It seems requireshate is not happy to have just anyone benefit from her feminist reading of Claymore.
requireshate: writing the Claymore post I was hoping to reach other female fans of the thing. how unfortunate it is I reached male nerds instead.
Not “how unfortunate that I didn’t reach other female fans,” but “how unfortunate it is that I reached male nerds.” That’s a breathtaking bit of generalization and assumption, and we shall return to it later.
requireshate: I’m going to be extremely unhappy if my posts on #claymore wind up getting cited by those fucking weeaboos as evidence of GREAT FEMINISM
So, it’s totally cool to dismiss all anime fans who are trying to grok the intersection of feminism and manga as “fucking weaboos,” due to their stereotypically inarticulate outsider status in polite society. Use that outsider status against them. No irony there. For what it’s worth, the very first blogger who commented on my post pointing to it mentioned imperfections in the feminism of the work, which I then expanded upon. I don’t think anyone’s under the impression that it’s a perfect example.
and holy shit, do people think me saying that it’s more feminist than Whedon/et al is high praise? hahahaha oh clueless people.
I feel I should clarify: it’s NOT a feminist work. it succeeds only because the bars are so fucking low.
You made your feelings quite clear. But permit me to make something clear, in return: if “it succeeds” in being better than the norm, then for practical purposes it is a feminist work. You may not believe it’s gone far enough, and you may be frustrated that it still gets things wrong, but imperfection doesn’t make it categorically not a feminist work.
Consider history: Female suffrage was setting the bar low, but it was feminist in its time, and a necessary step for further advances. The idea that women are not property and rape is not a valid part of war booty was setting the bar low, but it was a necessary step for further advances, and feminist for its time. Getting over the idea that rocks and buildings were considered to have souls, but women weren’t considered to have souls was setting the bar low, but feminist in its time. Each step of the way was built on advances we would now deem trivial, just as we think the idea of gravity is obvious, but it was revolutionary when Newton formulated a theory of it.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you that the bar could still be said to be low, where media is concerned. But because of that, I don’t understand your actions. Spurn progress, and, well, it’s likely you won’t get where you want to be. I don’t really see why you feel a process of changing societal norms that took thousands of years to get to this point will suddenly leap to the finish just so you can reap the benefits. It would be nice, but it’s not very likely to happen.
Now, I’ll address the implication that men don’t have anything to do with feminism and should just shut up. Feminism, as a reaction to patriarchal attitudes, doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The considered purpose of feminism is to change society; roughly half of society is men, so telling men that they can’t play and shouldn’t take any interest in the subject is . . . not just strange, but self-defeating.
I’d like to quote to you something from Stokely Carmichael. He was a man, yes, but as a black civil rights leader, I think it’s fair to say he thought deeply on the problem of outsiders in Western (specifically American) society.
I maintain that every civil rights bill in this country was passed for white people, not for black people. For example, I am black. I know that. I also know that while I am black I am a human being. Therefore I have the right to go into any public place. White people don’t know that. Every time I tried to go into a public place they stopped me. So some boys had to write a bill to tell that white man, “He’s a human being; don’t stop him.” That bill was for the white man, not for me. I knew I could vote all the time and that it wasn’t a privilege but my right. Every time I tried I was shot, killed or jailed, beaten or economically deprived. So somebody had to write a bill to tell white people, “When a black man comes to vote, don’t bother him.” That bill was for white people. I know I can live anyplace I want to live. It is white people across this country who are incapable of allowing me to live where I want. You need a civil rights bill, not me.
Now tell me: how much of this is applicable to the feminist struggle for equality? Yes, there’s also the feminist problem of women thinking themselves incapable, which he doesn’t address above (he mentions it elsewhere in the speech) but that minority group identity issue existed in the struggle for POC civil rights too.
Feminism in the absence of society is devoid of purpose. Do women not get how hard it is to be a woman, and how people unthinkingly do things to marginalize them? That seems kind of preposterous; they live with the experience daily. More than the women, it’s men that don’t get how hard it is, and therefore at some point feminism ought to interact with men.
This aggressive redefinition of standards until you can’t have a conversation with someone more familiar with mainstream POV, making it difficult for them to converse with you – is it productive? Does it get you what you want? If you’re going to say “the world should be like this” and emphatically deny any concessions to practicality and results, then you have a perfect right to do so. But if so, practically, do you then differ from the Otherkin (who view themselves as essentially inhuman, and mostly just want to be left alone)? You yourself have demonstrated a decided lack of empathy for them, precisely for being out of touch with reality, precisely because what they are doing leads nowhere, so it seems only fair to ask if these standards apply to you as well.
moritheil If it’s “more feminist than Wheadon,” we can at least say that it isn’t worse than mainstream media, then, can’t we?
requireshate trust me, if you weeaboo at someone going “this thing I like is, like, more feminist than Whedon!” no feminist will be impressed
moritheil So… you think I’m doing this to impress feminists instead of being legitimately concerned with media?
requireshate see I actually suspect you don’t know much about feminism, is the thing.
moritheil I suspect you don’t know a lot about weaboo as a denigrating term. Why the “you don’t know enough to hang with us” attitude?
requireshate haha what. explain the nuances of it to me please, by all means.
moritheil Well, you know that it is a mocking term. But you continue to apply it. Why would you do that?
requireshate why not?
When you get in a conversation with someone and are asked to please refrain from the use of judgmental or insulting terms, as common sense, and your reaction is that you have the right to insult them but they don’t have the right to talk back or take offense – is that equality?
Whatever it is, it’s unfortunate.