In Defense of the Fangirl
In recent months, the fangirl has come under discussion – is she, as her detractors claim, a flighty, irresponsible, hysterical irritant who needs to tone it down a notch, or, as her proponents argue, someone who is honestly, openly, and passionately pursuing her interests with a shared community of like-minded individuals?
While I would put myself firmly in the latter camp, I want to explore not whether the fangirl herself is a problem, but what criticisms of the fangirl represent.
What is a Fangirl?
We all have some familiarity with the fangirl – she is lined up at midnight for the release of the latest book or movie in this year’s hottest trilogy, screaming at the edges of the red carpet as members of her favorite band walk by, and producing reams of fanfiction about beloved characters.
The fangirl is legion, and she responsible for the cultural relevance of everything from the Beatles to Twilight to Supernatural.
The fangirl is an eternal teenager, regardless of her actual age. I know fangirls in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, but the “girl” keeps us tied, always, to a presumption of youth, naiveté, and immaturity. Similar to the opprobrium which greets teen girls at every turn, the popular image of the fangirl tends to be cast into a very narrow mold.
But the fangirl also represents something threatening to many people. She is “hysterical” in her devotion to her fandom, too enthusiastic about her ships, over-emotional about any news regarding the major actors or writers of her favorite shows, movies, and books. She writes and reads too much fanfiction, which is often seen as poorly-written porn by those who don’t have much familiarity with the sheer variety of fanfiction that is available.
The fangirl fails “an arbitrary, masculinist litmus test for critical or ironic distance.” The fangirl cares too much. The fangirl, in short, is not following the dictates of proper female behavior: she is uninhibited.
The Fangirl and Silencing Women
A great deal of digital ink has been spilled on attempts to shut women down, to put us back in the boxes of behavior and activity that are expected of us by a patriarchal society. Criticism of the fangirl and criticism of women’s speech patterns represent an enduring relationship that is an area ripe for further exploration.
The fangirl is criticized for “swooning” over other women and being too effusive in her praise, of acting “like an over-excited One Direction fan” when she should be reserved and instead, be “chill.”
Fangirls are not just criticized for expressing emotions, however – women as a whole come under fire for the very ways our voices sound when we do. A litany of complaints about women’s voices exist: we talk like Valley Girls, uptalk makes us sound weak-willed, vocal fry (despite being the polar opposite of uptalk) does the same, and makes us sound “obnoxious.” Women use too many filler words, we don’t Lean In enough, we aren’t hard enough bargainers to get ahead. And on, and on, and on.
Whenever a woman talks, someone will be there to tell her she’s doing it wrong: she’s too emotional, she’s expressing the wrong emotions (see, for example, the number of women who are assertive and who get called “abrasive” instead), her very voice betrays her as not ever good enough.
The fangirl gets an extra element of the fear and shaming assigned to women who are perceived as exceeding the bounds of the limited roles women are given to fill. The constant accusations of hysteria and obsession lobbed in the direction of fangirls reveal many underlying assumptions about women: women are perceived as unable to control their emotions, and not to be trusted with something as simple as entertainment.
This is not, however, a new phenomenon. Today’s panic about fangirls and selfies is reflected in the 18th and 19th century fears that women who read novels wouldn’t be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. The concept of hysteria itself is linked to ancient Greek beliefs about women’s “wandering wombs” and the belief that women who expressed emotions, sexual desire, and irritability were clinically ill.
Today, beliefs about hysteria persist in equally false stereotypes about women being over-emotional and illogical.
These stereotypes originate from considering a male ideal to be the default human. The default man is considered to be stoic, calm, unruffled; his ideal female counterpart is quiet, sedate, and reserved. Women who break that mold – women who get excited or angry, who express sexual desire, who talk back – are considered deviant, and have, historically, been pathologized for it. Women’s emotions are put on a pedestal when they can be used to facilitate others’ goals; when women’s emotions are employed for our own sake, they become a problem.
In addition to that, men’s fandoms are considered legitimate without any need for qualification. Men can weep over the outcome of a sporting match and it’s seen as a proportionate response; let a woman express sorrow when a band breaks up, however, and she’s overreacting. The interests of men are mainstreamed and given status that women’s interests rarely, if ever reach.
Fangirls and Fighting Back
The fangirl does not take this treatment lying down, however. Part of being a fangirl is a fierce commitment to the ability to genuinely express their emotions, own their feelings, and be as excited as they want.
The fangirl knows that representation of women is, overall, pretty dismal (ditto for all intersecting and marginalized identities – the prevalence of LGBT pairings in fanfiction, for example, should be a well of inspiration for authors who want to do a better job at showcasing diversity in their own works), and she sets out to correct that.
The decision a fangirl makes, to invest herself in a band, an imagined universe, or a world of her own and shared creation is not a hallmark of emotional immaturity. Instead, it is a conscious expression of emotional reactions that have often been analyzed deeply and in communication with a supportive and critically conscious audience.
The fangirl represents words such as pleasure, love, and closeness – taking things personally. Women spend most of our lives being told that feeling those things is only okay in moderation, but we must play everything close to the chest or risk not being taken seriously. The fangirl hears that message, but rejects it. In the global community of fangirls, the ability to take things personally is paramount.
Far from being an illogical, hyper-emotional creature swept along by peer pressure and the force of her own feelings, the fangirl is deliberately choosing to explore, celebrate, and take ownership of her passions in a world that constantly tells her not to.
This is beautiful and I love it so much. Thank you!
I an in complete agreement. For far too long we have been told, and too often have internalized, exactly how we should think, feel and behave, with our own wants, passions and needs either marginalized or denied altogether.
I am a decided fangirl of certain artists, writers and projects, particularly of British musician and producer Steven Wilson, and his many and varied projects, about whom I have posted several times already.
Marek, who introduced me to Wilson's music, has called me obsessed, which even I readily admit isn't far from the truth.
But he is also proud of me, while finding it amusing, because I frequently introduce other people to Wilson's music, and those artists in his musical galaxy, such as Riverside, Lunatic Soul, Dead Can Dance And King Crimson. And when it comes to music, I'll start a conversation with anyone anywhere, and frequently have. ;-)
The bottom line, as in everything human, is to be true to ourselves, and to limit contact with those in our world who would deny us that choice. Sometimes being true to ourselves means having to walk away from someone or something we love, but which is no longer in our best interest.
Difficult, but sometimes necessary, and our lives can become much richer as a result.