unpopular fannish opinion: i feel bad about mocking the snapewives

Re-reading SnapeWive wank, for the actualfax first time I felt really uncomfortable with the entire subject matter. Not because it wasn't batshit, but after reading for years in the snark communities--and also existing on this plane of existence--batshit is the rule. I know no non-batshit people. Frankly, the non-batshit seem untrustworthy and smell weird, like eggs. I'm just saying. Granted, this is a level that most of us cannot--no pun intended--dream of ascending to, but still.



It's like the formula for funny now is batshit (higher level) + bad behavior for me to like, enjoy it in a group-like setting or batshit (higher level) + destructive behavior (in private, I enjoy many kinds of batshit. I feel that is okay). Which in a weird and uncomfortable way comes back to irony; if you aren't being ironic, you're doing it wrong, and Snapewiving was just not ironic, ick. Or honestly, a lot of it was the mention of OH NOES SHE HAS KIDS, which, okay, let me say this honestly, most if not all parents have batshit hobbies. I know we privilege birdhouse building over Snapefenning, but I'm going to be honest, I'm not seeing a huge gulf of societal value here. I say this as a crocheter who has done nothing but use up a perfectly good ball of yarn making random and hilarious shapes for the self-amusement value--at least the Snapewives are amusing each other. They are adding fun to the universe that was not there before, where I am only at replacement-level fun and wasting yarn shaped like misshapen penises and once, a cat suffering from radiation poisoning and possibly missing a body. It might have started as a hat? But I'm going with cat.

[Of course, I come from the school of thought that 'serious' does not equal 'not fun'; fun is serious fucking business. We are not immortal and I have like, what, only sixty years left before mortal funtimes are over; that's not all that much time.]

So possibly I'm still smarting from eww fanfic last week being trotted out by actualfax fanfic writers. It's just--it's not even irritating so much as boggling. Anonymeme mockery of too much squee or investment doesn't matter; one of the various uses of anonymous include being a dick, so if that is your fun, go forth and eventually the fun distribution will even out. On the other hand, someone said, straight faced, that all those people (girls) obsessed with TV shows, stars etc are all terrifying!!!! while I thought about it and sure, percentagewise in the general population a few actual crazy-crazy people will take it to the horrifying level, but in general, that's still safer than hanging out with the equivalent fan of sports.

I mean, I don't want to say football, American and not; it's not like that's a mystery. Because in general, media fen don't usually riot through a city--could happen, but you try rioting with a laptop, your internet connection is so unstable, please--or settle a UT versus Oklahoma state with manual testicle removal, which--yeah, I got nothing. But the guy who paints himself blue and white who streaks the field is like, some more meaningful layer of crazy than the chick who married Scott Summers on the astral plane? Cause I didn't see anyone say maybe they need to take away his kids.

If I were speaking in stereotypes, then women totes overinvest in romance and it's unrealistic and dangerous and they could like, mistake it for RL and fuck up their kids if that shit isn't watched and kept goddamn ironic. If I were speaking in stereotypes, then men totes overinvest in romance and it's unrealistic and dangerous and they shoot their love interests to death IRL. I'm not sure, since it doesn't seem to come up a lot, but I'm pretty sure that fucks up the kids more. And also, the woman is dead, but whatever, we're talking about a man and his kids. In most murder cases, I rarely if ever see someone state that someone shouldnt' have access to their kids when they kill their partner; in Snapewives, I saw people worriedly recommend a visit from CPS more than I was comfortable with.

This came up in MsScribe too, actually; the weird thing was, there was a lot of OMG NO SHUT UP at the idea of calling CPS because she was using multiple sockpuppets to play a really fun game of munchausen by internet proxy, but I think the dealbreaker was she was ironic enough about it. It's not even that I think there's a double standard here; I think it's a very consistent standard. MsScribe's actions, though destructive, sometimes personally, were in retrospect clever; she was manipulative and played on stereotyping, and it wasn't like she believed her own sockpuppets were real or something. They were tools for a goal.

Snapewives just think they're married to Snape; that's not clever at all.



I feel like I'm going through some kind of phase of overly critical thought. I really need to work on my irony, y/y?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

They're much bigger than zero. Please do not minimize this. Society likes to ignore women-on-X violence, because it "just doesn't happen". This is a cultural meme that has its roots in putting women on pedestals, and it is a VERY harmful one at that.

It does happen. We had a case where a woman killed her husband (who was not living with her anymore), her child, and then several people in a hospital two months ago. And guess what? Because people pretend this doesn't happen, even if the husband had suspicions, nothing would have been done beforehand. Because women don't do this. Or so we pretend. In reality, women do: It just is slightly less likely, and is very underreported. Same for women-on-X spousal abuse (both of men or another woman. Yes, lesbian spousal abuse exists). You will never hear about this on the news, if the victim reports it at all. Because the victim won't be believed. Because women don't do this.



Furthermore, find it really creepy how you assume that behavior from Snapewives is okay because "men do worse."

That makes no sense whatsoever, it's a logical fallacy. This kind of derailing argument just does not work, because regardless what anyone does, someone, somewhere, will have done worse.

Fandom_Wank isn't policing "female fandom". On the contrary, fandom wank is giving female fans a place to vent their frustration in ways that do not harm the person they are frustrated at. Please don't use the usual geek social fallacies to try to put this into the sexist corner somehow.

Because it's the opposite. Or are we really back in the sixties where female fans have to shut up and smile nicely whenever they find something disagreeable because women-are-polite-and-nice?

It is not feminist to be for everything any woman does. Nor is it feminist to tell women that they can't criticize each other for objectively bad behavior. That some men do even worse things is tangential to the point. Heck, spousal abuse and overinvestment into a fictional character aren't even in the same ballpark (you're GROSSLY cutifying what these men (and some women) do).



What was the purpose of your posting?
Shutting women up?
Minimizing spousal abuse?
Pretending that women don't do spousal abuse?

Where was the point? Feel free to leave this screened, but please think about how your posting actually comes across. It almost triggered me, I'm still shaking at your minimizing of the pain spousal abuse causes.

[seperis]

Of course women do those things; however, in the broader context of society, it's less likely. It doesn't erase the statistics of mothers abusing their children or women abusing women.

In reality, women do: It just is slightly less likely, and is very underreported. Same for women-on-X spousal abuse (both of men or another woman. Yes, lesbian spousal abuse exists). You will never hear about this on the news, if the victim reports it at all. Because the victim won't be believed. Because women don't do this.

I know you're serious, but I'm not addressing a 'men suffer too' as a social problem on the same level as male on female violence. As an individual problem, it doesn't matter if it's a man or woman who are the abuser because they're both reprehensible, but on a social level, the problem of male on female violence is more urgent, since statistically speaking, it is more likely to happen. It takes nothing away from abuse victims of either sex to admit that.

Fandom_Wank isn't policing "female fandom". On the contrary, fandom wank is giving female fans a place to vent their frustration in ways that do not harm the person they are frustrated at. Please don't use the usual geek social fallacies to try to put this into the sexist corner somehow.

Because it's the opposite. Or are we really back in the sixties where female fans have to shut up and smile nicely whenever they find something disagreeable because women-are-polite-and-nice?

...so you have never been in fandom before today I take it? Or the internet? When the hell does that happen and where? There is no dearth of criticism of women. I mean--seriously. There really is no dearth of criticism of anything women do. Anywhere. Ever.

It is not feminist to be for everything any woman does. Nor is it feminist to tell women that they can't criticize each other for objectively bad behavior.

You're under the impression feminism is a monolith written by an objective deity that has a single stated purpose, set of rules, and canon that's unyielding and all are required to follow or be banned from the concept. If you want to make that argument, you need to go somewhere that is actually arguing what it means to be feminist. Since this entry is not doing that, even bringing it up is just a way to create an artificial high ground. Bad feminism is defined as what that other person is doing that you do not like, do not approve of, or feel uncomfortable about. 'You' being 'people'.

That some men do even worse things is tangential to the point. Heck, spousal abuse and overinvestment into a fictional character aren't even in the same ballpark (you're GROSSLY cutifying what these men (and some women) do).

You read for keyword, didn't you?

From the post, regarding male versus female investment in hobbies: I mean, I don't want to say football, American and not; it's not like that's a mystery. Because in general, media fen don't usually riot through a city--could happen, but you try rioting with a laptop, your internet connection is so unstable, please--or settle a UT versus Oklahoma state with manual testicle removal, which--yeah, I got nothing. But the guy who paints himself blue and white who streaks the field is like, some more meaningful layer of crazy than the chick who married Scott Summers on the astral plane? Cause I didn't see anyone say maybe they need to take away his kids.

Now, I could be wrong, because this a planet in the billions, but generally speaking, it's statistically unlikely worldwide that women riot at football games. Access to a place with football is part of it. Being permitted access to a place with football might also be. Being discouraged to show interest in sports, very possible. Being told not to go out in a majority crowd of drunk men after a game is very likely.

Football is actually a fairly good example of a hobby that is routinely shown to be popular among men, sometimes intensely, with associated negative behavior, and a lot of it since alcohol is involved. I cannot think of a widespread, very popular female-oriented hobby that has these numbers or these statistics that is also as socially condoned and encouraged as football.

So here is teh short version:

On the individual level, abuse happens to all sexes, from all sexes, by all sexes, in every combination. On the individual level, each of these acts are equal between sexes; it is not more serious, or less, because it was female to female, female to male, or male to male.

On the social level, abuse is statistically more likely to occur with a male aggressor on a female.

These are two separate concepts and are handled separately and should be considered separately.

On the individual level, people do stupid or crazy shit in various degrees. It is across the sexes.

On the social level, women are more likely to be judged unfit due to their crazy than men are.

What was the purpose of your posting?

To explore why it was funny to go into a small group of women who were doing something, on their own, in their little area, without hurting others and make fun of them. And what, specifically, made the commenters worried about the children.

Shutting women up?

You mean...criticizing women's behavior objectively (ie, mine, commentors on that post, hypothetical women) causes them to shut up? Interesting.

Minimizing spousal abuse?

Sometimes, like here, it's not about men.

Pretending that women don't do spousal abuse?

...it's really not about men. If you want to make an argument that any eighteen year old male who gets married or enters a committed relationship in the next ten years is at higher risk of spousal, sexual, and emotional abuse at the hands of their partner than any eighteen year old woman who gets married or enters a committed relationship in the next ten years, I'd like to know where you got your statistics.

There is a difference between individual and social; the fact of one does not negate the fact of the other. If we see a case of whopping cough once, we feel bad for the person who has it and treat them; if we see five thousand of a disease that's regularly vaccinated for, it becomes a social problem and we bring down the entire CDC. We may not call the CDC down to investigate a single case of mumps, but the individuals with whooping cough aren't erasing the mumps guy and the CDC being involved in whooping cough doesn't mean the guy with mumps is supposed to suffer silently at home because no one will treat him because he has mumps and he should suck it up and go to work and die alone.

But when they talk about WTF Diseases That Showed Up This Year, they mention whopping cough but not mumps, because one was social problem and one only affected mumps guy. That doesn't erase mumps guy. That's just saying five thousand cases of whopping cough showing at random in five thousand people was a big wtf, and mumps guy not so much.

I'm very sorry you were triggered by one line in the sixth paragraph that mentioned male on female violence, which you felt erased female on male violence.

...okay, now that I'm looking at that, really?