![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
However - assuming you mean "meta" when you say "posts of this nature" - I do try my (very human) best to have open discussions, even if my personal opinion doesn't change. The point isn't, to put it crudely, a circle-jerk, but an exchange of ideas.
From:
no subject
My main issue with your post the other day, was as I was reading through the comments, it became clear that you were creating entire backstories for Terri ad Will centered around domestic abuse based on ONE small scene, one where Will finds out something incredibly hurtful and life-shattering to him. I kept seeing comments about how Terri must have been abused in the past, and how Will probably abused her, and I just have NO idea where you get that from. I can say that the scene in question was probably not executed in the best way, and I realize it upset you and others, but why I said that you were too close to the issue was because you seemed to be attributing all these motivations and circumstances that have really NO basis at all in the entire rest of the show. There's NO indication that Terri has been abused in the past, or that Will is abusive, but because it's a hot button for you, you were projecting what YOU felt about the issue onto these characters and essentially vilifying one of them for one burst of anger that I'd defy ANYONE not to have if they were put in the exact same situation. If you can give me one more solid example of why you're so convinced that Terri has been the victim of abuse, aside from that one isolated scene which was most likely exaggerated for the purpose of drama, then I will concede. But as it is, I see you seriously twisting things and making them out to be much worse than they were.
As for my comment you quoted, I was NOT saying you couldn't talk about it, merely that when people are close to an issue (for me it's gay rights or animal abuse), one tends to lose objectivity and not be able to see the other side of the coin. That's ALL I meant.
From:
no subject
I suggested that about Terri because she had an hysterical pregnancy at the beginning of the season - the issue that set off this entire mess. I had never heard of such a thing in my life, so I researched it and looked at studies. It happens more often with people with abuse in their past. It is also a psychological issue - one so intense that the person (because it also happens in men) is changing how their body functions in order to maintain the idea of pregnancy (and yes, there are hysterical labors as well). So when I say that she probably has abuse in her past and has psychological issues - I am basing that on the rudimentaries of hysterical pregnancy.
And I think that this incident is a single issue of domestic violence. I don't think that Will is regularly abusive to Terri or anything like that. I just see this as a textbook example of a single incidence of violence in the home (pinning her against the wall when she asked him to stop, demanding she remove her shirt - these are actions of violence; not repeated or habitual ones, but violence no less).
I understand that I'm not objective, but as I said to
From:
no subject