the nature of slash: new speculation in the debate
cimorene111
http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=bettyp&itemid=43179
there's a bit of a snipe at trekdom that made me bristle somewhat,
but it's well worth reading for the rest.
she addresses the old old issue of feminization of male characters in
slash and the similarities between commercial romance novels and
slash.
there's a particularly intriguing bit about whether slash is an
inherently feminist movement or an inherently queer one. betty
argues for the latter, very persuasively, i believe.
actually, on second thought, i believe i'll paste and snip a little
for your convenience, but i highly recommend that you go to read the
entire argument for yourselves.
"My primary issue with the writer's facts, however, was that she said
that the desire to infuse the media with the gay images that are
largely absent was sort of a minority opinion held forth mainly by a
small subsection of gay male slash writers. Which...I don't agree
with. I think it's the single most defining aspect of slash, even
though it's not as intriguing as the desire to write off female
relational values onto male characters and blah blah blah. I tried to
say this last night to Mary, and she told me I was on crack, and I
couldn't quite figure out what I was trying to say, but this is what
I thought about all day at work, and so here's this about that.
The question is, does slash reflect an essentially feminist (Mary's
position) or queer (mine) re-interpretation of the texts? Well, it's
certainly essentially *female,* in that the mores of the subculture
and the fiction are set by women. It's true that lots of gay men
don't particularly relate to slash, since it doesn't reflect their
own experiences; I've heard that said, and I believe it. Slash is not
representational (to use a word that I used recently in a related
discussion) gay fiction; it's about the psychosexual desires and
romantic fantasies of slashy women, not gay men, or even gay women,
necessarily.
<snip>
Any kind of feminist literature, in my semi-studied opinion, has to
address the concept that the lives of individual women are shaped by
their experiences *as women,* not just their individual experiences.
One might expand that in a more gender-neutral way and say that
feminist literature addresses the concept that individuals are shaped
by their experiences as members of their gender. But the whole
concept of feminist texts relies on the idea that gender, like class
and race and nationality, is at least to some degree a sociological
phenomenon which influences everyone.
<snip>
...a lot of traditional slash has been slagged, and I think rightly
so, as egregiously anti-woman, or at least ambiguous on the subject,
with all female characters filling either the role of shrewish
obstacle to homosocial happiness or selfless facilitator of
homosocial happiness, and either way, she's out of everyone's hair
before too long. A lot of self-identified feminists within the slash
community have been mightily displeased, lo these many years, by the
genre's reluctance to deal with female characters as whole characters
of complexity and importance that matches that of the male
characters -- or in many cases, that matches their *canonical*
complexity and importance.
<snip>
...slash has often created basically a parallel template to the
female-fantasy romance genre, complete with many of the same tropes:
hurt/comfort is familiar from the boddice rippers, too, and the use
of sex as emotional catharsis, and the declaration of love/commitment
to monogamy as the dramatic high-point of the story. What makes it
more feminist when two men do it? There's still no critical
evaluation of the basic social dichotomy of active-strong-but-
incompletely-emotional partner and reactive-vulnerable-but-
emotionally-generous, let alone any critical evaluation of how those
archetypes map onto real-world gender identity issues.
<snip>
Okay, so is it queer? Uh, yes. I think it is, without a doubt. It
relfects the needs and desires of women who don't fit the received
wisdom regarding what female sexuality should consist of, writing
about men who don't fit the received wisdom regarding what male
sexuality should consist of. It's totally bent, and even if it's
written by the most un-politically-aware woman on earth, it's a de
facto challenge to the idea that the purpose of a man is to love a
woman and anything else is deviant and unnatural and damaged in some
way. I'm not concerned that it doesn't reflect real gay male lives,
any more than I'm concerned that Picasso didn't actually look like he
does in his self-portrait. Picasso was an artist, though not a
representational one. He used his art to say something about his
subject, not just to show us what it looks like. Slash writers may be
taking queer men as their subject matter, but what they're *talking*
about with their art is female sexuality, specifically the desires of
slashy girls, and I think that slashy girls are queer, queer, queer.
That's the whole point of having that word at all, right? That it
incorporates more types of marginalized sexual identities than merely
homosexuality?"
-cimorene
cim and k'sal's star trek:
http://www.rightthisway.net/cimorene/trek/main.html
cim's journal: http://cimorene111.livejournal.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ASCEM messages are copied to a mailing list. Most recent messages
can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASCEML.
bingleyausten
> --can be found in betty plotnick's livejournal here:
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=bettyp&itemid=43179
>
> there's a bit of a snipe at trekdom that made me bristle somewhat,
> but it's well worth reading for the rest.
>
but I don't understand this impulse to categorise slash as this or
that (in her case feminist or queer), and to find the one true reason
why slash readers and writers like it. Is it so difficult to conceive
that different people might be attracted to slash for different
reasons?
rather_be_reading
>> but I don't understand this impulse to categorise slash as this or
that (in her case feminist or queer), and to find the one true reason
why slash readers and writers like it. Is it so difficult to conceive
that different people might be attracted to slash for different
reasons?>>
I think you're absolutely right that there is no "one true reason"
that accounts for slash and its writers/readers. Like you, I believe
that "different people might be attracted to slash for different
reasons."
But the fact that there are probably many reasons rather than just
one doesn't mean that it's not a useful exercise to try
to "categorize" slash. It's such a powerful cultural phenomenon that
we can learn a lot by trying to analyze its appeals, its nature, its
demographics, etc. I agree that we're not likely to find "one true"
answer -- but even a lot of different answers can be interesting and
illuminating.
So for me, anyway, that's where the "impulse" to categorize comes
from: I really enjoy reading and writing slash (or at least, f/f
stories), and I enjoy trying to make analytical sense of it, too.
Kelly
website: Kelly's Janeway Fiction
http://appelsini.tripod.com/Kelly/
the question
>
> --- In ASCEML@y..., "cimorene111" <cimfiction@h...> wrote:
> > --can be found in betty plotnick's livejournal here:
> >
> > http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=bettyp&itemid=43179
> >
> > there's a bit of a snipe at trekdom that made me bristle somewhat,
> > but it's well worth reading for the rest.
> >
> Well, I waded my way through the article and some of the discussion,
> but I don't understand this impulse to categorise slash as this or
> that (in her case feminist or queer), and to find the one true reason
> why slash readers and writers like it. Is it so difficult to conceive
> that different people might be attracted to slash for different
> reasons?
I think it comes down to the fact that these days, slash is increasingly
becoming fodder for 'legitimate' main stream academia to write about, and
is being weened away from its traditional underground nature/status. And
one
of the problems of being fodder for academics is that they do very much
like
to pigeonhole and label things.
Then of course you have the whole 'what is feminism' thing going on,
because
depending how you choose to define the term may influence your opinion of
things associated with that term, and some people because of that may feel
more comfortable identifying slash as being queer rather than feminist,
particularly when faced with the dichotomy of 'women writing about gays for
their own pleasure-good'/'men writing about lesbians for their own
pleasure=bad'
--
Jon
-----
We are the people our parents warned us about, and we're here to stay.
be...@lycos.com
> --can be found in betty plotnick's livejournal here:
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=bettyp&itemid=43179
>
> there's a bit of a snipe at trekdom that made me bristle somewhat,
> but it's well worth reading for the rest.
In a very similar vein, here's what Constance Penley (author of
_NASA/Trek_) had to say in an interview about K/S:
http://www.fringecore.com/magazine/m3-4.html
I totally, totally disagree with her, but I thought it was apropros
because they again bring up the questions, Is slash feminist, and Is
slash queer?
-Hy
athena_sappho at yahoo dot com
Mary Ellen Curtin
> Is slash feminist, and Is
> slash queer?
I think of slash as queer, for 2 reasons:
1. First, it's outside our cultural norms for women (mostly) to write
sexually explicit material. And even more outside those norms for it
to be about m/m sex. And even further outside the norm to try to
make it artistically good.
2. Second, it can get you in trouble. Anyone who's in an environment
where it would be dangerous to come out as homosexual (work with
minors, military, underage and living with repressive parents, etc.)
probably cannot afford to be identified as a slasher.
To me, "feminist" is a historical precursor or subset of "happy queer",
so I don't quite understand the dichotomy.
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
major website reconstruction in progress
www.honorourvote.org
syredronning
> Hypatia asked:
> > Is slash feminist, and Is
> > slash queer?
>
> I think of slash as queer, for 2 reasons:
Question, concerning the vocabulary: queer = homosexual (gay/lesbian)?
> To me, "feminist" is a historical precursor or subset of "happy
queer", so I don't quite understand the dichotomy.
If queer is what I read it to be, I don't see it that way :)
I doubt we are feminist or queer just because of slash, especially
since several feminist and lesbian groups are not at all happy about
sexuality they don't see fitting into their own scheme of "what-women-
shall-do". So female Slashers (esp. those who even write about BDSM,
or non-cons stuff) are rather challenging the view of women and
female sexuality in whole than only the manly ideals ;)
Birgit aka Acidqueen
Mary Ellen Curtin
Not exactly. "Queer" = outside the boundaries, not "normal", including
homosexual & bisexual but lotsa other things too. See
www.queertheory.com for more info than you can swallow. There's
a Sentinel story where Blair talks about trying to rename one campus
group "The Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Transgender, Queer, and Assorted
Freaks Society", and I've always felt that pretty much sums it up.
Mary Ellen
Doctor Science, MA
major website reconstruction in progress
www.honorourvote.org
syredronning
(gay/lesbian)?
>
> Not exactly. "Queer" = outside the boundaries, not "normal",
including
> homosexual & bisexual but lotsa other things too.
Thanks, also for the link :)) Then I would agree Slash is queer,
though not necessarily feminist (don't see that as a subgroup of
queer, and a lot of feminist activists would probably get the fits
when someone sees it that way... ;) Perhaps it should be the logical
end of a feminist's way of evolution, but I don't see that it really
works out.
Birgit aka Acidqueen
(*who personally thinks of the German feminist Alice Schwarzer right
now*)
be...@lycos.com
> I doubt we are feminist or queer just because of slash, especially
> since several feminist and lesbian groups are not at all happy about
> sexuality they don't see fitting into their own scheme of "what-women-
> shall-do". So female Slashers (esp. those who even write about BDSM,
> or non-cons stuff) are rather challenging the view of women and
> female sexuality in whole than only the manly ideals ;)
Um, yeah, but my impression is that the seperatists are a dying breed.
Aren't the lesbian sex wars over? Didn't the kinks and the
sex-positives win? I'm not terribly well-connected to the lesbian
community these days (imagine that) but I kind of thought the "women
aren't genitally-oriented, lesbians don't use dildos or engage in
'hierarchical' sex" refrain was fading in the distance.
Bwah ha hah ha ha.
"Awww, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke." -- Rev. "Bob" Dobbs
-Hy
methioarya
> "Awww, fuck 'em if they can't take a joke." -- Rev. "Bob" Dobbs
>
> -Hy
>
Give me that pipe damnit. - Voile <in the heart of Bob's country>
>
>
> Messages from this list are mirrored on the ASCEM newsgroup.
> Read http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ASCEML/files/faq.txt for
> more information about your subscription to ASCEM/L.
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
be...@lycos.com
> Thanks, also for the link :)) Then I would agree Slash is queer,
> though not necessarily feminist (don't see that as a subgroup of
> queer, and a lot of feminist activists would probably get the fits
> when someone sees it that way... ;) Perhaps it should be the logical
> end of a feminist's way of evolution, but I don't see that it really
> works out.
But if slash does not reflect a queer sensibility (and the portion
that does is considered "icky" by the majority), can you really call
it queer?
-Hy <-- don't think it's queer
athena_sappho at yahoo dot com
syredronning
> But if slash does not reflect a queer sensibility (and the portion
> that does is considered "icky" by the majority), can you really call
> it queer?
I admit, now you lost me in your argumentation :/
> -Hy <-- don't think it's queer
My original thought was, that it is kinky, because in comparison with
my het pair mailinglist slasher are quite open to unusual themes...
Birgit aka Acidqueen
Chris
including
homosexual & bisexual but lotsa other things too.>>
<< Thanks, also for the link :)) Then I would agree Slash is
queer, though not necessarily feminist (don't see that as a
subgroup of queer, and a lot of feminist activists would
probably get the fits when someone sees it that way... ;) Perhaps
it should be the logical end of a feminist's way of evolution,
but I don't see that it really works out.>>
One thing I think is important to remember is that feminism is
not a monolith (no matter what the mass media says). There are
many different feminisms and kinds of feminists. Many femininst
organizations, including mainstream ones like NOW, do actively
support the cause of protecting/recognizing the rights of gays
and lesbians.
However, there certainly are also feminists who consider any kind
of "pornography" to be oppressive of women (a view that I do not
share, and I do indeed call myself a feminist). OTOH, feminism
has also influenced the movement to create erotica and porn that
caters to women's needs and desires rather than men's. So in the
sense that "men like to look at 'lesbian' porn, why shouldn't
women write about two guys?" slash is probably seen by many as
having a feminist spin. However, other feminists may wonder why
the same authors aren't writing about female bodies and
experiences, while still others may be wary about rape stories,
S&M, or whatever.
In other words, the issue is very much more complicated than it
may at first appear, and there is room for a wide variety of
takes. In academia, the alliance between feminist and queer
theorists is sometimes a tenuous one, but certainly I believe
that slash and other forms of fannish erotica, including f/f and
hetfic, are not incompatible with the goals of feminism.
Chris
syredronning
news:<al77di+dhqu@e...>...
> > I doubt we are feminist or queer just because of slash,
especially
> > since several feminist and lesbian groups are not at all happy
about
> > sexuality they don't see fitting into their own scheme of "what-
women-
> > shall-do".
> sex-positives win? I'm not terribly well-connected to the lesbian
> community these days (imagine that) but I kind of thought the "women
> aren't genitally-oriented, lesbians don't use dildos or engage in
> 'hierarchical' sex" refrain was fading in the distance.
So, after spending my afternoon doing research and chatting with
friends to find out more about the actual state in the German lesbian
scene *wiping sweat*, I have to claim first that "lesbian" is not
necessarily connected with "feminist", and what I write now is only
the state of the scene as I and my female friends perceive it, not of
the theory.
The lesbian wars are quite calmed, though they are not completely
over, but the "problems" with bisexuals, MTF, FTM and BDSM have gone
more into the underground. Means, one would not claim a party closed
for "genetic males" (as happened two years ago to a friend of mine),
but one may talk behind her/his back. It also might happen, that
people don't join courses on a lesbian meeting (even if it is
bodypainting), if the girls who lead it are known as SMers. "No bi"
is still often seen in ads. But dildos and stuff like that are quite
ok, obviously :)
The BDSM lesbian scene here is still rather apart from the lesbian
scene in whole, and these women are very open. (But that is my
experience anyway, that most SMers play with all genders, as long as
no genital sex is involved - mostly personal sympathy rulez.)
Well, my 0.2 pennies - and don't sue me for anything, it's all my
little bit of knowledge and point of view. If someone sees it
different, I'd like to read that.
For more about feminism in Germany, see my next posting :)
Birgit aka Acidqueen
syredronning
> One thing I think is important to remember is that feminism is
> not a monolith (no matter what the mass media says). There are
> many different feminisms and kinds of feminists. Many femininst
> organizations, including mainstream ones like NOW, do actively
> support the cause of protecting/recognizing the rights of gays
> and lesbians.
Well, short look at Germany: I asked around a bit on my favourite irc-
channel, what people associate with "feminism" and got some very
reflected ;)) answers:
- Alice Schwarzer, Emma
- lilac overalls
- "dick off" ("Schwanz ab")
Alice Schwarzer, the founder of the magazine EMMA, was and still is
something like the "Uebermutter" (mother of all) lesbianism/feminism
in Germany. She is strongly against pornography and BDSM - her latest
attempt to make a lot of it illegal dates back only to 1998, where an
alliance of female politicians and Schwarzer started the so-called
PorNo campaign - fortunately, it died in silence.
So the complete field of lesbian/feminist sexuality is shaded by her
point of view and the people who are influenced by her. As she is
something like the "roman-catholic wing of feminism", but the only
icon here in Germany, feminism is set equal to:
- supressed sexuality
- conformist female sexuality
- anti-male
Lilac became the "feminist" colour and the overalls the symbol of
getting away from the usual female outfit.
This dates originally back to the 70s and 80s, but since there is no
other icon for feminists around, Schwarzer is still the one everyone
thinks about! We somehow miss evolution here, new faces (maybe
naturally, because when you feel you don't have to fight that hard
any longer, there will be no more prominent figures).
> However, there certainly are also feminists who consider any kind
> of "pornography" to be oppressive of women (a view that I do not
> share, and I do indeed call myself a feminist).
So you see, how I might have reached my point. A lot depends on how
one is socialized here...
My 0.2 pennies, my point of view, and I am chemist, not a
sociologist, so don't beat me :)
Birgit aka Acidqueen