...uh.

[jmtorres]

Am I the only person who finds this vid show concept a little, uh, reactionary? I mean, it doesn't talk about the inspiration of the show at all but it sounds like it's an answer to a "Women Are Awesome!" concept. And the celebration of women, specifically, tends to get airplay because women are not automatically celebrated, whereas men are. So. Like I say. Reactionary. *twitch*

ETA: Unlocking entry for wider discussion.

Comments

[grey-bard.livejournal.com]

Lame. So very lame. I wouldn't go to that vid show if they paid me.

Newsflash: Men are awesome = primetime mainstream tv

[fox1013.livejournal.com]

Wow, that's offensive in more ways than I can count.

I think I need a Misogyny Abacus.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

I can see how the sheer dearth of male vids and male representation in fandom would cause this. Really.

Actually, it's making me uncomfortable in a weird way.

[jmtorres.livejournal.com]

Bingo card do ya?

[jmtorres.livejournal.com]

The male hero is strangely still more common than the female hero (compressed side argument about heroes vs heroines) or the anti-hero protagonist.

[jmtorres.livejournal.com]

Right, because female fans never make any vids about men. Gosh.

See, I'm thinking that perhaps the answer to this is to pitch vids that are all, uh, slightly ironic. Like sockkpuppett's 300 Vogue vid, with the reversal of the male gaze.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

*grins* That would be awesome.

[jmtorres.livejournal.com]

I feel like I should ask her first. And clearly we need to think of more.

[shrift.livejournal.com]

Uh, yeah. Reactionary would be a word. If you were being polite.

I'm just -- there are entire entertainment genres devote to this topic. It is not being underrepresented.

Now, if the topic was something like "Not Your Typical Action Hero" I would totally be there.

[jmtorres.livejournal.com]

Heh. I mean "reactionary" in the specific political sense of "opposing social change." It's a lot more precise than "ignorant asshattery" but I'm hardly being nice.

[lizbee.livejournal.com]

No, I had the same reaction. And I know she specifies "awesome" as opposed to "emo", but the whole thing looks like an exercise in gender normativity.

I would like to see someone make a vid response full of the Doctor being awesome -- by being clever and weird and thinking.

[jmtorres.livejournal.com]

I dunno, the Doctor might be too emo. New Doctor anyway, and who knows anyone else? *wry*

[daegaer.livejournal.com]

I can see how the sheer dearth of male vids and male representation in fandom would cause this. Really.

Yes. It's good to see someone is finally thinking about the poor menz . . .

When I got down to her final reason for awesomeness ("I am [Male character Name]") it made me throw up my hands. Being male = awesome? Right.

[jcalanthe]

I was just bemoaning how underrepresented white men are these days, so I'm thrilled to see someone addressing this grievous wrong.

I've not been to a vid show, but based on the vids I see floating around, isn't her idea the implicit subtitle most of the time?

Reactionary like Phyllis Schlafly.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

I don't even get what the hell she was thinking on that. My mind just stutters.

[mz-bstone.livejournal.com]

I took it as vids that appreciate a particular aspect of male characterization -- kick ass and take charge -- that some people respond to. Everyone's got their thing in fandom. They don't want angst or introspection, they just want: "Here I am, baby!"

I like those sorts of vids, too, btw, as well as the celebration of women ones, and the funny, poke-fun-at, and the darkly introspective ones.

IDIC.

B

[cimadness.livejournal.com]

Without having seen anything about the "Women Are Awesome" concept (perhaps because I'm not actually in fandom, as opposed to drifting through every now and then) but it certainly sounds like this is a reaction. However, it's not at all clear why that makes it reactionary in the sociopolitical sense. In fact, I'd call "celebrating men's awesomeness opposes women's progress" a strawfeminist position, albeit one that - like every other straw(wo)man ever - has some people who actually believe it.

To put it another way: How is this reactionary? If someone else is already making an effort to collect vids celebrating the awesomeness of various female characters, and these vidders wish to make an effort to collect vids celebrating the awesomeness of various male characters, what negative messages does that send?

[cimadness.livejournal.com]

Um . . . this seems to me to fill exactly none of those squares, unless you substitute "awesome" for "MEN" and "emo" for "pussies."

[cimadness.livejournal.com]

I'm just -- there are entire entertainment genres devote to this topic. It is not being underrepresented.
Does a concept have to be underrepresented for someone to enjoy it and wish to put together a show based around it? If so, why? If not, why is whether it's underrepresented relevant?

[jmtorres.livejournal.com]

Every show, unless otherwise specified, is a celebration of men. We make "Women are awesome" shows because if we don't, we rarely see vids about women. That's not privileging women, it's making a stab at equalization (and one that doesn't bring us very far: one show out of a weekend devoted to women, and the most primarily men, yeah, that's so equal). Making a show devoted to men is handing privilege back to men, reinstating the status quo. Reactionary.

[jmtorres.livejournal.com]

I found "but men are just more interesting" to be implicit.

I did consider linking to one of the non-fannish ones, but I didn't think I'd actually have it's your job to teach me about feminism showing up in my comments. Little did I know.

[jmtorres.livejournal.com]

It's relevant because "Women are Awesome" shows are specifically because women are underrepresented in vids and vid shows. And because every vid show is a vid show mostly about men unless it's specifically about women.

[cimadness.livejournal.com]

I found "but men are just more interesting" to be implicit.
I see "but men are just more interesting" as distinct from "but I'm just more interested in men." One is an offensive statement about objective reality, while the other is a valid personal preference. And I'm really only seeing the latter here.

I did consider linking to one of the non-fannish ones, but I didn't think I'd actually have it's your job to teach me about feminism showing up in my comments. Little did I know.
Assuming you're referring to me, I'm not asking anyone to teach me about feminism, I'm merely arguing that certain positions (such as that this show is offensive and/or reactionary) do not automatically follow from adopting of the basic feminist premise (i.e. that men and women have equal rights and should be treated equally) and observing the world, and asking those who disagree to justify the claim that they do.

[cimadness.livejournal.com]

That's not privileging women, it's making a stab at equalization
I'm not claiming that "women are awesome" shows privilege women, nor that they serve the same set of functions that a "men are awesome" show would. I'm merely arguing that, in light of the existence of the former, the existence of the latter is not necessarily problematic.

(and one that doesn't bring us very far: one show out of a weekend devoted to women, and the most primarily men, yeah, that's so equal)
I'm trying to work out some confused thoughts about this. Just a note that I'm not overlooking or ignoring this bit, but just trying to get the rest posted sooner.

Making a show devoted to men is handing privilege back to men, reinstating the status quo.
Does it have to be a zero-sum game? It seems to me that, relative to the previous status quo, the net effect of having both a "women are awesome" show and a "men are awesome" show is that fans of characters of both sexes get more of what they want. Or, to look at it another way: Why should it be about the proportion of representations devoted to women, rather than the absolute number, the latter of which this doesn't seem to harm.