I would like to talk about some of your tags @lichtecht . I hope you donât mind.
#cause yes we do need girl detective stories and yes we do need âgirls doing boys stuff and boys doing girls stuff" #(as binary as that's worded, i'd say we just need kids of all genders doing stuff outside of the binary ideas of gender) #but the thing is. that's not happening in d3a. #d3a is not âgirls doing boys stuff" it's âgirls doing girls stuff" and very overtly so !!!
So this part. Generally I agree. D3A is âgirls doing girls stuffâ. When I read the comment from spezialgelagerte-rokokokokotte for the first time I interpreted it to be about the whole talking point about âgirl version of D3Fâ and not specifically about wether or not D3A is âgirls doing boys stuffâ. A lot of the times when people bring up the argument âgirl version of D3Fâ against D3A they havenât even engage with it before.
#(obvsly d3f has been around longer but i also feel like da is considered a strictly girls thing while d3f is enjoyed by people of all gend #rs)
This is actually something Iâve been thinking of discussing for a while now. Maybe eventually Iâll have the post finished.
Disclaimer: There will be some generalisations obviously not relatable for everyone and just based on personal observations.
The reason that âD3F is enjoyed by people of all gendersâ is actually more because it has cult status rather than because itâs the intended audience. Also a lot of the times things marketed for boys are things girls are allowed to enjoy to a certain extent. The same thing actually applies to things marketed towards girls. The lines are just very different and ! highly ! depended on the surroundings. With D3F being enjoyed by all genders itâs the âwe are all adults enjoying childrenâs audio dramas because they are cult classicsâ rather than the âD3F is intentionally made for all gendersâ. It is sadly not. Not anymore than D3A in my opinion. Like I mentioned in an earlier reblog. The gendered elements are present in D3F just like they are in D3A.
Now if we are talking about little kids enjoying D3F. There is absolutely a âtomboyishâ cliche attached to it, if you like D3F and are a girl. Children and young teens which both stories are aimed at absolutely have a âew thatâs boy stuff, why do you like it if you are a girlâ and the reverse.
So sure âD3F is considered to be for everyoneâ. But is that actually because it is? Or because there is a tendency to grow out of the âboy stuff vs. girl stuffâ attitude. Is âD3A a strictly girls thingâ or is there a tendency to punish boys who are this close to âfemininityâ?
(I think it goes without saying, that both D3F and D3A should be enjoyable for all genders.)
The point Iâm trying to make is: D3F is actually not more or less inclusive to its audience. They have a heavy âfor boysâ marketing that works on the children it is supposed to work on and the parents trying to buy something for their children. And D3A has the same heavy âfor girlsâ marketing.
(I donât want to go off on a tangent so I put it here: Certain things that are âmasculineâ being allowed for girls to enjoy are actually highly dependent on the context. And the same applies to âfeminineâ things being allowed for boys to enjoy.)
#i disagree with the part that separate girls and boys things existing is NOT inherently bad #yes it's a symptom of a larger culture of sexism but that doesn't mean it's not bad like what
I wrote like multiple different ways to explain my thoughts. I canât tell which one is the most cohesive so Iâll just let them all be there and hopefully, it will make a bit of sense.
I think there has been a misunderstanding of what Iâm trying to say with: âBut that doesnât mean gendered things and making âgirls and boysâ version of things is inherently bad, because itâs so much more nuanced than thatâ
Might have been my wording or something else.
When I said that I was thinking of âgroup of girlsâ and âgroup of boysâ rather than, gendered âgirls versionâ and gendered âboys versionâ. Like a boy version because itâs a group of boys and a girls version because itâs a group of girls. Not because they adhere to gendered stereotypes.
When I said boy and girl version I didnât mean âboys version only for boysâ. Or âgirls version only for girlsâ.
I think I was a bit lost in the utopian âgender roles arenât tools of oppression ingrained in the patriarchy and you can just have funâ, when I said that. I am still very much of the opinion that it is more nuanced than just the âhaving a boy and girl version is badâ as a sole statement. Itâs a âhaving a boys and girls version is a problem, becauseâŠâ. Again. Itâs a symptom, not the core.
Girls and boys version here meaning: specific gendered marketing, behaviour, storylines etc.
Itâs not good in the same way that âdolls are for girlsâ and âtrucks are for boysâ is not good. Not because there is something wrong with girls liking dolls or boys enjoying playing with trucks. Not because the thing itself is bad is what Iâm trying to say. The âforbidding of other genders to enjoy itâ with the statement. The act itself is neutral. A girl liking dolls, removed from social pressure is neutral. A boy liking playing with trucks, removed from social pressure is neutral.
I hope I brought across what I mean. I am not saying there isnât a problem with it. But itâs situated at a different place.
My main point is actually that itâs more complicated, because the statement is to simplistic. I donât think the statement can be made like this, because there is so much more behind it, which prevents me from such a simplified statement. Hence why I wrote: âbecause itâs so much more nuanced than thatâ.
(I also will say that I donât like the word âbadâ in general. And donât find it a useful descriptor in the discussion. I originally brought it up in my wording, but I actually donât like it looking back.)
I also want to clarify the statement:
There is a lot of analysis that I donât/canât get into right now and in a reblog of this post, because I want to do proper analysis that I donât have the energy for right now, but that is definitely something Iâve been meaning to discuss on this blog. Sooner or later. So I hope this is enough.
