*pokes inbox*

I’m not sure why, but I’m getting more pokes, links and hits on my m/m fiction and slash tag again; I think I’ve been linked somewhere again, I don’t know. Either way, my inbox is getting a definite uptick on stuff related (including an inordinate number of book recommendations, many of which are… questionable to say the least).

 Anyway, people are asking opinions (read the tag, I’ve pretty much said everything and don’t see why repeating it will matter) and trying to push me to various discussions. I’m not sure why, maybe because they want my take, maybe because they and their friends want to play ambush or maybe because they want to use me as a weapon in their own personal little grudgematches,.

 Look, I really don’t want to join any discussion, debate or musing on slash and/or m/m fiction on any forum or blog or whatever because too much of this whole debate, genre, fandom, category are places I don’t consider safe spaces for gay men. Sure there are some safe spaces out there, but they are the minority and I don’t want to dip my fingers into various pools to figure out which ones have piranhas in them

 But if you really think there is a debate, discussion or musing on slash (involving men, rather than femslash or slash involving women) and m/m fiction that you really want to tell me about then please check it against these 2 questions first (these aren’t the only questions I have before I consider a place safe, but these are the first hurdle).

 1) Is anyone saying “these are not aimed at gay men” or “these aren’t for gay men” or “these don’t involve gay men” or something similar without being dogpiled with giant ant-eaters?

 If so then uckies – that’s objectification right there. Gay and bi men are objects, tools, things to this place, not people in our own right. Objectification is one of dehumanising elements of fetishisation. I’d rather stay away

 2) If this is a discussion/debate/busy comment thread, etc  does it contain a significant number of gay or bisexual men? If there are a number of people involved discussing this, how many of them are gay or bi men?

 If the answer is “none” or “a teeny minority” or “a very small proportion” then I’m going to stay away as well. The idea of genre entirely based around a marginalised identity constantly being analysed by groups of people that exclude (or include a few small tokens) the people being written about is always something I’m deeply uncomfortable about and usually means I don’t want to be anywhere near the place. I generally have the same opinion of any context – if I went to a convention (unlikely but still) and there was a panel on “Writing about X minorities” and the 6 person panel were all from people who aren’t X and the room was overflowing with people who aren’t X, I’d be dubious.

 Frankly, I’m unlikely to appreciate any attempts to drag me into any forum or group on the subject because it causes me no shortage of grey hairs – but if a group/discussion/forum/etc fails either of these tests, then I’m doubly unwilling. Not only that, but if you’re pointing me towards such a group without at least a disclaimer then I probably don’t want to discuss m/m fiction and slash with you either.

 

Good Faith

I’m faintly, academically curious about how the same arguments used by privileged people to dismiss nasty complaining marginalised folks keep getting used -and even rebranded. One glorious example is:

INTENT!

You know how this goes? Someone spouts a whole load of bigoted crap as they do so many times over – maybe they’re ignorant, maybe they don’t give a crap, maybe they’re just that overloaded on their own superiority and privilege, maybe they’re malicious – ultimately they’re called out on it and they turn round and say “I didn’t intend that!”

And magically everything’s fixed. Except, not. Unintended bigotry is still bigotry. Something that dehumanises or others marginalised people still does so even if the person producing it is thinking of fluffy kittens and happy unicorns. It doesn’t make a slur any less triggering, a piece any less erasing, a portrayal any less stereotyped or their actions any less dismissive, offensive and othering. Intent as an excuse puts the privileged person’s feelings above the actual harm caused to marginalised people. This is why the watchword for so long has been “Intent isn’t magic.”

Ah, but the forces of privilege aren’t going to give up just because someone has hit them with some common sense (alas, for if they did we’d be in a much better world by now). And even as we continue to fight magical intent, it’s mutated child has crawled onto the scene…

GOOD FAITH!

The Good Faith argument basically says that the person meant well – they had good faith. In other words, it’s the Intent argument for those who know they’re not going to impress anyone by waving the intent banner. But it has the bonus points of being aggressive, not defensive. See, the “Intent” argument is a defence “I didn’t mean that!” while this is an attack “I’m acting in good faith!” with the nasty little implication that the marginalised person challenging them has BAD FAITH. Tuttut.

And you can see that in how it’s used. I’ve seen it used most often as an accusation: “you assumed I was acting in bad faith!” As if whether they’re acting in bad faith or not changes what they did! Just like with intent, your good faith isn’t magical. If you do/say/write something demeaning, dehumanising, stereotyping, othering or erasing marginalised people then that is what you have done/said/write. Your magical Good Faith Fairy won’t buzz around your words and deeds like some kind of Microsoft Paperclip and edit you actions.

And you know what? Damn right I assumed they were acting in bad faith! Why should I assume differently? Why should I ASSUME that any straight person is going to deal with me in good faith? Why should any trans person assume a cis person is acting in good faith? Why should POC assume white people are acting in good faith?

Read More