I don't understand! What happened? Did I miss something?
(being the screaming sound of a Messerschmidt)
--That was an unfair attack, because it was based on assumptions, not knowledge.
When she said you were a "stereotype," she made it clear that that's who she was attacking: not you, but the stereotype she had made you out to be.
Your pal and admirer, Jackie
I guess I don't like to be stereotyed. I have worked hard all my life to avoid easy categorization.
2004-11-24 02:16 pm (UTC)
I guessed which post had garnered the attack, but had to scroll back to get the details, since when I read it yesterday morning there were no comments on it.
Some people get all worked up over the wrong things. Her accusations and insults were totally uncalled for. Even if she was right (which I don't think she was) she could have made her case in a civil fashion, or asked some tough but polite questions about your attitudes.
I was impressed by the way you maintained the high ground and controlled your temper.
It's the name calling that gets under my skin. I'm prepared to debate anything (I think) and concede that I'm wrong if out-argued.
Actually, in this instance I didn't even want to argue. I befriended my "attacker" in the first place because I found her stance interesting and stimulating.
I actually found what they were saying interesting - I'm a major fan of Buffy and Kill Bill, and a guy, and I have similar qualms.
It's a pity it was an attack and not a discussion.
Yeah, it's interesting. I dunno if you got as far as the interview with Christine Delphy, but the argument there is stimulating. Delphy says that the division between men and women is a matter of class and that if women were given equal pay for their work (including domestic work) the problems of sex/gender would all disappear.
As for Buffy and co- I've been wondering whether there's an equivalent high-profile kick-ass heroine created by a woman- and I can't think that there is.
Except that the character of the Bride is credited on screen as the creation of Q & U (I'm a credits reading nerd) so maybe Uma Thurman had a 50% input. It would be nice to think so.
whoa... quite a lot happens in a day's absence from livejournal.
i think that:
-she does make an interesting point about buffy, etc being male constructs. because that calls into question the motives behind strong female characters-- if they're created by men, are they created out of respect for female strength, or out of a sort domination fantasy? what are the intentions? (on the other hand, women could just as easily create strong female characters for the same reasons)
-but all the same, it's unfair of her to say that you shouldn't approve of them for that reason. and also, it's not your fault or (i assuming) your wish that women are marginalized as creative forces in the entertainment industry.
lastly, and most importantly, isn't it ironic that you get attacked for sticking your neck out and exploring these sort of issues? the stereotyped "male" she seems to want to hate would never even think about these things.
Yeah, there's an interesting debate to be had about Buffy and co. Would a female superhero created by a woman be noticeably different?
And I think it sucks that women are so marginalized in the entertainment industry. I am sick of being fed boys-own fantasy. I don't want Bruce Willis in a vest or Stallone in a vest or Brad Pitt in a vest. I want stories in which the women are more than the vest-wearing hero's fashion accessories. Tarantino may be doing it for all the wrong reasons- who knows?- but he has now made three films in a row with a woman doing the heroics. At the very least, it's refreshing.
And it would be even more refreshing if there were female writers and directors making comparable films.
Whatever her criticism of your work, she should be reminded of two important things:
(1) It is your work. Inherently, it explores the issues you desire to explore, in the way you wish to explore them, and to the ends you wish to achieve. Your work has no obligation to serve any revolution or movement, much less to serve it in whatever way a self-appointed gatekeeper of ideology deems. To make arbitrary criticism based on one's own experiences and preferences, especially without having read the work in question, is to engage in prejudice and bigotry, to further place that critique in a pejorative context is far beyond inappropriate. Which is not a bad segue to:
(2) If the person is going to pretend to the title of literary critic, especially if harsh ideological dialectics are to be applied, it behooves the would-be critic to take on the character of academic discourse as opposed to the coarser, less productive methods of Internet newsgroups. The procedures of argument in academe have been carefully constructed to make express, productive argumentation possible and to avoid the pitfalls of human tendencies to insult, belittle, and slander their opponents. It is worthwhile for the critic to remember that both the writer and the critic are engaged in furthering art and ideas generally and that critique ought always serve this purpose. Herding people into a party line has no place in legitimate discussion. That said, ad hominem attacks and condescension have less place than that and bring down the character and integrity of discourse.
Better to write something worthy of criticism (or even diatribes) than to write something everyone reads and then immediately forgets. :)
Well yes. The conversation that has been kicked off by this is really interesting.
Wow, I just read the comments that I think are the ones in question. I do "sort of" see what she means, but she doesn't know you at all, and frankly, while I don't really know you either, I think that there are plenty of guys on LJ who better deserve such attacks. I don't know you in person, obviously, but from reading your entries and comments, you seem to me to be anything but a chauvinist or a man who wants women to feel inferior. Even though I admit that many men scare me, I hate these so-called feminists who attack men for simply being men. Like that equates them with misogynist pigs. I also commend you for seeing it as interesting and lively. I'd probably be annoyed if I saw something like that left in my journal :)
Yeah, well no-one likes being shouted at, but I've gotten over that bit now- and the conversation that has developed since has been fascinating.
I see what she's getting at too. It's just that she's so bloody angry.
I have posted my sentiments on the topic of this altercation, but I will do it again. You have nothing to apologize about. You were accosted in the very haven of your thoughts by a belligerent with little consideration for you as an individual.
It's intrusive and unfortunate, but I am glad that you are not locking your journal over it. I was fortunate enough to be able to find you because it was open and because your thoughts, your wonderful thoughts, drew me in. I would hate to think that this would be refused to others due to this incident.
You are a great man! You really are! We love you madly and dearly and this Thanksgiving, I toast to knowing you and having found you in this corner of LiveJournal! Here is to a year of less drama from pugnacious soapboxers in our comments section--we have communities for that.
PS: it should be heartening to remember that the Messerschmitts, regardless of their popularity in WWII's first round, fell in the shadow of Allied aircraft at the closing stages of the war. [Wink]
No there's no way I'd lock the journal.
The unpleasantness of being attacked is more than outweighed by the pleasure of meeting such fascinating people as yourself.