|linkspam_mod (linkspam_mod) wrote in linkspam,|
@ 2010-01-11 09:09 am UTC
And it's really, really flying down the slippery slope to try to affix political meanings to MM stories. MM romance is not a form of political statement, it is not a means to spread GLBT awareness, and it really shouldn't be passed off as such. I don't think many GLBT folks are going to buying that.
clarelondon MAKING SHIT UP
[Warning: privilege. Also note that author has closed comments.]
Teapot tempests keep cropping up over straight women writing GLBT fiction -- and on such a regular basis, many female authors feel forced repeatedly to justify their involvement in the genre. Although I don't share the impulse (so keep in mind this is not a "why I write about gay guys" post), I understand it. Not too many folks want to be perceived as crass, opportunistic, sexist, ignorant, presumptuous, deceitful, and/or callous. But, when you think about it, all this belittlement is absurd. Wasting one’s time and energy trying to counter it is even more absurd.
sparkindarkness It's only Fiction!
“It’s just fiction” is a stance that a privileged person can take. But for the marginalised? That book with gay/lesbian/black/trans/asian/disabled etc characters is an oddity. It’s a rarity in a world where such portrayals are only remotely common within narrow genres and are nigh-non-existent in the mainstream.
To the privileged, that takes some grasping. I am currently sat surrounded by my library - hundreds of books and dvds. I can pick up any one of them and KNOW there will be a white person inside. I can pick up about 90% of them and know the main character will be white. I can pick up any of them and KNOW there will be a straight person inside - and, again, 90% of the characters within will be straight.
I would say at least half of them are lacking even a token appearance by a POC and up to 80% have no GBLT presence at all. Add in that of those token characters, I would say as many of half of them are strongly stereotypical or otherwise problematic.
sparkindarkness More on the M/M genre (because I’m not above flogging a dead horse :P)
I have to say this article annoyed me a lot. I didn’t see any sexism in it particularly as was suggested to me (but I’m not a woman so don’t have the awareness) but disrespectful to gay men? Oh yes. It annoyed me further that it contains so much that is problematic and it fails to acknowledge any of it - and sadly these are many of the things that so annoy me about the m/m genre.
Ann Somerville: Can We Ever Stop Fighting?
The two sides in the m/m genre are squaring up again, and it’s getting really ugly. Again. Does it really have to be like this?
TeddyPig: Can I Just Stop The Conversation And Point Out Something Here?
My thing is this and this is a word for my fellow “gay guys” out there in Gay Romance Land arguing away into the night… Maybe we should be getting “the log of bigotry” out of our own eye and our own arguments before pointing out “the splinter of possible exploitation” in another person’s. Just saying!
T T Thomas: Straight “Experts”: It’s ALL about YOU (except when it’s not)
Here’s the thing: A self-appointed “expert” isn’t. Giving yourself an accolade for being an “expert” is basically telling us you are really good at being us. If you are straight, can you be good at representing us, portraying us, capturing some elemental essence of us in words or pictures (literature, film, the visual arts)—sure. Some of you can be very, very good. Is the best of you better than the best of us at those same activities (representing, portraying, capturing, etc)? Absolutely not. Get over yourselves.
If you have any links, feel free to leave them in a comment or send them to our Delicious account.