"Little Boxes on the Hillside"
Jan. 18th, 2010 04:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eumeliaI'm hoping this doesn't get me flamed or that I lose friends from my f-list. *sigh*.
A little anecdote if you please.
My BFF and I are very intimate with each other. We hug, we snuggle with each other. Our body differences make it easy for me to lie on top of hir without me being too heavy and hir softness make it extremely comfy for me to cuddle.
We are completely platonic. Zie's married and monogamous, we've known each other since we were in Elementary school (we're both in our twenties now) and a few years ago we sported a shaved head together.
Yes people thought we were a couple and we both acknowledge the fact that if we were on teevee we'd probably be Slashed (we'd make awesome characters, btw). Well, it helps that we're "canonically" queer I suppose.
Slash, as I've often said, is an interpretation of the text.
The whole debate regarding slash and m/m is coming off as a huge turf war. It really isn't who has the right to write what because honestly, people will and should write what they want.
The policing of identities (straight women writing gay men), while erasing identities (queer women, straight men) is irritating.
I haven't read every single post on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
metafandom and ![[community profile]](https://s.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
linkspam because, dude, there are many.
Quite likely mine will get lost in the shuffle; after all I'm just another reader with an opinion.
A few issues rise from this debate;
#1 That these women misrepresent men, because they're in fact writing women (albeit with the men's bodies).
#2 That these women are appropriating an identity that isn't theirs by writing slash and pro m/m and don't take into account the history of that identity.
#3 That these gay men are policing women's expression of sexuality by demanding that they stop fetishising them.
I'd like to tackle these points one by one, I hope I manage:
Women misrepresent men, because they're in fact writing women
Tell me, can all men do what John MacLean from Die Hard does?
I ask, do all gay men go out fuck minors and snort coke while like Brian Kinney from Queer as Folk?
Do all women throw themselves onto train tracks like Anna from Anna Karenina?
I'd like to imagine that I can be a Slayer, but alas not all women are Chosen to fight the Forces of Darkness.
When I read the claim that because women and/or young girls write men who aren't in fact masculine, butch or "man enough", I see it as not only policing a certain creativity from the author, it's also the policing of certain gender expression.
There's a trend, at least in my part of the world, of assimilation. Mainly from the gay men community, mainly because when it comes to who holds the power in the LGBT community it is the men. The white gay cis men. Who want straight society to see them as just as heteronormative, despite the fact that the monogamous pair has a couple of penises and not a penis and a vagina.
The issue of feminising a male character in order to make him "the girl" in the pairing says a lot about our socialisation, what is expected of a couple and pretty much exemplifies the notions of a misogynistic mentality - if the only way a same-sex couple can be a "true" pairing is to make one the "man" and the other the "woman" without examining what that means, is problematic. I also find it irritating on a personal level to see same-sex pairings reduced to stereotypical Rom-Com "I can't live without you" mentality and affairs.
But feminine men are not feminised men. The difference is huge. One is a gender expression; the other is a sexist projection. Sometimes they conflate, that usually makes a bad story. Sturgeon's Law applies to everything friends.
Men can write men just as poorly as women and vice versa.
Let's get over that, please!
Women are appropriating an identity that isn't theirs by writing slash and pro m/m and don't take into account the history of that identity
My point above applies here too. People can, should and will write things they do not know. Research should be taken seriously, but alas.
I recall that during the Lambda Awards shenanigan, when this debate erupted very publicly, there was discussion who was "queer enough" to be eligible for the award. Who decides who is queer? The policing of the varieties of queer identities can be found within queer discourse and community and without.
I've considered adopting the "Lesbian" label just so I can quit getting a headache from feeling as though I'm rejected from the culture I feel should be my home, because the house I was raised in, is not my cultural home what with having monogamous hetero-parents and three sets of hetero-married siblings.
I'm the odd man out there.
I'm sick of being the odd man out in the "Other" community as well.
I know I'm not the only one.
Not every story is about how hard it is to be gay. Nor should it be. That gets boring, very quickly.
I think the idea of who the "target audience" is more the issue, rather than the identity of the authors in question. Reading Dancer from the Dance by Andrew Holleran was an eye opening experience. There was a brief time in history, after Stonewall and before AIDS, that gay culture wasn't either assimilating or radicalising, it was simply an underworld of morals and ethics that was different.
Persecuted and oppressed, yes, but there was a sense of hope, I think, that was pretty much crushed under the conservative backlash of the 1980's.
We are still in that backlash, conservatism still strikes and minorities are the ones who suffer, thus, muddying the waters that divide the Straights and the Queers is problematic on various levels.
Gay men do not exist to entertain the fantasies of women of any sexuality. Just like gay women do not exist to entertain the fantasies of straight men.
This debate, into what is a growing fringe literature, is going in the wrong direction. There are no easy answers, but people need to stop policing identities and stop getting huffy about being called on appropriating identities.
There is a difference, it's subtle. Something we're sorely missing in this culture as a whole.
"Shock and Awe", right?
These gay men are policing women's expression of sexuality by demanding that they stop fetishising them
It's no secret that women's sexuality over the centuries has been considered either non-existent, or evil. Women are only sexual for two purposes; procreation and seduction.
These are crap things to be hoisted upon you as a woman, in a culture that considers the fact that you have a hole through which babies come out evil.
No one should be reduced to their genitalia and sex acts. Women have been reduced to that for centuries; it's why "Lesbian Sex" isn't real sex, merely foreplay for the cock to arrive.
Can the representation of sex escape fetishisation? I believe it can, especially in the written medium, where consciousness and the mind are in the narrative, in theory, of course.
The corporal body is a new thing to be taken into account when it comes to fictional bodies.
Gay cis men have male privilege that women do not have.
Nor will we have in the near future.
In my local LGBTQ community, those with power and those who ignore the cis women, the trans men and the trans women are the margins and it's fucking irritating.
Especially when queer women tell them – "Yo, we exist!" and they presume to speak for us, trans people (some of whom consider themselves straight) and all the other variety of genders and sexualities that don't fit in straight culture and are searching for a home in queer culture.
Erasure sucks. Does slash and m/m romance erase gay men's experiences? I believe it really depends on the story and is not inherent to the sex, gender and orientation of the writer or even the genre.
I'm bothered the lumping of identities in this debate. Gay men assume their experiences are being hijacked for straight women's sexual satisfaction, while ignoring the voices of their gay sisters, who's sexuality is seen as less valid because the cock is absent, temporary or simply not the focus.
Straight women have things in common with gay men, but not in the same way. Just like gay women have things in common with straight women, but not in the same way.
We're in muddy waters, as mentioned, because many (a great many) of women who write slash are queer, but perhaps not "queer enough" to have a legitimate role in telling queer stories, or we're in that essentialist trap in which straight women cannot understand or appreciate the stories of those who have bodies and minds not like their own and whose history of sexuality isn't perceived to be one of violence upon them.
No one wants to give in and this debate is harsh, we've got oppressed groups going around in circles as to whether writing about the Other, getting off and being entertained, you're short changing their pain.
There is no clear answer. Ignoring that there is hurt doesn't do any good. Ignoring the fact that this hurt is going in all directions is not good either.
The notion that m/m stories (gay or not, slash or not) are being marketed as a "women's genre" is what's problematic and identity erasing – so let's stop jumping on the fact that "straight" "women" are writing "gay" "men".
People and our quaint little categories.
A little anecdote if you please.
My BFF and I are very intimate with each other. We hug, we snuggle with each other. Our body differences make it easy for me to lie on top of hir without me being too heavy and hir softness make it extremely comfy for me to cuddle.
We are completely platonic. Zie's married and monogamous, we've known each other since we were in Elementary school (we're both in our twenties now) and a few years ago we sported a shaved head together.
Yes people thought we were a couple and we both acknowledge the fact that if we were on teevee we'd probably be Slashed (we'd make awesome characters, btw). Well, it helps that we're "canonically" queer I suppose.
Slash, as I've often said, is an interpretation of the text.
The whole debate regarding slash and m/m is coming off as a huge turf war. It really isn't who has the right to write what because honestly, people will and should write what they want.
The policing of identities (straight women writing gay men), while erasing identities (queer women, straight men) is irritating.
I haven't read every single post on
metafandom and linkspam because, dude, there are many.Quite likely mine will get lost in the shuffle; after all I'm just another reader with an opinion.
A few issues rise from this debate;
#1 That these women misrepresent men, because they're in fact writing women (albeit with the men's bodies).
#2 That these women are appropriating an identity that isn't theirs by writing slash and pro m/m and don't take into account the history of that identity.
#3 That these gay men are policing women's expression of sexuality by demanding that they stop fetishising them.
I'd like to tackle these points one by one, I hope I manage:
Women misrepresent men, because they're in fact writing women
Tell me, can all men do what John MacLean from Die Hard does?
I ask, do all gay men go out fuck minors and snort coke while like Brian Kinney from Queer as Folk?
Do all women throw themselves onto train tracks like Anna from Anna Karenina?
I'd like to imagine that I can be a Slayer, but alas not all women are Chosen to fight the Forces of Darkness.
When I read the claim that because women and/or young girls write men who aren't in fact masculine, butch or "man enough", I see it as not only policing a certain creativity from the author, it's also the policing of certain gender expression.
There's a trend, at least in my part of the world, of assimilation. Mainly from the gay men community, mainly because when it comes to who holds the power in the LGBT community it is the men. The white gay cis men. Who want straight society to see them as just as heteronormative, despite the fact that the monogamous pair has a couple of penises and not a penis and a vagina.
The issue of feminising a male character in order to make him "the girl" in the pairing says a lot about our socialisation, what is expected of a couple and pretty much exemplifies the notions of a misogynistic mentality - if the only way a same-sex couple can be a "true" pairing is to make one the "man" and the other the "woman" without examining what that means, is problematic. I also find it irritating on a personal level to see same-sex pairings reduced to stereotypical Rom-Com "I can't live without you" mentality and affairs.
But feminine men are not feminised men. The difference is huge. One is a gender expression; the other is a sexist projection. Sometimes they conflate, that usually makes a bad story. Sturgeon's Law applies to everything friends.
Men can write men just as poorly as women and vice versa.
Let's get over that, please!
Women are appropriating an identity that isn't theirs by writing slash and pro m/m and don't take into account the history of that identity
My point above applies here too. People can, should and will write things they do not know. Research should be taken seriously, but alas.
I recall that during the Lambda Awards shenanigan, when this debate erupted very publicly, there was discussion who was "queer enough" to be eligible for the award. Who decides who is queer? The policing of the varieties of queer identities can be found within queer discourse and community and without.
I've considered adopting the "Lesbian" label just so I can quit getting a headache from feeling as though I'm rejected from the culture I feel should be my home, because the house I was raised in, is not my cultural home what with having monogamous hetero-parents and three sets of hetero-married siblings.
I'm the odd man out there.
I'm sick of being the odd man out in the "Other" community as well.
I know I'm not the only one.
Not every story is about how hard it is to be gay. Nor should it be. That gets boring, very quickly.
I think the idea of who the "target audience" is more the issue, rather than the identity of the authors in question. Reading Dancer from the Dance by Andrew Holleran was an eye opening experience. There was a brief time in history, after Stonewall and before AIDS, that gay culture wasn't either assimilating or radicalising, it was simply an underworld of morals and ethics that was different.
Persecuted and oppressed, yes, but there was a sense of hope, I think, that was pretty much crushed under the conservative backlash of the 1980's.
We are still in that backlash, conservatism still strikes and minorities are the ones who suffer, thus, muddying the waters that divide the Straights and the Queers is problematic on various levels.
Gay men do not exist to entertain the fantasies of women of any sexuality. Just like gay women do not exist to entertain the fantasies of straight men.
This debate, into what is a growing fringe literature, is going in the wrong direction. There are no easy answers, but people need to stop policing identities and stop getting huffy about being called on appropriating identities.
There is a difference, it's subtle. Something we're sorely missing in this culture as a whole.
"Shock and Awe", right?
These gay men are policing women's expression of sexuality by demanding that they stop fetishising them
It's no secret that women's sexuality over the centuries has been considered either non-existent, or evil. Women are only sexual for two purposes; procreation and seduction.
These are crap things to be hoisted upon you as a woman, in a culture that considers the fact that you have a hole through which babies come out evil.
No one should be reduced to their genitalia and sex acts. Women have been reduced to that for centuries; it's why "Lesbian Sex" isn't real sex, merely foreplay for the cock to arrive.
Can the representation of sex escape fetishisation? I believe it can, especially in the written medium, where consciousness and the mind are in the narrative, in theory, of course.
The corporal body is a new thing to be taken into account when it comes to fictional bodies.
Gay cis men have male privilege that women do not have.
Nor will we have in the near future.
In my local LGBTQ community, those with power and those who ignore the cis women, the trans men and the trans women are the margins and it's fucking irritating.
Especially when queer women tell them – "Yo, we exist!" and they presume to speak for us, trans people (some of whom consider themselves straight) and all the other variety of genders and sexualities that don't fit in straight culture and are searching for a home in queer culture.
Erasure sucks. Does slash and m/m romance erase gay men's experiences? I believe it really depends on the story and is not inherent to the sex, gender and orientation of the writer or even the genre.
I'm bothered the lumping of identities in this debate. Gay men assume their experiences are being hijacked for straight women's sexual satisfaction, while ignoring the voices of their gay sisters, who's sexuality is seen as less valid because the cock is absent, temporary or simply not the focus.
Straight women have things in common with gay men, but not in the same way. Just like gay women have things in common with straight women, but not in the same way.
We're in muddy waters, as mentioned, because many (a great many) of women who write slash are queer, but perhaps not "queer enough" to have a legitimate role in telling queer stories, or we're in that essentialist trap in which straight women cannot understand or appreciate the stories of those who have bodies and minds not like their own and whose history of sexuality isn't perceived to be one of violence upon them.
No one wants to give in and this debate is harsh, we've got oppressed groups going around in circles as to whether writing about the Other, getting off and being entertained, you're short changing their pain.
There is no clear answer. Ignoring that there is hurt doesn't do any good. Ignoring the fact that this hurt is going in all directions is not good either.
The notion that m/m stories (gay or not, slash or not) are being marketed as a "women's genre" is what's problematic and identity erasing – so let's stop jumping on the fact that "straight" "women" are writing "gay" "men".
People and our quaint little categories.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-18 02:40 pm (UTC)My experience of slash fandom was always that there were a tiny number of gay men, an equally tiny number of straight men who like girl/girl fic more than they like girl/girl porno, and the rest were women across the whole spectrum of straight through gay.
And I can't remember any of the gay guys having a problem with m/m fic being written by women.
I remember some of us guys (both straight and gay) would sometimes roll our eyes a bit at some of the representations of men as imagined by teenaged girls. But, *shrugs*, that's just the fanfic world for ya. Some of it is good, some of it is bad, some of it is very very sparkly.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-18 04:07 pm (UTC)IMHO, good writing is good writing. (Though I'm not going to speak for anyone in a minority or marginalised group, just myself.)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-18 10:35 pm (UTC)But there's also the history of men (of any orientation) policing the sexuality of women (of any orientation). And that's also problematic.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-18 10:41 pm (UTC)It's more the fact that some people think that by writing slash or m/m, or consuming it, they're activists for the LGBT cause. I mean some, many of the writers and consumers are queer - but that doesn't automatically mean we're activists in any way shape or form.
That's the appropriation when it comes down to it, in the end. I mean representation fail can happen no matter who writes the story - people who are not part of the group that they're writing about do need to be more careful.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-18 10:43 pm (UTC)Uck.
That's the appropriation when it comes down to it, in the end. I mean representation fail can happen no matter who writes the story - people who are not part of the group that they're writing about do need to be more careful.
Oh, I completely agree.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-19 02:50 am (UTC)This. Remember who created Bella Swan, folks...
Your post has crystallized some of my own thoughts, and helped me put my finger on what exactly irritated me on some of the presumptions being made towards women as well as clarify what was being meant when claims of appropriation are being made.
I was off the internet for most of the Post-CoE fallout, so I am involved in a lot of delayed wincing right now. Yeah, I'm going to really miss Ianto, and I resent being made to feel dumb b/c of that. However, the sight of fangirls seeing their Save Ianto Jones campaign as Stonewall 2.0 boggles my mind...
no subject
Date: 2010-01-19 08:46 am (UTC)Glad my post helped!
no subject
Date: 2010-01-19 02:56 am (UTC)Here via metafandom
Date: 2010-01-22 02:43 am (UTC)Does the fact that I'm attracted to both men and women say anything else about me as a person? Not really. As a child I loved frilly dresses, and fighting with swords (sometimes at the same time - the grass stains were something else). I really, really loathe the thought that certain traits belong to a specific gender, and that expressing them is somehow wrong if you're not of that gender.
Otherwise I just generally agree with what you say!
- lanjelin@dreamwidth
Re: Here via metafandom
Date: 2010-01-22 09:17 am (UTC)Which is a large peeve, to say the least.