![[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
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.
I don't believe you were told (from this sentence) that you can't discuss anything. It was only said that your objectivity was in question.
I think that's a realistic response to someone discussing a topic they've admitted they're triggered by. Not to mention that that anyone who is really close to a topic tends to leave some of their objectivity behind anyway.
But no where did that statement then become 'because I think you lack objectivity due to your closeness to the topic, you need to stop talking about it, and you're NOT allowed to talk about it. You should be voiceless on this issue.'
I don't know if you've addressed what was actually said in this sentence, so much as what you think was said.
To take a statement that is not absolutist in nature (and is actually quite direct), and turn it into an absolutist interpretation that in theory bars you from talking about what you want to talk about; is probably not what the person intended.
What you say it boils down to, is possibly not what it boils down to in this instance. I don't doubt that someone has made you feel voiceless before. But I'm not sure if this specific sentence is making you voiceless now, I'm not sure if what it boils down to is the concept of voicelessness over important issues.
It is an opinion, it is a logical one going from the way many people reacted in that topic (i.e. I don't think anyone was completely objective, including myself), and it clearly didn't stop anyone from talking or voicing their opinions.
I could be wrong, but were someone to say the above sentence to me, I wouldn't assume that they were immediately trying to stop me from talking. Only that perhaps they would - understandably - take my subjectivity into account, and are pointing out that they're aware of that subjectivity.
Maybe I'm naive, but I've discovered that looking for hidden meanings in the things that people say is a habit I've learned from abusers, and not one that leads to accurate communication with others (especially others who are not abusive, or others who just aren't self-aware enough to know about subtext). So when someone says what they said above, I take it to mean what they said above, rather than boiling it down to something that could be many lateral steps away from what was actually meant. If I'm confused, I ask them if they think I'm not allowed to talk about the issue. This works for me.
Feeling voiceless is not okay. But I'm not sure if pointing out a lack of objectivity = you must be voiceless on this issue instead.
From:
no subject
I like a lot about the show, but I hate a lot about the show at the same time, so it can be very difficult to critique effectively.
I totally tried to explain to people yesterday that while parts of Glee are awesome, other parts make we wince and cringe and feel really, really bad. I mean, parts are great. Other parts, not so much.
People were less than receptive, and even dismissive of the problems that I raised. So there might be a third category, the 'it's so awesome we just put up with the rest of it' excuse.
From:
no subject
I put up with it because I've seen what they're capable of when the writers are on, and I'm hoping the hiatus will give them the time and opportunity to correct the issues (although I'm thinking some of them will have to be worked out as the series progresses). If not, I will probably end up abandoning the show. (Which, you know, will just absolutely devastate them.)
From:
no subject
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."
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
have try to silence those who don't have.
I like the Twilight movies and only tolerate the books b/c of the fic I'm working on. In no way do I put the author on a pedastal b/c of who she is. In fact I acknowldge the shit she's pulled and take what I want from the fandom.
From:
no subject
Additionally, I'm not just writing about, "This one incident on Tuesday, when McFluffyface was rude to me at the store...." It's about seeing a pattern - mostly aimed at people more vocal than myself - that tries to shut people down.
From:
no subject
*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. :)
From:
no subject
However, I like to try to check my privilege when talking to people about Issues (so part of this is to remind myself that Objectivity is not the Holy Grail of discussions) and, well, I greatly dislike it when I think someone's trying to shut down a discussion with a bad argument because the discussion makes them squirm a bit in their privilege.
(I mean, I love Supernatural. But does that show have issues. Of course, dissecting them is part of why I watch it.)
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
(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.)
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
But I do have a list of things that need to happen for me to keep liking the show:
1. Matt and Mike get lines. Or, you know, personalities beyond 'dancer 1' and 'dancer 2'.
.
2. Less focus on the gross romantic entanglements of the adults. All my least favorite stuff was the adult storylines and characters - lets give some of those minority kids a backstory or, you know, parents.
3. Terri gets to have some sympathy and not be portrayed as either a shrewish harpy or a crazy mess.
4. Writers learn how to effectively satirize. The more I watch this show, the more I wish that the Arrested Development writers had been able to work on it. Because Arrested Development was a top-notch satire, making fun of the rich, money-driven, consumer lifestyle of many Americans. And while some characters were more sympathetic then others, no one was immune and everyone was flawed.
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
I've mentioned this many, many times, but I'd also like to see them pick a direction for each character and more or less stick with it. Some variation is to be expected, particularly for that age group, but a few of the characters (and here I am thinking of Rachel and Schu in particular) are all over the place and it really takes away from the show. (Not to mention, it'd be nice if they'd drop having every character reinforce how annoying and horrible and terribly-dressed Rachel is - she's certainly obnoxious from time to time, but no more so than most of the rest of the characters, and I'd argue that Kurt's outfits are often worse.)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
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?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
If you feel that you weren't acting in this pattern, I'd love to discuss it (as I said to
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
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
And that's my repetitive two cents.
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
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.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
What I CAN comment on though is how much I agree with the whole objective/subjective thing. An opinion is an opinion and it is going to be subjective, we do base things on our own experiences and how strongly we feel on a particular subject. For someone to derail your argument on the whole "You cannot be objective....blah" is a dishonest attack. After all, it is always good to open yourself up to different opinions and to still be respectful of those opinions.