I just object to people conflating a slash squick with homophobia. Not the same thing, y'all.
Word.
Re. the quiz, however...I wouldn't be bothered. That's probably just on there as an optional answer because that's exactly how a lot of people would respond to being told that fanfic is bad because slash is icky. It's a very silly, obtuse response, but then "fanfic is bad because slash is icky!" is a very silly and obtuse statement, so...yeah. *shrugs*
LOL, yes...my first thought on seeing the response was, "heh, that's clever and smartmouthy." For about a split second before my genfic hackles went up.
Yeah, we gen fans tend to be a little sensitive about the immoderate use of the word "homophobe". In our defense, it really is annoying to be told that you're a hater simply because you like a certain type of fic and not another. No one accuses you of hating straight people if you profess to dislike Het fic, so what's the big deal about not liking slash, anyway? *eyeroll*
Actually - and to play devil's advocate - quite a few women who dislike het have reported being accused of misogyny against their own sex, which is equally ridiculous...
Although I dislike the slash-default mode of a lot of Big Fannish Organizations, I think it's important to remember here that this is in the context of outsider objections to fanfic's existence. The existence of slash is consistently used as a reason to loathe and decry all fanfic, and in that context, I think an accusation of homophobia is probably not too far off the mark.
Were this a blanket statement that all failure to slash is homophobia, I'd find it buggy too, sometime slasher though I am.
I actually wrote a comment, and then didn't post it, because I had the same sort of thought you've written out here: that it's a response to the outsider, and not unjustified in that context. I'm glad I didn't post it, now. Thank you for echoing my conscience, I think I needed that. :-)
It's a response to a very specific outsider, who said, "A big part of my problem with fanfic is slash. I’m not going to tell anyone who they should be sleeping with, or even fantasizing about, but Kirk/Spock is just freakin’ creepy. Call it a personality quirk of mine. If the fannish community could keep the slash-pile locked up in the basement somewhere, I imagine a lot of objections would disappear."
But gen isn't about no slash, it's about no sex (which is why one Stargate archive which calls itself gen and allows Jack/Sam romance annoys the heck out of me for the sheer hypocrisy). The arguments about friendship etc are valid yes, but only if used against het as well.
Therefore 'slash is icky' is a biased argument (me, I have no problem with people who think so - we are squicked by what we are squicked by, logic has little to do with it - just as they should have no argument with me thinking humans and aliens - Cally, the Doctor - is way ickier).
Eh, tread softly before you accuse of hypocrisy: when I first came into fandom, gen meant "no slash and no adult", which meant it included het romance while excluding het sex. I know the meaning of "gen" is transmuting to exclude het romance, but it hasn't always meant that.
Oh I have no doubt it did... and though I would always have disagreed strongly, the only ones I'd accuse is those archivists who still do it now, when (IMO) it's clearly way past sauce for goose time.
But gen isn't about no slash, it's about no sex [snip] The arguments about friendship etc are valid yes, but only if used against het as well.
Well, as most of my RL fannish friends can tell you, I tend to not go for non-canonical het pairings, especially if they invalidate a canonical platonic male/female friendship. (The obvious example that comes to mind is Don & Megan of Numb3rs; yes, I 'ship Megan with someone else, but I also object to the alteration of a particularly good male/female friendship. Megan & Colby is another one from the same show; and there's Sam & Daniel from SG-1, Teyla and any of the guys on her team from SGA...I could go on.) I'm very interested in exploring canonical relationships, and very interested in platonic friendship
( ... )
Here via metafandomelspethdixonJanuary 17 2008, 02:16:57 UTC
It probably doesn't need to be said that a lot of slashers have just the same knee-jerk reaction to any and all statements of the "slash is icky" variety. Especially the specific "I find the idea of two guys getting it on disgusting and perverted, and therefore all fanfiction is bad" variation of it. For one thing, those sort of declarations dismiss all fanfic, gen and het as well, as worthless trash.
To give an exmaple of where some of the automatic anti-slash=homophobia conclusion comes from: I've spent something like seven years in fandom at this point, and over the years I've seen many people declare that slash does nothing for them (because they prefer having at least one woman in their sex scenes, because they aren't attracted to men, etc.), or that they prefer gen to any kind of shipper fic, or that they only want to read canonical pairings (and don't like non-canon het either), or that they find a specific pairing icky because of X specific reason (for example, I find Batman/Robin icky because Bruce Wayne is Dick Grayson's
( ... )
Re: Here via metafandomkerravonsenJanuary 17 2008, 04:13:12 UTC
Metafandom? Really?
If someone finds slash squicky, chances are pretty good they also find my mere existance squicky.
I think you've inadvertantly put your finger on a crucial difference between the two points of view: you see homosexuality as a "state of being", and those who have a moral objection to it see it as a "state of doing": that is, as an action which can be refrained from. Not that a lesbigay person could stop themselves from feeling attracted to the same sex (that would be ridiculous), but that they could stop themselves from acting on the attraction. While the lesbigay person says "what kind of god would create people and then punish them for his own actions in creating them that particular way?"
And all one gets is a shouting match: "That's immoral!" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!" "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!"
Re: Here via metafandomelspethdixonJanuary 17 2008, 05:25:36 UTC
Leaving aside the whole philosophical debate, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter why someone thinks your relationship/feelings/etc. are wrong. What matters is that they do.
Anyway, anyone who sincerely thinks that homosexual acts are wrong and opposes slash on those grounds is homophobic, so gen fans who didn't want to read slash but weren't homophobic would presumably have some other objection, like preferring platonic friendship to romance, or finding it unbelievable because one guy has an in-canon girlfriend (or three), or wanting to stick to a very strict interpretation of canon with no "added on" pairings or something. Unfortunately for them, because of the very vocal "you're going to burn in hell for writing this/being gay" people out there, fans who dislike slash because they don't like romance, or because Jack O'Neill is clearly in love with his wife/Sam Carter/Janet Frasier rather than Daniel, are going to be assumed to belong to the "God hates fags" crowd unless they clearly and repeatedly specify otherwise.
( ... )
Re: Here via metafandomizhilzhaJanuary 17 2008, 07:16:40 UTC
Hey, did you really get linked here from metafandom? I'm being very nosy, please forgive me; I did not expect anyone to link to this. I usually f-lock entries about slash/gen because I have no desire to suddenly incur random wank in my personal journal (not that you're wanking; you're being very coolheaded and straightforward, and I appreciate that). I went and looked at the comm and didn't see anything there
( ... )
Comments 70
Word.
Re. the quiz, however...I wouldn't be bothered. That's probably just on there as an optional answer because that's exactly how a lot of people would respond to being told that fanfic is bad because slash is icky. It's a very silly, obtuse response, but then "fanfic is bad because slash is icky!" is a very silly and obtuse statement, so...yeah. *shrugs*
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Were this a blanket statement that all failure to slash is homophobia, I'd find it buggy too, sometime slasher though I am.
Reply
I actually wrote a comment, and then didn't post it, because I had the same sort of thought you've written out here: that it's a response to the outsider, and not unjustified in that context. I'm glad I didn't post it, now. Thank you for echoing my conscience, I think I needed that. :-)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Therefore 'slash is icky' is a biased argument (me, I have no problem with people who think so - we are squicked by what we are squicked by, logic has little to do with it - just as they should have no argument with me thinking humans and aliens - Cally, the Doctor - is way ickier).
Reply
Reply
Reply
Well, as most of my RL fannish friends can tell you, I tend to not go for non-canonical het pairings, especially if they invalidate a canonical platonic male/female friendship. (The obvious example that comes to mind is Don & Megan of Numb3rs; yes, I 'ship Megan with someone else, but I also object to the alteration of a particularly good male/female friendship. Megan & Colby is another one from the same show; and there's Sam & Daniel from SG-1, Teyla and any of the guys on her team from SGA...I could go on.) I'm very interested in exploring canonical relationships, and very interested in platonic friendship ( ... )
Reply
To give an exmaple of where some of the automatic anti-slash=homophobia conclusion comes from: I've spent something like seven years in fandom at this point, and over the years I've seen many people declare that slash does nothing for them (because they prefer having at least one woman in their sex scenes, because they aren't attracted to men, etc.), or that they prefer gen to any kind of shipper fic, or that they only want to read canonical pairings (and don't like non-canon het either), or that they find a specific pairing icky because of X specific reason (for example, I find Batman/Robin icky because Bruce Wayne is Dick Grayson's ( ... )
Reply
If someone finds slash squicky, chances are pretty good they also find my mere existance squicky.
I think you've inadvertantly put your finger on a crucial difference between the two points of view: you see homosexuality as a "state of being", and those who have a moral objection to it see it as a "state of doing": that is, as an action which can be refrained from. Not that a lesbigay person could stop themselves from feeling attracted to the same sex (that would be ridiculous), but that they could stop themselves from acting on the attraction. While the lesbigay person says "what kind of god would create people and then punish them for his own actions in creating them that particular way?"
And all one gets is a shouting match:
"That's immoral!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"
Which doesn't really help.
Reply
Anyway, anyone who sincerely thinks that homosexual acts are wrong and opposes slash on those grounds is homophobic, so gen fans who didn't want to read slash but weren't homophobic would presumably have some other objection, like preferring platonic friendship to romance, or finding it unbelievable because one guy has an in-canon girlfriend (or three), or wanting to stick to a very strict interpretation of canon with no "added on" pairings or something. Unfortunately for them, because of the very vocal "you're going to burn in hell for writing this/being gay" people out there, fans who dislike slash because they don't like romance, or because Jack O'Neill is clearly in love with his wife/Sam Carter/Janet Frasier rather than Daniel, are going to be assumed to belong to the "God hates fags" crowd unless they clearly and repeatedly specify otherwise. ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment