The Saturday Oreo #1: Fangirling, Fanboying, and The Stigma

The Saturday Oreo is a new feature on Oreos and Books. It will be utilized as a space to discuss miscellaneous topics, advertise blogs, update about fun stuff like meeting authors, fan art projects, stuff of that sort. Lots of fangirling from time to time. The Saturday Oreo will vary between being posted weekly to monthly.

Definition of a fangirl, according to a judgemental society: A crazy, horny chick.

Actual Meaning of A Fangirl: A girl that I loves something, and is passionate about it. Not necessarily to an extremist degree.

Definition of a fanboy, according to a judgemental society: boy that likes girl things to impress girls or a boy that is a  weak minded nerd.

Actual Meaning of Fanboy: A boy that loves something, and is also passionate about that something.

Because of the whole fangirling thing in The Saturday Oreo,  I thought it would be best to address an issue that I have seen outside the book world directed to those inside the book world. Sometimes, it can even happen inside the book world: people have different views of things.

This piece was inspired by Shelumiel @ Bookish And Awesome: specifically this post: For Girls Only –

I’m getting pretty tired of seeing other people put other people down for liking things or getting excited about things.

Who are you? What makes you think you have the right to put others down for what they like?

Also, they’re perpetuating a stigma; boys can’t like this. Only girls can. “That’s for girls.”
Most will say with a condescending tone. As if because girls happen to like it, it’s not good enough and a guy should be ashamed for even considering an interest that females also share.

It’s ironic because most will complain about bigotry—-an intolerance to another’s opinion that differs from your own—yet they just can’t resist putting down a male child for liking strong “female-oriented” literature.

I know that we all can be hypocrites from time to time. We aren’t perfect; we make mistakes.

But I don’t think there’s a logical excuse for looking at somebody whether it be a man, a woman, a non gender binary individual; a girl, a boy or non conforming gender binary children and telling them they cannot love something.

We live in a society where we preach the trite cliché—“Be yourself.” But if one person differs from the stereotype or the set expectations set for them; which you (being the hypothetical close-minded society “you”) honestly had no business doing in the first place—people attack you.

 Aren’t we all trying to figure out life in the grand scheme of things? Trying to figure out our own life path and find our identities?

Other people shouldn’t be getting in the way of that.

And so, for those that suffer from being stigmatized for liking something: Let them look.

To those that perpetuate it: Let them live.

What are your thoughts on fangirling, fanboying and the external stigma surrounding each?

About The Blogger


Wesaun is a teen book lion. She’s also an art enthusiast: poetry, theater, and fan art, as well as paintings/drawings. She loves to be overenthusiastic over books and authors.

You can find her at her Twitter: @epicbooklover.
You can also try her business


9 thoughts on “The Saturday Oreo #1: Fangirling, Fanboying, and The Stigma

  1. To play devil’s advocate–

    Who becomes morally responsible for individuals society often deems as “not in the right head space” for having a vice (i.e. hurting animals, killing people, purposeful destruction of property, pornography to the extent of children or otherwise, etc)? Is there no line drawn for these individuals who are simply living out their interests of free will?

    Even in an ideal society where people can live the way they want–you’ll still have segments who inherently live by these “bad traits” and surely you’d want those placeholders of ethics and morality and everything in-between available to say “yeah, I disagree with how you choose to live life even if you yourself love it.”

    What fanboying/girling amounts to [at it’s core] is the likeness to something but I don’t think you dissolve judgment for pandering to negative behaviour. Criticism has to be there for such cases and it’s disingenuous to say that “we can be judgmental for vices but not to anything else”–that’s just hypocrisy.

    Not being challenged by any adversity is conceptually cool but our world is much more wicked than that; unfortunately (or not). So, yeah, the stigmatization and judgment of persons in any society is here to stay.

    Joey via. thoughts and afterthoughts


    • *leans back* Wow. What a well thought out comment.

      I’m sorry—are you supporting the stigma that I wrote the post against? It’s not quite clear.
      Naturally, as you said, we do need constructive criticism to grow as people in our individual lives—this comment is a prime example.

      We do need stigma against things that would harm others and animals; so I see why you would disagree to some parts of the post. What I mean though is that people should not go around compartmentalizing other people into boxes; and then proceed to proclaim the hypocritical statement—“Be yourself.”

      People should not go around bullying children, teenagers, or even adults; for something that they love. A child should not be embarrassed, or go home crying because somebody attacked them for what makes a part of their identity.

      And before you point out my supposed hypocrisy in writing a post regarding free will, and then being against people harming self esteem, which is a practice of their free will; as you said yourself some things need to be stigmatized.

      When I wrote this post supporting free will, I wrote it (and perhaps I could have been more specific) against those who practice harmful stigmatization. Everything in moderation. Yes–ignominy to things that bring a downfall to our society, or harm living things. No–to ignominy that hurts children and makes people feel less than. NO to ignominy that breaks down character, and leads to an unhealthily low level of self esteem.

      Thank you for your comment. I appreciate a good intelligent debate.


      • My takeaway was that you’re suggesting that individuals should be allowed to be themselves but not “too much” of themselves when they go about alternative lifestyle choices that may go against “what [others] idealize” (re: vices). And I get what you’re trying to say. I’m just vocalizing that, to me, you’re acting on the same fundamental merits of those who stigmatize; which is completely fine. In truth, freedom (or rather free will) is flawed and there’s limited workaround. It’s easy to dismiss lesser characters for their actions that can do mental/physical harm on others as many of us are on the outside looking in. Criticism and judgment, in my views, should strive to have the undertone of compassion and willingness to understand even if it goes against ones stance.

        What if it was your family member who gets shit on by society for being prescribed to certain negative behaviours? Do you blindly walk away from your own blood or even give them a beating for society’s sake? We share these opinions; openly or not, but often we look at them through filtered glasses. I can’t say whether this is right or wrong anymore than just to point it out.

        Instead, I’m [generally] of the team that accepts all the good and all the bad in what becomes of a character because though we say we judge through empathy (or what we think is empathy), we can’t really know for sure–and so stigmatization and judgment is still very much alive and a much needed option of consideration.

        So, yeah, stigmas do suck but to shame individuals who stigmatize others doesn’t make everyone else an angel.

        (Isn’t it so fun to debate-rant?)



      • Profound. I honestly can’t say anything other than this: I agree. It is so SO fun to debate-rant! You actually remind me of one of my friends with the intelligent conversations and debate. I feel like your comment came straight out of his mouth. It’s exactly something he would say. (This is a good thing.)

        But, I really want to know—in regards to children suffering from this simply for liking reading “girls’ books” -_- Are you saying they should suffer and be stigmatized for that? That’s one thing I just could never agree with. Although we should to accept the good and bad in people; you wouldn’t classify this as “right to criticize”? It’s not. It’s a passion. Others may not like it, but it’s not their right to decide that someone is weak for liking it and put that person down, as I reiterate.

        I enjoy your input. It’s refreshing when people actually debate and discuss and just don’t go this route—“I’m right irrelevant evidence 1, irrelevant evidence two. You’re wrong.”

        You have me mulling over something I didn’t think about while I angrily wrote this post.

        Thanks for taking the time to write it!


  2. I must say I’ve never heard a fangirl called out as “a crazy, horny chick.” But the one for fanboy is pretty on point. You know what I have to say regarding this topic, so. Thank you for the shoutout! And I see you attracted the Devil’s, er, Joe’s attention. Don’t take it personally. He just loves a good discussion. 😉


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s