Wow. I'm promoting patriarchy. Take note, folks; I'm not a radical freaktype; I'm a supporter of the status quo.
Let's set aside Dissenter's... intriguing analysis of slash. The two authors above do a much better deconstruction of her claims than I could. Of course, Dissenter doesn't bother saying what she's read that leads her to think that most slash doesn't allow female desire, " No hint of lesbianism is ever permitted," "sooner or later most of the characters ‘turn’ heterosexual and get married," and that slash is "characterized by lesbophobia, homophobia, woman-hatred and severe phallocentricity." Have a quick giggle, and move on.
Move past even the claim that "the slash they write is written in homage to their male idols, whether that be Joss Whedon, Gene Roddenberry, Peter Jackson, J.R.R. Tolkien or any other number of men whose primary goal is to bolster patriarchy and male supremacy in all its ugly forms." (Jo Rowling is a male idol? Oh, but she's a dupe of the patriarchy, of course.) Those of you who didn't realize that Whedon is a rape-monger who demonises women are welcome to get yourself edumacated, yo. But this isn't about Whedon's racist sexist phallosifantasies. It's about ME. (Because all good meta is about ME.)
As far as I can tell from her essay, and some of the related links, any woman who likes sex with men (i.e. involving a penis) has been subjegated by patriarchial lies. She talks about how women need to be aware of and claim their own sexuality... which she seems to assume will not involve men. All m/f sex is rape. (She doesn't say this directly; I'm inferring.)
She does note, "what do we have with slash fanfiction? Hundreds and hundreds of heterosexual women writing erotic stories for each other in order to turn one another on…is it just me, or is that starting to sound a bit lesbian?" So. Another voice in support of "slash is women having sex with their brains." Which argument has some use, from some perspectives (those of us who like slash, who get sexual enjoyment from it, should acknowledge that we're getting sexual pleasure from the activities of other women. Whether that counts as "having sex" is a semantic tangle whose time has probably not yet come. Perhaps after we eliminate hunger and disease, we'll be able to properly focus on whether exchanging eroticism at a distance is a form of "having sex.")
On the one hand: slash fiction, conservative literature supporting the patriarchy. On the other: slash writers, women turning other women on. I wish she'd just pick a message & stick to it.
But as I said, this isn't about her. It's about me. It's about who I must be, if I believe her. About what kind of sexuality I have, if she's accurate in her assessments.
I'm a bit lost, trying to figure out her message here. She's so busily trying to insist that slash is not a radical, transgressive, liberating type of literature, and so caught up in noting details about the majority of its authors (who are straight, but otherwise very diverse), saying that "its very appeal to different women across these divides is further evidence of its ultimately conservative nature," that she utterly fails to acnowledge that any woman who likes slash or writes it could be free of patriarchal (i.e. "evil") allegiances.
Um. Er.
I don't buy the "All X are Y" argument. I certainly don't buy the "preference X makes you philosophy Y" argument. Especially not where sex is involved. My kinks are my own; I get to indulge them without fearing that I'm supporting or promoting oppression of all women (and, of course, downfall of the environment, which is also caused by the phallocentric patriarchy. I think the idea goes "men are jealous of trees so they cut them down.")
And whether or not this is "true" in any abstract, metaphysical way... it's true for me. Any argument that starts with "your sexuality is an aspect of your broken psyche" is going to be mocked at best. My religion, my life-philosophy, says that my sexuality is the healthiest, most sacred part of my true self; what doesn't fit with it is what should change. Certainly, I'm not giving up my joyful lusts to match what Dissenter thinks a "liberated woman" should find pleasurable, since it apparently doesn't include a penis, and certainly not multiple penisis.
So I have to wonder... who's she writing for? The tiny man-hating crowd who already agree with her? Giving her friends a warning--hey, there's this literature that says it's by and for women, but really it's just a male-inspired tool to keep women in their place?
I am quite content for my place to be watching Snape and Harry through the magic mirror of the 19" screen. Or Kirk and Spock. Or Duncan and Methos. Or, y'know, whoever. Can someone point me to some good Sam/Dean/Fred/George crossover orgy fic, 'cos that might be the tipping point that gets me to start reading SPN? Or hey... maybe I should pay attention to what she says. Can someone point me at some good Luna/Hermione? And there must be some fine McGonagall/Trelawney coming soon to hp_beholder. And I know there's some great Lily/Narcissa out there somewhere. Wouldn't want to be too patriarchal in my tastes.
The idea that "this art form appeals to women of all races, economic states, education levels, hobbies, religions and lifestyles, ergo it must be oppressive"... is fascinating to me. Is ice cream oppressive? Are sunsets & rainbows tools of the patriarchy? Am I to believe that my orgasms must originate from radfem-approved sources, or they aren't real orgasms, aren't womanly orgasms?
I'll... umm... keep reading & occasionally writing slash, and endure my pathetic, manly orgasms.