InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "AHH! REAL MONSTERS!"

The Elf ½ (elfwreck) wrote in metametameta,
@ 2008-03-24 20:58:00

Slashfic: because women can't recognize their sexuality.
I am indebted to the maintainers of

metafandom and the insightful writing of

imadra_blue and

rabidfangurl, who brought to my awareness the concept that slash is a conservative genre written by women who conform to patriarchal ways of thinking.

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.

(Post a new comment)

	stasia 2008-03-25 04:31 am UTC (link)
	Okay, I was fine until you said that men are jealous of trees, so they cut them down. That was the tipping point for me. I'm now a hysterical mass of giggles. Thanks! I needed that. I think I might see about getting some manly orgasmic work done tonight. hee Stasia (Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-03-25 04:48 am UTC (link)

I could almost--almost--take her seriously, at least enough to believe she really was trying to point out what she perceived as a real problem. And then I read the comments, including the "I'm not allowing any of that icky male-dominated pro-slash dissension here."

That confirms that she's not trying for outreach or persuasion; she just wants to rant, and only wants to hear from people who already agree.

And, umm... as far as I can tell, women (1) aren't supposed to enjoy sex with men, 'cos they only do that when they're oppressed, (2) aren't supposed to enjoy two men having sex, because that's buying into the patriarchal notion that only men are important, and (3) aren't supposed to enjoy having sex with women, because that implies that women aren't worthy of men's sexuality.

I think we're supposed to be neuter. Like the trees. And like the trees, we threaten men's self-image; they with their mighty poles and we with our hidden holes.

I'm gonna have to stick to manly orgasms; I'm too confused for any other kind.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	stasia 2008-03-25 04:50 am UTC (link)
	I'm just glad I get to have orgasms. Imagine how boring our tree-lives would be without them! twinkle Stasia (Reply to this) (Parent)

	im_kalena 2008-03-25 04:59 am UTC (link)
	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." Thanks for that injection of realism into the Very Strange Feminist Diatribe! Her woman-bashing was pretty OTT. I wish I could remember who made the comment, "Real Radical Feminists don't eat their fellow prisoners." (Reply to this)

xie_xie_xie
2008-03-25 05:26 am UTC (link)

I... I... I have no idea what to say. I'm a lesbian. I was a women's studies major at UC Berkeley in the early 80s so, ummmm, can you spell radical lesbian feminist seperatism? I sure could!

And I read that thing and I thought, wow, I haven't heard this crap in a whole lotta years!

I don't like genuine "slash," the pairing of characters who weren't together in canon. I'm a canon and characterization whore. My fic muses came to life when I first watched Queer as Folk, and I only read and write canonical queer pairings, m/m and f/f. And when I first came to fandom, I was very confused and puzzled and a bit judgmental about women who were into the m/m.

What I learned is that, while there are some women who are just into the boy buttsex and don't want to take the time or invest the mental energy into understanding the political side of being gay, and yeah, there's a certain amount of lesbophobia in the QAF fandom, most of the women I met through fandom are some of the staunchest political allies any queer person ever had.

To them, the people in QAF were like their family, and there's nothing that correlates more strongly with support for LGBT rights than having a gay family member or friend. The characters in the show served that function for them.

I thought there was something seriously wrong with me when I got hot over Brian and Justin. It really screwed up my head for a while. I still don't really understand it, but not only is it real, it's a fairly widespread phenomenon among lesbians. We even have our community,

les_bj_anic. While liking canonically queer pairings (I also write Xena/Gabrielle) isn't exactly the same as slash, I think they both point up that some women get off on two men fucking, and that's just part of the infinite array of human sexual expression and reaction.

That analysis was so limiting and so out of touch with anything I've seen in my fandom at least that I am just gobsmacked by it.

I also think that putting a political analysis on what gets people wet or hard is a doomed and idiotic pursuit. Sure, we should question sexual behavior just like we question everything else, but this is not that. This is drawing huge, unsupported conclusions from a small sampling of data being filtered through a whopping load of prior conclusions.

Or, you know, as we used to say in college, bullshit.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-03-25 05:49 am UTC (link)

...unsupported conclusions from a small sampling of data being filtered...

You left out the part where she openly admits ignoring some data: that there is femslash, but apparently it's not enough for her to think about, that there are happily-ever-after slash stories where the couple stays together, but she wants to focus on the ones where they don't, that there are lesbians and bi women writing slash, but she'd rather believe they are also just following the patriarchal prototype for artistic expression, in which art must oppress women.

There's a whole lot of "I believe this, ergo I will only address data that I believe supports this. All other facts are irrelevant." With the cute not-too-subtle submessage of "anyone who tries to mention other facts is a tool of the patriarchy."

I am happy to discover that some aspect of my sexuality is indeed mainstream and normal. It's a very reassuring thought. At least, "mainstream" as her type of radical feminists define the term. There's a part of me that suspects, however, that at the point where you've defined slash fic as "conservative," you've lost the battle for useful terminology.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

I don't have time to get all worked up about this :o)

skuf
2008-03-25 07:12 am UTC (link)

"sooner or later most of the characters ‘turn’ heterosexual and get married,"
OMG WHAT? I have never read a slash fic like that O_O

Honestly, I do believe there is an aspect of misogyny in slash. No, really. But it's not a large, and certainly nothing like a governing aspect!

Gah, if she's studied fanfiction for so many years, how can she be spouting these outdated notions (like "Slash is almost always written and read by heterosexual women", *headdesk)??

Oh, and "whereas ‘general’ or ‘gen’ fanfiction (as non-slash writing is usually called)" - again, she's studied fanfiction how many years, and she apparently think gen covers het? OMG SHE IS STOOPID.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I don't have time to get all worked up about this :o)

elfwreck
2008-03-25 02:56 pm UTC (link)

I've read angsty slash where the two men involved either were already married, or required to get married for some reason. And there's plenty of "one-time sexual encounter" slash that isn't based on "true love forever," and while those are usually one-shots, they may contain the notion that the guys will eventually get married to women. (Nobody thinks Sam & Dean are gonna get married, right?) Plenty of "trapped in a [cave/alien spaceship/prison cell] and overwhelmed by lust" fic.

I somehow doubt she thinks het fic with the same premise is equally oppressive, though. If a man & woman are shipwrecked together, and wind up having sex for comfort, and they each go back to their same-sex partner on the mainland after rescue, are they "gender traitors?"

I'm boggled by the idea that pre-internet non-slash fanfic was "mostly written by men," though. What fanzines is she talking about?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: I don't have time to get all worked up about this :o)

skuf
2008-03-25 03:09 pm UTC (link)

Plenty of "trapped in a [cave/alien spaceship/prison cell] and overwhelmed by lust" fic.
Sure, but the ones I see/read, that's just a catalyst for them realizing they're eachother's One True Love :oD

I'm boggled by the idea that pre-internet non-slash fanfic was "mostly written by men," though.
Actually I was, too, but I came into fandom late, so there's still loads I don't know about the early days of fandom, and figured maybe she knew something I didn't.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

roz_morgan
2008-03-25 01:51 pm UTC (link)

rgh! The commenters on her post where more annoying than she was, espeically the one that sneered at women who described themselves as Lesbians or femmenists and wrote slash.

It's nice to know that she can define what's femenist and lesbain instead of people themselves.

Thank you for the meta. I can't honestly believe there are people who think slash is 'conservative' because it's a big thing. I think they missed their way to sociology 101, or history of the last 200 years.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-03-25 02:42 pm UTC (link)

It's a fascinating "logic"--

All women are oppressed,
Most women have come to think that's normal & acceptable,
Only a tiny handful of women are truly liberated and understand "real" feminine nature,
Ergo, anything that appeals to many, many women must be a patriarchal, oppressive concept.

We'll set aside that the "many, many women" who like slash are actually a very tiny fragment of the populace; most people, including most women, don't know fanfic exists, and when they hear about it, especially slash, they're shocked & horrified that people "waste their time" on such "juvenile" hobbies.

I'm also delighted by the notion that only she, and people who agree with her philosophy, are qualified to decide what's good for all women. I'd probably be angry if I could stop giggling.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

roz_morgan
2008-03-25 03:22 pm UTC (link)

I like that part too. I especially like the commontater that said you can write slash but as long as you admit that it's patriarcal that's ok. Not like they should do anything to stop something they view as oppressive or anything. Better to rant about those nasty bad women who aren't as liberated as they are.

After all, if they did something then they'd have to give up teh buttsex porn and that would just be wrong!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	kabal42 2008-03-25 02:35 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for the liberal use of cutting sarcasm. I needed to see that applied to this particular "paper". (At least no actual trees were harmed in the writing of it. I assume.) (Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-03-25 02:49 pm UTC (link)

Harming trees is an oppressive male activity. Wymynfolk do not, of their own choice, harm trees; they are not threatened by the existence of erect pillars of wood towering over them. Notice how she even goes out of her way to save energy by not wasting pixels & electrons on pointless footnotes and research details; she understands that all she needs to do is point out what a conservative, oppressive activity slash is, and wymyn on the verge of enlightenment (which is not us, apparently) will understand instinctively and give up their lesbophobic ways.

It's only us poor deluded dupes of the patriarchy who want those mannish "references" in the polemics we read.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kabal42 2008-03-25 02:52 pm UTC (link)
	Obviously. We have all been roped in by the oppressive idea of academical integrity nods Footnotes and other formalities are only there to keep us from realising the truth about the patriarchy. (Reply to this) (Parent)

boosette
2008-03-25 04:46 pm UTC (link)

All m/f sex is rape. (She doesn't say this directly; I'm inferring.)

She, um, kind of does. It's down in the comments (which I couldn't read through without taking a deep breath and a short walk around the house WTFing over her outrage that Zoe would call her commanding officer 'sir').

_allecto_: There have been a few discussions recently in the rad fem blogosphere debating whether all male initiated sex is rape, given that women are politically, socially and economically subordinate to men. So, in my understanding of Joss Whedon as a rapist is hinges on my definition of rape. I would argue that most 'sex' between men and women, in the contemporary 'sex-positive', pornographic, male-supremacist culture, is rape.

Mostly I just wanted to drop in with a "word" because I'm not properly caffeinated today and don't know whether I'd make a fool of myself in responding with further depth.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	boosette 2008-03-25 04:48 pm UTC (link)
	(also, emphasis is my own, d'oh. forgot about the lack of comment-editing over here.) (Reply to this) (Parent)

elfwreck
2008-03-25 05:44 pm UTC (link)

I am amused by the notion that the shows that have a strong appeal to female audiences are just as oppressive and patriarchal as the overtly male-oriented ones, and that the only reason women like them is because they're comfortably familiar.

And entertained, more than angered, by the idea that my marriage is one long series of rapes. If I had the energy to pursue it, I might pester allecto or dissenter about what they think a good, healthy, non-oppressive m/f relationship would include, and how we should arrange enough of them to continue the species.

(Maybe continuing the species is just a male power-drive goal, and wymyn shouldn't be concerned with such frivolity. I dunno; I'm lacking the ability to follow some of their logic strings.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	carpet_diemon 2008-03-27 01:08 am UTC (link)
	Wandered over from my own post: The Joss Whedon hating gets odder: here's the full rant she has on LJ. (Reply to this) (Parent)

loupgarou1750
2008-03-25 04:58 pm UTC (link)

For me, reading dissenters post was a lot like listening to the radio when some old song is played. A song that I hated when it was originally popular but which now, twenty-five years later, makes me happy. The song still sucks by it reminds me of my youth, or something. Yeah, that's it -- reading dissenter is like listening to Kiki Dee.

Am also amused, not irritated, that comments by slash defenders are being deleted.

I understand the radical lesbian separatist argument and even agree with some of it, sometimes, but dissenter is all wet (heh heh. I said wet. I'm not even going to go into the irony of making women's words invisible by deleting comments that don't support her world view.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-03-25 05:19 pm UTC (link)

I am vastly entertained by the whole mess.

I know there's some validity to the rad-fem concepts; there are inequities in society that permeate all aspects of male/female relationships. And certainly, it's worth considering that some slash is written by women who think "men are more interesting than women."

What I can't figure out is what she wants to happen as a result of her diatribe. Does she think women should stop writing slash (or any other type of writing that she finds patriarchal)? That straight, married women should agree that their husbands are probably rapists? That women who are questioning and exploring their own sexualities should listen to her, not their own bodies, to decide what's right for them?

As far as I can sort out from her & allecto's posts, all non-lesbian sexualities are wrong (and some lesbian ones are wrong, if the women are only turning to each other because they think they're not good enough for men.) I think she's trying to claim that all physical, real-world eroticism is oppressive, and women's true sexuality is mostly "spiritual," but she hasn't put that into words. (At least, not in this post.)

(I am watching the reactions, though. I sometimes get reactions that sound similar. This helps me know when I've gone off the deep end on some wingnut theory of How The Universe Works. Which doesn't mean I'll change my wingnut theories, but I'll at least have a better idea of which ones they are.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

queenbarwench
2008-03-25 10:52 pm UTC (link)

Thank you so much, this is the most entertaining thing I've read in ages!

I really love literary criticism; if you choose where you stand carefully enough, with some cleverly obscuring obstacles, then you'll only ever see what you want to see. This lady picked her view so very carefully.

There's so many ways I could shred her arguments, but the pertinent points have been addressed above, so I think I'll sit back, giggle quietly, and link this post like crazy :DDDD

(Reply to this)

elethian
2008-03-25 11:29 pm UTC (link)

Sex is generally portrayed pornographically, with an emphasis on penetration

Gosh. Sex between men often involves penetration. WHO KNEW.

No hint of lesbianism is ever permitted.

Except in femslash. Um. Or fic which has more than one relationship/encounter depicted.

This whole article is really odd. I just can't relate to most of the stuff this person says must be my motivation. I don't care about teasing out "gay subtext" in the canon. I prefer it when fic doesn't deal with the characters' sexual orientations in so many words (i.e. actually using words like "gay", depicting characters realizing and coming to terms with it, etc.), but rather took them as read and just got on with the *story* ~~and the sex~~. I don't care if Severus is gay or straight or bi or a strawberry. Shut up and somebody suck him off already. ^_-

Also, and this may actually relate in some way to what this person is saying about male dominance, but often the male characters in a given fandom are just more interesting to write about. It depends on your fandom of course, but Harry Potter, for instance, is very weak on compelling female characters.

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?

I do want to entertain other people, and yes it is a way to talk about sexual desires I am still coping with "owning" and expressing directly. But I don't feel that turning on other women is my goal. Kinda weird to think about it in those terms actually.

we'll be able to properly focus on whether exchanging eroticism at a distance is a form of "having sex."

There's already a word for that: Teledildonics. Although I think it's normally used to refer to things like video-phone-sex.

When it comes to fic with sexual content, I like there to be at least one person with a penis in the mix because, you know, I like teh cock. I am heterosexual, yes, so since in some sense I identify with female characters, if they are receiving sexual pleasure or romantic attention I want that to be from a man. I have no problem with femslash, but I can't relate to it on a gut level, so I just don't get joy out of it.

Conversely, I like to give sexual pleasure to men, so I like to hear about them receiving such, but I'm not picky on the sex of the person doing the giving, because I don't feel a need to identify with them (although I might if they were female). If both (or all) the characters are men, then it's like having my cake and eating it too; there's a double (triple...) dose of teh cock.

I dunno. I just like to see people enjoying sex and passion. I must have missed the memo about that being a bad thing?

(Reply to this)

carpet_diemon
2008-03-26 02:50 am UTC (link)

Hehehe. That post made me pretty angry, but what really set me off was that, she has set it so only 2 comments are visible. She claims that she is only allowing comments from other obvious radical feminists who--wait for it-- support and laud her theories. It's so delightfully convenient to call a bunch of people self-destructive and oppressed and then suppress the commentary.

Not to her credit, but to our understanding, I think she mentions in another article, that she had been raped. Though this would certainly explain her point of view, it does not excuse her narrow-mindedness.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-03-26 04:09 am UTC (link)

As loup mentions above, there's a fascinating irony in a "radical feminist" deliberately silencing women's voices because they don't agree with her worldview. (Of course, her worldview is right, and theirs is wrong, and they have the whole rest of the web to speak in support of slash, which is such a widely-accepted and respectable activity...)

I did read a couple of her other articles, including one about her being raped. Decided that, while I'm sympathetic, the majority of these survivors of rape & sexual abuse didn't come to the conclusion that most m/f sex should be called "rape."

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	carpet_diemon 2008-03-27 01:01 am UTC (link)
	Hmm. Yes, that other set of survivors definitely have a good thing going on. I'm glad that for every lockjaw-er out there like Spinnster, there's a community like the one you linked to. (Reply to this) (Parent)

ferret_shock
2008-04-02 12:09 pm UTC (link)

I would like to say thank you for writing the antidote to Dissenter's 'paper' - I actually had quite a good time reading it, but it did cause O.o faces to be made....

Also? I am clearly a very sheltered female, because I hadn't noticed people like that existed. D'you think they *ever* get laid? I mean, without wondering if it's somehow phallocentric/lesbophobic/plain *wrong*?

Anyway. Thank you!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

elfwreck
2008-04-02 02:14 pm UTC (link)

Of course they don't get laid. Or rather, they don't get laid by men. They are lesbians--women loving women, who transcend the toxic Phallic--and would never desecrate their women souls by allowing a man to ~~rape~~ fuck them. (Because the vast majority of all m/f sex is rape, you know.)

"Radical lesbian feminism" is a political condition more than a sexual orientation; it includes the notion that all free-spirited women are supposed to be lesbians because that's the only way to overcome the influence of the phallocentric mainstream. No woman can truly consent to sex with a man, because all men are in a position of power over her.

_allecto_ and dis_senter are both in their twenties, and, I believe, attending college. Which means neither of them has much experience outside a sheltered world where radical ideas are encouraged as part of one's personal development, and neither of them has had a need to obtain friends more than a few years older or younger than themselves. They don't need to empathize with housewives; they can just declare them "dupes of the patriarchy" and bemoan how their lack of enlightenment is holding back, umm, whatever their goals are.

(Reply to this) (Parent)