How to out oneself
Feb. 27th, 2009 12:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumOver in matociquala's journal she made a post about rock-climbing, which had a passing comment on how Criminal Minds had managed to deconstruct a bit of the male gaze in its most recent episode.
It was the passing comment which led to the amusements. Setsuled asked a reasonable question. Bear responded, and as is her wont (and right, and privilege) she teasedsetsuled about how easy it might have been to look it up.
In the course of the subsequent responses (to which I added a few words) it became plain the user was unclear on a few basic concepts (not all of which are things one would be expected to know; though some are ones which the engaged participant would be expected to delve into).
It also became plain the user has a very subtle form of male-privilege, one which might work fairly well in the general run of the world, but was doomed to end up in disaster in a place like Bear's journal.
The things about which he was unaware were all asked with a reasonableness that hid the nature of his exploitation of privilege. If the conversation hadn't kept going, his misogyny might have remained hidden.
It was an interesting unfolding (and you are abjured from wading in to make comments. The subject, insofar as he is concerned is closed. Make your own call on substantive addressing of the issue, but he, and his comments, are a done deal there. I don't want to re-open it. Not only am I not trying to make a dogpile, but the poor thing isn't able to respond. That would make it rude to Bear, and unfair to him; so do me the favor, ok? Thanks).
The initial comments weren't too bad. There was something bothersome about them, but they weren't offensive. Just a trifle privileged, and even that was subtle. One got the feelng he was well meaning, but not well-informed.
As time went on, he got more defensive, and more dismissive, and (qu'elle surprise) evinced more use of privilege. Then he tied the rope around his neck, with an inappropriate comment.
He could have pulled back from the edge. In fact he seemed to, but not quite. And then he jumped. He got pissy about people pointing out he was being, not just rough and tumble in debate, but rude.
As I said, it's an interesting case study in someone outing themselves; from nice guy, to "Nice Guy" to jerk, to asshole, to banned, all in one day.
matociquala's journal she made a post about rock-climbing, which had a passing comment on how Criminal Minds had managed to deconstruct a bit of the male gaze in its most recent episode.It was the passing comment which led to the amusements. Setsuled asked a reasonable question. Bear responded, and as is her wont (and right, and privilege) she teased
setsuled about how easy it might have been to look it up.In the course of the subsequent responses (to which I added a few words) it became plain the user was unclear on a few basic concepts (not all of which are things one would be expected to know; though some are ones which the engaged participant would be expected to delve into).
It also became plain the user has a very subtle form of male-privilege, one which might work fairly well in the general run of the world, but was doomed to end up in disaster in a place like Bear's journal.
The things about which he was unaware were all asked with a reasonableness that hid the nature of his exploitation of privilege. If the conversation hadn't kept going, his misogyny might have remained hidden.
It was an interesting unfolding (and you are abjured from wading in to make comments. The subject, insofar as he is concerned is closed. Make your own call on substantive addressing of the issue, but he, and his comments, are a done deal there. I don't want to re-open it. Not only am I not trying to make a dogpile, but the poor thing isn't able to respond. That would make it rude to Bear, and unfair to him; so do me the favor, ok? Thanks).
The initial comments weren't too bad. There was something bothersome about them, but they weren't offensive. Just a trifle privileged, and even that was subtle. One got the feelng he was well meaning, but not well-informed.
As time went on, he got more defensive, and more dismissive, and (qu'elle surprise) evinced more use of privilege. Then he tied the rope around his neck, with an inappropriate comment.
He could have pulled back from the edge. In fact he seemed to, but not quite. And then he jumped. He got pissy about people pointing out he was being, not just rough and tumble in debate, but rude.
As I said, it's an interesting case study in someone outing themselves; from nice guy, to "Nice Guy" to jerk, to asshole, to banned, all in one day.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 03:00 am (UTC)Then I ran across the Bechdel/Wallace Test. (Original)
Then I went to IMDB and looked at the most popular movies, and got depressed trying to figure out if any of the top 40 or so pass the Test. Then looked at the Oscars winners for best picture, and got more depressed. And then found out that this system is consciously enforced in the film industry.
I'm very blurry on what "Post Modernism" is. (Don't link me to Wikipedia; I've read it. I'm still blurry. I'm okay with that.) But it doesn't take deep, critical analysis, nor special philosophical training, to recognize that our mainstream media portrays women as less-than-human--that "men" are normal, and "women" are something else, so that a movie needs a reason to have them, or to put them in notable roles.
"A person," in medialand, is male. (And white. And middle/upper-class. And Christian. And speaks English. And so on.) All deviations from that are considered modifiers to "personhood."
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 08:48 am (UTC)Right. Critical theory --> critical lobotomy.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 03:53 pm (UTC)There are TV shows that pass the test. There's a tiny handful of primetime series that regularly do (Bones, NCIS--and both of those are investigative shows where everyone is occasionally talking about where the victim attended school), and plenty of individual episodes scattered around. The confirmation comes from turning it around--how many movies, how many TV shows, how many books, have male characters who either never speak to each other, or are only talking about a woman when they do?
Our entertainment shows the patterns we consider "normal" in our lives. Shows that women are considered "different"--and not "different from men," but "different from people"... who are, by default, men. ("People" have conversations about anything that strikes them as interesting at the moment. "Women" have conversations about men.)
I haven't done detailed critical analysis. I've taken a casual look at the media, with a specific criterion in mind: note how women are portrayed. And I've noticed that they are portrayed as different. As notable. As having a trait that sets them apart from "normal people."
no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 05:58 pm (UTC)