Why can't we all just get alooooong?
Tuesday, January 12th, 2010 01:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mothwingI just found this post on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
queer_rage , and I remembered why I stopped following this speeding failtrain. Ann Somerville continues to annoy me. Ever since Lambda Fail, the more I read about and by m/m writers, the less patience I have for these straight women (well, female and straight male M/M writers in general, to be honest) and their quest to write male-on-male porn or ~romance~ in peace. This "romance" usually is a type of porn, too, the only difference being that the emotional vulnerability of the characters is fetishized rather than their sexuality.
EDIT: I think it'd be a good idea to edit this because what has started out as a rant in response to reading a blog entry has grown into something completely different, so I ought to be making my points more concisely on here to save everybody from digging through the comments.
Just.... EUGH.
Well, then I think I'm going to go exploring my alienation from my own race and culture through writing a book about ~exotic~ POCs. Credible exotic POCs, of course.
Dismissing mushy romance failbooks designed to make straight women and people who subscribe to the opinion that the only good sexuality MUST involve at least one penis and one scene depicting male tears feel all mushy and warm in their genital region is reinforcing straight privilege? Seriously, if that's all that takes to discourage these people who are, as she says later on, "devoted to equal rights" from examining their straight privilege and self-examination, why does she think that they don't deserve every bit of criticism they're getting...?
It's a shame that there might be people who try and steer clear of this genre entirely and read books written gay men which focus on gay men instead?
Wow. Just... Wow.
Because it is totally necessary to write an other while self-exploring. And lesbians are doing it, too, and they are, like, also in the LGBT acronym, so it's totally fine, u guise!
For clarification, here is a summary of my problems with the M/M genre specifically (as opposed to slash within fanfic, which is a different kettle of fish in my opinion):
Good intentions can have bad outcomes. I don't think any of the straight people who write M/M are bad people. I don't doubt that no one purposefully sets out and writes something that is appropriative. Most of this seems to happen due to ignorance and the fact that this genre is so broadly accepted online.Still, good intentions do not prevent harm.
Even if the individuals concerned have good intentions, this does not guarantee that the cumulative effect is not negative for the minority they are writing about - and having to come across fetishised versions of yourself over and over again is definitely a negative effect, so are the blatant stereotypes that some writers are using in their writing.
Members of a majority writing about a minority is always problematic.
On a societal level, if a majority writes a minority, there is always the danger that this version becomes the definitive version and replaces voices of real gay men in the minds of the readers. Until the respective genres are dominated by the minorities they focus on, I think they continue to be extremely problematic, because it is easier for a privileged group to drown out minorities. So in my ideal version of the world, stories about minorities would be dominated by minorities and it would not matter much if the odd member of a majority chimed in. However, this is not the case in this reality at all.
Of course individual authors can write whatever they want, but the freedom to write what you (general you) write ends where the freedom of another person to be protected from e.g. homophobia and objectification begins. And that includes being fetishised, othered, and exotised. No one can physically restrain people and keep them from writing, but people should critically examine why they feel it necessary to write a story about a minority they are not a part of, appropriating their experiences, fetishizing their relationship in the case of m/m romances.
There may be solid reasons for doing so, but apart from purposefully subverting these fetishistic tendencies in the story at some point or therapeutic exercises I can't see many.
gayness is not a metaphor for straight experience
Yes, I do think a story that is basically a straight women writing a story about straight women through gay men is wrong and should find other means to express herself that are less colonising. This is constellation is questionable on a fundamental level. There might be enough similarity between gay people and straight people to allow empathy, but to equate the two to such a degree that a story about gay life becomes a metaphor for straight experience is appropriative and insulting.
I deeply sympathise with the need to disassociate yourself so completely from your sexuality that you need to project it onto another person who doesn't resemble you entirely, I was like that when I was coming to grips with my own dykeness, but I never considered that that was a good thing and meant I was being all subversive and exploring. The way its done in M/M reminds me eerily of projecting sexual desires and fantasies on POC by white colonial authors. Icky and wrong. Using minority experience as a colourful metaphor for your majority experience comes from a place of privilege and can't prevent being informed by that privilege. And no, just because you also love men, you are not a gay man inside
the fetishisation of gay men is wrong.
Of course this point may well be moot since we are essentially discussing porn, but if a particular trait of a character (gayness, in this case) becomes more important for your arousal or your sympathies than the character itself, that is dehumanising. Consider the very title of the genre - "gay romance" or "m/m" in itself are simplistic because they reduce complex people to their sexual orientation. This may be a part of being gay, but no character one outside of extremely simplex PWP can be successfully subsumed under this label.
M/M authors themselves have pointed out that they use m/m to make conventional stories more interesting, or that they prefer them because their lives are "more interesting". This is exotising gay men. Gay people are not inherently more interesting than straight people, I can promise you that. In that vein, I am deeply suspicious of people who describe m/m relationships as their "kink" - how can you have a relationship between two people as a kink? The mind boggles.
Fiction is fiction, reality is reality: it's not that simple.
Of course you can distinguish between fiction and reality in a way that allows you to distinguish between the non-fiction and the fiction section in the bookstore. Still, books and stories exist in the real world, and I don't believe that everybody, or, indeed, anybody can make a clear distinction between fiction and reality so effectively that they can prevent a straight, female narrative from influencing their view of gay men.
queer_rage , and I remembered why I stopped following this speeding failtrain. Ann Somerville continues to annoy me. Ever since Lambda Fail, the more I read about and by m/m writers, the less patience I have for these straight women (well, female and straight male M/M writers in general, to be honest) and their quest to write male-on-male porn or ~romance~ in peace. This "romance" usually is a type of porn, too, the only difference being that the emotional vulnerability of the characters is fetishized rather than their sexuality. EDIT: I think it'd be a good idea to edit this because what has started out as a rant in response to reading a blog entry has grown into something completely different, so I ought to be making my points more concisely on here to save everybody from digging through the comments.
Just.... EUGH.
"Slash started out as a subversion of the overwhelmingly heteronormative fictional narrative in books, films and television. To slashers, that subversion was enough justification for the existence of slash fiction, and realism, because of the reliance on canon, secondary."Ah, so long as we are ~subverting~ stuff, surely no one is being offensive! Also, I may not be that familiar with the history of slash, but I seriously doubt that that was always the main idea of writing slash fiction - sticking it to the man by cleverly subverting a mainly heterosexual literary landscape.
"Accusations of inauthenticity are bound up with accusations of appropriation and objectification, without any attempt to recognise that many attempt to write authentically – not attempting to imitate the voice of gay men, but by creating credible characters. That lack of recognition weakens the critics’ valid argument and leads to it being dismissed in toto."Yeah, go girls, show those uppity fags! You are trying, so how can they be so meeen as to dismiss their valid herculean efforts? I bet those blokes who do the lesbian porn movies are trying, too.
"Critics also frequently accuse m/m authors and fans of fetishisation without qualifying it or examining the accuracy of the accusation. There is a lot of fetishisation in the way m/m readers and authors talk and write about gay men, but not all m/m readers/writers use m/m to get off (many readers/writers are lesbians, in fact), or consider the sexual content important or essential. Women write m/m for all kinds of reasons, and even erotic narrative may be much more about women’s alienation from their own sexuality or their own gender, or about exploring sexually explicit ideas and imagery in a non-threatening manner, than titillation."Oh, really, that's cool now?
Well, then I think I'm going to go exploring my alienation from my own race and culture through writing a book about ~exotic~ POCs. Credible exotic POCs, of course.
"Yet without one, m/m will continue to be despised and derided by gay men angry at yet another betrayal by the straights, and by others who will dismiss it as porn or fluff and unworthy of serious dissection or analysis, while reinforcing straight privilege and discouraging self-examination among those who continue to write and read it. This is not the way that m/m will gain acceptance or excellence. Those whose first contact with the genre is through things like Lambda Fail are never going to delve further to discover the treasures the genre produces."I... just... Seriously?
Dismissing mushy romance failbooks designed to make straight women and people who subscribe to the opinion that the only good sexuality MUST involve at least one penis and one scene depicting male tears feel all mushy and warm in their genital region is reinforcing straight privilege? Seriously, if that's all that takes to discourage these people who are, as she says later on, "devoted to equal rights" from examining their straight privilege and self-examination, why does she think that they don't deserve every bit of criticism they're getting...?
It's a shame that there might be people who try and steer clear of this genre entirely and read books written gay men which focus on gay men instead?
Wow. Just... Wow.
"Most are well-meaning. Most consider themselves devoted to social justice and equal rights, even if their reasoning and execution remain shaky. Many are clueless. Many of us are dripping with straight privilege. Where we’re not straight, we’re still not gay men. We are still writing the other. That’s why it’s both exciting and laden with pitfalls."Oh, they are well-meaning? Oh, I guess that's ok, then.
Because it is totally necessary to write an other while self-exploring. And lesbians are doing it, too, and they are, like, also in the LGBT acronym, so it's totally fine, u guise!
For clarification, here is a summary of my problems with the M/M genre specifically (as opposed to slash within fanfic, which is a different kettle of fish in my opinion):
Good intentions can have bad outcomes. I don't think any of the straight people who write M/M are bad people. I don't doubt that no one purposefully sets out and writes something that is appropriative. Most of this seems to happen due to ignorance and the fact that this genre is so broadly accepted online.Still, good intentions do not prevent harm.
Even if the individuals concerned have good intentions, this does not guarantee that the cumulative effect is not negative for the minority they are writing about - and having to come across fetishised versions of yourself over and over again is definitely a negative effect, so are the blatant stereotypes that some writers are using in their writing.
On a societal level, if a majority writes a minority, there is always the danger that this version becomes the definitive version and replaces voices of real gay men in the minds of the readers. Until the respective genres are dominated by the minorities they focus on, I think they continue to be extremely problematic, because it is easier for a privileged group to drown out minorities. So in my ideal version of the world, stories about minorities would be dominated by minorities and it would not matter much if the odd member of a majority chimed in. However, this is not the case in this reality at all.
Of course individual authors can write whatever they want, but the freedom to write what you (general you) write ends where the freedom of another person to be protected from e.g. homophobia and objectification begins. And that includes being fetishised, othered, and exotised. No one can physically restrain people and keep them from writing, but people should critically examine why they feel it necessary to write a story about a minority they are not a part of, appropriating their experiences, fetishizing their relationship in the case of m/m romances.
There may be solid reasons for doing so, but apart from purposefully subverting these fetishistic tendencies in the story at some point or therapeutic exercises I can't see many.
Gay characters in stories written by straight people in particular are problematic, because
Of course I am not arguing that no straight person anywhere should ever think of writing a gay character, far from it. My main beef is with are two specific constellations, motivations and their implications
Of course I am not arguing that no straight person anywhere should ever think of writing a gay character, far from it. My main beef is with are two specific constellations, motivations and their implications
gayness is not a metaphor for straight experience
Yes, I do think a story that is basically a straight women writing a story about straight women through gay men is wrong and should find other means to express herself that are less colonising. This is constellation is questionable on a fundamental level. There might be enough similarity between gay people and straight people to allow empathy, but to equate the two to such a degree that a story about gay life becomes a metaphor for straight experience is appropriative and insulting.
I deeply sympathise with the need to disassociate yourself so completely from your sexuality that you need to project it onto another person who doesn't resemble you entirely, I was like that when I was coming to grips with my own dykeness, but I never considered that that was a good thing and meant I was being all subversive and exploring. The way its done in M/M reminds me eerily of projecting sexual desires and fantasies on POC by white colonial authors. Icky and wrong. Using minority experience as a colourful metaphor for your majority experience comes from a place of privilege and can't prevent being informed by that privilege. And no, just because you also love men, you are not a gay man inside
the fetishisation of gay men is wrong.
Of course this point may well be moot since we are essentially discussing porn, but if a particular trait of a character (gayness, in this case) becomes more important for your arousal or your sympathies than the character itself, that is dehumanising. Consider the very title of the genre - "gay romance" or "m/m" in itself are simplistic because they reduce complex people to their sexual orientation. This may be a part of being gay, but no character one outside of extremely simplex PWP can be successfully subsumed under this label.
M/M authors themselves have pointed out that they use m/m to make conventional stories more interesting, or that they prefer them because their lives are "more interesting". This is exotising gay men. Gay people are not inherently more interesting than straight people, I can promise you that. In that vein, I am deeply suspicious of people who describe m/m relationships as their "kink" - how can you have a relationship between two people as a kink? The mind boggles.
Even though exploring female sexuality is necessary and good, doing so through gay romance is troubling.
Another problem that ties in with this is that there are still women who can't explore their sexuality freely because they live in a what the mainstream media says is sex does not encompass all that is sex. I think it is valid and necessary that women explore sexualities that lie beyond the mainstream view of what is sexual - the realisation that things like hurt/comfort can be a valid sexual kink is one of the best byproducts of fandom.
Still, I maintain that doing so at the expense of minorities is wrong. Sometimes, people do wrong things for good reasons - as in the case of therapeutic writing, but on the a whole it remains very questionable.
Another problem that ties in with this is that there are still women who can't explore their sexuality freely because they live in a what the mainstream media says is sex does not encompass all that is sex. I think it is valid and necessary that women explore sexualities that lie beyond the mainstream view of what is sexual - the realisation that things like hurt/comfort can be a valid sexual kink is one of the best byproducts of fandom.
Still, I maintain that doing so at the expense of minorities is wrong. Sometimes, people do wrong things for good reasons - as in the case of therapeutic writing, but on the a whole it remains very questionable.
Fiction is fiction, reality is reality: it's not that simple.
Of course you can distinguish between fiction and reality in a way that allows you to distinguish between the non-fiction and the fiction section in the bookstore. Still, books and stories exist in the real world, and I don't believe that everybody, or, indeed, anybody can make a clear distinction between fiction and reality so effectively that they can prevent a straight, female narrative from influencing their view of gay men.
Claiming that writing m/m is an LGBT activism is completely out there.
The nerve! Especially if the demography you're writing about says that what you are writing is unrealistic and offensive, you really might reconsider awarding ally cookies...! I can't even begin to understand this position. Especially considering people keep pointing out the genre was totally and absolutely not about gay males, but for and by straight writers to explore themselves.
The nerve! Especially if the demography you're writing about says that what you are writing is unrealistic and offensive, you really might reconsider awarding ally cookies...! I can't even begin to understand this position. Especially considering people keep pointing out the genre was totally and absolutely not about gay males, but for and by straight writers to explore themselves.
Tone arguments used against gay critics are wrong.
I despise misogynistic commentary and I think that anyone inclined to make them can go screw themselves, but that does not mean that any concerns raised by the people you are writing about is to be completely dismissed.
Slash as a means for exploring and liberating female sexuality specifically strikes me as problematic as long as it is not done for purely therapeutic purposes. How can any genre that eradicates your own experience as a woman so entirely be liberating?
I despise misogynistic commentary and I think that anyone inclined to make them can go screw themselves, but that does not mean that any concerns raised by the people you are writing about is to be completely dismissed.
Slash as a means for exploring and liberating female sexuality specifically strikes me as problematic as long as it is not done for purely therapeutic purposes. How can any genre that eradicates your own experience as a woman so entirely be liberating?
The genre is not subversive, it's porn. And it does not subvert gender roles.
Subversiveness" and a genre written by women for women - in romance writing, this is new how? I am not that familiar with the genre, but as far as I am aware, it has a loooong tradition of being a genre primarily written by and for women. Although usually it included, well, women somewhere.
There have been some claims that using M/M instead of M/F helps subverting gender roles - this works only if you have a very static view and expectation of how gender works. In many of the (without a doubt low-quality) stories I have read male characters were thinly veiled female avatars, and there was no reason in the world why the author did not just use a female character instead.
Subversiveness" and a genre written by women for women - in romance writing, this is new how? I am not that familiar with the genre, but as far as I am aware, it has a loooong tradition of being a genre primarily written by and for women. Although usually it included, well, women somewhere.
There have been some claims that using M/M instead of M/F helps subverting gender roles - this works only if you have a very static view and expectation of how gender works. In many of the (without a doubt low-quality) stories I have read male characters were thinly veiled female avatars, and there was no reason in the world why the author did not just use a female character instead.
So, what am I saying to you M/M writers? You can, of course, write whatever you want and no one can keep you from it.
I would like you to know what it means that you are writing, however, and critically and thoroughly examine why you are writing a minority and what implications your writing may have for the minority you are writing about.
I would like you to know what it means that you are writing, however, and critically and thoroughly examine why you are writing a minority and what implications your writing may have for the minority you are writing about.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: continuation
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 10:51 am (UTC)I agree it's porn. I agree that porn should exist. I don't agree that it makes sense to call it anything other than porn, and I am uncomfortable with women writing OC porn about their own sexuality or experiences in the guise of gay men, because that is creepy on two levels. On one level because it appropriates gay experiences, and on the other level because what the fuck is wrong with a society in which women can't write about sexual experiences without resorting to male handpuppets? D=
I'd argue it's different in fanfiction, where people might explore the relationships two pre-existing characters have which might both be male. People write what they find interesting within the constraints of already existing material (or would you not ship Lupin/Snape if Lupin was female?). In original fiction, this is different. You see what I mean?
My problem with "kink" is that I only ever encountered "kink" as a real-life phenomenon, so I don't even get what a "fictional kink" is. o.O I expected that people who have the kink, say, bondage, and like reading about bondage, would like to try bondage IRL, too, which would make it a IRL kink. I don't get what a "fictional" kink is.
As for rape fantasies - I am sorry. I really put my foot in it with that one, didn't I? *cringes at self* The point I was trying to make is the difference between self-reflective awareness (BDSM fiction, LGBT-written fiction about LGBT characters (well, mostly)) and mainstream fiction using the tropes for the same ends, but without the self-reflection (misogynistic scenes in mainstream fiction not designed with women in mind who might find this enjoyable, blatant gay stereotypes). Does this make it any clearer? *hides*
And awareness - the more I read up on positions in cognitive science and linguism, the less I am convinced that people actually can really distinguish between reality and fiction due to the constraints of our stone-age brains. >_< But that is another question entirely.
Did I make myself clearer now? =)
Re: continuation
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 01:02 pm (UTC)Is it really the case that some people read and enjoy things they'd be actively opposed to experiment with in some form IRL, or is that a step away from admitting that these inclinations exist in the first place?
Re: continuation
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 01:31 pm (UTC)Maybe I'm boring, but it never occured to me that what people read about they would not be open to experimenting with some of the things they read about IRL.
Really, that's interesting, because it never occurred to me that people would only read about the things they'd be open to experimenting with.
Is it really the case that some people read and enjoy things they'd be actively opposed to experiment with in some form IRL, or is that a step away from admitting that these inclinations exist in the first place?
Yes, it really is the case, at least for me. There are some things that are clearly fictional kinks for me, for example watersports or bestiality (the latter in a fantasy environment). I would not ever dreaming about trying this, because the idea is pretty disgusting. I'm very sure there is no inclination to do this slumbering in me.
And no, this is not logical.
Re: continuation
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 02:05 pm (UTC)Re: continuation
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 02:10 pm (UTC)Re: continuation
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 02:17 pm (UTC)It just means that my understanding of kink (= IRL kink, fetish, preference of specific constellations/scenes/things) is fundamentally different, and that lead to some misunderstandings in this discussion, where kink apparently means, er, "something I like reading about that I might never want to try IRL but which still turns me on".
It means that I continue to be baffled at why people have "gay romance" as a kink, though, that does seem to limit those characters to their experiences as Gay Males, and I doubt that anyone's experience can be that easily subsumised under one term, not even in fiction. And if people do manage that in their writing, that'd really creep me out.
Re: continuation
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2010 11:19 am (UTC)True. And I'd say that when it is regarded clearly as fictional kink, nobody is trying to write anytihng about any real gay men's experience.
Those who actually do think they're writing about real gay experience, think they're thereby allies and somehow subversting heteronormative literature and media...er, no. They didn't get it right and need to think again.
Re: continuation
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2010 11:40 am (UTC)The problem is that it doesn't seem to be possible to distinguish between fictional kink written by and for women and somehow taking a gay male experience into account somewhere, as
Re: continuation
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2010 11:44 am (UTC)Re: continuation
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 01:43 pm (UTC)I'd argue it's different in fanfiction, where people might explore the relationships two pre-existing characters have which might both be male. People write what they find interesting within the constraints of already existing material (or would you not ship Lupin/Snape if Lupin was female?). In original fiction, this is different. You see what I mean?
I see it partly.
Personally, my answer would be that yes, I'd probably ship Lupin/Snape if Lupin were female, because he (then she) is an interesting character, and I read and write slash, het, and femslash.
However, there are also fanfic writers who would answer with no, because they specifically want stories with a relationship between men. I've read that in fandom and shipping discussions often enough. "I don't want to write het, no matter how interesting the female characters are, I only care about reading gay romance."
Considering this, you need to broaden your objections to the fanfic circles that hold this opinion as well.
And I see what you mean when you say it's different with original m/m fiction - obviously there are no pre-existing characters, and one could (and in your opinion should) also write about a heterosexual (or female/female, if the woman is lesbian or bi) relationship. Did I get you right?
Re: continuation
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 02:11 pm (UTC)You see the difference I'm making? I'm not saying, "no straight women should write gay characters ever", I'm saying I'm uncomfortable specifically with straight people working through their issues relating by using gay sockpuppets. The problem I have is that to do this successfully, you need to build your story and the exploration of your problems on what you see as issues that are in a way comparable to the experiences of the minority you write about - and from a position of privilege, there is no way for you to actually know what that even is. o.O
Re: continuation
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 02:20 pm (UTC)No. You're saying often enough that you're uncomfortable with any women doing this, inlcuding minorities such as lesbians, bi-, and pansexual women.
you need to build your story and the exploration of your problems on what you see as issues that are in a way comparable to the experiences of the minority you write about - and from a position of privilege, there is no way for you to actually know what that even is. o.O
Tying in with what I said above - other minorities such as lesbian women for example are not in a position of privilege, so could one not assume that, although I'm well aware of the fact that many problems are quite different, there are at least some similarities?
I'm not saying, "no straight women should write gay characters ever"
How do you suggest gay characters should be written by women, be they straight or not, then? Because I'm still not getting it, honestly.
Re: continuation
Date: Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 02:39 pm (UTC)Women writing gay men- Ok. By either writing about gay men as gay men (instead of, as was pointed out, using men in a story that is not really about men but for and by women, but in which the characters happen to be male) in a story that focuses on other issues or not at all, to be honest.
It seems that one of the main reasons why women write gay male romance in the first place can be the following:
- the cute men! Aren't they adorable?! Men are hot! And two men are hotter!
- writing about sexuality is scary, so it's more comfortable to do so by writing about characters kept at a distance.
- exploring gayness can help the authors with their own opinions on male gayness
- writing about men can work because of issues the authors have with her own gender.
Yes? It's absolutely possible to do all four without writing about a story that is about the romance of two men, so there is no reason to do so while making the story which is essentially about you feature two members of a minority as the main characters you are not a part of. Right? If reasons like these are main reasons and motivators for writing a story in which there are gay characters, I do think it's harmful to use gay characters.
Also, you can't forbid people to do anything, people can write anything they want and do, I just don't see a reason to encourage it or endorse it or leave it uncommented. :)
Re: continuation
Date: Thursday, January 14th, 2010 11:11 am (UTC)As for the demise of the author - fine, but as far as I'm concerned, the production subject whose output is informed by their social context is very much alive.
As for being told to bugger off and possible embargos- it's not as though I have any kind of power here anyway, and yet, people keep telling me that I can't tell them to stop writing, and I wonder where I even said that. What I am saying is that M/M written by straight women is exploitative and appropriative on a fundamental level and I consider that to be wrong, as fundamentally wrong as white people exploring their whiteness through in the guise of characters of colour.
This does not mean that I am saying anyone ought to stop writing, I just want them to be aware of this fact and examine why they still feel it's necessary to write fiction like that.
Re: continuation
Date: Friday, January 15th, 2010 07:17 pm (UTC)Of course it's hard as to listen to attacks on the genre as someone who thinks they are getting things right, but there are so many who are getting things wrong, whose views are informed by stereotypes they picked up, who don't make an effort, who are getting it wrong in spite of the efforts, who have gay friends who are fine with what other gay men would despise. As far as my experience with majorities writing about minorities goes, this is far more likely than the event of some members of the majorities getting it right.
I think until we have a case where writing that focuses on minority experience is so dominated by minority accounts that a majority's views of what that minority experience is is wholly informed by reading minority writing that they aren't as likely to pick up on stereotypes while writing, I stand by my view that the genre as a whole is exploitative.
Re: continuation
Date: Saturday, January 16th, 2010 09:33 am (UTC)No, but it sounded for a moment as though you didn't think so.
Which is an argument for writers learning to get it right, not for them not to write at all.
Which is precisely my view and the reason why I don't write that much these days - I don't get it right enough for my taste. Still, there is the "you should be able to write what you want"-argument, and that includes writing what you want and getting it totally wrong.
I was arguing for best practice and improvement of attitudes, and above all else, listening to complaints about what has gone wrong (so when a gay man tells you it really upsets him that you called your stupid book 'Beautiful Cocksucker' you don't blow him off with a load of defensive, privilege bullshit. Etc.)
o_O Beautiful Cocksucker...? Why would anyone ever have problems with that...! I think I heard about that one. >_<
I can't estimate the effect of the genre if everybody was writing the way you'd ideally want them to write. I also can't say if that would make anything any better for gay men, I'm not a gay man. I'd still see issues with stories written about an other (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othering) there, simply because we don't live in a cultural vacuum.
Which, as a straight person, should hold greatest influence over my views?
That's entirely up to you. I can only offer my opinion on this, which is a general opinion on minorities, majorities and othering, and what I think is colonising, exotising, fetishisation, and exploitation in this case, although a personal one stemming from what gay friends said on this ties into all of this, too.
I can only hope for critical thinking and consciousness of people's own position in this and how it shapes them and their writing and that people to make informed choices based on that.