misogyny round #5,638
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
likeadeuce linked to two articles about sexism in media. I found them fascinating partly because both articles seem to be a point in the middle of larger arguments that cycle through fandom (and elsewhere) constantly, but imo neither article does a great job of setting up those larger arguments. They left their straw men at home, either because they assumed we’d encountered the arguments so frequently we didn’t need an introduction, or because they didn’t think context was important. What interested me most about these articles was that they’re talking to each other from opposite sides of an issue, without really seeming to acknowledge or understand each other. I think context is the most important part of these arguments, and part of the reason people so often disagree.
The first article is Kicking Ass, Taking Names, Bubblegum Optional by Sigrid Ellis over at Apex Magazine. Excerpt:
False consciousness is the idea that the oppressed (you, me, women, queers, people of color, most of the planet) cannot recognize the tools of our oppression. That the downtrodden participate in oppressing ourselves while falsely thinking we are making free choices. The lack of diversity in female action heroes means that we are forced into upholding unrealistic standards of appearance, youth, and gender. False consciousness is the idea that we don’t know this — that we can’t see the problem. False consciousness tells me that I can’t admire female action heroes without buying all the rest of the crap. This is, frankly, bullshit.
[. . .] Could I wish that not every female action hero be scantily clad? I could. I do. But I refuse to agree that the clothes a woman wears — even a character in a film, dressed by corporate filmmakers — somehow makes her less of a fucking badass.
The second article is Escher Girl’s post, On Female Characters. Excerpt:
I am tired of being told to like female characters.
(This post has been edited a little to more accurately define false consciousness :o) Thanks,
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
lynnenne!Take any random movie; Ellis’s example, Sucker Punch, is a fantastic case study. Take two common responses to this movie--Person A, who says, "OMG so sexist!" and Person B, who says, "OMG so empowering!" And then Person A will asked Person B, “Hey, did you know your text is sexist?” 1
As someone who has been Person A, I’ve interacted two different “types” of Person B: i) People who have considered the idea that the text might be sexist, but disagree or have decided to enjoy it anyway. These people have encountered the “invisible oppression” argument but for one reason or another think their text isn’t oppressive, or think it is but like it anyway.
ii) people who haven’t considered the idea that the text might be sexist, or don’t understand how it could be read as sexist. Many of these people (whom I’ve met) say they’ve never even really encountered the "invisible oppression" argument before. Some even say they thought sexism and racism were over, and when you talk to them about the –ism in their text, they tell you, "I hadn't thought about it that way; this makes me rethink some of the assumptions I had."
In short, sometimes false consciousness exists: sometimes we don't know we're oppressed and/or understand oppression when we see it. As a woman who for a period of time sort of thought sexism was kind of over and that most feminists were just finding things to complain about, this is definitely my experience. Some forms of oppression are so deeply entrenched that people don't recognize them. If this invisible oppression does exist, there's no other way to reveal it than to go around saying, "There it is." Not saying, “There it is” might in fact be part of the problem.
Saying to someone, “Hey, did you know there’s sexism in your text?” may sound like I have The Knowledge and dispersing it among the unenlightened, but hey, I'm "unenlightened" about plenty of things. I appreciate it when people share knowledge with me. If your definition of oppression is really just different than mine, it's definitely not my job to change your mind or tell you what to do. But if you just haven’t really thought about it before, then I’d like for it to be okay for me to talk to you about it.
Now, another part of the problem is that often, the motivation of Person A is unclear, even to Person A. I've seen single conversations in which Person A waffled between saying, "I just want you to understand and acknowledge this!" to saying, "But you're wrong for liking this!" I have in fact probably been that person, because it's hard to know what to do to when you like a text and feel that it's problematic. You want not to like it but you can't help yourself, so you feel ashamed; you want other people to feel your shame; you maybe even want other to help convince you to stay away.
If your motivation as Person A is to tell people they’re wrong for liking what they like, you’re probably an asshat. Your heart might be in the right place: you don’t want to support institutions that perpetuate these problems and the only way to do that is to stop giving said institutions money. However, it’s not your place to tell people where they should put their money; you are not a moral authority; your opinion is not objectively superior. So STFU.
If your motivation as Person A is to try to get someone to acknowledge your POV, you might still be an asshat, because you might be assuming they haven’t thought about something they have, in fact, thought about. You might be assuming ignorance or a lack of perspective when that person is informed in all the ways and has looked at the text from all the angles. You might be wanting them to acknowledge your POV without acknowledging theirs.
It depends on whether you asked, “Hey, did you know . . . ?” And it depends on whether they said, “Yes,” because if they said yes and you went and explained it anyway, then you just wanna hear yourself talk. But if they said, “No,” I just don’t see anything wrong with talking about it, as long as what you’re trying to do is get someone to see how the text can be read as sexist—not convince them that the text is, in fact, sexist, or that they should condemn or reject the text, etc.
My guess is that there are a lot of People B who are pretty goddamn tired of People A trying to tell them they’re wrong, or trying to change their minds, or trying to tell them things they already know. Lots of People A have great big problems; it’s true.
But dude, not all of us are always trying to say that what you like is wrong; we’re not saying you shouldn’t like it; we’re not saying you’re secretly sexist; we’re not saying you’re part of the problem; we’re not saying you should change your mind. We’re saying, “Hey, did you know . . .?” Because dude, some of us didn’t know and we really appreciated it when someone talked to us about it.
And part of the problem, imo, is that when I say, “Did you know?” sometimes I get a whole lot of hostility. People just assume I’m being an asshat. I mean, look at what Ellis says about false consciousness. She says that “the idea that we can’t see the problem” is the same as the idea that we “can’t admire female action heroes without buying all the rest of the [oppression of the kyriarchy ] crap.”
This reads to me as false causality. Just because I think that someone doesn’t see how a text is sexist doesn’t mean that I think they’re buying into sexism if they enjoy the text. Just because I’ve talked to half a dozen young ladies who didn’t see any problems with Sucker Punch doesn’t mean that said young ladies uphold unrealistic standards of appearance, youth, and gender. It just means that they didn’t see the sexism in the text, and I would like for them to acknowledge that it is there.
I’d like for them to acknowledge that it is there because the more we acknowledge these things, the better we can recognize sexism. That means we can better speak out against sexism; it doesn’t we have to speak out against that particular text. It means we can talk to the creators of this text and say what we liked and didn’t like about it. We can talk to each other about this text and talk about what its problems and strengths are. We can talk to people who do buy into sexism (whether they are audiences for this text or not) and tell them what we think. We can create our own texts that are not sexist.
I said I got two responses from People B: i) “I’ve never considered that!” ii) “I’ve considered that and disagree, or enjoy it anyway.” I didn’t mention this response, iii) “you’re wrong!”—which I’ve seen just as much or maybe even more than the other two. And that last response is just as assholic as all the People A who trying to convince people B that they're wrong for liking what they like.
Maybe, as Person B, you refuse to consider the sexism in your text because you refuse to acknowledge that there is sexism in our world, which makes me think you’re part of the problem. That doesn’t mean that I should try to “fix” you; you’re entitled to your beliefs, but I will think you’re sort of an asshole for refusing to even acknowledge my opinion. Or maybe you refuse to consider the sexism in your text because your text is your escape, and you want to just enjoy it. That’s fine, but it would be more constructive if you said that (which some people do; don’t get me wrong) instead of just telling me to STFU.
Or maybe you’re just really fucking tired of People A’s being asshats, which is understandable. You’ve been told you’re wrong; you’ve been told what to do; you’ve been told to reject what you enjoy . . . so you’re going to turn around and tell People A they’re wrong, you’re gonna tell them what to do, you’re gonna tell them to reject what they enjoy.
I don't like Sucker Punch, and I don't like its heroines. The movie makes me feel icky and gross and depressed about the state of sexism in our world. And I've encountered People B, who see to think, "Maybe she just hasn't considered that Sucker Punch is empowering!" And People B who seem to think, "She should think Sucker Punch is empowering!" And People B who tell me, "You are in fact wrong and part of the problem if you don't love Sucker Punch and admire its heroines!"
They also tell me I should like Amy Pond because she’s a fucking hero, even though I find the entire premise of her character icky and misogynist. They tell me I should like River Song because she's a female, when I feel like she's a female clone constructed merely because someone on the show realized Doctor Who is problematic. They tell me I need to love the female characters of Sherlock, because Sally and Molly typify oppressed females who are dealing with their oppression in different ways and so actually break the molds of oppression.
Sigrid Ellis isn’t saying this. All she’s saying is what she personally likes. And there are some really awesome people on my flist who love the females of Supernatural, a show that is imo deeply misogynist. They acknowledge the misogyny; sometimes they use the misogyny to show that characters may be oppressed and mistreated, but women can rise above; they are still their own people. They love the characters, find what's cool about them, sometimes use them to subvert the sexism in the text and sometimes just ignore the sexism in the text completely. These fans are finding ways to recognize, acknowledge, and respond to sexism, and they're doing a damn good job of it. They’re not trying to tell anyone else what to do.
Those aren’t the people I’m talking about. I’m talking about the people who tell me if I’m not fannish about those characters, then I’m part of the problem. I’m talking about the people who tell me I should be writing fic about those characters, or people who tell me I’m wrong for liking slash, or people who tell me my fic needs to pass the Bechdel test. Guys, it’s just as wrong and twisted for People B to say that if I don’t like these female characters, I’m part of the problem, as it is for People A to say that if you do like these female characters, you’re part of the problem.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, that’s where Escher Girl is coming from. And my guess is that if Sigrid Ellis didn’t have so many people saying, “You’re wrong for liking that!”, and if Escher Girl didn’t have so many people saying, “You’re wrong for not liking that!”, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Both Ellis’s and Escher Girls posts are responses to censure, to people telling them they’re wrong for liking or not liking something. If you’ve encountered more people telling you you’re wrong for liking something, you may identify with Ellis. If you’re typically a Person A and keep seeing people telling you you’re wrong for not liking something, you may identify with Escher Girl.
There's peer pressure involved, not that anyone is consciously doing it, but if you like BBC's Sherlock and yet want not to like it because of its treatment of female characters, it's hard because all your friends are all about John and Sherlock and Mycroft and Lestrade and no one in your playground is talking about all the problems; it would in some ways be way easier if no one liked it and you didn't have to think about it. Or maybe everyone in your playground is talking about all the problems and what they’re doing with it is loving on Sally and Molly, and you hate Sally and Molly; Sally and Molly hurt your feelings because the way they’re treated by the text is just icky to you, and it would be easier in some ways if those characters weren’t there at all.
We get these posts that are part of the larger conversation that everyone is having, but nowhere can you see the whole conversation. Sometimes when I want to talk to someone about an -ism in a text I feel like I have to do a little dance to figure out—are you Person B? Have you encountered me a thousand times before? Do you know what I’m going to say? Will it annoy you?
I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on this.
1 I’ve talked about Person A and Person B as if you’re always one or the other, when really I just meant we take up these different modes of interaction in response to different texts—I’ve been both A and B, and sometimes might be both within one conversation, and sometimes will just play the opposite against whoever I’m talking to, since I like all sides of an argument to be examined.
no subject
As somebody who feels like I spend about half my time being an A and half my time being a B (just for fun, sometimes about the same text depending on who I'm talking to)* this gives me a lot to chew on.
I think the main thing it says to me is that maybe we should (in general) spend less time telling other people that their opinions are wrong and more time actually listening to those opinions. Always handy.
*As a bonus I've essentially sat between people representing your view and Sigrid's view re: Sucker Punch and been like, "Uhh...I don't know? I couldn't figure out what was happening and also I was super bored??? I'm sorry for not having better opinions???
no subject
I agree it's always handy. I think that's the most important thing. I gotta say, though, that I made this post partly because sometimes I feel like all I can do is listen--which is great! It's great to listen! But it's not great to feel like I can't share my own opinion, just because someone will assume that what I'm doing is jumping down their throats. I'd like to be able to say, "hey, I feel like that's sexist." I like to be able to talk about why, without someone thinking that I'm saying they're sexist or that they shouldn't like what they do.
I should add that it's not like I go around to people who like a thing and say, "Your opinion is great! I think this is sexist,"--because that's douchey. But I do want to talk about it in my own journal. I do want to say what I actually thought when someone asks what I thought. I do want to be able to bring it up as an example in discussions, without it being seen as me judging other people.
I couldn't figure out what was happening and also I was super bored???
hahahaha I TOTALLY GET THAT. What is hilarious to me is that I actually enjoyed watching that movie, because I was with my friend, and it just made us both so ANGRY, and we could feel each other getting ANGRIER every moment, and I was just making a list of things to talk about with her in my head. But while I do enjoy being righteously indignant and impassioned, it's not okay to fling that around at other people. I'm not going to go around and lecture people about Sucker Punch. But I do want to be able to calmly talk about what I found sexist about it, and maybe get someone to see where I'm coming from, about as much as I'm interested in talking to people about why they find it empowering, and see where they're coming from too.
no subject
It's complicated. I was at the 'How to be a fan of problematic things' panel at WisCon and didn't come away feeling any wiser. Though I did find myself wishing I could quote this whole post :)
no subject
Very recently I've about decided to take a break from engaging with discussions of media from this angle, because I am just tired. I need time to recharge.
It occurs to me that an excellent example of your Escher Girl vs your Sigurd Ellis is fandom's reaction to Irene Adler in the BBC Sherlock. Gah, the feminist in-fighting was epic, and I was just on the very edges. On one hand, I actually found it very affirming to know that I could be a feminist and and agree with lots of feminists about a certain topic while also disagreeing with a lot of other feminists at the same time. That is, it was comforting to see such clear evidence that feminism is not a monolith. (Um, I don't know how clear it is from my journal discussions and stuff, but I didn't even identify as a feminist until maybe two years ago, and I owe about 85% of what I know about feminism to Buffy meta discussions. I owe fandom a lot. So I am still sort of a baby feminist.)
That said, the Irene saga was vicious and pretty much killed all remaining desire I had to have anything to do with Sherlock, even watch. So all in all a mixed bag. :P
no subject
You're right about Irene! That's a perfect example.
it was comforting to see such clear evidence that feminism is not a monolith.
I can see how that would be very comforting. What I find upsetting is that both sides seem to want to tell the other side, "YOU ARE NOT A PROPER FEMINIST" and, even worse, "YOU ARE MISOGYNIST/PART OF THE PROBLEM." I just, in the case of Irene, or Sucker Punch, or anything, basically, I think it's important to acknowledge and understand both how it can be empowering, and how it can be sexist. It's okay if you feel, on a visceral level, that it empowered you, or if you feel on a visceral level that it was icky and sexist and diminished you. And it's okay to share these feelings. But it's also important to acknowledge other people's feelings, and I feel that if we're all really trying to make the world a better place (which is what I hope we're all trying to do, even if it's just an argument about Irene) we should try to see where each person is coming from.
Anyway, I know you know all of that. You are awesome.
no subject
I really like the way you've phrased these two possibilities. (And sometimes, of course, I waffle between the two even about the same text.) For one thing, I like that they emphasize the subjective, feelings component, because sometimes (often?) we respond with our feelings first and then justify the feelings with our intellect afterwards. So the idea that the person you're arguing with is motivated by different feelings than you seems a useful one to keep in mind. And 'diminished,' yes, exactly. Sometimes offense doesn't really come into it; sometimes a text hurts my feelings and makes me feel less, and that too is a valid response.
no subject
But this is why people get so virulent about -isms; they don't treat like there's any opinion or personal feeling involved at all. It R fact that this is offensive, the end. But one thing I learned when watching Racefail '09 was that everyone has a different opinion about what an -ism is, and no minority is a monolith. Because you can't objectively define it, you have to listen when people say something is -ist. You have to honestly consider the fact that you might have done something -ist. And yes, it is a matter of feeling and opinions, and you're never going to find an objective truth that tells you whether you're wrong or right. It's not about being wrong or right. It's about considering other people as though they are human beings, and considering yourself, and navigating between those things.
no subject
Discussions about sexism in media always end up with shouting and tears, and the really frustrating thing is I can't tell if he's genuinely unaware of how sexist a canon is, or he is and is just being a reflexive jackass because of forum conditioning. It's really distressing, because we genuinely can't have a conversation about sexism.
no subject
Me too. A friend recently pointed out that there are a lot of people who don't understand that the analysis is actually the fun part for us.
he's genuinely unaware of how sexist a canon is, or he is and is just being a reflexive jackass because of forum conditioning. It's really distressing, because we genuinely can't have a conversation about sexism.
Yeah, that sounds stressful! Re: his forum--I know what you mean, and that's what I was trying to say (partly) about the two posts I cited in my own posts. Both of those people are responding to other people who are trying to tell them what to do. But when I have a criticism of a text, I'm not trying to tell anyone else what to think or what to like. I'm just trying to share, and sometimes, yeah, I'm trying to get you to see my POV and acknowledge it, but I don't need you to agree or stop liking what you like. But the problem is, some people do want to force other people to agree or change, or if they don't, they phrase it that way, and that makes all the difference.
If your bf has seen enough of that behavior on his forum it probably makes it hard just to hear crit on texts in general. And that would be tough for me because it's all I do!
no subject
*sigh* I guess I just have REMEMBER that textual analysis is stress inducing for him instead of an endorphin hit.
no subject
Venting is good :o) I'm sorry it took me so long to get to comments. Perhaps obviously, I got distracted by STAR TREK.
I just have REMEMBER that textual analysis is stress inducing for him
I have to remind myself of this at work. It's not the same, because I'm not super close to most people at work. But I have to remember that when people ask me how I liked Star Trek, I can just say, "Eh, I didn't enjoy it," and most people are happy with that answer. Few people ask why, because they don't care to have that discussion, which is a-ok with me. I just have to remember!
no subject
no subject
no subject
And if I'm perfectly honest, I have to admit I'm really frustrated with the sort of Person A you describe in this text. Not because I don't like to talking about sexism in fandom, or because I don't think it's important, or anything like that! But... hmm. I guess the best way to put it is that I find “Hey, did you know your text is sexist?” and other statements like that to be totally counterproductive when discussing problematic parts of canon, and I wish discussion would move away from using that kind of phrasing.
For me, at least, the answer is almost always "...Well, yes?" Almost everything has some sort of sexist(/racist/homophobic/etc.) element to it; it's an unfortunate fact of the world we live in. I can think of maybe three things I don't consider to have any sexism in them, and even then I'm pretty sure I could think of parts in them other people might find sexist if you gave me a few minutes. In my experience, at least, it's just not at all a good question for opening up discussion, whether the answer is yes or no.
Another problem is that it's such a black and white statement, I guess? I mean, when you ask someone that, there's only two categories the canon could go in: Sexist or Empowering. I don't think there's a single canon that could fit neatly into either of those- every canon has its good moments and bad moments, the parts that make you go yes and the parts that make you want to put your head in your hands out of despair over the handling of [X issue]. (And hey, even if you only had one of those reactions to a canon, I guarantee there's someone else out there who had the exact opposite response.) Not to mention, splitting it up like that makes it really hard to judge degrees of sexism- I mean, I'll admit Puella Magi (for all I love it) isn't perfect, but it's on a totally different level from something like Ultimate Girls*. I know I've gotten defensive about that question before, and I think that's the root of why: for many of my canons, the answer would be, yes, but it's trying. It's a lot better about sexism than many others in its genre, and I'm honestly not very willing to discuss the bad parts without recognizing the good parts as well.
I agree with you that "[X] is empowering and here's why you should agree," is every bit as frustrating as, "Your canon is sexist," but I think both of those come from the exact same place: lack of nuance. When I read meta saying one or the other, I always seem to end up going, "Yes, but..." even when I agree with their overall statement.
What I'd love to see is more meta that builds a case based on smaller pieces of the canon: something like "I found Canon [X] to have a lot of sexism/be super empowering for [Y] and [Z] reasons. What do other people think?" Then there would be options to reply "No, I disagree because [A]," or "Yes, I totally feel the same way!", or even "I thought so too, but because of [B] and [C]." I think looking at canons in smaller pieces rather than their net worth could open up conversation a lot more, and cut down on defensiveness.
*Sorry, I know you probably won't be familiar with these series! I don't know enough about Western Tv or movies to pick a good pair of examples from there, haha. >_<
EDIT: O_____O
Holy crap, I am so sorry for rambling on so much. I'm pretty new to the meta discussion side of things, and obviously I don't have the whole 'expressing my thoughts concisely' part down yet at all.
no subject
Actually PMMM is a good example of this: It feels like you have to either think it's sexist fanservice dreck or that it's a Deep Feminist Magical Girl Deconstruction, and my actual opinion is somewhere in between (mostly I just enjoyed it) So arguments devolve into "It's not sexist fanservice dreck!" vs "It's not a Deep Feminist Magical Girl Deconstruction!!" which isn't going to go anywhere.
no subject
it feels like admitting that X is a bit sexist is the same as saying that it's as aggressively misogynistic as Y thing you despise.
Maybe this is where I just have a fundamental difference of opinion. I do enjoy some things that are rather aggressively misogynistic, and I don't feel like saying some things are a bit misogynist is the same as they are grossly misogynistic. I often do feel the need to add qualifiers--"I know this is misogynistic, but I like it anyway," or "I know this is misogynistic, but it's also really empowering in a lot of ways," or "I felt like this was really empowering, but I understand how it can be seen as misogynist."
When I say, "Hey, did you know there is sexism in your text?" all I'm asking is that people understand how certain elements can be seen as offensive, and recognize that those elements are sexist, or if they still think they're not sexist, at least recognize how those elements could in some ways be harmful to a feminist cause. I'm not asking them to say their text is sexist, to condemn their text, to dislike their text, or to change their behavior in any way. I do recognize that some people who say the things that I do also want people to condemn their texts and change their behaviors, but not everyone who says "hey, I find your text sexist" is saying that.
Anywhoodle, I'm sorry to go on so long.
no subject
1)it's possible to make a distinction between a little misogynistic and a lot, whether you're being a fan or a critic.
2)Some critics DON'T make this distinction (or don't make it enough), which flattens discussion and makes fans defensive.
3)Some fans refuse to recognise when critics are making this distinction which makes it impossible to criticise anything without being greeted with hostility.
4)In a perfect world we wouldn't have to worry so much about 2 or 3 and could just focus on 1.
no subject
For me, at least, the answer is almost always "...Well, yes?"
Okay, for me, this is the crux of the problem. When I go around saying, "Did you know your text is sexist?" (and for the record, I don't really go around saying that, but I do tell people what I think of a text when they ask me, and I do bring up various texts in discussions about certain -isms) sometimes the answer I get is "no." And that's why I ask.
I have talked to so many people who say, Gone With The Wind is racist? HOW CAN THIS BE? Now, if you say, "I know Gone With The Wind is racist, but I love it anyway," that fine. If you say, "I don't care if Gone With The Wind is racist," that's fine too. If you say, "I see what you mean about Gone With The Wind being racist, but here's why I think it's not racist," I might say, "I see why you think it's not racist, but your points are subverted here, here and here," and you might debate that, and I might debate back, but in the end, you don't need to agree with me that it's racist. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to get you to understand why it could be hurtful, and I'm also trying to see your POV. And this is useful, imo.
(I used this example just because I couldn't think of a good sexism example off the top of my head, but it's the same discussion.)
it's an unfortunate fact of the world we live in
But some people do not actually think this. Some people think that racism and sexism are over. In the end, they are entitled to think this way, but I would like for them to at least try to see my POV.
it's such a black and white statement
What I was trying to say with this post is that it's not a black and white statement. By saying, "Do you see how this text is sexist?" I'm not saying "this text is bad/evil/wrong/and you shouldn't like it." Your answer can be, "Yes, I see how this is sexist, and do you see how it's empowering?" My answer might be no. You can educate me, too.
My problem is when I say, "Do you see how this text is sexist?" they think I'm trying to be black and white, and I'm not. I'm really, really not. I'm just trying to offer a perspective, a perspective that I think is important and necessary, but it is not a definitive judgment about a text. Nor should it be.
(I keep using "you" in this comment, but I'm talking about the general "you"--someone we may each be talking to, not you personally!)
splitting it up like that makes it really hard to judge degrees of sexism
I totally get what you mean. And for the record, I recognize that many people are trying to split it up like that; they're trying to make it black and white; they're trying to make a definitive judgment about a text. But I'm not trying to do that, and plenty of people who say, "Hey, did you know this is sexist?" aren't trying to do that. I just feel like people have this automatic response to me, like they think I am trying to make it black and white, when usually what I'm trying to say is, "Hey, this is complex."
it's trying. It's a lot better about sexism than many others in its genre, and I'm honestly not very willing to discuss the bad parts without recognizing the good parts as well.
I understand. I feel the same way about the original series of Star Trek. I think trying is really important. And again, I understand that some people who're trying to tell you stuff is sexist don't recognize that.
"[X] is empowering and here's why you should agree," is every bit as frustrating as, "Your canon is sexist," but I think both of those come from the exact same place: lack of nuance.
Well, one nuance that I'm trying to discuss is that what I'm trying to say is, "[X] is sexist and here's why I would like you to understand why I feel that way". I am NOT saying, here's why you should agree. I just think there's a big difference.
I found Canon [X] to have a lot of sexism/be super empowering for [Y] and [Z] reasons. What do other people think?
I would like this, too!
their net worth
This is another part of the reason I made this post. If I say I think a text is sexist, they assume I'm commenting on the net worth of the thing. And . . . those are two really different things. I mean, basically all of classic lit is sexist, just by merit of the time in which it was written. Does that mean it lacks value? No.
I just want to say that I feel very similar to you on so many of these points. I do think it's a nuanced discussion; I do think that's important. The point of this post is that sometimes I'm trying to have a nuanced discussion, but sometimes people seem to think I'm going to ram something down their throat, just because I mentioned an "-ism". And while there are people who do that, it isn't true for all of us.
Thank you for discussing with me, and I'm sorry again it took me so long to reply.