Protecting anglophone privilege

[noracharles]

FYI: Demanding that a non-native speaker of English either stop posting or accept an anglophone gatekeeper is the moral equivalent of calling out an author for peppering their fic with babelfished non-English phrases as exotic decoration with no respect or regard for the speakers of that language.

I posted about this phenomenon in international fandom represent, but the situation in this discussion on fanficrants is slightly different. Here the commenters are very sensibly complaining only about hard-to-read-because-of-poor-grammar fics in general, you understand. The undercurrent of seething xenophobia and the racist jokes are completely incidental.

Pros of reading the discussion: see Nora flip her shit.
Cons of reading the discussion: may cause elevated blood-pressure.

Comments

[noracharles]

Yep, that's exactly what I meant.

You've read Ronia? Awesome! It's a great book, one of my favorites.

Regarding singular "they" being ungrammatical, I have to disagree with you there. There's an informative post about it on languagelog Against atheyism. But even if singular they were some newfangled, commonly-regarded-as-incorrect usage, I see no problem with using it. Personally I find it more pleasant than ze/hir, but YMMV.

I'm really fine with you ranting about other people in my dw, saves me the trouble of doing it ^_~

I think most people on FFR do realize the loathsomeness of that particular thread. I only saw two regulars whose names I recognize participating, I think people are wisely choosing to stay away from that train wreck. Nothing good can come of trying to talk sense to people who are so willfully blind to the privilege they're defending (even when it isn't their own, just one they aspire to have).

[laughingrat]

Well, I'm definitely not a grammar expert (SO not a grammar expert, srs), so it's all good. I'd had it hammered at me before that the singular "they" is incorrect, so hey. Me, though, I love going with a default "she," because it freaks people out so much. Er, not really because I like freaking people out--although if some little "Nice Guy" wants to get up on his hind legs about it because it offended him, so much the better if his latent sexism is exposed--but because, well, men got to be the default for 20,000 years, and it's sort of delicious to play with the idea of LADYPANTS being the default. It makes my brain sit up and go "Wha?" in a way that I find entertaining. :-D

Politics + Neuroscience = ...no, scratch that.

I only saw two regulars

Yeah, you too? I wasn't seeing a lot of names in there that I knew. There was one person who seemed pretty reasonable, not one of the (avowed) dudes, but someone else...eh, can't remember her username. She was slightly less infuriating, at any rate.

That teapot dude needs to STFU and get off my internet, though, because he's been braying a lot in FFR lately and I'm pretty sure it's the "dude invading a woman-majority space" thing. Notice how someone immediately was all "OMG UR SO SMRT"? I hate it when that happens. That happens in the fiber comms on Yahoo; some dude marches in waving his tiny tin penis around and at least one woman is all, "OMG, U SO TALENTED." STOP IT, LADIES. JUST STOP.

Well, you said I could be ranty...

Gotta re-read Ronia. I think I was 12 when I read it. Too long ago.

EDITed because some of that didn't make no sense.

[noracharles]

You're so right about default she, that is delicious! I fall more on the side of starting/perpetuating a trend of inclusiveness, but I dig the affirmative feminism :-D

Teapot dude, LOL. That's a great name for him. I think of him by his icon as well, but I hadn't put it into words. That's such a funny name. I first noticed him in the Sakuya-baby thread, where he was quick to point out that his masculinity was not at all threatened by being assumed female, but just so we knew, he was ALL MAN.

You think the fawning was because he's a man? I didn't think much about it, just assumed the OP was feeling a bit insecure and felt that teapot dude rescued them from the angry commenter by taking the heat and not backing down. I think teapot dude acted rather maturely and followed the rules of polite discussion, even leaving the keyboard when it was apparent we weren't getting anywhere, so if I hadn't also thought he was defending privilege and skewing my words so he could slay the straw man I might have been impressed with him as well.

You reread Ronia, and I'll reread The Children of Noisy Village and see if I can turn my plotbunny into a fic for my Lindgren comm. If I have time in my busy schedule of procrastinating from doing my actual job.

Good morning, btw!

[laughingrat]

You think the fawning was because he's a man?

Well, I'm being kinda knee-jerky here, so maybe not. ;) Yeah, he was better than he coulda been, right? But that straw argument thing, argh. You can argue with your projections all ya want, d00d; I'll be over here having a sandwich.

Not that I've ever, ever been knee-jerk about anything or argued with a projection.

Good morning! Also, I swear I do work too, but there's nothing like librarianship to keep you on a computer all day.

[noracharles]

I don't think you're being knee-jerk or projecting; I ask because I have a hard time recognizing the dynamic on the internet, but I see it constantly in real life. Constantly. Women suddenly pretend to drop 20 IQ points, the conversation revolves around the dude who entered the room, and he's getting pettings and praise and treats for not being a complete neanderthal. How can men be so blind to the condescension and utter lack of expectations from women? How can they not see how humiliating that should be, being treated like a 3 year old who managed not to poop his pants on a long car trip?

But instead women compete with each other to see who can lower their expectations more and settle for less in a mate, just so a man will pay attention to them and thus validate their existence.

I just don't get it online. Why? O_o
To me, people online are kind of nebulously genderless with me seeing them more as feminine if they're good at discussions, and more as masculine if they like to soliloquize, until they identify themselves as their preferred gender. And even then I often forget what they said they were after a while. Maybe it's a straight people thing, and that's why I don't understand it.

[laughingrat]

Yeah, I think you're right that it does infantilize them. But I think that's maybe more of an unintended consequence? Or--well, if you have a predator in your midst, you want to both placate him (by praise) and make him less dangerous (by infantilizing), right? Not that I think that women consciously think either thing, but they don't HAVE to, because culture thinks it for them. You know what I mean?

It's a protective measure, in other words, like all femininity. That's my take.

Recently on Pandagon there was a post about how some female journalist was all yelling at the MEEN FEMNISTS for picking on menz all the time, you know? We have such high expectations of men, this journalist complained; we're so hard on them! This Lady Journalist then laid out how men just can't help being idiots, how they just can't cope with housework and treating women like humans and all that, and how women should be patient with them.

The Pandagon writer countered, dryly, with, "Yeah. Feminists just hate men. We hate men so much, in fact, that we think they're full human beings and expect them to act as such." OH SNAP.

Yeah, I think LJ allows for the possibility of gender-neutralness because we don't usually sign our posts and comments. Maybe in e-groups it's different because we often do, so we actually have the info.

I've seen lesbian ladies be totally groovin' on the Patriarchy without even realizing it, sadly, but it DOES seem like it's not a common thing. Thank the lard. But yeah, all that sexist stuff is awful insidious.

[noracharles]

That's a very interesting perspective. I had always put it down to wanting to appear sexually attractive to men by pleasing them, and a general fear of being seen as unfeminine and thus being punished for not conforming.

I read a discussion about rape culture not so long ago, where an American and a Brit compared statistics, and they were shockingly different. I have the impression that women do fear men more in the United States, but it's so hard to tell given how vast and varied the country is. My only direct experience is with Arkansas and Washington state, and only in a certain social class and environment, naturally.

I have to say, I know a lot of men, and love and respect some of them dearly. The ones I like the most who are not in my immediate family are the ones who have the strength and confidence to be feminists. It is very, very difficult for me not to fall into the trap of exceptionalism. Logically I know that male and female social groups are parallel to a large extent, and that when the genders do mix both genders change their behavior. When I think of how differently women behave among women and in the company of men, and how men misjudge women in dismissive, generalizing ways for being stupid, submissive and backstabbing to other women and I know how false and skewed that perspective is, it stands to reason that men can be pretty awesome when I'm not there to observe them.

For instance, I often listen to thoughtful and sensitive men on the radio. Just as soon as a woman is present, most men act like entitled jerks. The behavior is especially bad when more than one man is present - they can be quite pleasant one on one. So I have to conclude that a large part of their behavior is ultra-masculine posturing for the benefit of other men, enacting some bizarre idea of being the kind of man women want. And they're never corrected in this belief, because the women are busy enacting the ultra-feminine woman men want.

I don't understand what you mean by signing your name on e-groups. How is the way you identify yourself different there? On LJ/dw we have pseuds and user info to identify us, and some even use their icons as avatars.