Meta: It's Not Quite Derailing

[chasingtides]

I tried to host a conversation about Glee here earlier this week that I believe was mostly successful. Around the same time, I tried to participate in conversations elsewhere about the show (note: I would count myself among the detractors of the show; see my previous entry).

I saw people saying something to me. I saw people saying it to other detractors of the show - and fans of the show who have issues with some parts. I also realised that I've seen this technique elsewhere. Sometimes, I saw it in Racefail, but I've seen it in feminist discussions of Supernatural. I've seen it in race discussions of Joss Whedon's work. I've actually seen it in a lot of places and this isn't the first time it's been pushed on me. And it's a great way to shut down a dissenting voice.

Even though I risk hurt feelings, I will quote from one of my discussions last week, when I mentioned that I was particularly bothered by a bit of violence in Glee because of my position as a survivor.

You're too black/disabled/female/have a history with this topic, so you can't objectively talk about this issue/understand this issue.

This seems like a common argument and, to me, a really bizarre one. You're too black to discuss racism. You're too disabled to discuss ablism. You're too female to discuss sexism. You're too queer to discuss homophobia. You're a soldier, so you can't discuss war. You're a survivor of violence, so you can't discuss it. Ever.

It boils down to - essentially - only the privileged can discuss the problems of the world. If you've experienced the Bad Stuff in the world, then you're not allowed to discuss how that Bad Stuff is thrown back at you in the media of the world and how that hurts.

I can think up two reasons people use this argument. I prefer the first.

The Person loves Writer McWordsmith and all of McWordsmith's work. Person has been writing fanfic and meta and sharing the works of McWordsmith with everyone they love. Being told that there are Problems with McWordsmith's work feels like we're taking away their teddy bear. Maybe it feels like we're saying they are racist/ablist/sexist/transphobic because they like the works of McWordsmith.

It's easier to tell us that we're wrong and blind to the wonders of McWordsmith than to understand that, yeah, we'd love to love the works of McWordsmith. We want to love them too! But it hurts us - it's stealing our teddy bear away - when McWordsmith throws the same old oppression back in our faces.

On the other hand, they could actually believe that we should never, ever suggest that media in any way reflects the oppression of the world and that that could ever possibly be a problem for groups who want to enjoy said media. These people could honestly think that disabled bloggers should never, ever say that it's wrong to suggest that schoolchildren should pay for their own ramps, that bloggers of color should never want awesome stories with heroes of color, that feminist bloggers should never talk about wanting feminist storylines in public.

If the last part is true, I would probably cry into my Cheerios. And then, I could make some angry posts about how I'm not going to shut up and I will do my best to ask for and produce positive media. Because I patently do not believe that only the privileged have the right to discuss media or pop culture.

Comments

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

I may be overreacting to that particular statement, but I realised I couldn't quote the one that I originally intended to in this post. It was in a locked entry on another journal. I do my best to respect people's privacy - that statement was made in a locked entry and I will not air it in a public one. It did make it a bit awkward to work around and this example is quite far from perfect.

As for the person I was originally going to use, it was written before I saw Mattress, so there were no triggers, just me being upset about the ablism in wheels. I mentioned that I use a cane and sometimes a wheelchair and I know what it's like to be treated differently because of that.

The person responded that I shouldn't push my experiences onto Artie and obviously everyone's doing their best but they're trying to represent the real world. If I want to watch fantasy, I should shut up and watch Merlin.

My reaction, predictably, was close to, "Bzuh? It's not just my experience. It's the reason we have stuff like the ADA - which is totally violated in the show when they suggest Artie pay for his ramps."

I was once again told that I don't know what I'm talking about and I should sit down and be quiet and watch fantasy shows where no one is disabled (because that solves the problem).

*

Perhaps I will edit to put that in. I merely felt that a quote would be better suited.

I chose this quote, in the end, because it fits the greater pattern. (For example, if I'm in a wheelchair at a coffeeshop and the barista ignores me, I admit, I will probably assume that it is because they're waiting for my "carer" to show up - because it has happened so many times before - rather than that they haven't noticed me - because that happens much more rarely, given how noisy and boisterous I can be.)

The greater pattern is "You aren't objective, therefore you don't have a good point." Maybe "You can't talk about," is the wrong term - but "You don't have a real point or a point of any merit because x."

[moonvoice.livejournal.com]

The greater pattern is "You aren't objective, therefore you don't have a good point." Maybe "You can't talk about," is the wrong term - but "You don't have a real point or a point of any merit because x."

*nods* I've encountered this; especially in relation to talking about abuse as an abuse survivor, and definitely as a bisexual woman talking about queerness (since I'm a fake queer, or just a slut, obviously, and have no idea what it's like for the REAL queers out there - which is something I've gotten a lot).

It's awful, and it's wrong, and my answer to that is to basically talk about it anyway. Subjectivity isn't bad, and objectivity isn't always good.

Sometimes you need the voices of those who are passionate and can't always see straight on an issue to *see* the damage done via bigotry (i.e. to see the genuine hurt, rage, outrage and indignation it causes). And sometimes you need the voiceless to do a big meta 'fuck you' and talk about this stuff anyway.

I might not agree with all your points regarding Glee, but I certainly respect and like your ability to talk about it and state your own opinions. :)

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

My opinions are exactly that - opinions. And I claim no objectivity. Most matters in the world, but especially those of human interaction, are incredibly subjective ones. (And I've yet to ever come across an objective discussion of abuse. Or racism. Or ablism. Or anything mentioned here.)

I supposed here, I'm extrapolating "You don't have a point of merit" to mean, "You shouldn't talk about it." On the other hand, if there's a conversation worth listening to, it has merit. If something is without point, merit, or decency and only exists for unhappiness, then you probably shouldn't be saying it.

However, I might have just written myself into a hole.

Glee's a thing for me. Joss Whedon is a thing for me.

It's odd, I think, that I'll watch Supernatural and Dexter and, really, read and watch horror as my favorite genre and then go on to have serious problems with Glee and Dollhouse and Dr Horrible.

[lotus-bright.livejournal.com]

Totally off topic and not my business, but if you feel like discussing it, what were your issues with Dr. Horrible?

(I'm sure they exist, but it's been a long time since I saw it outside of listening to the Finale Song a lot when getting ready to go to work at a job I loathed with every fiber of my being.)

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

I only watched it once, while it was legal and free, so if I miss any details... well, that's why.

It's one of the same issues I always have with Joss - he loves his female leads to be "broken" and without a say in their lives. She was beautiful (and eventually dead) and quite literally just a prize.

She wasn't really a person. She had qualities that made her more desirable to the menfolk who wanted to possess her, but she was an object. They could fight with each other, argue with each other. Dr Horrible and Captain Hammer used Penny as a tug-of-war toy, not as a person. And then she died.

Wow. Really positive lead up to Dollhouse there, Mr Whedon.

[lotus-bright.livejournal.com]

Admittedly, I'm not a huge fan of Whedon - most of his stuff just doesn't draw me in, for whatever reason - but from what I have seen and heard, I don't think he's quite the feminist he wants to think he is.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

Not to mention the whole FIrefly universe is supposed to be this big melding of China and the US - but there isn't a single Asian person in sight. (I was super excited about this idea of a future with space cowboys and an equal blending of the Chinese culture and Western culture and how would the Chinese influence the Western/cowboy thing... And no. It was a Western where they swore in Mandarin. Which is just plain odd.)

[moonvoice.livejournal.com]

I don't know if that's odd really. The problem with shows like Glee is that you're not actually being overtly drawn into questioning things about abuse or racism - and so the abuse and racism happens subtly. I honestly didn't think of the scene between Will and Terri as domestic abuse (despite having lived through it for most of my life) until you said so, and then I was like 'oh my god, she's RIGHT.'

Shows like Dexter don't pretend. If there's abuse - it's abuse. If there's a serial killer doing someone in, that's what's happening. Dollhouse is so overt it hurts my brain.

But Glee? No. Glee sneaks in under the radar with all its fun songs and brilliant one-liners, and that might be why you notice it all. Because it's sneakier. Probably not deliberately. But you might be more finely tuned to that kind of stuff. *shrugs* That just might be something you get faster than other people (like myself) do.

[chasingtides.livejournal.com]

When it's in-my-face and clearly supposed to be bad, I'm okay. (I was one of the only female-bodied people in my class who sat through the original Last House on the Left. It was upsetting, but clearly designed to horrify you. I was in sync with the purpose of the film - much as I was fine reading American Psycho because I wasn't in any way supposed to say that what was happening is okay.)

It's when I'm told that this bad shit is okay that I get upset. And honestly, Wheels bothers me more, now that I have distance, than Mattress does. Because what the hell was going on there?

[eternalpegasus.livejournal.com]

"When it's in-my-face and clearly supposed to be bad, I'm okay."

That's a good way of putting it. I guess I had previously viewed Glee as fitting in this category, and that's why I was ok with it. The discrimination seemed very in-my-face to me, and I assumed that it was supposed to be viewed as clearly bad. (that's I was trying to say in my last entry in my journal)

After reading the discussions here and in my own journal, I've started to reassess whether in fact the show was in fact condoning and not condemning the bad shit that was happening, and if so then it is perhaps just as bad as you've been saying all along.