How Teenage Girls Invented Fandom

Skanky Vamp

Sniffin' the Slayer
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
26,460
Black Thorn
from thedaily

They swooned. They screamed. They dreamed of movie stars. In the early days of US cinema, “film-struck” teenage girls became Hollywood’s most visible fans. So why were they maligned by the very system that relied on them? When film studies scholar Diana Anselmo-Sequeira took a dive into the documentation of cinema’s earliest movie fans, she discovered that adolescent girls actively contributed to the creation of fan culture—and helped build Hollywood’s star system.

how_teenage_girls_invented_fandom_1050x700.jpg


The emergence of widespread film viewership in the 1910s coincided with the recognition of adolescence as its own life stage. Around the same time, women’s roles were shifting, and an uneasy society didn’t know what it thought about women’s love of film. Teenagers were cast as particularly fickle and immature. But Anselmo-Sequeira finds agency in the way they consumed and made meaning of film.

As young women flocked to movie theaters, they were cast in a role of their own. These fans were supposedly enthusiastic and obnoxious, silly and self-absorbed. Anselmo-Sequeira draws parallels with earlier portrayals of the figure of the “stage-struck” young woman. These tales fearfully predicted that her love of the theater would lead her to abandon “her primary roles of housekeeper, wife, and bearer of the race.” Movie fans were even worse, the press suggested. Female, teenaged, and obsessed with the possibility of attracting attention from male stars, they nursed dangerous delusions of future stardom.

But for many of these young women, the movies seemed to offer a legitimate chance at financial viability and self-definition. The industry that tempted them with promises of overnight stardom and mocked them for their aspirations presented what girls saw as real vehicles for personal and professional fulfillment.

“It is undeniable that early Hollywood’s promise of overnight wealth, nationwide exposure, and unrestricted pleasure underlined many girls’ engagement with film culture,” Anselmo-Sequeira writes. Their own words, however, point to the girls’ real aspirations and the possibilities movies presented. In a star-search contest for Photoplay, for example, young women wrote about their desires to “enjoy the luxuries that the actress who makes good can have” or to join “the cleverest, keenest, and most wholesome of any class.”

Girl fans were mocked. But Anselmo-Sequeira shows how necessary they were to the movie machine. Through their love of the theater, interest in stars’ personal and professional lives, and willingness to attend movies, they “[gave] tangible shape to what unrivaled movie devotion should look like.” The star system they bolstered would dominate Hollywood for the next fifty years.

Teenage girls are still a major engine of fandom, and recent research has linked participation in fandoms to gains in mental health and resilience. But they continue to be maligned and misunderstood, and misogyny in fandom persists. Ironic, then, that the very women who are mocked for their pop culture obsessions helped build the culture’s foundations.
 
Same with Ancient Egyptian profile pictures. Teen girls swooning after Pharaoh's hoping for a better life.
 
It strikes me that you'd have to look at least as far back to the dawn of mass communication mediums , perhaps the popular novels in weekly installments ?
 
I thought back in the day that male fandoms were mocked as well, calling them geeks. Even Buffy the Vampire Slayer seems to delight in mocking them (even Xander for awhile) as living in their mother's basement and able to speak Klingon but barely able to interact with "normal" people in a way that wasn't oafish.

And were these mostly teen girls all commonly mocked, or mocked by those out to destroy everyone's fun? (That is cherry picking to create a false narrative.)

I'm surprised they'd get mocked much today (assuming they are--at least even at the same level as fandoms turn on their own) given to go to the conventions, get the costumes, and all that costs money. Money transforms geekiness into charming quirks.

Though I did once know a professional author who liked to write fanfic, his first for Star Trek, and his wife at the time came down hard on him (even searching the net for works he posted for free and demanding to see what he was doing on the computer) for it as it wasn't making money despite that he had a job AND was still gaining royalties from published works (so he should be able to enjoy his free time any way he wanted without judgment). Just one of the reasons I'm glad he divorced her.



And what about sports fans that riot, or even ambush fans of the other team with fists to even deadly weapons? Surely that can't socially acceptable, or seen as less shallow than a bunch of mostly teen girls screaming over some boy band?
 
Fandom comes in many forms. Even religion can be considered a type of fandom.

Fandom creates a sense of community, whether it be on forums like this one, in churches or other religious establishments, or in sports venues and pubs (watching sports events). Fandoms also create a social opportunity for people who may struggle socially in their daily life (through no fault of their own- it could be due to shyness, anxiety, social isolation etc). It also creates a common subject that can be discussed and shared without judgement eg a tv show.

Every fandom will have its bad apples (so called "fans" who will threaten others for daring to disagree with them) and ship wars can occur often in reaction to love triangles on the show. Fanon ships can emerge and sometimes alliances can be formed between various ships that do not "threaten" each other. Ship wars normally contain at least one shared lead character.
 
Teenage girls are still a major engine of fandom, and recent research has linked participation in fandoms to gains in mental health and resilience. But they continue to be maligned and misunderstood, and misogyny in fandom persists.
I think part of it is just how women's interests in general can be belittled, compared to men's "more important and serious" interests. Think of how movies and books that appeal to women are diminished as "chick flicks" and "chick lit." And yet, as @thrasherpix points out, how is fandom for TV shows any different really from fandom for sports teams?

I am a fan of silent films and have studied some about them, and I know that male movie fans in that era were somewhat looked down on for writing fan letters, collecting star photos, joining fan clubs, and in short, doing things that were perfectly acceptable for girls/women. In the '20s, studios encouraged female enthusiasm, and the fan mags were definitely oriented toward teen girls, but the male fans, who also read them, were viewed as something of an oddity. I think it stems from a sense that women are more child-like and therefore can be indulged in "foolish" hobbies, but men should be serious and focused on work and "manly" pursuits. A hundred years later, these prejudices still prevail somewhat.
 
I wasn't aware that many teenage girls could afford to go to the movies back in 1910. The numbers were slim until the affordability of the internet brought about large numbers of teen girls to know about movie stars. I'd have thought that women in their late thirties were more able to afford the extravagances of movies and computers.
 
I wasn't aware that many teenage girls could afford to go to the movies back in 1910. The numbers were slim until the affordability of the internet brought about large numbers of teen girls to know about movie stars. I'd have thought that women in their late thirties were more able to afford the extravagances of movies and computers.
I think it was less a matter of affordability, and more morality. A lot of people thought movies taught bad behavior, and that movie actors lived immoral lives. Some churches forbade movie-going, though that probably didn't stop teens from going, any more than other forbidden activities!
 
I think it was less a matter of affordability, and more morality. A lot of people thought movies taught bad behavior, and that movie actors lived immoral lives. Some churches forbade movie-going, though that probably didn't stop teens from going, any more than other forbidden activities!

Paul Schrader was a member of the Christian Reformed Church, one that did not allow members to go to movies. By the time he was 30, he had written The Yakuza, Obsession, Rolling Thunder, Hardcore, Old Boyfriends, American Gigolo, Blue Collar, Raging Bull and his masterpiece, Taxi Driver. But yes, for a long time, a lot of people thought depravity was the norm in the movie industry and with the continuous presence of the castin g couch, they may be right.
 
Paul Schrader was a member of the Christian Reformed Church, one that did not allow members to go to movies. By the time he was 30, he had written The Yakuza, Obsession, Rolling Thunder, Hardcore, Old Boyfriends, American Gigolo, Blue Collar, Raging Bull and his masterpiece, Taxi Driver. But yes, for a long time, a lot of people thought depravity was the norm in the movie industry and with the continuous presence of the castin g couch, they may be right.
He overcorrected somewhat! I recall some of those movies as being considered shocking for their violence and sexuality at the time.

I have a friend, born in 1940, who went to Baptist summer camp every summer, and cried as he confessed his "sin" of going to movies. But he said every year when camp was over, he went right back to the movies every week! I think "the devil" won this battle.😈
 
The Hays Code was invented for a reason (homosexuality was depicted, the first lesbian kiss was in a black & white film, among other things), but it only lasted a couple of decades before it started losing steam (and some episodes and even popular series snuck by it in some ways even when it was still strong, though they had to be careful for awhile, and in some cases had to fund themselves like the I Love Lucy show did which was uncomfortable with a white woman and Cuban American married together, even if in separate beds to appease the ridiculous Hays Code, many of their gags still inserted with little variation even into the 2000s)...only to be picked up (and altered, but just as sanitized) by people on the Left now (even if it's more unofficial), and I wonder if that will have a similar shelf life.

Probably, perhaps less, since I think many if not most people respond to movies and shows that aren't so sanitized much better, and if Hollywood won't make them then someone else will (like when Hollywood dropped their old Hays-approved western formula because it couldn't compete with the gritty westerns made by Italians, at least one of which that I think was called The Ruthless Four featured two gay cowboys in addition to a lot more violence and cynical view of the American west, though some are classics now that made Clint Eastwood famous), and now there are so many others trying to get in these days (Italy still striking some gold themselves among many others by ignoring American standards) with the Mouse a complete and utter sycophant for trends. In the end, money wins.



On a side note, I believe it was the Time/Life on the decades for the 1940s (I'd have to go to the library to be sure) in which crazy trends among boys and girls (some shared, some oriented toward gender) were displayed, and one boy's room not only had a racy (though not pornographic, at least not by today's standards) pic of a woman, but also Popeye the Sailor (so I assume fanboy). The teen boys didn't act as if this was weird, nor the photographer (or it wasn't included), nor the ency.

Heh, and there were still phonebooths, I bet this fad from the 50s would make a comeback as a "challenge" for YouTube (makes me wonder if phone companies secretly funded Twister to get people out of their phonebooths like that 😛 ), though probably would make boys feel a little insecure about their sexuality in the 80s-90s:

3a8c38cdc8d007c272a22e9497ad6dd0.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom