Blah blah blah, scans_daily is kaput, with few exceptions every reaction to this from both sides has been completely stupid, and yes, Peter David actually does deserve some of that internet scorn, not because he shut down the comm (he didn't), but because of the icky racism that keeps showing up in his books.
But then again, anybody who read Supergirl already knew that.
(I will say this, though - I am now more curious than ever about the skeevy "coloring correction" on Elijah Cross during the X-Cell storyline in X-Factor, and whether PAD had any part in that, or whether some editor was responsible, or what. But I digress.)
Here, though, is something that I kind of DO want to point out.
Lisa Fortuner wrote a post arguing that the s_d shutdown, and the subsequent reaction in more traditionally male-dominated fandom spaces, was NOT a gender issue.
Heidi MacDonald linked to Lisa's post.
First comment on Heidi's blog: I had no idea that this was, at its core, a grrl power issue.
Second comment: Eh, I wouldn’t take Lisa Fortuner’s comments too seriously. Frankly, it never occurred to me that scans_daily was a girl-dominated site. Heck, there was plenty of fanservice for the guys stored up there, too. Frankly, that whole rant, which doesn’t seem all that well-thought out, isn’t all that different from some of the less cohesive anti-RIAA rants back when they were killing Napster.
Next, a non sequitur about sentient penises, a linkback, snark about Tom Spurgeon, and then we get to the sixth comment: When it comes to Lisa Fortuner, everything somehow turns into a grrl power issue.
That one's from Mark Engblom, though, so never mind.
It gets worse, though. Somebody else in the comments shows up to defend the idea that the s_d shutdown really is an issue of female fandom and female fandom space/activities being targeted because they are female, but she... kinda-sorta attributes that argument to Lisa, again.
(*headdesk*)
Okay, look. I've got my own opinions as to what the reaction to the s_d shutdown says about male and female fandom spaces on the comics internet, whether it says anything at all, or whether looking at this thing through a gendered lens is at all useful when the much bigger issue of copyright and creator's rights is exerting enough gravity to distort all of your gender analysis past the point of uselessness. Sexist? Not sexist? Those probably aren't the right questions to be asking here.
But I think that there IS something pointedly sexist about the way that a few commenters over at The Beat attributed an argument to Lisa that was the exact opposite of what she actually wrote in her post. Did they make knee-jerk assumptions about her position on the matter because she's got a rep as a feminist? Did they feel that because she was a) a woman and b) commenting on the s_d shutdown, they already knew what she was going to say, without even having to read her post? Or at least, I'm hoping they didn't actually read her post. I'm really hoping that they didn't. I don't understand how anyone could have read Lisa's post and walked away with that interpretation of it, unless anti-feminist allergies are capable of clouding people's sinuses, brains, and reading comprehension abilities to a greater extent than I had previously suspected.
I know that this is a very minor thing, especially compared to the broader scope of the whole internet debate about copyright violation, Peter David's skanky race issues, etc. And to be fair, it's only four commenters on one blog post who are seriously failboating on this one. And one of the four already has a reputation for being special, so there's that, too.
But, tiny in scope though this particular dribble of spooge may be, I was still completely floored when I read those comments.
ETA after some more reading on The Internets this evening: WTF, universe?! RaceFail09 is still going?! Now my entire post seems especially petty in comparison.
But then again, anybody who read Supergirl already knew that.
(I will say this, though - I am now more curious than ever about the skeevy "coloring correction" on Elijah Cross during the X-Cell storyline in X-Factor, and whether PAD had any part in that, or whether some editor was responsible, or what. But I digress.)
Here, though, is something that I kind of DO want to point out.
Lisa Fortuner wrote a post arguing that the s_d shutdown, and the subsequent reaction in more traditionally male-dominated fandom spaces, was NOT a gender issue.
Heidi MacDonald linked to Lisa's post.
First comment on Heidi's blog: I had no idea that this was, at its core, a grrl power issue.
Second comment: Eh, I wouldn’t take Lisa Fortuner’s comments too seriously. Frankly, it never occurred to me that scans_daily was a girl-dominated site. Heck, there was plenty of fanservice for the guys stored up there, too. Frankly, that whole rant, which doesn’t seem all that well-thought out, isn’t all that different from some of the less cohesive anti-RIAA rants back when they were killing Napster.
Next, a non sequitur about sentient penises, a linkback, snark about Tom Spurgeon, and then we get to the sixth comment: When it comes to Lisa Fortuner, everything somehow turns into a grrl power issue.
That one's from Mark Engblom, though, so never mind.
It gets worse, though. Somebody else in the comments shows up to defend the idea that the s_d shutdown really is an issue of female fandom and female fandom space/activities being targeted because they are female, but she... kinda-sorta attributes that argument to Lisa, again.
(*headdesk*)
Okay, look. I've got my own opinions as to what the reaction to the s_d shutdown says about male and female fandom spaces on the comics internet, whether it says anything at all, or whether looking at this thing through a gendered lens is at all useful when the much bigger issue of copyright and creator's rights is exerting enough gravity to distort all of your gender analysis past the point of uselessness. Sexist? Not sexist? Those probably aren't the right questions to be asking here.
But I think that there IS something pointedly sexist about the way that a few commenters over at The Beat attributed an argument to Lisa that was the exact opposite of what she actually wrote in her post. Did they make knee-jerk assumptions about her position on the matter because she's got a rep as a feminist? Did they feel that because she was a) a woman and b) commenting on the s_d shutdown, they already knew what she was going to say, without even having to read her post? Or at least, I'm hoping they didn't actually read her post. I'm really hoping that they didn't. I don't understand how anyone could have read Lisa's post and walked away with that interpretation of it, unless anti-feminist allergies are capable of clouding people's sinuses, brains, and reading comprehension abilities to a greater extent than I had previously suspected.
I know that this is a very minor thing, especially compared to the broader scope of the whole internet debate about copyright violation, Peter David's skanky race issues, etc. And to be fair, it's only four commenters on one blog post who are seriously failboating on this one. And one of the four already has a reputation for being special, so there's that, too.
But, tiny in scope though this particular dribble of spooge may be, I was still completely floored when I read those comments.
ETA after some more reading on The Internets this evening: WTF, universe?! RaceFail09 is still going?! Now my entire post seems especially petty in comparison.
