Some more poking of the m/m genre
Jan. 14th, 2010 03:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparkindarknessSince this is still flying around I feel the need to add some more general points from my random point of view
The prejudiced crap people do to you, does not excuse you doing it to us
How many times does it have to be said that just because you are a marginalised person doesn’t mean you have a right to stomp all over other marginalised people? The fact that straight men have been exploiting and fetishising women since year dot does NOT justify women fetishising gay men. Just because they did it to you doesn’t mean it’s hunky dory you doing it to us.
Is Women writing gay male fiction inherently wrong?
I’ve seen this around. Sometimes it raises good points - but most of the times it has been said have, frankly, been major attempts to derail from legitimate criticism.
However, we need to clarify some terms:
“Gay/GBLT fiction/romance” straight and cis-gendered women cannot write this and claiming to do so would be dishonest. To me, ‘gay/gblt fiction/romance’ implies a gay/gblt author. Just as if we saw ‘black fiction’ we’d expect the writer to be black.
“M/M fiction” again, what do we mean? Do we mean just fiction with gay male characters (in which case, see below) or do we mean fiction with gay male characters where the primary focus is their relationship (and is ‘relationship’ a euphemism for ‘really hawt mansex’?) Fiction focusing on gay male relationships can be dubious because you’re skirting the line where it’s not just a book with gay characters, but a book where gay characters are presented for titillation, arousal and OH YEAAHHH YUMMY purposes. And this is especially the case when a book is primarily about sex or strongly sex driven (the “add 4 more sex scenes” school of m/m fiction). Because here we have gay men being used as sex toys. They may be well written sex toys, they may be non-stereotypical sex toys, they may even have been written to try to make them respectable - but they’re still sex toys, they’re still being used for others to get their rocks off. Sure, a non-stereotypical, attempted-to-be respectful sex toy is infinitely preferably to the stereotypical, disrespectful and plain awful sex toy. But it’s still a sex toy.
“Fiction with gay characters” not only am I happy for anyone to write this, but I’d desperately encourage it. We need more good, respectful (emphasise on these 2, note) representations of gay people - all GBLT people - out there. If we confine such characters to books written by GBLT people only then we are inherently reducing the portrayals to a very small fraction of literature. I want to open a book and see me. I want to be able to shop in any section of any book shop and know that there will be a me in one of those books of that genre. I don’t want the only place I can find another gay man to be in the GBLT section (assuming a book shop even has a GBLT section). I don’t want the very idea that GBLT exist to be a niche genre or a specialist work. I don’t want us to be invisible or rare. And yes, these stories can include sex - if the plot and characterisations demand it then it SHOULD contain sex - because the meme of gay characters being rendered sexless to be palatable for straight audiences has been done and it’s very very very tired. But sex should exist as a tool to advance the stories and the characters - the stories and the characters shouldn’t exist to provide sex. Sex is a part of the plot, not the reason for the plot.
I want us to exist in fiction - but I also want us to be real. I want us to be treated as people - not sex objects, not caricatures, not stereotypes. I want people to acknowledge we exist and be happy with that - but not use us and not appropriate us. So, writers need to constantly remember they are writing the other and that their depictions have consequences. I want them to write us, but remember us at the same time, remember what they can do with us, remember they are using us, remember that we are vulnerable and remember that we are people deserving respect and consideration.
Pseudonyms
This is a topic on which I am rapidly losing my patience because there has been so many frankly facile attempts to derail and distract and justify one of the most extreme examples of appropriation.
I am not against pseudonyms as a concept. I was not born with the name Sparky. There are many many good reasons why writers choose to use a pen name. There is nothing inherently wrong with that nor with using different pen names for different genres, books etc.
HOWEVER when you use a MALE pen name (and, to a lesser extent, but still very telling, a gender neutral or initialled pen name) in the m/m genre you are doing so in a context where authors do try to fake being gay men for the sake of “authenticity”. When you use a male name in the m/m genre you are implying that you are a gay man - you are implying knowledge and life experience you do not have, you have not suffered for and you have NO RIGHT to claim. This is an appropriation of our identity and is one of the most grossly disrespectful parts of the m/m genre. Women using pseudonyms in the Romance genre don’t feel the need to suddenly use male names - so why do they in the m/m?
Also, yes, women have used male pen names before to overcome misogyny. I support this and agree with this - of course they should to overcome the very real and utterly wrong sexism that exists in many genres. But to raise this in reference to the m/m and wider romance genres is not only inaccurate - but dishonest. M/m and romance are women dominated genres. The readers, writers et al are women to an overwhelming degree. To claim you need a male name to overcome the sexism against female writers in these genres is as ridiculous as claiming you need a male name to enter a WI meeting. Anyone making this comparison and argument is either grossly ignorant of the m/m and romance genres or (and, frankly, far more likely) attempting to dishonestly derail and distract away from the homophobia. And THAT is also part of the problem - the reason the m/m genre is seen as exploitative, privileged and homophobic is not just because of what authors do - but the fierce defence so many raise when their problematic behaviour is challenged.
If it’s not you, you’re writing the ‘other’. EDITED
This means if you are not a gay man (whether cis or trans) you are writing the “other” (with all that implies) when writing about gay men. It doesn’t matter if you face Othering yourself in other genres, it doesn’t matter if you are marginalised, it doesn’t matter if your marginalised group has also faced othering.
I’ll also say that this INCLUDES lesbians, bisexual women, trans women and heterosexual trans men. You are still writing the other when you write about gay men. If a bisexual or gay man wrote a gratuitous f/f scene for heterosexual porn, it’d still be gratuitous, fetishistic and appropriative, he is still writing about the ‘other.’ It’s not AS ‘other’ as a heterosexual and cis gendered person writing it, since, as a member of the GBLT community there is a degree of shared experience - but it’s still ‘other’.
Have lesbian, bi, trans and genderqueer writers been overlooked in this discussion? To a degree I think - but I also think it's because everything that's been said applies to you as WELL
Yes, there are lesbian, biwomen, trans women and genderqueer writers also using gay men, appriopriating gay men, disrespecting gay men, objectifying gay men
And that's still not ok. Nor is it ok to paint critics as straight women allies who don't understand. But thanks for rendering gay men even more invisible in a genre that is supposed to be about us. Thanks for making a genre that treats us as a subject matter even less about us. And thanks for playing the "gay friend who says its ok" to the writers who will continue to disrespect us, use us and dehumanise us.
It’s misogyny for men to tell women what to write
Your books are about us. This is us, our lives, our community, us that are being represented. Us that will be harmed. Us that have to deal with the fall out of stereotypes. Us that are offended. Us that have to deal with the grossly awful portrayals. Us that that are being used, dehumanised and appropriated.
THIS IS US. We have a right to be critical here. We have a right to be offended here. We have a right to input here. We have a right to be respected here. We have a right to be anger here. We have a right to say what is and isn’t offensive what is and isn’t homophobic, what is and isn’t privileged. Don’t silence us by saying it is misogynist for us to comment on and object to books that focus entirely on us.
Yes, there has been an awful, horrendous history of men lecturing, policing and controlling women. Yes, still today, women are constantly fenced in, judged and controlled by men individually and the patriarchy in general. And yes, some critics have used unpleasant misogyny and sexism in their rants. But that history does not mean we can be ignored or silenced when we are offended, hurt and angered by the way you are using us. The existence of misogyny, male privileged and patriarchy does not justify straight privilege, homophobia and the using/appropriation of gay men.
Edited again to fix date. Silly computer
The prejudiced crap people do to you, does not excuse you doing it to us
How many times does it have to be said that just because you are a marginalised person doesn’t mean you have a right to stomp all over other marginalised people? The fact that straight men have been exploiting and fetishising women since year dot does NOT justify women fetishising gay men. Just because they did it to you doesn’t mean it’s hunky dory you doing it to us.
Is Women writing gay male fiction inherently wrong?
I’ve seen this around. Sometimes it raises good points - but most of the times it has been said have, frankly, been major attempts to derail from legitimate criticism.
However, we need to clarify some terms:
“Gay/GBLT fiction/romance” straight and cis-gendered women cannot write this and claiming to do so would be dishonest. To me, ‘gay/gblt fiction/romance’ implies a gay/gblt author. Just as if we saw ‘black fiction’ we’d expect the writer to be black.
“M/M fiction” again, what do we mean? Do we mean just fiction with gay male characters (in which case, see below) or do we mean fiction with gay male characters where the primary focus is their relationship (and is ‘relationship’ a euphemism for ‘really hawt mansex’?) Fiction focusing on gay male relationships can be dubious because you’re skirting the line where it’s not just a book with gay characters, but a book where gay characters are presented for titillation, arousal and OH YEAAHHH YUMMY purposes. And this is especially the case when a book is primarily about sex or strongly sex driven (the “add 4 more sex scenes” school of m/m fiction). Because here we have gay men being used as sex toys. They may be well written sex toys, they may be non-stereotypical sex toys, they may even have been written to try to make them respectable - but they’re still sex toys, they’re still being used for others to get their rocks off. Sure, a non-stereotypical, attempted-to-be respectful sex toy is infinitely preferably to the stereotypical, disrespectful and plain awful sex toy. But it’s still a sex toy.
“Fiction with gay characters” not only am I happy for anyone to write this, but I’d desperately encourage it. We need more good, respectful (emphasise on these 2, note) representations of gay people - all GBLT people - out there. If we confine such characters to books written by GBLT people only then we are inherently reducing the portrayals to a very small fraction of literature. I want to open a book and see me. I want to be able to shop in any section of any book shop and know that there will be a me in one of those books of that genre. I don’t want the only place I can find another gay man to be in the GBLT section (assuming a book shop even has a GBLT section). I don’t want the very idea that GBLT exist to be a niche genre or a specialist work. I don’t want us to be invisible or rare. And yes, these stories can include sex - if the plot and characterisations demand it then it SHOULD contain sex - because the meme of gay characters being rendered sexless to be palatable for straight audiences has been done and it’s very very very tired. But sex should exist as a tool to advance the stories and the characters - the stories and the characters shouldn’t exist to provide sex. Sex is a part of the plot, not the reason for the plot.
I want us to exist in fiction - but I also want us to be real. I want us to be treated as people - not sex objects, not caricatures, not stereotypes. I want people to acknowledge we exist and be happy with that - but not use us and not appropriate us. So, writers need to constantly remember they are writing the other and that their depictions have consequences. I want them to write us, but remember us at the same time, remember what they can do with us, remember they are using us, remember that we are vulnerable and remember that we are people deserving respect and consideration.
Pseudonyms
This is a topic on which I am rapidly losing my patience because there has been so many frankly facile attempts to derail and distract and justify one of the most extreme examples of appropriation.
I am not against pseudonyms as a concept. I was not born with the name Sparky. There are many many good reasons why writers choose to use a pen name. There is nothing inherently wrong with that nor with using different pen names for different genres, books etc.
HOWEVER when you use a MALE pen name (and, to a lesser extent, but still very telling, a gender neutral or initialled pen name) in the m/m genre you are doing so in a context where authors do try to fake being gay men for the sake of “authenticity”. When you use a male name in the m/m genre you are implying that you are a gay man - you are implying knowledge and life experience you do not have, you have not suffered for and you have NO RIGHT to claim. This is an appropriation of our identity and is one of the most grossly disrespectful parts of the m/m genre. Women using pseudonyms in the Romance genre don’t feel the need to suddenly use male names - so why do they in the m/m?
Also, yes, women have used male pen names before to overcome misogyny. I support this and agree with this - of course they should to overcome the very real and utterly wrong sexism that exists in many genres. But to raise this in reference to the m/m and wider romance genres is not only inaccurate - but dishonest. M/m and romance are women dominated genres. The readers, writers et al are women to an overwhelming degree. To claim you need a male name to overcome the sexism against female writers in these genres is as ridiculous as claiming you need a male name to enter a WI meeting. Anyone making this comparison and argument is either grossly ignorant of the m/m and romance genres or (and, frankly, far more likely) attempting to dishonestly derail and distract away from the homophobia. And THAT is also part of the problem - the reason the m/m genre is seen as exploitative, privileged and homophobic is not just because of what authors do - but the fierce defence so many raise when their problematic behaviour is challenged.
If it’s not you, you’re writing the ‘other’. EDITED
This means if you are not a gay man (whether cis or trans) you are writing the “other” (with all that implies) when writing about gay men. It doesn’t matter if you face Othering yourself in other genres, it doesn’t matter if you are marginalised, it doesn’t matter if your marginalised group has also faced othering.
I’ll also say that this INCLUDES lesbians, bisexual women, trans women and heterosexual trans men. You are still writing the other when you write about gay men. If a bisexual or gay man wrote a gratuitous f/f scene for heterosexual porn, it’d still be gratuitous, fetishistic and appropriative, he is still writing about the ‘other.’ It’s not AS ‘other’ as a heterosexual and cis gendered person writing it, since, as a member of the GBLT community there is a degree of shared experience - but it’s still ‘other’.
Have lesbian, bi, trans and genderqueer writers been overlooked in this discussion? To a degree I think - but I also think it's because everything that's been said applies to you as WELL
Yes, there are lesbian, biwomen, trans women and genderqueer writers also using gay men, appriopriating gay men, disrespecting gay men, objectifying gay men
And that's still not ok. Nor is it ok to paint critics as straight women allies who don't understand. But thanks for rendering gay men even more invisible in a genre that is supposed to be about us. Thanks for making a genre that treats us as a subject matter even less about us. And thanks for playing the "gay friend who says its ok" to the writers who will continue to disrespect us, use us and dehumanise us.
It’s misogyny for men to tell women what to write
Your books are about us. This is us, our lives, our community, us that are being represented. Us that will be harmed. Us that have to deal with the fall out of stereotypes. Us that are offended. Us that have to deal with the grossly awful portrayals. Us that that are being used, dehumanised and appropriated.
THIS IS US. We have a right to be critical here. We have a right to be offended here. We have a right to input here. We have a right to be respected here. We have a right to be anger here. We have a right to say what is and isn’t offensive what is and isn’t homophobic, what is and isn’t privileged. Don’t silence us by saying it is misogynist for us to comment on and object to books that focus entirely on us.
Yes, there has been an awful, horrendous history of men lecturing, policing and controlling women. Yes, still today, women are constantly fenced in, judged and controlled by men individually and the patriarchy in general. And yes, some critics have used unpleasant misogyny and sexism in their rants. But that history does not mean we can be ignored or silenced when we are offended, hurt and angered by the way you are using us. The existence of misogyny, male privileged and patriarchy does not justify straight privilege, homophobia and the using/appropriation of gay men.
Edited again to fix date. Silly computer
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-15 03:34 am (UTC)Our purpose is to provide an archive and record of discussions. We realized our policy is not clear and will be posting a revised version by January 17 which will include the following addendum: ETA: We also consider that any post which is public on the internet is available for linking and discussion. Linkspam is not Metafandom and operates from a different philosophy. /ETA
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-15 02:56 pm (UTC)The alternating between lj and dreamwidth is a bit of a pain
Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-15 06:14 am (UTC)Arguably, for the same reason men writing m/f romance novels almost always use female pennames--it lends an (artificial) sense of authenticity. I'd say the relative percentage of women writing m/m romances using male pennames is much smaller than the relative percentage of men writing m/f romances who use female pennames.
Of course, the target audiences are different and there are other complicating factors that may make one of these worse than the other; I'm not a fan of either genre, so I don't want to comment on that.
Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-15 02:57 pm (UTC)Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-16 03:21 am (UTC)Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-16 11:46 pm (UTC)I fail to see how a male writer (with or without female pseudonym) of het romance is less appropriating women's experiences than a female writer of m/m romance is appropriating gay male experiences.
If you boil it down, it leads to the question of whether *anyone* can write about experiences-not-their own credibly, and if not, how they should police their imagination.
Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-17 01:08 am (UTC)I think very much that using a male (or, to a lesser extent, gender neutral or initialled name) is veyr much about deception or implication FOR an unwarrented claim of autnenticity. Now the genre may lack authenticity inherently, but this is false attempt to create a veneer of appropriated authenticity
I fail to see how a male writer (with or without female pseudonym) of het romance is less appropriating women's experiences than a female writer of m/m romance is appropriating gay male experiences
I would say it's appropriative in a female name but not AS appropriative because a heterosexual male DOES have experience of heterosexual relationships. It is appropriative and deceptive for him to claim he has an insight of those relationships from a female perspective.
If you boil it down, it leads to the question of whether *anyone* can write about experiences-not-their own credibly
Not at all - I think people can and should write the other credibly. But they have to do so honestly (and not, say, be Sally Jones who uses a Native American name to write a book about Nagtive Americans) and they have to do so with work, respect and research.
Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-17 02:27 am (UTC)The reason the discussion about pseudonyms confuses me is that I don't see a pseudonym that doesn't concur with a writer's gender as a form of attempted appropriation or deception. In a lot of genre literature, especially genres where there's a strong gender bias (SF, romance, western, etc.), names are made up to suit the genre. In my teens, I read a lot of romance in translation, which made me aware that pseudonyms are not only chosen to suit genre expectations, but are also changed in translation to make a novel more attractive to a non-English audience. And in fandom/slash, pseudonyms are adopted for all sorts of reason, personal and fannish, and reveal practically nothing about the identity of the owner.
I would say it's appropriative in a female name but not AS appropriative because a heterosexual male DOES have experience of heterosexual relationships. It is appropriative and deceptive for him to claim he has an insight of those relationships from a female perspective.
That's my problem - I don't equal adopting a male or female pseudonym as a claim to *be* that gender and having the related insight at all. I never regarded authors' names as anything but reflections of the pressures of the (male-and-straight-oriented) publishing businesses (and that includes making male writers adopt female or gender-neutral) pseudonyms, and therefore as to be taken with a whole lot of salt in general.
I see your point about appropriation when it comes to areas like gay (or Native American) fiction. On the one hand, it will be obvious from the book itself that it has been written by someone without a real insight into the identity or culture that they're attempting to mimick. But on the other, it will still create/perpetuate a wrong/stereotyped picture of the 'other', *and* the author will be financially rewarded. However, I think that only applies to books/genres that are actually claiming to describe those identities, and correct me if I'm wrong, but most of slash and m/m doesn't claim that. Holding escapist fiction to the 'must depict reality correctly' standard is pretty much a contradiction in terms.
Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-17 02:21 pm (UTC)In a lot of genre literature, especially genres where there's a strong gender bias (SF, romance, western, etc.), names are made up to suit the genre.
And this is understandable - but the reasoning is different from the m/m.
In sci-fi there is a strong trend of sexism. A woman writer will not do so well because of sexism. Her marginalised status will disadvantage her unjustly and unfairly.
This is not the case in either m/m or romance. Both of these genre are female dominated in terms of writers and readers and, in the m/m genre, many of the publishers are also very female dominated. I think it would be inaccurate to characterise women as disadvantaged in the m/m genre and a male name is needed to overcome sexism. In this case expressly choosing a male name or (to a lesser extent) a gender neutral one does imply it - and we can see that in that an author has themselves called it a way to claim authenticity.
That implication is deceptive and intensely disrespectful
obvious from the book itself that it has been written by someone without a real insight into the identity or culture that they're attempting to mimick.
Obvious to who? The young or inexperienced homosexual looking for some connection to a book with people like him in it? Looking for some way to connect?
Even if an appropriation fails to appropriate because it is not convincing it is still a very disrespectful thing. It is still damaging and highly appropriative - and I think the implication (and very heavy implication indeed) of being a gay man in this case is very appropriative. I don't think you need to have invented a completely fictional bigoraphy for it to count - any more than I think you need to invent a completely fictional biography to be appropriating Native Americans - I think you'd still be appropriating if you just fired up google site and cobbled together a Native American name
Holding escapist fiction to the 'must depict reality correctly' standard is pretty much a contradiction in terms.
It's not escapism for gay men. And just being escapism doesn't, I think, absolve someone from the need to respect the other and treat them with respect. Escapism wouldn't/shouldn't (though people do try) justify racist stereotypes, depictions or characterisations and I don't see it doing the same because it is gay men being portrayed.
Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-18 03:23 am (UTC)I found your point about m/m readership and publishers being female-dominated interesting - in slash, this is of course self-evident, but I'd be really interested in where this has been discussed with regard to published books. You don't happen to have a pointer?
I wouldn't say that women are *disadvantaged* in the m/m genre, only that it's topically male-centred, and - like het romance - there is a certain logic within genre conventions to expect a male pseudonym. I'm not saying that there aren't a handful of people viewing it in terms of 'lending authenticity', but considering that the genre is fantasy, I find that rather absurd.
That's also a reason why I have a hard time accepting your point that a young or inexperienced gay person would look for realistic takes on their identity in escapist genres like romance or fantasy? This is admittedly subjective. I was there once, and drew a lot on lesbian/feminist poetry and non-fiction.
It's not escapism for gay men.
I don't think that's true, considering that there are some gay male writers of m/m romance and slash, and quite a lot of readers. I've seen them denounced as suffering from internalised homophobia because of it in another thread, which isn't very respectful either. I don't for a second claim that there's no stereotypical (and just plain bad) stuff out there, but perhaps it's a problem of 'respect' or 'stereotype' meaning greatly different things even to those in the same community? Someone was discussing stereotypes and the issue of Person A's stereotype being part of Person B's identity in one of the recent metafandom links, and I found it quite fascinating.
Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-18 02:10 pm (UTC)there is a certain logic within genre conventions to expect a male pseudonym.
Only to claim some kind of authenticity, connection or knowledge of the subject matter.
That's also a reason why I have a hard time accepting your point that a young or inexperienced gay person would look for realistic takes on their identity in escapist genres like romance or fantasy?
The first book about a gay man I read was written by Anne McCaffrey. It had dragons in it. It didn't matter - because it was the first book I'd found and for a long time the only book I've found. I looked for some clue about who i was, I looked for someone who was like me. I looked for some sign of what I should be and what it meant.
And I got a lot of stereotyped drivel. I tried to adhere to the drivel I read there - and in other books I found since - for a desperately long time.
To some it may be escapism in that all fiction is - but it's still us portrayed and us being used. It's still us being considered cavalierly - with peopel crying that it's fiction so it doesn't matter how gay men are depicted, how offensive it is, whether you play all the stereotypes.
Stereotypes take a lot of figuring out but there are a lot of common ones that aren't too hard to identiofy - if people make the effort. Many don't. And respect isn't hard to figure out. respect just requires thought - that's not hard but it's unpopular. It has been decried that writers of m/m are asked to think about their content. Gay men slammed for asking to be considered or asking for that thought and examination. The fact that not only is such thouyght not taken - but that even asking or it is met with a wall of furious defensiveness, deflection and insult tells us how much respect is needed
Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-17 03:01 pm (UTC)Nope. Very much the opposite. Especially if you include neutral names. Men writing Romance under female names are rare enough to be notable.
Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-18 04:49 pm (UTC)Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-18 09:41 pm (UTC)1 to 5% are male authors, 100% use female pen names.
On any given site publishing m/m romance aimed at the female audience, you will find 25- 50% of female authors use gender neutral or male pennames. Which mean a large number do not.
Ironically, my real name is gender neutral. I chose a female pen name because I didn't want to pretend to the readers I might have experiences I do not.
Re: Here from linkspam
Date: 2010-01-18 10:42 pm (UTC)That was my point. That male authors writing m/f romance are more likely to use female pennames than female authors writing m/m romance are likely to use gender-neutral or make pennames. The implications of the choices are different, however.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-15 05:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-15 05:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-15 08:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 11:08 pm (UTC)I was raised on male-produced sexual depictions. It took me years of hard work to understand any other way to talk about sexual desire, and be able to produce that in my writing.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-18 02:03 pm (UTC)The fact that men do it doesn't justify women doing it - nor does it make it any less objectifying the other - or mean gay men lose the right to be angered and offended by it
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-18 05:05 pm (UTC)You know what, all of this talk has been very abstract. And also, I am starting to wonder what the word "objectification" means to you.
What kind of objectification, really, have you seen from women writers? Because the complaints I have read are mostly that women write men as too emotional, too communicative, too verbal. Too girly.
In what way do women writers, in your experience, treat gay characters as objects?
I can give you many links to gay imagery that have no sense of depth. I can give you links to women's imagery that may not always get the right depth, but at least attempts it.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 12:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 01:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 09:27 am (UTC)It's not big deal what a characters are male in the story, I read and I feel it's about the lesbian relationship too. Stories have been written by women for women it is the point, this is matters to me!
I am LGBT and I want to read a stories about me too.
Are you sure gay man doesn't use women? What about a DragQueens? They use and fetishise women a lot!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 02:26 pm (UTC)The characters are male - and it is very much a big deal. This is a representation of a community, of someone's lives, of their existance and loves that are highly marginalised. That matters. To suggest it would make no difference whether the characters were male or not is very sweeping and very quick to dsiregard gay men.
Stories have been written by women for women it is the point, this is matters to me!
Well done. you get a prize for the most complete erasure of gay men possible in the m/m genre. This IS the problem.
Do drag queens pretend to be women?
Do drag queens represent a dominant portrayal of women?
Do drag queens reduce women to sex objects?
Are drag queens going to be used by women as a way to connect to other women and gain insight into femininity.
Are drag queens characterising the other?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 04:42 pm (UTC)So, gay men don't want share with women. I see.
Surely gay men have "use-proven" authors for themselves.
Well ok, if a romance story is good and well done why is so importantly it needs to be done by male author?
Drag queens have got all feminine signs the boobs, red lips, vivid make up. Of course they are pretend to be a women and they are represent women in a comical way. Some gaymen are lusting after them and woman(even if she's not a real one)has become a sex object, again!
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-18 01:42 pm (UTC)Thsi is so arrogant it's beyond belief. To write stories about people but say it's not about them. To use people but completely ignore them. To appropriate people but have zero respect for them.
So, gay men don't want share with women. I see.
Get over your arrogant self. You are using us and you are completely dismissing us. And your so shocked SHOCKED that your poor little self can't do that without criticism? Are we gay men being so selfish and cruel that we're upset at being treated as puppets and poseable dolls?
Drag Queens as a sex object? Hardly. And it's a caricature of the feminised stereotype of gay men
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-17 11:01 pm (UTC)Some of them don't. Some of them do, and some of them pretend to be *better* women-- women with penises. Some of them are quite aggressive in their declaration that a drag queen is a better woman.
•Do drag queens represent a dominant portrayal of women?
Yes, they tend to represent a classic version of male-defined femininity.
•Do drag queens reduce women to sex objects?
Yes, quite often. Drag queens also can reduce women to whatever other stereotype they feel suits the purpose-- including sexless objects, usually offstage. But this is often the case for men in general. Men tend to approach all women in terms of sex-- including gay men, who often reduce women to a sexually non-desirable object.
And these arguments of yours fall on deaf ears that this point when you are talking to straight women, who are used to this. They live with men all around them. They have a lifetime's experience of being judged sexually by men. Queer women-- just as much, really.
•Are drag queens going to be used by women as a way to connect to other women and gain insight into femininity.
Well, no. Drag queens are doing it for themselves. What they do generally has nothing to do with real women's lives, and not a one has ever stopped because some women didn't like it.
•Are drag queens characterising the other?
Uhh.. well, yeah. And they believe they are characterising the other better than the other can do herself. Which is why it's worth doing in their eyes.
All of these points can be reversed,and applied to slash.
Including the one that says that no slasher will stop using the tools she needs because you don't like it. If women have finally learned one new thing from men-- that might be it.
I am insulted, usually, by drag. I stay out of the drag clubs. That's my only recourse.
And for what its worth, I am equally insulted by Romance tropes in general-- the general portrayal of women in het genres makes me want to puke. The portrayal of het men makes me want to puke, and I don't know why het men aren't more vocal about that--- actually, I do know, which is that het men disregard anything that isn't important to them, and women's pulp novels aren't important to them.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-18 01:50 pm (UTC)That is hardly common or more than the most token representation. If I used that level of drag queens as an analogy I'd have to take an equivlanet extremist view among the slashers - though who write m/m porn but are opposed to gay equality
Drag queens are regularly presented and used as tools of arousal? Their express purpose and placement for the sake of people to be aroused and titillated?
You've seen very different drag to I
And these arguments of yours fall on deaf ears that this point when you are talking to straight women, who are used to this
And why does this justify women doing it to gay men?
Yes, they tend to represent a classic version of male-defined femininity.
A dominante portrayal? Are they one of the most common portrayals of women? Are they one of the strongest feminine memes out there? If you go out looking for a portrayal of women are you likely to stumble across them?
Well, no. Drag queens are doing it for themselves
And you've missed the point with how this is such a disconnect with m/m, that gay men trying to connect to their own community
A drag queens charcatering the other? Drag Queens are caricatures. I see them far more as lampooning the very heterosexual stereotype that gay men are somehow feminised
Including the one that says that no slasher will stop using the tools she needs because you don't like it
Who said she had to? I can express disapproval of something without calling for an outright ban. Gay men don't have the power to ban literature.
But we DO have a right to be offended. We have a right to voice that offence. We have a right to point out when something's problematic.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-01-20 01:29 am (UTC)After I watched her bray on about how victims of Michael Jackson's predation might have lied about their abuse for money *in the journal of a child abuse victim on a post where he had just finished begging people not to say that kind of shit* - and wouldn't *stop*, I thought, there's cluelessness, and then there's wilful ignorance which is nothing short of cruelty.
In other words, Sparky - don't waste your time on this idiot. She's not going to listen or learn.