You are viewing [info]benpayne's journal

 
 
07 January 2010 @ 08:12 pm
Realms of MANtasy???  
The words we choose make a lot of difference in our meanings.

This week "The Realms of Fantasy" magazines announced its intention to publish an All lady issue to some varying reactions.

My first reaction was to defend the magazine. After all, Realms has a long history as a magazine appealing specifically to women.




As you can see from the magazine's history, this is a publication targetting female readers.



It is a magazine which says to women, this is a magazine full of stories for "you" (women).

Stories about horses, and feelings, and countryside full of streams. I think I read somewhere that women like water.

Anyway, you might well asked, WHAT MORE COULD THE REALMS OF FANTASY DO TO PLEASE WOMEN?



Although it's ironical, it was in the very act of trying to please girl readers more that "The Realms" made its mistake of not pleasing them the most!

Sure! We men all thought. What are you all complaining about? Are you CRAZY? Here is an example of men selflessly standing aside to let the little lassies have a turn, and yet some of you find this OFFENSIVE? For shame, womankind?

While this response may seem perfectly logical and reasonable to all of you at first, stop and think about it from the point of view of a women.

I know; it's hard. Women's minds are as mysterious as the ways of a natural animal, like a buzzard. You can't think about something like that! But just try.

Is it possible that The Realmses approach was a little patronising?



What the editor, apparently one Douglas Conan, failed to realise is that women are creatures of wild emotion and oversensitive feelings.

You can't talk down to them. In order to patronise them, you have to patronise them carefully.

Perhaps the editor needs to look into his own way of talking to the fairer sex, to think about the terms he uses and use words which make it sound as though women are included, rather than speaking plainly. It may seem like semantics, but the words we use are impotent.

This is what girls mean when they talk about the male gauze. If Douglas were more sensitive, he would have phrased his generous offer in a manner less likely to upset the womens' delicate mental state. That's what being a real "gent"leman means!

Maybe if he does that then The Realm of Fantasy" will finally be reconised as the "Friend of Broads" that it has always, deep in it's heart of hearts, bean.
 
 
( 35 comments — Leave a comment )
catundra[info]catundra on January 7th, 2010 10:22 am (UTC)
Well...you know...give a girl a horse and she is happy. ;)
gillpolack[info]gillpolack on January 7th, 2010 10:26 am (UTC)
I like how you use the covers as annotations :).
Tansy Rayner Roberts: cat on a stick[info]cassiphone on January 7th, 2010 10:28 am (UTC)
You have perfectly encapsulated the entire matter. Nothing more needs to be said.

I'd love to read a full essay on the effect of the male gauze, though.

You, sir, are a true gentleman among gentlemen!
random_alex[info]random_alex on January 7th, 2010 10:28 am (UTC)
The only thing I want to know is, are the last couple of paras full of spelling mistakes deliberately?

(Also, I can't believe you actually found those magazine covers.)
Ben Payne[info]benpayne on January 7th, 2010 10:49 am (UTC)
Spelling whaaaaa? I don't know what you're talking about. Stop trolling me!
random_alex[info]random_alex on January 7th, 2010 10:50 am (UTC)
you know you love trolls. It's why you write these sorts of things, and have that ridiculous picture.
Ben Payne[info]benpayne on January 7th, 2010 10:59 am (UTC)
You misspelled "bodacious picture".
random_alex[info]random_alex on January 7th, 2010 11:00 am (UTC)
in your dreams, stud!
mikandra[info]mikandra on January 7th, 2010 10:29 am (UTC)
aw, crap, you're taking the piss, right?

I just think we should all grow shorter toes, and get on with writing bloody good stories. Actions, not bickering over words while standing on the sideline.

I'm surprised that no one has said anything about the positive discrimination. I find that more potentially offensive than anything. Women (and men) of all persuasions want to be recognised *for writing good stories*, not for being women.

I'm just glad no one calls me 'darl' anymore, but even then I've never verbally lashed someone for doing that. Those people belonged to a different generation and meant well. No reason to spit them in the face.
random_alex[info]random_alex on January 7th, 2010 10:44 am (UTC)
Cassiphone in particular has mentioned her conflicted emotions over the "positive discrimination" issue.

Very rarely the term 'darl' is not offensive, generally if it's someone who uses it towards absolutely everyone and is truly being affectionate. Other than that, nope, sorry: that's like saying it was ok to use the term 'nigger'. Well ok, not exactly like that, but still - I don't think that someone is of a different generation is adequate.
Tansy Rayner Roberts[info]cassiphone on January 7th, 2010 10:48 am (UTC)
Also worth noting that I'm pretty sure Doug Cohen is not of that generation.
random_alex[info]random_alex on January 7th, 2010 10:49 am (UTC)
oh yeh - good point. I don't know anything about him, so couldn't comment.
Tansy Rayner Roberts[info]cassiphone on January 7th, 2010 10:55 am (UTC)
I certainly agree that a term like 'ladies' has degrees of patronisation. If a woman uses it, I might be annoyed or not, but it has more of a neutral feel than if a man does it. If the man is much older than me (say my dad's age or older - my dad would never do this) I would let it slide though I might quietly seethe.

If the man is younger than 40 and calling women 'girls' and 'ladies' then... it just sounds SMARMY. And patronising. And affected.

random_alex[info]random_alex on January 7th, 2010 10:59 am (UTC)
I think verbally, for me, 'ladies' can sometimes work depending on context and all of those things, like what I know of the person saying it. But in writing... yeh, very rarely. It makes me think of a faux-leather-jacketed sleaze.

(Patronisation? Don't you have a doctorate or something?)
Ben Payne[info]benpayne on January 7th, 2010 11:00 am (UTC)
Yeah a lot of things work in person that don't work in typey-talkie
Tansy Rayner Roberts[info]cassiphone on January 7th, 2010 11:01 am (UTC)
Yeah, there are things your friends can say, and things that sound supremely dodgy in business circumstances.

(Patronisation? Don't you have a doctorate or something?)

In Classics, dude. We laugh in the face of Anglo spelling rules.
random_alex[info]random_alex on January 7th, 2010 11:03 am (UTC)
It's like the whole not understanding there's a difference between written and spoken English; some things just don't work on paper.

I see your Classics, where at least the Latin in rigorous, and raise you Anglo-Saxon and Old French and medieval Latin. There are like a dozen ways of spelling my queen's name, sometimes in the same document.
girlie jones[info]girliejones on January 7th, 2010 11:03 am (UTC)
Women do use it and it grates on me but I don't normally say anything- like in a group of several women someone might say, "so ladies should we order?" or whatever. But it grates on me the way being called "Madam" grates on me.
angriest[info]angriest on January 7th, 2010 11:30 am (UTC)
Dimitri Martin does a great standup routine about this: you can add "ladies" to the end of any sentence and immediately make it sound sleazy.

"Try the potato salad... ladies."

"Read Realms of Fantasy... laydeez."
Tansy Rayner Roberts[info]cassiphone on January 7th, 2010 11:40 am (UTC)
"We totally respect feminism... laydeez."

"As President of the universe I now plan to abolish poverty... laydeez."

Oh you're so right.

girlie jones[info]girliejones on January 7th, 2010 10:52 am (UTC)
I was going to say that. And also, does that mean then that women just don't write good stories?
Ben Payne[info]benpayne on January 7th, 2010 10:55 am (UTC)
Well said, toots!
random_alex[info]random_alex on January 7th, 2010 10:56 am (UTC)
seriously, it's like you went to "how to get trolled" school, and got an HD. I applaud your hard work! =D
Tansy Rayner Roberts[info]cassiphone on January 7th, 2010 10:57 am (UTC)
Watch it, laddie buck.
Ben Payne[info]benpayne on January 7th, 2010 11:05 am (UTC)
"Laddie buck"? Heh.
Tehani[info]editormum on January 7th, 2010 10:44 am (UTC)
Over at Jim Hines' blog (in the comments), the positive discrimination argument has been raised...
Tansy Rayner Roberts[info]cassiphone on January 7th, 2010 10:46 am (UTC)
Actually there's been quite a lot of discussion about the positive discrimination issue, on all sides of the issue. I have quite a few links on my last few posts. The Jim Hines one is particularly full of a variety of opinions.
Ben Payne[info]benpayne on January 7th, 2010 10:54 am (UTC)
Well, who discriminates against positive people? Why do we need to talk about positive discrimination?
Tansy Rayner Roberts[info]cassiphone on January 7th, 2010 10:56 am (UTC)
Positive discrimination is when we hold people back for their own good, surely?

Ben Payne[info]benpayne on January 7th, 2010 12:07 pm (UTC)
Hahaha. Excellent!
Mr.Vampire[info]mr.vampire.myopenid.com on January 7th, 2010 11:49 am (UTC)
Looks like an accurate representation, all women of note have an association with horses. Nay you say?
Lady godiva, Helen of Troy, Catherine the Great, Joan of Arc... Oh no, she was kindling. Well she rode a horse.

Woman creates robotic horse legs for humans: http://amog.com/offbeat/horse-legs-humans-color/
Muslim womans seeing eye horse: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30155540/
(Deleted comment)
Tansy Rayner Roberts: wordplay[info]cassiphone on January 7th, 2010 12:27 pm (UTC)
That was my favourite right up until 'male gauze'
Nora Charles[info]nora_charles on January 7th, 2010 07:34 pm (UTC)
You win an internet.
[info]linkspam_mod on January 12th, 2010 02:59 pm (UTC)
This post has been added to a linkspam round up.
Jonquil Serpyllum[info]jonquil on January 12th, 2010 03:16 pm (UTC)
BOOBIES EMPOWER ME.
( 35 comments — Leave a comment )