gryphonsegg: (Cymbella)
Wow, it feels like it's been forever since I posted here! I'm hoping to get back into regular posting this summer, now that I have more time to do things like that. Anyway, I just passed a major milestone on my journey: I passed my candidacy exams and officially became a Ph.D. candidate. I still have long way to go, but I'm closer than ever before to the goal I've aspired to since fifth grade.
gryphonsegg: fox-faced girl from THG (Foxface)
I know I shouldn't get this worked up over somebody's stupid AU fanfic, but . . .
cut for feminist nerdrage )
gryphonsegg: (Cymbella)
Okay, so sexist idiots on tumblr (no, I DON’T feel like be charitable to them tonight) are once again asserting that women “don’t want anything to do with science” and “don’t want to go near a science class,” and most of the women who try to major in STEM fields “will drop out without getting a degree,” and that all of this has absolutely nothing to do with sexism, and this is evidence that feminism is bad because feminists want to “force” women to take STEM classes, which women just inexplicably hate for no reason.

I’ve wanted to be scientist since sometime in elementary school, despite being surrounded by people telling me that I couldn’t do it, shouldn’t try, should be ashamed of myself for even wanting to try, and would never make it. Now I have a degree. I have two degrees. I’m working toward a doctorate. I need to take a statistics course in another department. I took a course a my previous university that might or might not fill the pre-requirements for the course I want to take here. One of my (male) labmates is in the same situation, having taken a stats course at another university which might or might not have covered the material he’ll need to know to start the new stats course in the spring. We both need permission from the (male) professor in the other department who is teaching the course we both want to take. That male professor asked my male labmate to send him a copy of the syllabus from the earlier course at the other university, judged that my male labmate is adequately prepared to take his course in the spring, and gave him permission. The same male professor told me that the course would be too difficult for me and didn’t ask to see a syllabus or anything. My options are a) signing up for a less advanced stats course and hoping the professor will then give me permission to take the course I actually want in 2015 or b) going to the psychology department and getting permission to take their statistics course, which does not cover all the same topics but teaches enough of the same analytical methods that I should be able to get by with it, while teaching myself the rest of what I need to know from the library.

I’m in no mood to deal with that bullshit tonight.

Oh, and in case you're one of my longtime followers and you were wondering, my "Yeah, I was born with a uterus, but is it really honest to refer to myself as ~female~ or ~a woman~ when I've never ~felt like a real woman is supposed to feel~" phase is over. Being unapologetic, even defiant, about being female is the only thing that allows me to get through life in the real world.
gryphonsegg: (Magneto)
I just saw Carrie! It was everything I didn't realize how badly I wanted in a movie! Does anybody want to get meta with me about it?
gryphonsegg: (Default)
Those of you who know me know that I love the Hunger Games books and that my favorite characters are all the female tributes. (Yes, all of them. Yes, even her. Yes, I've heard that before, and I'd like to see your evidence that you or any male person would behave better-- whatever your definition of better might be--in her situation.) And you know I had problems with the casting for the first movie. I can't help but think the casting problem is even worse for the second movie. I've had time to get used to it, but I just can't get over this. The casting department made Mags white. They made Wiress white. They made Joanna white. Seeder has apparently been cut out of the story altogether, or her role has been cut down so much that nobody even bothered to include her in any promotional materials, even though they did choose to include Cashmere (who, as a "classically beautiful" blonde, is the only female tribute whose casting perfectly matches her book description). And who is the one prominent female character from Catching Fire who gets played by a woman of color? Enobaria. Enobaria, whose book description in no way implies that she is a woman of color, unlike Mags and Seeder and Wiress. Enobaria, the "savage" victor from the district that is most hated in the fandom (hated even more than the Capital by fans who missed the point of "remember who the real enemy is"), whose entire characterization is built on acceptance of her assigned role as a violent and merciless killer, who seems to be going along with what the Capital wants right up until the very end, who has the least sympathetic portrayal of all the female victors, whose most famous accomplishment is tearing out another tribute's throat with her teeth. Yeah, Joanna is not nice either, but her role in the story is much bigger and more complicated than Enobaria's, and the audience gets to see more of Joanna's reasons for being the way she is. I love book!Enobaria as much as the others. She is exactly what the Capital made her. She internalized the values of the Hunger Games so deeply that rebelling didn't even seem worth it to her, perhaps more deeply than the powers that be in the Capital ever intended because her choice at the end demonstrates that her lack of empathy for the other people of the districts also extends to Capital citizens and their children who were supposed to be safe from the brutality of the Hunger Games. She's an interesting figure, if an unpleasant one. But it looks really, really racist to make her alone a woman of color while making all the other named female characters white. And the alteration to her teeth makes that impression even worse-- the movie could have gone with cyberpunk-inspired metallic teeth, but somebody somewhere in the decision-making chain somehow decided that giving her teeth that look like they've just been filed to points was a totally okay thing to do. It just makes it seem like the people in charge of this movie were actively trying to be racist. I normally don't like to attribute to malice what could be simply stupidity, but how did anyone miss the implications of those teeth on the only woman of color in the group?
gryphonsegg: (Default)
I am so sick of seeing "omegaverse" or "A/B/O" fic for every single fandom, it's not even funny anymore. There's so much to hate: the complete failure at biology for all time and eternity, the breath-taking level of misogyny built into the very foundations of the world, the insistence on assembling all the worst romance tropes ever and turning them all up so far it should have blown a fuse in everybody's brain by now, and the infiltration of every fandom no matter how wildly inappropriate. It's like somebody said, "Wow, I love Pern for the old school sexism, the weird homophobia, and the romanticizing of rape and deeply gendered class oppression, but those boring dragons keep getting in the way." Then that thought somehow became encoded in a virus, which then swept through all the fandoms and not even Madagascar had time to close its port.

Venting

Sep. 26th, 2013 05:51 pm
gryphonsegg: (Magneto)
I've never been a sports fan, so I never paid that much attention to sports team logos and mascots. I became aware at some point that naming sports teams "the Indians" or vaguely Native American/American Indian-associated things like "the Chiefs" or "the Braves" was a thing. I never liked the thing, and I agreed that those Native-themed team names, symbols, and mascots should be changed, but it was not an issue that weighed heavily on my mind. Maybe it was because I grew up in a part of the south that didn't have its own Native-themed team, so the example most familiar to me for a long time was the Atlanta Braves, a team that I've always seen symbolized by a weapon rather than a caricature of a Native American person. If there's also a stereotyped image of an "Indian brave" for that team, I never was interested in baseball team merchandise enough to find it.

But now I'm in graduate school in a different state from the one where I grew up. I don't want to connect my journal too much to my RL professional identity, so let's just say I'm at a university in a different region of the US. My university does not have Native-themed mascot, but a nearby city does have a sports team with a Native-themed mascot, and that team has a lot of fans here. And their main merchandising symbol is NOT a weapon. It's a caricature. In fact, it is THE most dehumanizing Native caricature I have ever seen. And it's everywhere in this town. I can't even describe what I feel every time I see that image, except to say that it's really bad. So bad that I avoid going to certain stores that sell things I like because they also have promotional items for that team with that image prominently display, and seeing makes me feel like crap and keep feeling like crap for a few minutes after I can no longer see it. But I can't avoid it when it's stuck on cars in the science division parking lot or printed on t-shirts and hoodies that students wear around campus. It's just . . . there, popping up in my face when I least expect it. I really, really hate it, but don't feel safe talking about how much I hate it or why to anyone I get to spend any time with in person around here.
gryphonsegg: (Default)
I really need to get back into posting regularly. The past couple of weeks have been extremely hectic, but I find that I really do feel better when I make time to communicate with people beyond my immediate environment. I know the stereotypical thing is "You spend too much time on the internet and need to interact face to face more often," but for me . . . well, it's not the opposite of that. It's just that some things are easier to discuss when we NOT face to face. I'm not sure how much of that is my own awkwardness and how much of it is the fact that it's much easier to identify people online as the kind of people who might be interested having a conversation about the things I need to talk about. I know a lot of people in the department well enough to strike up a conversation about the things we study, but the thing I really want to talk about right now is so far down the fandom rabbit hole I wouldn't dare mention it to any of them because it's kind of inappropriate for work and it would make me look crazy. I mean, I can't go up to someone I work with and say, "I'm in this fandom where I didn't really ship anything at first, but the haters of this one pairing are getting so ridiculous and so self-righteous that I'm developing a huge defensive complex about that pairing. But at the same time I'm afraid that I'll have to give up the fandom entirely because their preferred alternative ship brings up so many of my old issues that I thought I'd dealt with, but if I tell people I dislike that pairing, they'll pigeonhole me "hating feminine women" because that's the new thing to do on Tumblr." They would think I was high.
gryphonsegg: (Cymbella)
I've been really busy the past week, getting my experiment wrapped up and put into poster format. I'll be busy this coming week too because I'm at a conference. I'm presenting my poster on Friday! In the meantime, I'm supposed to be "networking" with biologists/ecologists from other universities. Networking isn't exactly my highest stat, but I have made myself promise to make at least one new friend I'll keep in touch with after the conference.
gryphonsegg: (saizou)
I wish the following things would get off my lawn:

Homestuck

flavored water

"weaponized femininity"

hipsters claiming to be pyromaniacs

90% of all the Les Miserables fanon that developed between the first time I drifted out of the fandom and now

ill-conceived graphs that purport to explain the increasingly numerous, fine-grained, and hard-to-pronounce sexual orientations that tumblrites make up to avoid admitting they have anything in common with anyone who does anything heteronormative or "homonormative"

"homonormative"-- Okay, I'd accept this one if it were used in the context of discussing Elanor Arnason's SF stories set among a species in which the males and females are so different that everybody decided the easiest way to keep things peaceful would be to make all subsequent generations 80+ % gay. Sadly, people try to apply it to other human beings who exist in real life.

sorting female characters into "masculine" and "feminine" categories as if those words had consistent, cross-cultural and pan-temporal meanings
gryphonsegg: (Default)
It has come to my attention that some people on this very internet are misusing the Bechdel-Wallace test to an egregious degree. Specifically, they have been asserting that anything that clears this very low bar is a net good for "female representation in media," even if the thing in question is Oz: The Great and Powerful or A Game of Thrones. Also, they've been arguing that anything that fails this one test-- such as Pacific Rim--is therefore more sexist than anything that passes-- such as the Star Trek reboot movie, which passed on a technicality because of a single conversation during which both women were in their underwear and a guy whom one of them didn't know was there was watching them from under a bed.

So first of all, I'd like remind anyone who happens to read this that the Bechdel-Wallace test was not intended to be used by all feminists everywhere as a test of the definitive test of the goodness of any one movie. The comic in which it first appeared was pointing out how skewed the movie industry as whole is, when it's hard to think of many movies that pass this test. Part of the point is that passing it should be really, really easy and not a big deal and not necessarily an indication that the movie is pro-feminist or portrays women well. After all, you could have a really sexist story in which the women spend all their time together complimenting each others outfits and swapping recipes and hair styling tips. It's messed up that, in a society where women are slightly more than half the population, most movies can't even manage that. On the other side of same coin, an individual movie can fail the Bechdel-Wallace test without being anti-feminist or a bad movie in general. There are some settings in which an all-male or heavily male-skewed cast would be the only logical or historically accurate way to go. The problems are that 1) so very many casts are more male-skewed than they logically should be, 2) we don't see an equally large number of movies that have female-skewed casts getting made, and 3) movies that do have multiple female characters very often portray them as revolving entirely around the male characters instead of being interesting and important in themselves.

Next, I'd like to propose a multilayered system for discussing how female characters are portrayed in movies and other narrative media. This system would have multiple "tests." Passing or failing any one of them doesn't tell you much about the quality of an individual story (although it's perfectly reasonable for any individual person to decide that she's sick and tired of one kind of "fail" and won't consume any more movies/books/etc. that fail that test). But when the scores start adding up, things get interesting. Here are the tests I find useful, with suggested names:

Bechdel-Wallace test, aka, Mo's Movie Measure: I don't believe in fixing what's not broken, so we'll start with the original. The story passes if it has two or more named female characters who talk to each other about something other than man.

Gail Simone test, aka the refrigerator test: Another well-established test, this one comes from the world of superhero comics. A storyline fails the simple version if it shows a female character getting murdered, raped, or de-powered. A more sophisticated version that makes allowances for more grim'n'gritty storylines declares a complete fail only if the main narrative impact of the bad thing happening to a female character is that it makes a male character distraught and vengeful. My preference is to declare a simple fail for de-powering, sexual assault, or murder (not counting battles) of a female character and double or compound fail for the event being framed in terms of its emotional impact on a male character.

Takeuchi test: A newly formulated standard named in honor of the creator of Sailor Moon, the Takeuchi test is more about how a female character's importance to the "A plot" of a story. A manga, movie, novel, etc. pass if a female character actively contributes to the resolution of the problem around which the story revolves. In an action movie, this might mean striking a crucial blow in battle. In other contexts, it could mean solving a crime or a scientific problem or doing any number of other things. The point is that a female character decides to take action and uses her skills; being mind-controlled into fighting, saying something silly that causes a smarter character to think of the right answer, and inspiring a man to take action don't count. It's also important that female character's action actually does resolve or help resolve the main plot crisis; this test is about taking female characters out of the "nice but not that important subplot in a male-centric story" cage. For each female character who actively contributes to the resolution, the Takeuchi score increases.

Heinlein test: You've come a long way, baby. In the so-called golden age of science fiction, writers often portrayed women as flighty, frivolous, illogical, and unimaginative if they bothered to portray women at all. Robert Heinlein didn't see the appeal of that. He liked his women intelligent, athletic, and ultra-competent, as well as drop-dead gorgeous and up for any sexual experience he cared to imagine. Unfortunately, a lot of SF dudes haven't moved on from Heinlein-inspired views of women, and a lot of women in fandom accept this as the best we're going to get. A book, TV series, or movie might have several named female characters who all have military rank and hard science degrees, but it can still be annoying to women and harmful to girls if it sends the message that a woman's looks and sexual availability are more important than her skills. To pass the Heinlein test, it must have at least one major female character who is not gratuitously shown undressing or otherwise used for fan service, whose looks are irrelevant to her role in the story (so "she uses her sex appeal to manipulate the good/bad guys" doesn't rate a pass), whose character development is not defined by sex, and who is not disparaged for being unsexy by the narrative.
gryphonsegg: (Default)
I started a new experiment today. I'm excited about it, since I'm a giant dork and all. I'll get to present the results at a conference later.
gryphonsegg: water plumes from Saturn's moon (Enceladus)
Okay, so I'm feeling burned out due to political events and completely inadequate as a graduate student. But at least I have this: 3 planets in the Gliese system could possibly support life!
gryphonsegg: (Cymbella)
I'm going on my first sampling trip tomorrow. I'm ridiculously excited about it, which is why I'm posting now instead going to bed early. I'm also horribly anxious that I'll lose something, break something, mess something up, forget something important, or make the other people on the trip hate me. I wish I could finally convince my stupid, frustrating fear of failure that it's making me more likely to fail.
gryphonsegg: (Default)
I've started reading Still Forms on Foxfield, a short-by-today's-standards science fiction novel by Joan Slonczewski that published in 1980. I'm posting about it partly because it's just a really interesting book and as a follow-up to my earlier post about how I'd like to see more nerdy feminist discussion about science fiction and fantasy books written by women as opposed to discussions centered around female characters written by men. This post is not a review in the traditional sense, although I might write a review of the book later. For now, I just want to post of list of things about the book that I like and/or find interesting, especially those that stand out in the context of that earlier post and the discussion that ensued in its comments.

1. The set-up is one that I find myself using again and again in my own original writing: A group of humans settle on an extrasolar planet and lose contact with the rest of humankind for period of many Earth-standard years. They adapt to their environment and live in close association with sentient native species. Eventually, representatives of an interstellar human civilization reestablish contact, perceiving themselves as advanced and civilized and the humans who have adapted to the new planet as a technologically primitive and culturally backward "lost colony." The so-called lost colonists are all like, "Oh no, let us explain you a thing. If you think about it in the right way, you will find it is you who are lost."

2. This is a fairly common set-up in SF (although I have the completely unquantitative impression that it isn't as popular among the current crop of writers as it was when I was a kid). Slonczewski's twist on the idea is that the people who fled Earth and settled on the new planet were Quakers. They weren't setting up a colony, they were seeking refuge from a world-wide nuclear war that threatened to destroy Earth and its nearby (in astronomical terms) colonies.

3. One of the popular tropes of "lost colony" stories (which I interrogate in various ways in my own writing) is that, once the humans lose or surrender their spacefaring capabilities and some of the other advanced technology they had access to back on Earth, their society inevitably does a replay of the author's conception of Medieval European civilization or white settler culture on the American "frontier" (I'll save interrogating the mythos of the US frontier for another time), complete with lots of casual two-way violence between men and casual one-way violence of men against women and a set of laws and mores that force women into chattel (actually, women tend to be even more restricted in many of these fictional narratives than they were in those real life historical situations, but that is another post for another time). The settlers on Foxfield don't do that. Because they're Quakers.

4. The women are shown as being equal to the men both in theory and in practice. The only thing that's not great from a 21st century feminist perspective is that there is social pressure on women to bear multiple children because the human population is so small. But there's no attempt to force the issue if a woman really doesn't want to, and being a mother is not treated as incompatible with being an astronomer, a doctor, a community leader, or anything else. I think that's worthy of comment because lots of SF takes it as given that a low human population means fast reproduction is needed which means women must be forced into broodmare duty which means women must also be denied political rights and prevented from doing jobs that the author's RL culture considers unfeminine. Sadly, this assumption is very common even today. Even when it's not baldly stated (as it so often is in settling-a-new-planet SF), the SF and fantasy genres as a whole are really terrible about portraying mothers (again, that could be a whole post on its own). The genres and lots of fandom spaces can be rather hostile to the idea that a human can be both a person and a mother. In this context, it's significant that the main character in Still Forms on Foxfield is a woman who is an astronomer and also the mother of one child (and not looking to have another, which the community doctor, also a woman, mildly disapproves of because population growth and we lost people in last year's flood).

5. In other "lost colony" stories, one of the more popular alternatives to the "traditional patriarchal families" strategy of promoting population growth is enforced heterosexual promiscuity as a means of both getting a high rate of natural increase and maximizing genetic recombination within a limited population. Again, the Foxfield Friends don't go there. Because they're Quakers. They use artificial insemination to minimize genetic drift, which I wish more writers took seriously. Realistically, the technology needed to do artificial insemination is not very advanced. If your fictional society has lost the knowledge of how to do that, they must have lost a lot of other things that usually stick around in these stories. In the settlement on Foxfield, monogamy is the norm or at least the ideal. Heterosexual marriage is standard, and the community is in the process of reaching consensus about homosexual marriage (published in 1980, remember). If there's any adultery going on, it's not mentioned in the first half of the book. Presumably, either it's rare because everybody knows everybody else's business or it's irrelevant because the narrator has bigger fish to fry.

6. This really stands out to me: In the seventies and the eighties, it must have seemed plausible, even probable, that nuclear annihilation would become reality before same sex marriage became reality.

7. This is one of the few "old" SF works I've read that portrays technological changes in everyday life that stand up to today's reality. Besides space travel being trivial, the main technological development that makes life in the interstellar we're-not-an-empire-we-swear very different from the author's RL culture is communication equipment. Most other SF I've read from around the same time has people on other planets storing all their information on cassette tapes and calling each other on wall-mounted communication units. Slonczewski has people who accept the benefits (which are free until they aren't) of the System keeping in constant contact with each other (and the duly appointed/elected authorities, naturally) via wristbands that serve the functions of iphones, debit cards, medical monitors, and more. This is one old future that still seems actually futuristic.

8. That's not only because of the communication tech; it's also because Slonczewski put some work into making the System not look too much like the US or the USSR circa 1979. She envisioned greater changes in social values and daily life practices than many other SF writers of the same era.

9. Tying in with #8 and also with the earlier points about the status of women on Foxfield, she also avoided the popular trope of having a cataclysmic event on Earth (nuclear war, plague, environmental collapse, zombies, or whatever) turn the remnants of human civilization into an anti-feminist nightmare where the men are badass warriors and leaders and women (barring the occasional Special Girl) are limited to being broodmares, prostitutes, and/or rape victims (Gosh, I'm sensing a theme here). The System is full of women in government, in science, and in a host of middling-status jobs; women are both illustrious VIPs and ordinary citizens (so the appearance of a woman isn't a signal to Watch This Space in order to see either Sexiness or a Statement About Womankind). There's a casual mention that in the aftermath of the war which came close to destroying life on Earth, reproducing parthenogenetically was fashionable for a time because many of the survivors attributed the war to the inherent aggressiveness of male political leaders and decided that a female-skewed population had better chances of avoiding future wars. That passed, so men still exist . . . no big deal.

10. OMG THE ALIENS!!!! The native sapient lifeforms of Foxfield are EXCELLENTLY IMAGINED! They are loosely based on fungi. Their reproductive biology is like nothing animals do, physiologically or psychologically, so they don't have dimorphic sexes. The Foxfield Friends speak English, so they default to feminine pronouns for their fungi-like neighbors, whom they refer to collectively as the Commensals or 'mensals. The Commensals seem very alien, which I strongly approve of on general principle. It's fascinating how the Friends and the Commensals live side-by-side, learn from each other, and communicate with each other during the period in which the action takes place.

11. It's also important to note that their first contact would have gone extremely badly with any other group of human settlers I've ever read about. Neither group realized the other was sapient at first, some of the native Foxfielders killed some of the human newcomers and then realized their mistake and tried to communicate with the still-living humans. And this set of humans, alone of all the space settlers I've ever encountered in my life of reading science fiction, responded by trying to communicate back instead of trying to wipe them out. Because they're Quakers.
gryphonsegg: (6)
I'm so excited I could scream! I wrote a proposal in April, and I just got the news this morning that I'm getting 75% of the funding I requested. It's not a huge amount, but this is the first time I've written a proposal for a specific project all by myself and succeeded in getting it funded. I feel like a little kid who won a prize. XD
gryphonsegg: fox-faced girl from THG (Foxface)
Having just put down yet another urban fantasy in which the main character hates every other woman in the universe, but that's okay because they all turn out to be meeeeeean to her eventually, I think I've finally figured out a decent in-universe explanation for why Sso many UF heroines meet with so much hostility from the rest of the female cast. In UF worlds, most of the women are psychic! Sure, few to none of them have powers that can match those of the super-special awesome blossom heroine who is simultaneously One Of The Guys and the Sexiest Woman In The World (in each world, there can be only one!), but most of them are psychic enough to sense that she hates them just for not being dudes. Rude secretaries in these books aren't rude in general; they're just rude to Bonnie Torres because they know that she'll use her powers to ruin another woman's very expensive phone because it amuses her to make life difficult for any woman who dares to give the impression that she has important things to do despite not being a 22-year-old pseudo-goth named Bonnie. Every woman who's dating a guy with preternatural powers knows that Anita Blake really is out to steal her man. That "bitch" math professor with the "nasally voice" and the short-skirt-wearing blonde who is allegedly just pursuing her Mrs. degree know how the male students in the story talk about them behind their backs, and they also know that what's-her-name mocks them for the amusement of the dudes even though she doesn't even take the class and barely knows them. They're all psychic, and they all know they have perfectly valid reasons to resent (and in some cases fear) Ms. Snowflake.
gryphonsegg: (together)
There's meme/challenge/whatever for writing a short description of your OTP that makes it sound as bad as possible. Now that I've started, I can't stop.

Alcoholic jerk stalks insurrectionist.

Different alcoholic jerk finds peace with someone way too good for him.

White girl with dysphoria checks her privilege to win over brown girl with robot fixation.

AU Ryan Lochte loves budding ornithologist.

Super awkward coalminer’s son is gay for a boy named after a crayon.

Scarred pyromaniac who hallucinates rainbows and one-handed redneck who talks to machines dream of raising an alien child together.

Giant gun nut loves disgraced physician.

Spree killer bros realize that if they had souls, they’d be soulmates.

Clumsy boy falls for girl with dorky earrings.

Girl pulls boy out of ocean, boy tells girl that kissing her wouldn’t be as bad as being trapped in a dark cave forever.

Two minor characters are shown near each other; I ship it like FedEx.

Patient warrior tries to talk partner out of getting herself killed unnecessarily and/or saying horrible things to allies.

Calculatedly obnoxious conman can no longer repress attraction to man who talks to rats.

Ecoterrorist changes stereotypical American dude’s life.

Mechanic with father figure issues picks up nerd with anxiety disorder, drives like a bat out of hell despite screaming from passenger seat.

Old guys who broke up for the first time before I was born are on again until the next plot twist.

Samurai has angst over manic pixie dream boy.

Woman with terrible relationship history convinces blind woman and adopted daughter to join terrorist organization with her.
gryphonsegg: fox-faced girl from THG (Foxface)
I'm at a really weird place in my life right now. My career is moving forward, and I feel more mentally healthy and stable than ever before, but I'm not making friends in my new town (is it still new by the end of my second semester?) as easily as I did last time around. So I could really go for some nerd bonding, even if it's only online, just get some genuine, unforced social contact. At the same time, I'm gearing up for a period of high activity/stress related to SCIENCE!, and I really miss having fandom nonsense to dive into between bouts of Serious Business to keep different parts of my mind active. But the fandom landscape has changed, and nearly everything I'm interesting in fangirling over falls into one of more of the following categories: obscure, dead, popular with people who are so much younger than me that I feel acutely uncomfortable about the existence of anything that's not totally G-rated, or awash in tropes I absolutely cannot stand for one more bloody prompt, including AUs based on Supernatural and crossovers with Supernatural and (ugh!) the increasingly ubiquitous "omegaverse" or "A/B/O dynamics" AUs. Yes, I'm kink-shaming. Hard.

I really, really miss being in an active fandom that based on a source text I like. Yeah, part of my problem is that I'm just getting older and naturally moving from "lol, fifteen-year-olds writing bad smut, I'm so glad that I was soooooo much more mature when I was their age and didn't have internet access!" to "Fifteen-year-olds reading smut? But they'll internalize damaging messages! They're too young for their imaginary boyfriends! Think of the children! And eat your vegetables or you'll get scurvy!" Meanwhile, older fans have moved on from where we were back then, but I seem to have moved in very different directions than most older fans. I've become increasingly sensitive about misogynistic portrayals of female characters and sexual abuse and over-the-top gross-out violence and the glamorization of allegedly sociopathic characters and the the glorification of arrogant, snarky dudes who deserve to get away murder because they're sooooo much smarter than everyone else. But when I look at what's popular on the internet now, I get a sense that online fandom as a whole has either stayed the same or gotten more desensitized to those things. So I'm the weird dumpy grown woman wandering around the YA section in search of something "safe" to read while most of the grown-ups are watching Game of Thrones and Hannibal.

Profile

gryphonsegg: (Default)
gryphonsegg

June 2014

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011 121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags