DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Shipping discourse

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

"Ship wars" redirects here. For the form of combat, see Naval warfare. For the TV series, see Shipping Wars.
"Antiship" redirects here. For the type of missile, see Anti-ship missile.
Wikipe-tan, the unofficial mascot of Wikipedia, sits in a park setting with an adult version of her sister, Commons-tan. The two are holding hands, and Commons-tan looks down at Wikipe-tan. They are both blushing.
Significant age gaps in fictional relationships are a common target of the discourse.

Beginning in the mid-2010s, significant discourse emerged within fan spaces such as Tumblr and Archive of Our Own (AO3) regarding the ethical implications of portraying taboo and abusive sexual content within shipping fanfiction. "Shipping"—the depiction of a romantic or sexual relationship between fictional characters—has long been a staple within fanfiction. The lack of censorship emerging from spaces such as AO3 allowed for the portrayal of disturbing or taboo dynamics within fan works, including incest, abuse, rape, and pedophilia.

Within fandom, discourse is divided between "anti-ship" and "pro-ship" camps, focusing primarily on the extent to which fictional works depicting such content affect real-world behavior and attitudes. Anti-shippers, referred to as "antis", take the view that fictional portrayals normalize harmful dynamics and behaviors and pose a particular threat to children. Fanfiction depicting underage characters in sexual contexts is characterized as child pornography by such antis. The legality of fictional works depicting minors in sexual contexts varies greatly between jurisdictions. Many countries ban such material under obscenity laws, although this faces frequent legal opposition.

Pro-shippers oppose antis on a variety of stances, including opposition to censorship and the rejection of notions of fictional abuse affecting reality. Both anti- and pro-shippers draw from primarily LGBT fan communities and share similar demographics, although antis are generally younger, with the largest contingent in their early-to-mid teens. Academic opposition to anti-shipping have described the movement as a moral panic or "faux activism". Antis have been criticized for equating fictional content with real-world sexual abuse, online harassment of pro-shippers, as well as the spread of moralistic and pathologizing attitudes towards kink and sexuality. The pro-shipper backlash has also faced criticism, primarily for minimizing other critiques of fan works.

Background

[edit]
Main article: Shipping (fandom)
The front cover of Old Friends and New Fancies, 1914
Old Friends and New Fancies (1914), an early example of shipping in fanfiction

The term "shipping", derived from "relationshipping", initially emerged in the mid-1990s within the X-Files fandom to refer to the fan practice of supporting a hypothetical romantic relationship between the main protagonists, Fox Mulder and Dana Scully.[1][2] Supporters of romance between the two characters titled themselves "shippers", seeing it as the inevitable resolution of the show's unresolved sexual tension. They were opposed within the fandom by "No-Romancers", who viewed the two characters' relationship as platonic friendship.[3] Shippers often turned to fanfiction to depict romantic and sexual interactions between the characters, leading to contemporary fanfiction websites aligned with either camp. The term later broadened to include supporters of any fan pairing of fictional characters.[1][4] Such dynamics paralleled far older romantic pairings depicted in slash fanfiction, a term first originating in the early 1970s Star Trek fandom.[5][6] Even earlier examples of romantic fanfiction retroactively described as shipping include the 1914 novel Old Friends and New Fancies.[1]

Many shippers become strongly emotionally invested in their preferred relationships, even when no such romantic relationship is portrayed in canon.[7] Because of this, conflict (dubbed "ship wars" in fan communities) can emerge in a fandom between proponents of different ships. This is exacerbated when there are multiple plausible partners for a particular character, such as within love triangles.[1][8] By the early 2000s, anti-fans opposed to certain ships came to be known as "anti-shippers".[9] This term can include both fans who lack interest in the ship (non-shippers) and fans who oppose the plausibility or morality of the relationship.[8] In smaller communities, such conflicts can effect which ships are featured in the most fanfiction, leading to increased stakes for participants.[10]

Internet fandom and AO3

[edit]

Stories (or, less often, pieces of fanart or comics) containing depictions of violence, torture, abuse, pedophilia, incest, rape, suicide or suicidal ideation, self-harm, homophobia, racism, and other content deemed problematic by the advertisers, exist on the platform alongside child-friendly stories about the characters baking cupcakes cheerfully.

Agnieszka Urbańczyk, Finding a Dead Dove in the Refrigerator[11]

The emergence of Internet fan communities during the 1990s allowed for the proliferation of taboo fanfiction in an anonymous environment. Traditionally, erotica, homoerotic romance, and depictions of torture (most notably in "hurt-comfort" works) were carefully distributed only within small cliques interested in such works.[12] In the 1990s, fanfiction proliferated on forums like Usenet, including erotic fanfiction; however, controversies about erotic fanfiction led to rules about warning for explicit content and an environment that dissuaded some authors from posting their works.[13] Later on, large fan-work host websites, such as DeviantArt and FanFiction.Net, allowed the free spread of work without traditional gatekeeping or the risk of connection to their creators' offline identities. However, these websites still forced works to adhere to terms of service that allowed the fansites to remain profitable to advertisers. Fanfiction portraying graphic violence or explicit sexuality was subject to frequent censorship and removal, which fans called "purges".[12] Some purged fanworks depicted abuse, torture, gore, rape, incest, necrophilia, pedophilia, or bestiality. Such taboo works usually have no specific basis in the source material, which is often originally marketed towards children and young adults.[14]

In 2007, a pressure campaign to remove extreme sexual writings was launched by an American group named "Warriors for Innocence" against LiveJournal, the largest fan content host in the 2000s. Six Apart, the owners of LiveJournal, briefly removed around five hundred journals in response; this prompted widespread community outrage, and Six Apart apologized and reinstated much of the content over the following months.[11][15] When LiveJournal was acquired by the Russian online media corporation SUP later in 2007,[11][16] the site underwent a mass-scale removal of content considered explicit under Russian media laws, including many LGBT works. The "destruction of LiveJournal communities"[11] and ongoing censorship from Fanfiction.net led to the creation of the Organization for Transformative Works and the Archive of Our Own (AO3), a nonprofit and advertisement-free hosting site for fanfiction.[17] The gradual migration of much of the fanfiction community to AO3 allowed for the sharing of taboo works without censorship. AO3 implements a tagging system to allow authors to mark works containing triggering or upsetting content, although a work's tags can often double as advertisement.[18][19]

Emergence

[edit]
The front page of the website Archive of Our Own, as seen on 2021-10-11
Front page of Archive of Our Own, 2021

While LiveJournal centered around communities divided by theme, making it more difficult for fans to discover content they wished not to see, social media sites such as Tumblr and Twitter centralized the content of fan communities, allowing for more crossover between disparate parts of the community.[20] Fan communities on the internet grew rapidly with the rise of social media, leading to many younger fans with little connection or knowledge of prior fan communities.[21]

Tumblr, launched in 2007, received an influx of fan creators from the controversies on LiveJournal.[11][22] Tumblr's unique system of post dissemination and tagging both allows for the discussion of social justice issues and intense conflict between different online fan communities.[23][24] Tumblr discourse trends towards separate camps around specific viewpoints and identities, creating highly combative "contact zones" where rival factions debate issues.[23][24] Tumblr's tagging system resulted in fans and opponents of the same ships using the same tags to discuss it. As this led to conflict between fans, "don't tag your hate" became a point of fan etiquette on Tumblr. However, this inadvertently formed groups centered around their opposition to a ship. Fans in these communities sought to emphasize their dislike for the ship to gain acceptance from their peers, leading to more extreme backlash and harassment towards their opponents.[25] The use of "anti-" as a prefix in tags opposing a ship led to other fans dubbing members of such communities "antis".[26]

Tensions over pairings between various characters within the 2016–2018 television series Voltron: Legendary Defender contributed to a large-scale expansion of shipping discourse in fandom spaces.[27][28] Opponents of the romantic pairing of the characters Keith and Shiro (although both characters were adults within the source material, Shiro was several years older than Keith) characterized that relationship as pedophilic in nature.[29] Fans of the series saw a canonical gay couple as likely, due to comments by the show's creators that they wished to have an inclusive cast of characters. Conflict between different ships in the fandom became politicized, with each side wishing to present their ship as the moral option.[28] In Chinese fan communities in 2019, conflict emerged over a real person fiction ship between Xiao Zhan and Wang Yibo, the main actors of the TV series The Untamed, re-imagining Wang Yibo as a minor and Xiao Zhan as a transgender sex worker. The Chinese government banned AO3 in February 2020, which many fans believed to be the result of the controversy over the ship.[30]

Explicit content on Tumblr was stymied by a ban on "not safe for work" material in November 2018.[11][22] Many antis migrated to Twitter in the late 2010s, although the current has not gained the prominence they previously held on Tumblr.[22]

Controversy

[edit]

Although "anti-shipper" or "anti" can refer to anyone opposed to a specific pairing of characters, the term "anti" can also refer generally to opponents of fictional sexual content considered harmful,[31][32] or to antifans more generally.[33] The question of whether "fiction affects reality" is a central point of dispute between antis and the opposing camp of pro-shippers. Antis generally believe that taboo or abusive sexual content within fiction directly influences the views and actions of those who consume it, with pro-shippers disagreeing with antis for a broad spectrum of reasons, ranging from a complete rejection of fictional media's influence on behavior to a defense of harmful sexual dynamics when properly depicted as abusive.[31][32]

Samantha Aburime, a fandom researcher, described antis as "hybrids that exhibit traits of fans, anti-fans and anti-shippers".[34] Although specific viewpoints vary significantly within the community, they generally share a number of core beliefs. Antis oppose depictions of rape and sexual abuse, describing them as harmful to sexual abuse survivors.[35][36]

Antis consider the opposed content harmful to minors and abuse victims, especially depictions of rape, incest, and pedophilia, as well as power imbalances (including age gaps) in relationships and the perceived fetishization of homosexual relationships.[9][29] Depictions of pedophilia are a major focus of antis,[37] who argue that sexual content involving underage fictional characters is child pornography and that the dissemination of such works can function as a grooming tactic to normalize sexual relations between adults and children.[35][36][38]

Legal restrictions on such material varies greatly between different countries and jurisdictions.[39] In the United States, where the Organization for Transformative Works is based,[40] sexual material which includes fictional depictions of minors is prohibited under federal obscenity law, although such restrictions face frequent legal challenges.[39][41] Fandom antis oppose Organization for Transformative Works's policies towards such content, arguing that it should be banned from the site.[42] When depicting characters that are canonically minors in sexual contexts, artists often include disclaimers that characters in their work have been "aged-up" in order to protect themselves from possible legal ramifications.[22] Some fans warn that they do not wish to see such content or interact with their creators through "DNI" (Do Not Interact) notices on their personal pages.[43]

Pro-shippers (also known as anti-antis),[a] etymologically inverted from anti-shipper,[b] believe that creating or consuming fiction which depicts harmful behavior does not itself function as an endorsement of such actions.[48] Writers and readers can use disturbing work as a way to process and explore their trauma,[49] and pro-shippers defend their work as beneficial for survivors of abuse.[37] Some pro-shippers believe that fictional works can affect societal attitudes towards sexuality when portrayed irresponsibly, but they align with the general movement's support of artistic free-expression and the continuation of adult content within fan spaces. Because most antis are teenagers, many pro-shippers consider the anti movement an attack on sexual content in general and an attempt to displace adult-oriented content from fan spaces.[50]

Both antis and pro-shippers are largely LGBT, reflecting the fanfiction community as a whole—a 2013 survey conducted by fans revealed that only 38% of AO3 users surveyed were heterosexual, with more nonbinary users than men.[51] The two groups are demographically similar in terms of racial, gender, and sexual identities and report similar rates of neurodiversity and survivorship of sexual abuse. However, antis are generally younger than pro-shippers, with many in their early-to-mid teens.[9][51]

Analysis

[edit]

Although antis generally claim to be motivated by a desire to protect minors and abuse victims rather than by opposition to shipping itself, some academic scholarship analyzes the movement as a "ship war gone too far".[52] The actions of antis have been compared to censorship campaigns against LGBT works, as well as regulatory codes such as the Hays Code and Comics Code.[53][54][55] Antis have been variously characterized by critics as a cult,[56] harassment campaign,[57] moral panic,[58] or as an unintentional outgrowth of religious conservatism.[53]

The movement has been linked to the convergence of call-out culture and "faux activism" within online communities such as Tumblr.[47] The strong emphasis on protecting minors within the anti movement has been described as stemming from broader moral attitudes towards protecting children and adolescents from inappropriate sexuality and maintaining childhood innocence.[59] The anti movement may reflect a broader Generation Z discomfort with sexual material.[47] Queer writer Ana Valens criticized the movement for spreading allegations and endangering the financial stability of creators of adult material.[22]

Hello, my name is White Q*eer “fandom elder” in my early 30′s and i think you should donate to AO3 because it is the only place where i can post my nasty self-masturbatory fanfiction without being called out

anonymous Tumblr post making fun of pro-shippers, 2018[60]

While many antis disavow more radical actions, the movement has been criticized for online harassment. Some antis spam gore, violent pornography, and pedophilic imagery to pro-shippers, AO3 volunteer staff, and content tags associated with taboo fan-works. The "baffling" tactic of intentional dissemination of imagery opposed by the movement has been described by fandom researcher Agnieszka Urbańczyk as a means to attack pro-shippers: "The goal of such actions seems to be marginalization of people who create it or enjoy it."[54]

Antis have also been criticized for sending death threats to pro-shippers.[61] In 2020, Hannibal screenwriter Bryan Fuller was faced with criticism and death threats from antis after expressing support for pro-shippers.[62] The scholar Renee Ann Drouin, who experienced doxxing and death threats as a result of research she was undertaking related to Voltron fandom, expresses concern about the challenges these discourses pose to researchers.[63]

Pro-shippers have been critiqued for minimizing valid critiques of fan works by labeling any critics of their works as antis. Anti-racist critiques of fanfiction are sometimes described as anti-ship by white fans, leading to an environment where these and other critiques are dismissed as "anti".[33][64][65] The pro-ship or anti-anti camp has also been criticized for harassment from their side, including harassment of people raising these critiques. Additionally, the term "anti" itself has been critiqued for being sometimes vague or imprecise, as well as contributing to a lack of nuance in discourse over fanfiction.[33] The media theorist Stitch characterized the division of discourse into anti-ship and pro-ship camps as a "unhelpful, conversation-ending binary", due to inconsistent and arbitrary criteria for belonging in either faction.[33]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Some sources distinguish "anti-antis" as a separate position or movement from pro-shippers,[44] while other sources treat the two as synonyms.[35]
  2. ^ Sometimes said to be abbreviated from "problematic shipper",[45] although other sources describe this as a misconception.[46][47]

References

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d van Monsjou & Mar 2019, p. 432.
  2. ^ Scodari & Felder 2000, p. 240.
  3. ^ Scodari & Felder 2000, p. 249.
  4. ^ Scodari & Felder 2000, pp. 246–247.
  5. ^ Scodari & Felder 2000, pp. 243–244.
  6. ^ Jenkins 1992, pp. 192–193.
  7. ^ van Monsjou & Mar 2019, p. 445.
  8. ^ a b Ciesielska & Rutkowska 2021, p. 56.
  9. ^ a b c Aburime 2022, p. 138.
  10. ^ Ciesielska & Rutkowska 2021, pp. 65–66.
  11. ^ a b c d e f Urbańczyk 2022, p. 411.
  12. ^ a b Urbańczyk 2022, pp. 409–410.
  13. ^ Derecho 2008, pp. 140–150.
  14. ^ Urbańczyk 2022, pp. 411–414.
  15. ^ Alexander 2008, pp. 120–121.
  16. ^ Norton 2006.
  17. ^ Fiesler, Morrison & Bruckman 2016, p. 2582.
  18. ^ Urbańczyk 2022, pp. 411–412.
  19. ^ Lothian 2016, p. 748.
  20. ^ Ciesielska & Rutkowska 2021, pp. 57–58.
  21. ^ Stanfill 2024, p. 106.
  22. ^ a b c d e Valens 2020, section 2.
  23. ^ a b Burkhardt, Trott & Monaghan 2021, pp. 6–7.
  24. ^ a b Morimoto 2020, p. 176.
  25. ^ Boyd 2020, p. 209.
  26. ^ Stanfill 2024, pp. 102–103.
  27. ^ Drouin 2021, p. 71–73.
  28. ^ a b Ciesielska & Rutkowska 2021, pp. 58–59.
  29. ^ a b Urbańczyk 2022, p. 414.
  30. ^ Ciesielska & Rutkowska 2021, pp. 64–65.
  31. ^ a b Urbańczyk 2022, pp. 414–416.
  32. ^ a b Aburime 2022, pp. 136–138.
  33. ^ a b c d TWC Editor 2022.
  34. ^ Aburime 2022, p. 136.
  35. ^ a b c Fazekas 2022, p. 106.
  36. ^ a b Aburime 2022, p. 141.
  37. ^ a b Stanfill 2024, p. 109.
  38. ^ Aburime 2022, p. 143.
  39. ^ a b Lievesley et al. 2023, p. 396.
  40. ^ "OTW Terms of Service". Organization for Transformative Works. Retrieved 24 December 2024.
  41. ^ McLelland 2017, pp. 114–115.
  42. ^ Boyd 2020, p. 214.
  43. ^ Wang et al 2024, p. 8.
  44. ^ Aburime 2022, p. 140.
  45. ^ Urbańczyk 2022, p. 405.
  46. ^ Aburime 2022, pp. 144–145.
  47. ^ a b c Romano 2023.
  48. ^ Aburime 2022, pp. 139–140.
  49. ^ Boyd 2020, p. 212.
  50. ^ Urbańczyk 2022, pp. 415–417.
  51. ^ a b Urbańczyk 2022, p. 412.
  52. ^ Urbańczyk 2022, p. 413.
  53. ^ a b Fazekas 2022, pp. 140–141.
  54. ^ a b Urbańczyk 2022, p. 415.
  55. ^ Aburime 2022, pp. 140–141.
  56. ^ Aburime 2021.
  57. ^ Urbańczyk 2022, pp. 404–405.
  58. ^ Fazekas 2022, pp. 107–108.
  59. ^ Fazekas 2022, pp. 108–109.
  60. ^ Boyd 2020, pp. 215, 236.
  61. ^ Aburime 2022, pp. 141–143.
  62. ^ Aburime 2022, p. 136. Citing Mason 2020.
  63. ^ Drouin 2021.
  64. ^ Fazekas 2022, pp. 110–111.
  65. ^ Pande 2024, p. 115.

Bibliography

[edit]