![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beccatoriaI'm not entirely sure it's a good idea to post this (all the best posts start this way...) but in the interests of not having my head explode with thinking, I figured why not. I was going to flock it but that seemed kind of cowardly. Not that I feel particularly brave right now. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but...I have an opinion, so I'm going to try and state it, hopefully without it seeming like I'm the type of person who likes burning kittens for fun.
I would also like to acknowledge that my opinion is based on the discussions I've seen around fandom regarding this vid, but I would be shocked if that were anything approaching exhaustive. If I've missed anything or am labouring under some misapprehension, I apologise and welcome further information.
So, to get on with it, On the Prowl is a VVC vid that got heavily recced around fandom, so I watched it. It deals with the sexualisation of violence against men, and was completed for the "self-portrait" challenge.
When I first saw it, it didn't really connect with me, basically because that's not a portrait of me, or of an area of fandom I find particularly interesting. I don't find men getting beaten up hot, and generally I identify with and am more invested in female characters. Which was fine, because I know that there is a large chunk of fandom that likes pretty boys and hurt/comfort and that's who this vid was for. But I didn't get it, and frankly, wasn't sure I was well-enough versed in the tropes and "language" of that section of fandom to be equipped to get all its nuances. Which again, is as it should be - I certainly don't expect every vid I love to mean something equally deep and compelling to someone unfamiliar with either the source or the fandom to which it's speaking. This is especially true with meta vids which are often part of, or in response to, larger conversations.
So, that's cool, it's a vid that's not really aimed at me. The reason I'm posting this though, is the general tone of wider discussion of the vid, and the presentation of its arguments and the nature of its importance in wider fandom. And here's where we get to the bit I'm slightly afraid of posting, especially since I'm not a VVC attendee and therefore am not overly familiar with the conventions of that culture either, but equally I want to say something.
In general I've felt the overall tone of fandom-wide discussion has presented this vid as:
1) a socially important issue that we need to examine and that shows a need for self-examination.
2) an Important Vid that You need to watch even though it will be Uncomfortable; essentially, a vid that comments on fandom; an equation of people for whom this vid does function as a portrait with fandom at large.
I have a few issues with this. All of which tie in with some issues I have with fandom and its attitudes to gender generally, so I own that, which is why it's the way this vid plays in wider context that I'm commenting on.
The Socially Important Issue Thing.
To address the first point, there's an awful lot of self-questioning about why brutalised men are sexy, whether this is acceptable, whether women are cast as the perpetrators of violence, whether the shows are allowing or encouraging that. Whether it's acceptable to be turned on by it. I've seen it compared to the flip side of "Women's Work" (a famous vid by one of the same vidders about (arguably sexualised) violence against minor female characters as a matter of course in SPN) in several places. Likewise, I have seen several comments about how this is a long overdue criticism and it's high time we took a Good, Long, Hard Look at Ourselves.
Now, there are a boatload of ways this can spin out regarding gender in the wide world and how chicks get the short end, and whether this is reclaimation, if two wrongs make a right, or if it even counts because LJ is largely female, or if LJ being largely female is the only reason it's a space where this reclaimation can occur and sure, I have opinions on all these things, and I'm not trying to say it's not a conversation to have, especially not for those who watched the vid, and did get it, and are now moved to wonder why they feel this way and whether they're comfortable with it. But I do think it misses a really big point:
Brutalisation of major male characters to further their own storylines and our sympathy for them =/= brutalisation of minor female characters to further the storylines and our sympathy for male characters.
That's a fundamental difference in the way most male and female characters get beat up on TV.
So while I'm not against anyone wondering what this pattern of violence to male heroes (or their attraction to it) means, I guess I am very much against equating it with the very real representational issues regarding women as victims of violence in our media. Or that a priority for fandom (which already spends an extraordinary amount of time and effort on male characters - in turn perhaps because of what we're offered, but again, this is another, complex debate), should now be to turn around and defend these male characters who are already privileged both narratively and in terms of fandom's attention.
The Fandom Portrait Thing.
I think maybe I can be a bit more succinct on this bit.
I am in fandom. This vid is not a portrait of me. I am not particularly unique in my interests within fandom. I did not need to see this vid to learn anything about myself. I did not need to see it to know that a certain section of fandom appreciates violence in its h/c boyslash.
Above I detail why I'm not sure the way a certain wider reading of this vid is a valid social criticism of fandom attitudes (i.e. because I do not think the arguments about what this says about the unfair treatment of men by the media/fandom hold water).
But here I'm trying to say...even if they did hold water, I don't think they'd be as broadly applicable as is being suggested in places.
The Other Important Things Thing.
There are a few other things I think it's important to say:
- I have seen various responses to this vid; I absolutely don't want to present the prevalent "vibe" I've been getting as the only discussion out there. And it's great that people are discussing it: hey, look, here I am doing the same thing!
- I really, really have no issue with this vid as a self-portrait, or with people fascinatedly trying to find their own line within it. I know I already said this, but it bears repeating. I really do understand why, to people who identify with it, it would be a fascinating vid.
- I do not want to assume the intentions of the vidders in making this vid. As far as I'm aware it was always presented by them as a self-portrait and I would not want to presume to ascribe any further motivations to them.
I would also like to acknowledge that my opinion is based on the discussions I've seen around fandom regarding this vid, but I would be shocked if that were anything approaching exhaustive. If I've missed anything or am labouring under some misapprehension, I apologise and welcome further information.
So, to get on with it, On the Prowl is a VVC vid that got heavily recced around fandom, so I watched it. It deals with the sexualisation of violence against men, and was completed for the "self-portrait" challenge.
When I first saw it, it didn't really connect with me, basically because that's not a portrait of me, or of an area of fandom I find particularly interesting. I don't find men getting beaten up hot, and generally I identify with and am more invested in female characters. Which was fine, because I know that there is a large chunk of fandom that likes pretty boys and hurt/comfort and that's who this vid was for. But I didn't get it, and frankly, wasn't sure I was well-enough versed in the tropes and "language" of that section of fandom to be equipped to get all its nuances. Which again, is as it should be - I certainly don't expect every vid I love to mean something equally deep and compelling to someone unfamiliar with either the source or the fandom to which it's speaking. This is especially true with meta vids which are often part of, or in response to, larger conversations.
So, that's cool, it's a vid that's not really aimed at me. The reason I'm posting this though, is the general tone of wider discussion of the vid, and the presentation of its arguments and the nature of its importance in wider fandom. And here's where we get to the bit I'm slightly afraid of posting, especially since I'm not a VVC attendee and therefore am not overly familiar with the conventions of that culture either, but equally I want to say something.
In general I've felt the overall tone of fandom-wide discussion has presented this vid as:
1) a socially important issue that we need to examine and that shows a need for self-examination.
2) an Important Vid that You need to watch even though it will be Uncomfortable; essentially, a vid that comments on fandom; an equation of people for whom this vid does function as a portrait with fandom at large.
I have a few issues with this. All of which tie in with some issues I have with fandom and its attitudes to gender generally, so I own that, which is why it's the way this vid plays in wider context that I'm commenting on.
The Socially Important Issue Thing.
To address the first point, there's an awful lot of self-questioning about why brutalised men are sexy, whether this is acceptable, whether women are cast as the perpetrators of violence, whether the shows are allowing or encouraging that. Whether it's acceptable to be turned on by it. I've seen it compared to the flip side of "Women's Work" (a famous vid by one of the same vidders about (arguably sexualised) violence against minor female characters as a matter of course in SPN) in several places. Likewise, I have seen several comments about how this is a long overdue criticism and it's high time we took a Good, Long, Hard Look at Ourselves.
Now, there are a boatload of ways this can spin out regarding gender in the wide world and how chicks get the short end, and whether this is reclaimation, if two wrongs make a right, or if it even counts because LJ is largely female, or if LJ being largely female is the only reason it's a space where this reclaimation can occur and sure, I have opinions on all these things, and I'm not trying to say it's not a conversation to have, especially not for those who watched the vid, and did get it, and are now moved to wonder why they feel this way and whether they're comfortable with it. But I do think it misses a really big point:
Brutalisation of major male characters to further their own storylines and our sympathy for them =/= brutalisation of minor female characters to further the storylines and our sympathy for male characters.
That's a fundamental difference in the way most male and female characters get beat up on TV.
So while I'm not against anyone wondering what this pattern of violence to male heroes (or their attraction to it) means, I guess I am very much against equating it with the very real representational issues regarding women as victims of violence in our media. Or that a priority for fandom (which already spends an extraordinary amount of time and effort on male characters - in turn perhaps because of what we're offered, but again, this is another, complex debate), should now be to turn around and defend these male characters who are already privileged both narratively and in terms of fandom's attention.
The Fandom Portrait Thing.
I think maybe I can be a bit more succinct on this bit.
I am in fandom. This vid is not a portrait of me. I am not particularly unique in my interests within fandom. I did not need to see this vid to learn anything about myself. I did not need to see it to know that a certain section of fandom appreciates violence in its h/c boyslash.
Above I detail why I'm not sure the way a certain wider reading of this vid is a valid social criticism of fandom attitudes (i.e. because I do not think the arguments about what this says about the unfair treatment of men by the media/fandom hold water).
But here I'm trying to say...even if they did hold water, I don't think they'd be as broadly applicable as is being suggested in places.
The Other Important Things Thing.
There are a few other things I think it's important to say:
- I have seen various responses to this vid; I absolutely don't want to present the prevalent "vibe" I've been getting as the only discussion out there. And it's great that people are discussing it: hey, look, here I am doing the same thing!
- I really, really have no issue with this vid as a self-portrait, or with people fascinatedly trying to find their own line within it. I know I already said this, but it bears repeating. I really do understand why, to people who identify with it, it would be a fascinating vid.
- I do not want to assume the intentions of the vidders in making this vid. As far as I'm aware it was always presented by them as a self-portrait and I would not want to presume to ascribe any further motivations to them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
my kink is not your kink but your kink is ok
Date: 2010-08-25 08:27 am (UTC)"On the Prowl" is a critique of fangirls' desires. "Women's Work" is a critique of television writers (mostly male) using violence against female characters as male character plot-advancement. While I see the stylistic similarities, the vidders are operating from different positions of relational power.
Critique vids always play with the dangers of reproduction (the danger being unintentionally reasserting the subject of ire by not effectively communicating the critique), but "On the Prowl" lives on this line, creating a vid that purportedly elicits desire from the viewer while critiquing the viewer for these desires. As the viewers would never be limited to the vidders themselves, I think it's safe to say this critique was always intended to be received by a larger corner of fandom, a corner of fandom to which the vidders belong. So as much as it's a self-portrait, the text of the vid itself, as well as how it is being discusses now, assumes the critique to the shared identity of a community* (singular because I am describing one of many within livejournal).
All this said, it is the critique itself I find utterly unpalatable and the method of sharing this critique coercive and shaming. This vid is an indictment on sadistic desire, questioning whether it is "ok" to feel these desires, and if we are irresponsible by expressing them. What this point fails to encompass is the context in which these desires occur and the common means of expression: these are sadistic desires aroused by media and these are desires commonly expressed through transformative media -- vids, fic, icons, picspams, etc. Characters and real people (as characters) played with in these fanworks are not actual, but representations. AND THERE ARE MANY COPIES. *ahem*
Fangirl sadistic desires and their expressions do not in fact: cause the characters any further suffering, in spite! of the fact that these feelings of desire are not necessarily (though sometimes -- LEGEND OF THE SEEKER I'M LOOKING AT YOU) consistent with canon narratives.
Sadistic desires have their place in the world in an actual non-imaginary playspace, known as kink communities and BDSM. In these social spheres, there is an understanding of how these desires can function in ways that are positive for all involved, under a general guideline of safe, sane, and consensual.
There are enough places in the world that take issue with female desire, and particularly female sexual desire, demonizing all lady boners. Fandom is a place to celebrate and wank off with lady boners.
This vid elicits lady boners and then tells you you're bad for having one, tells you it's dangerous to have one. It's not. This vid is shaming. And it shames on no solid ground, but by conflating reality and fantasy and with no substantive support for its cries of danger.
Re: my kink is not your kink but your kink is ok
Date: 2010-08-25 02:28 pm (UTC)I'm still slightly reluctant to necessarily say that the desire-shaming reading of the vid is the only one possible, given that I have also seen comments celebrating the vid (albeit far, far fewer), and a fair number that simply responded with curiosity at where their line was - at how far their kink went before it was no longer their kink - without it seeming to elicit any particularly shameful self-criticism.
That's kind of why I tried to root the post more in terms of how I felt the wider vidding community was beginning to frame the vid as it spread - what social narrative was forming around this vid.
And in that context, I cannot agree with you more. Whether or not it was the intention of the vidders, the vid is, by now, quite strongly rooted in critique that, as you say, elicits lady boners and then shames them. If this were some endemic real world social issue that media-endorsed fantasies were complicit in normalising (such as sexualised violence against women) then perhaps there would be leeway and a basis for self-examination. As things stand, it does end up playing far more as something that proclaims kink fantasies to be dangerous and shameful.
I also imagine that if this were in any way my kink, I would feel far more strongly about this than I do, and completely respect both your passion and your articulation of the issues.
And now, in retaliation, I'm off to watch a certain TV show to take some notes for a certain vid about a certain girl we might have discussed. :)
Re: my kink is not your kink but your kink is ok
Date: 2010-08-25 03:16 pm (UTC)For the record, that seemed to be a very minor reaction at the con. Some people felt it to be shaming, many people I spoke to found it celebratory and completely hot from start to finish, some people were relieved to see it addressed and most people found it interesting as a benchmark against which to position oneself. Of course it's a completely legitimate reading to feel that the vidder is shaming others/themselves--I'm not saying that's incorrect, but it certainly isn't the only reading.
To me the vid is clearly a vid from slash fandom talking to slash fandom (and not meant to be read in a context wider than that). I suspect the discussion around it has grown muddled from what you've said above (I've been away--this is the first I've read about it).
And re. the 'your kink is still ok' thing? Yes, totally. I am close friends with people that found that vid HOT HOT HOT and completely unproblematic from start to finish. I respect and love them, I just don't agree with them. These things are personal. :)
Re: my kink is not your kink but your kink is ok
Date: 2010-08-26 12:24 am (UTC)I'm somewhat interested to see you say that, I think. I've always felt that VVC is really closely tied to its slash origins and traditions, or at least can't really be understood outside that history and context. Not really in a critical way, but just by virtue of the way it understandably wants to protect its very specific history of a specific subset of a fandom that has recently grown much larger than that. I always felt like most participants would disagree though?
Re: my kink is not your kink but your kink is ok
Date: 2010-08-26 02:11 am (UTC)Clearly this is just my personal opinion, but I believe that to be 100% true. And exactly what you say: it's proud of and protective of its history (IMO somewhat damagingly so).
I think you're spot on--it has grown a lot in the last five or so years (I talked to people at the con who discussed a marked shift beginning in 2005). Online I saw a lot of mixed feelings about that expressed, but AT the con, I only seemed to run into people who found the evolution a good thing. (Probably virtue of the fact that I hung out predominantly with the 'new' crowd!) The really really marked thing for me at the con though was the con comm were overwhelmingly in favour of evolution from what I could tell. It seems like there IS a state of tension between preserving the con's origins (legitimately so! it has a proud tradition and I wholeheartedly respect the need to maintain that, and learning more about it was a positive part of the con for me) and embrace change and reach out to a much wider vidding and fannish world. So maybe the fact that it's evolving beyond its slash roots may be the reason you feel participants may disagree. Though IMO I think that would be a minority of attendees. Really! There's a high level of consciousness about this (and deep respect for the slash origins) at the con.
There was also much conversation at the con about how the way VVC is portrayed online is very different to the reality once you're there. Summation: a lot of bullshit and very little straight talk occurs online. ;) You have no idea how good it made me feel to find heaps of con attendees who felt the same way I did!
(Also: HI HONEY! I am back on the internet! Which is very yayful and means I can actually, like, talk to you again! JOY!)
Re: my kink is not your kink but your kink is ok
Date: 2010-08-26 03:56 am (UTC)Welcome back online! It's nice to hear you happy to be online. :)
Re: my kink is not your kink but your kink is ok
Date: 2010-08-26 04:23 am (UTC)LOL, that makes one of us. I *TOTALLY* thought people would be unwelcoming!
Like it's perceived as a different "level" of vidding in some way, when really it's just for a different type of audience?
*nod nod* Trust me, plenty of con participants hate that. Yes, exactly, it's just a SMALL con with a small, specific (if vid-obsessed) audience (and that was said almost verbatim by the con comm in the welcome session). And well, you know that whole discussion in my journal a year ago was all about that. I think there are some people who really do believe/peddle the theory that it is the best of the best. I don't think it's as many people as it seems online (one thing I've really learnt from going to a con is that the loud people online are not representative of a community even if they make themselves out to be). Also I honestly believe half the problem is that it's the only known, dedicated vid con. There should be more. :)
Thank you! I am excited. :) I get to read your posts and watch your vids. :) I know it sounds absurd but I couldn't even reply to your last email (I'M SO SORRY!): I just went into complete shutdown. :(
Also, sympathy on the 'just go, you'll love it!' message. I had that for years and it was frustrating. I decided to go on my own terms but I still recall the frustration, believe me! I could easily have taken another path and having been I feel doubly validated in that--like going CONFIRMED to me how small and specific (if also AWESOME) it was and therefore that it was completely fine to ignore it if I chose to. For me personally, this made me far more comfortable with it and had the reverse psych effect of then making me really in to it. *does not respond well to perceived coersion* :p