And to fen who've had strongly negative experiences with a couple of academics (which can include non-fannish academics who are contemptuous of all fandom), that "flavor" can make the whole post come across as condescending and exclusionary.
I can understand that. But...I guess I don't see that as being the acafan's problem. What it boils down to, if that's really the issue, is that the anti-aca-fan is saying "The aca-fan's mode of fannish expression makes me uncomfortable and resentful." And there are really only three possible responses that the aca-fan can make to that:
(1) Oh, I'm sorry! I will stop engaging in a mode of fannish expression that makes you uncomfortable.
(2) So?
(3) Here is why you are wrong to be uncomfortable: blah blah blah blah.
Option #1, I think it goes without saying, is just not going to happen. It's not reasonable to expect it to. Option #2 might actually be the healthiest response, but being that blunt, especially among a largely female group, can be perceived as rude. So, instead, many resort to #3, which will never convince the anti-aca-fen but at least *feels* like an attempt to engage one's opponent politely and thus avoids the "rude" stigma.
Hotboiz-squee is not incompatible with acafandom, but wanting to not have anything other than hotboiz-squee, is.
Hotboiz-squee is not incompatible with acafandom. (Overlapping circles, if you will.) Not wanting to *engage* in anything other than hotboiz-squee is *exclusive* of acafandom, but not *incompatible*. (Non-overlapping circles, to continue the analogy.) However, where it gets incompatible is when you have someone who does not "want to have" anything other than hotboiz-squee in the sense of *not wanting it to exist* at all, anywhere. (Only ONE circle must exist, in other words.) And I have to be honest, that's how some of the anti-aca-fan posts come across sometimes, like they want to stamp acafannish conversation out of existence.
I think some of the problem is acafandom not acknowledging approaches they don't know exist because they haven't been phrased in a style that (some? many? most?) academics recognize as "A Real Label."
But if they did start acknowledging those things, would that really make the anti-aca fen be any more comfortable? I'm not so sure. It's interesting food for further thought and discussion, though. Of course, part of the problem is that the anti-aca people are by no means a monolith! Some of them perhaps *do* want some acknowledgement and respect. Others maybe really do want acafen to just disappear completely.
I'll come back later to talk about some of the non-aca approaches you've brought up, including the religious one. Given that I'm not actually an acafan myself and couldn't care less whether people stay within the coloring lines of current academic fashion, I'd love to talk about (even, *gasp*, analyze) these things some more.