![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ljwritesOne way that the racial empathy gap shows itself in fandom is that fans often straight-up make things up about some (read: white male) characters to be able to call them marginalized--somehing lb_lee has pointed out--while making interpretations and inventions in the other direction about characters of color to "justify" their own lack of interest/sympathy.
This is endlessly hilarious on its face because, for one thing, you don't need some social-justice-based reason to obsess over, or rationalize your disinterest in, a character. It's even more laughable when the effort to be enlightened in your preferences so transparently favors RL privileged groups while disfavoring people who are marginalized IRL.
Here's an example from SW sequel trilogy fandom: I have seen people say about Kylo Ren, the main villain of the trilogy (his hardcore fans dispute this characterization), that he is "femme-coded" and his detractors are mysoginistic. I've seen people say they relate to him because he is so emblematic of trans male experiences. His fans say he has BPD and is not responsible for his actions, that he is a victim of child abuse, etc. etc.
And of course, these same fans tend to do the reverse for Finn, the Black male lead of the trilogy (also a disputed characterization, sigh). Finn is unrealistic because child soldiers can't tell right from wrong (an outright and hurtful lie, of course), Finn is a sexual harasser because he took Rey's hand, Finn is mentally stable and well-adjusted (really?) and therefore unrelatable as a victim of abuse, Finn killed more people than Kylo, Finn is abusive to Rey and so on and so forth.
I have seen this in other fandoms that I am not as much involved in. In the MCU, for instance, Loki gets described as a child abuse victim with PTSD while Valkyrie is dismissed by some fans as being "male-coded" and having a stereotypical male veteran's story.
So why is any of this a problem? Can't people imagine things for the characters they like, or might not care as much about for that matter? Isn't that the point of transformative fandom?
They have every right to, of course. I have as much of a ball as anyone else theorizing and imagining about fictional characters. What fans are not entitled to is freedom from criticism, especially when their imaginings touch on real life. If you're making a statement like "child soldiers can't have a conscience" or "people with BPD can't be held responsible for their actions" you are making statements about real-life people and not simply being fannish.
You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to agreement. You are entitled to be free of harassment. Disagreement is not by itself harassment. I hope these parameters are clear.
It also becomes a problem when people convince themselves that their headcanon is actually canon and come at people for not subscribing to their headcanon--one that was repeatedly debunked by the unwitting originator, in this case. These headcanons can take on such a force in fandom that large numbers of fans can convince themselves of their canonity, prompting the creators themselves to confirm that some popular headcanon is, in fact, just a fan theory.
Most fundamentally, though, it shows the gap between the characters fans are willing to do the work of imagining oppressed identities for to make them more relatable, and the ones they are not willing to do the same work for, and in fact take efforts in the exact opposite direction. Again, I can't believe this even needs to be said but this doesn't meant they don't have the right to their own imagination, or that people who do this are Bad People who need to be bullied. It does mean that this gap in empathy can make fandom a hostile place for many fans of color, and yeah, it's kinda racist.
lb_lee has pointed out--while making interpretations and inventions in the other direction about characters of color to "justify" their own lack of interest/sympathy.This is endlessly hilarious on its face because, for one thing, you don't need some social-justice-based reason to obsess over, or rationalize your disinterest in, a character. It's even more laughable when the effort to be enlightened in your preferences so transparently favors RL privileged groups while disfavoring people who are marginalized IRL.
Here's an example from SW sequel trilogy fandom: I have seen people say about Kylo Ren, the main villain of the trilogy (his hardcore fans dispute this characterization), that he is "femme-coded" and his detractors are mysoginistic. I've seen people say they relate to him because he is so emblematic of trans male experiences. His fans say he has BPD and is not responsible for his actions, that he is a victim of child abuse, etc. etc.
And of course, these same fans tend to do the reverse for Finn, the Black male lead of the trilogy (also a disputed characterization, sigh). Finn is unrealistic because child soldiers can't tell right from wrong (an outright and hurtful lie, of course), Finn is a sexual harasser because he took Rey's hand, Finn is mentally stable and well-adjusted (really?) and therefore unrelatable as a victim of abuse, Finn killed more people than Kylo, Finn is abusive to Rey and so on and so forth.
I have seen this in other fandoms that I am not as much involved in. In the MCU, for instance, Loki gets described as a child abuse victim with PTSD while Valkyrie is dismissed by some fans as being "male-coded" and having a stereotypical male veteran's story.
So why is any of this a problem? Can't people imagine things for the characters they like, or might not care as much about for that matter? Isn't that the point of transformative fandom?
They have every right to, of course. I have as much of a ball as anyone else theorizing and imagining about fictional characters. What fans are not entitled to is freedom from criticism, especially when their imaginings touch on real life. If you're making a statement like "child soldiers can't have a conscience" or "people with BPD can't be held responsible for their actions" you are making statements about real-life people and not simply being fannish.
You are entitled to your opinions. You are not entitled to agreement. You are entitled to be free of harassment. Disagreement is not by itself harassment. I hope these parameters are clear.
It also becomes a problem when people convince themselves that their headcanon is actually canon and come at people for not subscribing to their headcanon--one that was repeatedly debunked by the unwitting originator, in this case. These headcanons can take on such a force in fandom that large numbers of fans can convince themselves of their canonity, prompting the creators themselves to confirm that some popular headcanon is, in fact, just a fan theory.
Most fundamentally, though, it shows the gap between the characters fans are willing to do the work of imagining oppressed identities for to make them more relatable, and the ones they are not willing to do the same work for, and in fact take efforts in the exact opposite direction. Again, I can't believe this even needs to be said but this doesn't meant they don't have the right to their own imagination, or that people who do this are Bad People who need to be bullied. It does mean that this gap in empathy can make fandom a hostile place for many fans of color, and yeah, it's kinda racist.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-27 02:45 am (UTC)Sorry dont really have much to add aside from that!
--Hikaru
no subject
Date: 2018-12-28 01:02 am (UTC)