miss_s_b: (feminist heroes: oracle)miss_s_b ([personal profile] miss_s_b) wrote,
@ 2012-03-08 09:00 am UTC
Entry tags:advertising, censorship, cool, feminism, lgbt, politics, the blood is the life

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

drunkwriter: Me in South Park form. (Default)


[personal profile] drunkwriter
2012-03-08 10:01 am UTC (link)
Though Jane Espenson's piece is full of good stuff, I was under the impression that the feminist line is that 'men can't write women'. It's a sentence I heard many many times at university. And, frankly, it was stated so unyieldingly and so often that it's made me shy away from writing female POV characters to this day.

Is this due to the fact that my main exposure to feminist theory came through the specific prism of French literature ('men can't write women but Racine's Phedre is a special case' is as near to a direct quote from Dr Ince (probably Professor Ince by now, I guess) as I can remember after 15 years) which I'm sure has its own flavour what with Duras, de Beauvoir et les autres? Or is Espenson simply playing nice?

Not snarking, genuinely keen to find out more on this. I enjoy writing women (I cheered Alan Bennett when he commented that the reason why there aren't more male characters in Talking Heads was that he'd have had to rename it Talking Bores), but for the last decade, I've been too scared.

(Reply to this)  (Thread) 


lizw: photo of Blake with text: "reality is a dangerous concept" (reality is dangerous)


[personal profile] lizw
2012-03-08 02:48 pm UTC (link)
Is this due to the fact that my main exposure to feminist theory came through the specific prism of French literature ('men can't write women but Racine's Phedre is a special case' is as near to a direct quote from Dr Ince (probably Professor Ince by now, I guess) as I can remember after 15 years) which I'm sure has its own flavour what with Duras, de Beauvoir et les autres? Or is Espenson simply playing nice?

I've heard similar statements from UK feminists, and I assume Jane Espenson has heard it from US ones, since she says she finds herself using that argument even though she knows it's wrong: for it to become an ingrained habit that she has to consciously avoid, it must be quite a powerful meme. But the fact that some feminists think something doesn't necessarily make it right, nor does it mean that all feminists agree on it. It's hard to find a single "feminist line" on any given topic, unless it's something as basic as "women are people."

My own view on this is that writing a character whose experiences are different from the author's in a very significant way is always going to be more challenging than writing one whose experiences are very similar to the author's - but that doesn't mean it isn't worth doing, it just means that like any other difficult skill, it takes a lot of research and practice and general hard work, which is exactly the kind of thing that people who want to excel in their chosen activity tend to find highly rewarding. There has been quite a lot of discussion of this in anti-racist circles; googling "writing the other" should bring up a few good places to start.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


miss_s_b: (feminist heroes: oracle)


[personal profile] miss_s_b
2012-03-08 04:35 pm UTC (link)
SOME feminists think that men can't write women. I think that people can write people *shrug* it's just that some people write people who aren't exactly like them really badly - possibly because of lack of research?

But lots of men write good women - Greg Rucka and Bryan Q Miller for ex - just like lots of women write good men.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


havocthecat: shego facepalms at stupid people, and everything else (shego facepalm)


[personal profile] havocthecat
2012-03-08 02:08 pm UTC (link)
If you like 'banter', you are an idiot – Telegraph Blogs

"If you're a grown-up, you know that your offensiveness may offend, and you either accept that or you apologise and don't do it again. Saying "it's only banter" makes you not only an idiot, but an idiot who can't take responsibility for his own jokes."

Or you could banter with other people who like to banter, and not inflict it on people who don't like or understand it, thereby proving you have a high emotional IQ and social skills. And you apologize if you misread someone - we all do sometimes - and you don't do it again. But liking banter doesn't make you an idiot. Thanks very much.

(Reply to this)  (Thread) 


lizw: photo of Blake with text: "reality is a dangerous concept" (reality is dangerous)


[personal profile] lizw
2012-03-08 02:35 pm UTC (link)
That article just confuses me. If people think words on a tag in a pair of jeans can constitute "banter", they're using the word very differently from the way I use it; to me, banter is something that happens in conversation (which then allows people to select their audience appropriately, as you suggest).

Also, I really wish people would find ways of saying that a statement or opinion is unintelligent that don't involve ableist language like "idiot". I realise it can take a while to train oneself out of doing that - I'm still working on it myself - but it ought to be easier in writing than in speech, and even more so when the writing in question is for a major news outlet and has therefore presumably been proofread at least twice.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 


havocthecat: the lady of shalott (shalott text)


[personal profile] havocthecat
2012-03-08 02:44 pm UTC (link)
Yes! (And I'm annoyed at the article writer, not at [personal profile] miss_s_b, to be clear.) The article is just...unclear. Because I have always defined banter as a back and forth conversation, often quite fast-paced, which can be snarky or sarcastic or flippant. Which means that there's definitely potential to give or take offense, often without meaning to. But that's what many of us who banter use our social skills for.

Banter is not snarky misogynist tags on clothing. That's just an insult, you know?

I really wish people would find ways of saying that a statement or opinion is unintelligent that don't involve ableist language like "idiot".

Again, yes. Not even (just) because it's ableist language, but because insulting the intelligence of your readers is not exactly the way to get them to agree with your points. Of course, I don't think that the article is actually aimed at changing any behaviors. It seems aimed at the people who already agree with the author.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent)  (Thread) 


gwenhwyfaer: (pic#500867)


[personal profile] gwenhwyfaer
2012-03-11 09:52 am UTC (link)
"Fool" doesn't have the ableist connotations of "idiot" - although if you're sensitive about the thought of going to hell it could be problematic.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


miss_s_b: (feminist heroes: oracle)


[personal profile] miss_s_b
2012-03-08 04:36 pm UTC (link)
I think the author is referring to people who use the word as an excuse, rather than actual banter, which I agree with you and Liz on the definition of.

(Reply to this)  (Thread from start)  (Parent) 


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)