insidious and anti-woman when well-meaning feminists attack women-centric trash like Twilight instead of the deluge of male-centric trash that no one thinks twice about. Women need a fucking break and to be allowed a little escapism without well-meaning feminists berating them for not reading feminist literature.

[fantasyecho.livejournal.com]

As I've said, in the circles I read in, male fantasies are every much as criticized as this (well, moreso, because you know, there's more of it out there), as evidenced by anti-pornography writers.

I don't see many feminists attacking only Twilight, though. Not sure where you're reading, but usually, even as we enjoy the escapism, we can still critique it. I find that feminists are more willing to critique the problematic messages in the escapist fantasies they enjoy, which is much better than the rabid defensiveness that male fantasies get.

Yes, the mainstream IS going to attack the female-centric, over and over again, but again, that's patriarchy! Mainstream spaces have a special place of hatred for all things women-centric. That's no reason to not look at Twilight critically - just because it's female-centric isn't, imo, a reason to not question it.

However, I do agree that more journalists should be writing on shitty male fantasies. They would probably be out of work as a result, but that's what blogs are for.

If shitty female fantasies like Twilight get too much negative press, what if publishers go back to 'playing it safe' and printing only more male-serving fantasies?

But you just said, most stories are for the money. Twilight has made a LOT of money. AND it's gotten people talking. Besides which, there's also positive press for Twilight, and most people critiquing it aren't dissing on female fantasies so much as they are on the tropes within the literature.

Also, there's nothing "lame" about Twilight. A lot of people are lame, and that doesn't devalue them.

Hello there!

[theczech.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

Hi! Thanks so much for linking to my blog. I just wanted to point out that I didn't wrote that "How Not to Be an Asshole" bit... I was just reposting it because it was getting hard to find.

The real author is Chris Clarke. Just giving cred.