I wanted to link Fiore Della Valle's (Jadzibelle's) mini-essay on Nathan Wuornos somewhere I can find it again rather than just reblogging and linking it on Tumblr (which given the nature of Tumblr is essentially useless for ever saving anything for posterity):

http://fiore-della-valle.tumblr.com/post/129767470100/favorite-characters-nathan-wuornos-2-of-3-as-i
I keep increasingly seeing snippets of a "nice guy/geek guy characters are bad" u-turn in fandom which to be honest, what? Because stupid me, I'm still wed to the notion that when I say a character is a nice guy that's a good thing, and I have no idea where the original meta is that this stems from or when but--

Yeah. So. Jake Foley. Chuck. Keiichi Morisato. Sam Oliver from Reaper, maybe, because I need to rewatch that show and I can't remember if he has a girlfriend at the start. But any number of other characters that we loved 5-10 years ago, are we not supposed to like anymore because they're presented as nice/geek guys who can't get girlfriends? When a decade ago we had icons that said "geek guys get all the girls" and geek positive was great? (though I think my response at the time was "can geek girls have some too?")

Shouldn't fandom send memos when the meaning of something entirely flips from positive to negative? Or at least shouldn't people have some kind of grasp that maybe a lot of fans, either new ones incoming or ones that didn't get the memo yet, are going to assume words mean what they mean? The person who expected me to psychically intuit all of this in a conversation last year obviously didn't, they were still telling me I was an emotionally vacant aspergers bitch (while not a direct quote, pretty much in a nutshell) in email a month back for not knowing it.

I get that somewhere at the core of this u-turn is a thing about how some people built up fantasies about this type of guy and got let down or taken advantage of, so it's probably whiplash from that whole thing 5-10 years ago? But it seems couterproductive to hype up and condemn one character type for doing shit that men do or as if non-geek types never do that. I also get that there's a shift in the status of the geek in the real world now we're all much more technology-hooked so there's a time-sensitive factor. But I always read this as predominently a male comedy trope anyway, which I liked because it actually tended to give me characters that I could relate to a bit more than the other standard fare. And gee, at heart the message that someone might be socially and romantically inept and yet in the course of the story have their inner value affirmed and brought out... Of course that's not going to have meant anything to people who watched and rooted for those characters.

There was a fabulous Tumblr post I saw a few weeks back about "your fave is problematic" which dug into this whole issue of fandom suddenly declaring things "problematic" in dismissal of all the people to whom that thing had been important and helped them out by giving them a reflection when they felt shitty in the past. I'll have to see if I can find that again.

Regards the fact it might be feeding a bit into the Nathan-hate thing in some quarters where I've encountered hints of this, frankly I'd say he's a more developed character and actually presented as far too morally muddied to fit this trope anyway. And when can't get a girlfriend is re-visioned through/tied to a physical disability (albeit of supernatural origins) and anxiety about not being able to sustain relationships because of not being able to touch|feel people, I would say that is a fucking different thing. (And also a damn good reason -- among others -- why this particular character might come attached to a great deal of other importance for people who are this. [In non-supernatural-troubled variants, obviously.])

In terms of the direct geek thing it's probably an... older trope anyway? It's certainly going out of fashion, because computers and genre tv is more mainstream than it used to be.

But meta-ish thoughts aside, mainly I am just, fuck you fandom, on this point. Because it changes the rules on you and doesn't tell you and then calls you names for not knowing. And seriously, where did these conversations happen? Because I didn't see them. All I've seen is the odd mention that over time added up to the conclusion that this is now a Thing.

I'm sorry if anyone is offended by this post. I am definitely working in the dark without a map, here, and have had to piece together what understanding of the issue I could.

[ETA. Someone brought up the idea that this might come from a thing in the feminist rather than fandom sphere, of a Nice Guy Syndome, so it seems possible to me that this is filtering through in a slightly confused sort of sense, and there might be a couple of different things going on rather than one clear strand.]

[ETA 2] There are comments if you follow the livejournal link, which may explain the issue more fully.
Tags:
I posted that cartoon yesterday, and then today at work we were talking about the inequality of nudity on TV, and I got to thinking that actually, this is important. Haven does pretty good on equal nudity stakes -- without showing the details in its case -- because Eric Balfour will get his kit off at the drop of a hat and even Lucas Bryant has been naked more times than Emily Rose has, but a few women at work have stopped watching Game of Thrones because they're sick and tired of all the gratuitous naked women with no naked men to balance things out.

I think it's pretty obvious that I think nudity taboos are crappy and annoying anyway. *cough* and don't really waste an opportunity to let everyone get naked in my fic. The art's a bit different because I don't really know how to post it on Tumblr, which is the main platform that gets any kind of response on the art, and when I was reading the regulations it seemed to read like I'd be in danger of getting slapped with an adult rating for the whole blog if I tagged even one post NSFW, which I don't want, and since I don't really understand the rules I've been cautious. Hence Nathan had a shirt in his hands in yesterday's pic and I've avoided showing female nipples or both genitals. I do wonder if yesterday's pic, and the other two that have had complete nudity in them, were too much in a lot of peoples' minds, though. But I refuse to mark for caution alone's sake a picture in which no intimate body parts are on display and the people depicted are not doing anything sexual.

There aren't words for how much I think that I shouldn't have to worry. Art! Art gets away with allll the nudity. Female bodies everywhere! Total male nude sculpture. Why ok for artistic nudity but not real nudity? But a lot of fandom takes its cues from the TV on its forums, on where it draws the line of "mature content", and I've been chewed out before for posting a doujinshi cover without a cut tag that had top-half female nudity drawn in the most simple of line styles. Basically it was a curved line with a pink dot on it. And yet, no! No breasts! No nipples! Far too indecent for public view!

Anyway, back to TV and it's inequality in presenting nude men and women -- which I think, by and large, is problematic mostly in the "mature" bracket (and honestly I seriously question female breasts being in that bracket. BREAST-FEEDING, f'r crying out loud) -- the only mainstream (ie. non-actual-porn) program, on mainstream tv, that I remember showing a proper full grown real live penis properly on it was a documentary several years back about the human body, which had one bouncing happily in the beginning introduction voice-over. Even the movies that are supposed to be really racy only give a fleeting glimpse.

And it seems to be that the problem is having the idea out in the open that women might want to see full-frontal, might want to see whole male bodies on screen... well that is considered in itself almost an indecent and taboo thought. It's okay to have all the female flesh on view for the male audience, but not allowed to acknowledge that women might want vice-versa. There's something of a perception out there that women don't want to see male genitalia anyway, which kind of... I wonder how much that's social programming? I know there's an *ew, shudder* reaction out there. I don't want to dismiss it for the women that think that. I just wonder how it comes about. Why there's a need to think and state that part of the male body is ugly/repellent/not interesting even to women attracted to men?

So it's this sort of thing that starts me thinking that the world will never be equal until the balance is evened out in the mass media in how we perceive and are allowed to display the bodies of both sexes. Which makes this issue -- which is probably easily dismissed or trivialised or even rationalised next to more harmful inequalities -- pretty important and real. Because it's one of those that has the potential to stick around "for decency's sake" long after other problem things are attempting to be dealt with and sorted.

Anyway, this isn't my field, I just think it's really interesting/slightly scary when dug into and I have strong opinions on the nudity subject.
Tags:
.

Profile

roseveare: (Default)
roseveare

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags