#26 — Vanek! with a Jurco

[dekedangle_rpf_mod]

This is the twenty-sixth post of Deke Dangle RPF Anon, a community for all your ice hockey anon meme needs.

THE RULES

1. Mods retain the right to delete, freeze, and/or screen threads and comments.
2. Meme rules do not require warnings.
3. Respect flock. Do not repost or share information from private tumblrs, locked twitter accounts, flocked LJ posts, etc.
4. No linking fans to their real life identities.
5. No looks bashing or body shaming. This applies to players and people associated with those players and their clubs, as well as fellow fans.
6. No embedded music.
7. No embedded images.
8. No spamming the meme, whether through repeated comments or other means. 
9. No discussing trolling, individual trolls, or their efforts.





Meme rules do not require spoiler cuts. However, this layout does allow for them. Any of the following tags will create a spoiler cut when closed: <div cut>, <span cut>, <font cut>, <font color="white">

If you have any questions or concerns, please direct them to The Mod Post. 

Threaded View
Flat View
Top-Level Comment View

Next post opens at 5,000 comments.

Comments

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

This election has been making me think a lot about what other people's politics mean to me, and I wonder if the flip side of not caring too much if players are Trump supporters is being not all that impressed by players being """good""". Especially with the kind of fandom adulation that brings... like, I feel like I am becoming more and more disenchanted with Ben Scrivens and everyone's worship of him, after hearing him talk so forcefully over queer people re: the NHL's response to Andrew Shaw's use of a slur. Which, no one is perfect, but added to a few years ago when he whitesplained blackface to defend Raffi Torres doing it (he read the wikipedia article! it's a "gargantuan leap" to connect the two!!)... idk. It makes me wonder why I allowed myself to think SO highly of him (and others) and why I allowed him being "good" to mean so much to me, when in other contexts, I've personally held people to higher standards than that and judged them when they didn't meet them (like, think of how fandom interacts with each other, think of tumblr). I'm a hockey fan, of course I understand that having hockey players stand up for important issues IS meaningful!! but... it just unsettles me that I thought so highly of a white man for what, in different circles, is basically no more than some of what's part of being a decent human being... just because he's a marginal NHL player? I feel like I can't talk about this in namespace without people feeling like I'm attacking or subtweeting them, and that's not my intention at all -- it's just something that has more and more been making me reflect on myself in a kind of uncomfortable way, and I sort of wonder if anyone else feels them same :/

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, that's fair, but as you said, no one's perfect, we're all always learning, and compared to the vast majority of his peers, he's aces and seems to be trying to be better still. That's all I can ask of any celebrity I'm going to throw my support and/or money at.

Better than let's say Sidney Crosby and Jonathan Toews vaguely saying an LGBTQ athlete would absolutely be welcome in the League, getting fandom praise undeservedly heaped on them for their minimal effort, and then dismissing Andrew Shaw's slur fuckery 2 years later.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

+1

This endorsement brought to you by the laughable person on my timeline who is absolutely convinced that Sidney Crosby is the world's biggest supporter of women's hockey because his sister plays college hockey and also because he stood next to Poulin and Wickenheiser in some photos this week.

If my eyes rolled any harder, they'd fall right out of my skull.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like at this point "we're all always learning" is a platitude (one that I previously used to overlook screw ups like this!), because the problem is he hasn't shown in any way that he has learned or is trying to be better. He never backed down, or admitted he was wrong, or even listened, really. And those particular kind of screw ups don't happen as isolated incidents, they result from a larger failure to acknowledge that he has privilege in those conversations and also how that limits his viewpoint. He literally cited his status as a hockey player in the convo as giving him authority in the convo about Shaw, and "his understanding" and having read Wikipedia in the convo about blackface. (Also, this is probably massively unfair, but Scrivens also follows Richard Dawkins's whitepslain-y, mansplain-y twitter, so...)

Like, I found Crosby's and Toews's remarks re: LGBTQ in the lead up to Sochi pretty toothless, and in the case of some of Crosby's later remarks clearly intended to be supportive of the idea of an out player, ignorant to the point of being insulting. But, someone said elsewhere that it's admirable for Scrivens to be progressive given the cesspool environment of hockey -- shouldn't that logic allow guys like Toews and Crosby an ever lower bar? Scrivens has an Ivy League education and was at best a marginal NHL player. Also, fans of Toews and Crosby are going to worship them and defend them no matter what they say or do. Most people in the part of fandom I frequent have been roundly critical of both of them (even people who are massive fans of theirs). But fandom's interest in Scrivens isn't the same, and is founded mostly on him being an openly progressive hockey player, not a good/otherwise interesting one. Which is great, and uncommon, and important!!! But, like, surely we can talk about the importance of Scrivens' activism for hockey communities, without talking about him like he is a better, more admirable person than other people, for doing less than what other people do.

And I saw all this as someone who adored Scrivens, too! He tweeted something that in retrospect, was basically sort of acknowledging that systemic racism exists, and I was so happy about it! I loved him for it! And looking back, that makes me so embarrassed and uncomfortable. This fandom (including meme, and including me) has at times torn each other apart for things that, I won't call inconsequential because they aren't, but where people on both of the sides have already far surpassed any understanding that Scrivens has publicly shown. And the election has also made me think of how when white male players who get celebrated for being good people, that virtually never includes anything to do with race. I've seen NHLers march in Pride and publicly say explicitly supportive things about gay or queer folk. Haven't ever heard any of them say that Black Lives Matter, or anything even close to that.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

sa

And like someone said below, I'm not trying to pick on Scrivens or say people shouldn't like him or else they're bad people, too, or anything. I'm just talking about him because he's the only player I really thought that highly of, but I guess my actual point is more about how we talk about things hockey players do and how we talk about (white, male) hockey players themselves.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry, but I really think you're just demanding too much of a perfect stranger. He does not barter his progressive politics in exchange for the support of fans who share his political views, and so he does not owe these people (you) anything. It's not his job to be some beacon of politically correct (used completely unironically) perfection.

You're right that the NHL has race, misogyny and homophobia problems but getting mad at Ben Scrivens or getting mad at other people who appreciate some small offshoot of decency in the pigsty isn't going to fix those problems. I can understand why people complain when fandom faves get praised for nothing, because that's targeting fandom attitudes, which are within our (collective our) power to change, but I really don't see what you're hoping to accomplish with this kind of complaining, short of haranguing Ben Scrivens on twitter with old receipts.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

I literally said that's not what I'm trying to do?? I'm talking foremost about my own feelings, but, yeah, secondly, about fandom attitudes that are in our power to change. I'm saying that small offshoot of decency IS important, but that (general) you can appreciate it without talking about it like it is more than it is? I'm not demanding anything from Scrivens himself (but actually, wishing that someone with a public platform which he uses to express his social activism wouldn't use it to whitesplain isn't asking a lot).

Like, Scrivens' screw ups are understandable to an extent. What I was questioning in my first comment was my own first instinct to overlook and excuse them because I was so invested in this idea that because he had expressed some progressive views, he was such a great, wonderful, admirable person. What I was responding to in my reply was someone minimalizing those screw ups by saying we're all always learning and he's trying to get better when no evidence of of learning or bettering is present. That's a fandom attitude for you.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

Sometimes I think Donald Trump is an aberration and/or that some combination of Vladimir Putin, Julian Assange and Roger Ailes might be fixing national polls on his behalf.

Other times I think it's not so un-understandable that people want SJWs to just shhhhhhhh sometimes.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

na

I, for one, had no idea about this blackface thing, but I'm not really thrilled that fandom has spent so long talking about how Scrivens is one of the "good ones," and when someone mentions that he defended blackface, suddenly "we are all always learning" and Scrivens doesn't owe us anything. You can't have it both ways? Appreciating the good but overlook the bad? Defend yourself if you feel called out for daring to like a hockey player who is unique in how progressive he is, but I think it's kind of telling that there's a lot of defensiveness and not even a single acknowledgment that defending blackface is in fact a bad thing.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

Also, fans of Toews and Crosby are going to worship them and defend them no matter what they say or do. Most people in the part of fandom I frequent have been roundly critical of both of them (even people who are massive fans of theirs).

This doesn't follow. Which is it, in your opinion?

I saw a lot of Crosby fans giving him hell over his Andrew Shaw remarks, then one pretty vocal RPF fandom moron defending him because "celebrities don't have to be social justice warriors, guys!" Then everyone subtweeted/argued with her until she just went back to ignoring the whole thing, as is her custom.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see how it doesn't follow? The small part of fandom I follow that loves Crosby and/or Toews was very critical of them. But people like Toews and Crosby have attracted huge fanbases, and a lot of those fans are always going to laud their faves for doing minimal good and defend their screw ups, because of their investment in Toews and Crosby precedes their interest in whatever "good" Toews and Crosby do or don't do. That's why a lot of Toews fans defended Toews for being bad re: Kane but then were critical of Crosby for being toothless about it, and Crosby fans ripped into Toews and then praised Crosby's remarks. (I know the two weren't exactly equivalent, but there was really no self-awareness there.)

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

People like guys like Toews and Crosby because they're superstars, huge fic presence, fandom favs, good at hockey, etc. Fandom likes Ben Scrivens because he's a Good Person TM (also because he and his wife are cute together, but mostly the Good Person thing). They're different dynamics, both can have the potential to be bad.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

da

TBH I think everyone blew the Shaw thing way out of proportion. That word (and much worse) gets said almost every game by so many different players, and Shaw only got called out on it because he was the one people heard. Shaw is no worse than any of them.

I'd rather have Crosby and other players give a vague comment on that than act like what Andrew Shaw said was a terrible one off-thing that never happens in hockey and never will again. Fake outrage won't solve a systematic problem that's way bigger than a single incident from a player on a team people already hated.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

DA

To me, this doesn't come across as a criticism of Scrivens, though. You're not saying it to him or in a way that affects NHL culture one iota. Instead it reads as a criticism of people who call him a good guy. It's yet another entry in telling fangirls that they like the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Another version of "your fave is problematic." Which is still just another way of holding people in fandom to a higher standard.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

na

And earlier in this thread someone had a problem because they sounded like they were critiquing Scrivens instead of "fandom attitudes." Meme is never satisfied, etc.

Honestly, the idea that fangirls and "fandom" shouldn't think critically of who they're fans of and what messages they put out is eyeroll-worthy. There's a difference between trying to coach people out of being a fan because the source isn't an Ideologically Pure Cinnamon Roll and... pointing out someone has faults.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

I don't even get the logic of this comment. No criticism is allowed or counts if it's not addressed directly to its object (like that has a history of working out great, actually that's exactly the complaint wrt Scrivens)? Or is going to "affect NHL culture" (like, should we be leaving fliers on prospects' doorsteps? idk)? Nothing a fangirl does can ever be subject to criticism because that's unfair, we should just all @ Ben Scrivens et al?

I suspect this will all be news to a lot of people inside and outside of fandom.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

No, pointing out that how fans perceive and act and talk about their faves can be flawed is NOT the same as saying that "your fave is problematic" -- not least because how one fangirls can be "problematic" even if one's fave isn't, so saying that criticism needs to instead be talking directly to Scrivens or affecting NHL culture is a false equivalence. We're all free to like whomever we want for whatever reason we want. All I've said about others is that maybe we could not take a white male hockey player's good but flawed activism and politics and act like they are more than what they are. If you like Scrivens but aren't doing that, then this isn't about you! If you are doing that... why shouldn't it be pointed out?

I also don't see how pointing out someone's defending of blackface and explaining that it's whitesplaining (and probably part of a bigger trend of -splaining) isn't a criticism of them, even if the point of the comment itself wasn't to go after Scrivens (if anything, people on twitter have already pointed this all out to him, with no results).

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

There's this joke I saw on tumblr that captures my feelings on this pretty well: "A male feminist walked into a bar...because it was set so damn low."

I think to a certain extent I just accept that the average NHL player is not someone I would consider a good person. As a group, my expectations for them are so much lower that my standards have also fallen in this one area, to the extent that I'm pleasantly surprised even when someone does what would be the bare minimum (or less) in other circumstances. So he's lauded basically because he's better than his peers, even if he's really nothing special in any other context.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

It's true that he'd be nothing special in many other contexts, but at the same time, context matters. Ben Scrivens is far from perfect and should not be worshiped unreservedly, but I still think it's admirable for a person in such a cesspool environment that puts such a high premium on conformity to not only hold more progressive views, but to actively express them. And yeah, he's a straight white dude, and thus has a lot less to lose than others do by not conforming (see Subban, PK), but he's actively sought to use his privilege for good, which is more than I can say for most of his peers. We should still call him out when he fucks up, of course. But I don't think it's wrong for people to like him for the good things he has done/said, and I don't think those things are nothing.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

I don't think anyone said it's wrong for people to like him? AIRT was expressing confusion at their own feelings that they felt were excessive, and I was explaining my own because I feel similarly. I can't speak for them, but I'm not really making an argument for how other people should feel, just talking through how I feel.

Of course I'm going to like a dude who expresses progressive views more than one who doesn't, but I don't feel like the context should really give him that big a leg-up in my eyes. I know plenty of people who come from environments that are equally if not more homophobic and I don't give them cookies for going to Pride or arguing with douchebags on Twitter, so why should it be any different for him?

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

+1

This pretty much sums up how I feel after the last year or so in this fandom.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like this joke is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "a low bar" even means. Isn't the idea that you step (or possibly hurdle) over it? Of course you're going to walk into it if you don't lift your feet up! Where do you think the bar should be, over your head??

Signed, a nonnie who wanted to respond to the problem of even a pretense of feminism being too much for most dudes, but who got stuck on the metaphor

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe they're thinking more among limbo lines.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

Low bar = low standards to meet, in my experience.

Re: Things You Wouldn't Say Unanon

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah and they trip over the bar because they can't even meet those low low standards. The joke would work regardless as just a play on meanings of bar/the "walked into a bar" joke opening line, but actually the metaphor here works perfectly. They don't even bother lifting up their feet.