tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post1189566857105854158..comments2024-03-28T07:00:12.226-04:00Comments on Romance Novels for Feminists: The politics of M/M romance and Alex Beecroft's BLESSED ISLEJackie C. Hornehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04146684628443152376noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-28984565842364363972013-06-05T21:02:13.764-04:002013-06-05T21:02:13.764-04:00Hey, Lawless:
You can contact me via email: roman...Hey, Lawless:<br /><br />You can contact me via email: romancenovelsforfeminists@gmail.com<br />Jackie C. Hornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04146684628443152376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-32606279358551476672013-06-02T20:00:20.451-04:002013-06-02T20:00:20.451-04:00Is there some way of contacting you privately abou...Is there some way of contacting you privately about this, seeing as it looks like at least one of those comments was a response to mine? I can be contacted at my Livejournal account (username I use to sign in at livejournal dot com). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-73895786896772003232013-05-06T19:19:21.864-04:002013-05-06T19:19:21.864-04:00Two anonymous posters put up comments today focuse...Two anonymous posters put up comments today focused on denigrating other posters, rather than engaging with the issues posters wrote about. I've taken down said posts, and will be creating a policy about what constitutes abusive posting for everyone's future reference.Jackie C. Hornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04146684628443152376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-71406462241654244192013-05-05T23:22:09.073-04:002013-05-05T23:22:09.073-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-59317919254439261022013-05-05T23:13:52.200-04:002013-05-05T23:13:52.200-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-26690935905863240432013-04-25T14:43:48.821-04:002013-04-25T14:43:48.821-04:00After reading Sunita's post, I still disagree ...After reading Sunita's post, I still disagree with you and with her, Anonymous. M/m avoids gendered power relationships precisely because they deal with same-gender couples in which gender is not an outright part of the power balance.<br /> <br />As for Sunita's post: I would need examples of books or tropes that do it right and wrong to be able to follow her argument. Those points the social worker mentions? Those are mostly <i>human</i> issues applicable to any romantic couple without regard to gender. <br /><br />The only way I see gender applying at all is with regard to masculine and feminine roles. But it stands to reason that the partner who is better at cooking, likes it more, or has more time for it will do the cooking. Ditto for childcare (taking into account the fact that the child or children's biological parent will have to take a lead role when it comes to discipline), etc., etc. <br /><br />Either I'm dense or Sunita and I are reading vastly different books, because (a) masculine/feminine issues don't come up as often in the books I read as you'd expect; my observation is that the MCs tend to both fall fairly far on the "traditionally masculine" end of the spectrum emotionally, culturally, and (in most instances) physically; and (b) when they do, the books I've read explore them in a nuanced and non-exploitative way. The issue I see crop up the most often is that authors tend to align who tops and who bottoms with height and relative masculinity/femininity, although Tere Michaels' <i>Love and Loyalty</i> (which I like much better than the rest of the Faith, Love, and Devotion series) consciously reverses that. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-89155914187124685512013-04-22T20:05:53.229-04:002013-04-22T20:05:53.229-04:00I was using the term "normal" in the sam...I was using the term "normal" in the same way the Wikipedia page on intersex conditions does: as something that may be rare (in the sense of applying to a small percentage of the population -- the estimates I've seen for the percentage of people who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual generally range from 2% to 5%, although that's subject to self-reporting error; my sense is that all told, it might actually be more like 10%) but occurs regularly and predictably. That's not the original meaning of the word "normal," but it seeks to recharacterize what's been viewed as aberrant and depraved as "normal" instead of "abnormal." <br /><br />Here's the broadbrush explanation: it's called "patriarchy" for a reason. The primary oppression of gay men occurs because they are perceived as not meeting appropriate standards of masculinity and, secondarily, not participating in procreative activities. It's straight men who are most threatened by this -- women in general don't care, and some are so glad to have male friends who aren't going to molest them that they can be characterized as "fag hags" -- and straight men who have the power to make this a society-wide concern. (I've yet to hear of women beating up gay men for being gay, and even gay slurs seem to be more the province of men.) <br /><br />Gay men are therefore viewed as aberrant, particularly by those who believe reproduction is our primary purpose and that male sexuality is centered around conquering and impregnating women. Those people may make an exception for women who wish to remain celibate, but men are supposed to be out sowing their seed productively.<br /><br />Under this paradigm, women can be homophobic, but they are not the primary source of it. In fact, they're as much victims as gay men (see: primary purpose of men is to conquer and impregnate women). Also, it's my observation that if straight men are taken out of the equation, gay men consider themselves privileged over women of the same or more oppressed groups than them; i.e., white gay men feel superior to white women and so on. <br /><br />And, finally, no female writer that I know of who writes m/m or gay romance looks down on gay men or consciously aspires to exploit them. Writing it is socially disfavored enough that no one would do it if the writer weren't committed to the humanity of her MCs. <br /><br />I see m/m romance as feminist because writing about gay men, often with graphic descriptions of gay sex, is itself a rejection of heteronormativity, although I realize things like who tops and bottoms and the privileging of anal sex can drag heteronormativity back in. <br /><br />Some writers do a better job than others of keeping it real, but keep in mind some stories' fantasy or sci fi setting. In some cases, stories are used to work out issues of importance to women such as under what circumstances and how men can open up and discuss their feelings (often an internal obstacle to a HEA/HFN), the effect of promiscuity or fear of commitment on a relationship, and what a balanced romantic partnership looks like. But so what? If the characters come across as real and what's capable of factual confirmation is confirmed, how is this oppressive? It comes really close to me to saying women aren't capable of writing male characters, which is totally bogus. <br /><br />Contrast this with whites writing about black/African-American culture, where whites historically profited from slavery and all of them still benefit from white privilege. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-43837413267582478572013-03-01T14:18:26.843-05:002013-03-01T14:18:26.843-05:00Lawless, I look forward to your future thoughts. I...Lawless, I look forward to your future thoughts. I definitely see your point that m/m is a more "unconventional" genre because "such relationships are only now being accepted as normal by significant swathes of society at large." Not a big fan of the word "normal," though, because it implies that there is one way to be "normal" -- would like to see different types of relationships be acceptable, without them having to conform to a rigid construction of what is "normal."<br /><br />I'll be interested to hear your thoughts about why "women are not the primary sources of oppression gay men face." Even if they aren't the PRIMARY source, might they be A source all the same? Can the heterosexual imperative in much conventionally-published romance be a source of oppression for homosexual readers and writers?<br /><br />I've started to wade into the m/m genre. But I'm definitely going to bring my searching soul along for the ride ;-)Jackie C. Hornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04146684628443152376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-58435328450669306082013-03-01T13:21:40.693-05:002013-03-01T13:21:40.693-05:00Yes, but I'm not at a point where I can write ...Yes, but I'm not at a point where I can write intelligently about it. I bookmarked some links I wanted to include -- including one from Ann Somerville, who's sometimes on the other side of this debate from me -- and am not in a position to put it together at the moment. Problems with signing in and posting are hampering me, too. <br /><br />I agree with those commenters -- I know Merrian was one; I'm not sure if the other was Kaetrin or someone else -- who said that there is thoughtful m/m and cliched or exploitative m/m, just as there is with any genre. It's no worse than in het genre romance, and to my mind, much better. <br /><br />Some of that may be due to the fact that it's a more unconventional narrative in which how the MCs arrive at their HEA is more open to negotiation because such relationships are only now being accepted as normal by significant swathes of society at large. <br /><br />I also don't think that you need to go through all this soul-searching before reading in the genre. That might make some sense for people writing it, but women are not the primary source of oppression gay men face. I'd like to expand on that at a later time.<br /><br />-lawless<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14187860051812060040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-82489970505421851432013-03-01T11:49:05.296-05:002013-03-01T11:49:05.296-05:00Glad you enjoyed "Blessed Isle," Lawless...Glad you enjoyed "Blessed Isle," Lawless. Bet you'd like Beecroft's FALSE COLORS, too.<br /><br />Tried to begin thinking about the issues you pointed to re the controversy over the Lambda awards and m/m women writers in this post; http://romancenovelsforfeminists.blogspot.com/2013/02/feminist-guidelines-for-reading-mm.html<br /><br />Did you see it?Jackie C. Hornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04146684628443152376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-70735779755233004292013-03-01T11:20:10.932-05:002013-03-01T11:20:10.932-05:00You're right, Anonymous, I did not spell out t...You're right, Anonymous, I did not spell out that I was talking about m/f gender dynamics, but since we're contrasting m/m romance with m/f, I assumed that was already implied and understood. Cue the old adage about what happens when one assumes things ...<br /><br />Before I proceed, it would be useful for me to know if you are the author of the post you link to or someone pointing to it as a better way of analyzing the topic before entering into a further discussion on the merits. <br /><br />BTW, Jackie, I read Blessed Isle in the meantime and loved it. It was a wonderfully crafted and well=thought out story. I'd been avoiding Beecroft's work because I thought the novella of hers I purchased -- I don't remember the title off the top of my head, but it was gothic/supernatural, not Age of Sail -- had problems, I mostly avoid historical m/m romance anyway because it's so tough to pull off a believable happy ending, and Age of Sail -- her specialty -- doesn't particularly ping my radar. So thank you for highlighting this book. <br /><br />PS -- This is Lawless523, or just plain lawless for simiplcity's sake; I'm signing in through Google rather than LiveJournal because Blogger's been unable to verify my OpenID credentials. Since I've never signed in this way before, I'm not sure what's going to show up when (or if) this posts. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14187860051812060040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-7092029353099826792013-02-10T10:36:38.913-05:002013-02-10T10:36:38.913-05:00I don't think I agree with your point, lawless...I don't think I agree with your point, lawless523. It's something m/m readers say a lot and I never knew how to express why I disagreed until I read this article <a href="http://vacuousminx.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/gendered-power-relationships-and-mm/" rel="nofollow">Gendered power relationships and m/m</a><br /><br />"Heteronormative, patriarchial structures shape society for everyone. Some m/m authors write wonderful books that explore the ramifications of this hegemony for romantic relationships between men and show how they are negotiated to produce an HFN or HEA. Others pretend equality is an unproblematic given in the relationship. And the same is true for m/f authors: some tackle the ramifications head on, while others don’t.<br /><br />Let’s be honest and acknowledge that m/m provides a respite from what women’s gendered roles in romance novels make us confront, not from “gendered power relationships” more generally."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-48394366187891438252013-02-09T00:16:40.774-05:002013-02-09T00:16:40.774-05:00Some of the comments on this interview of genderqu...Some of the comments on <a href="http://popularromanceproject.org/interviews/1918/" rel="nofollow">this interview</a> of genderqueer female-bodied m/m author James Buchanan from the Popular Romance Project's blog, as well as Buchanan's remarks themselves, echo and expand on my point above. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-80440106369342175312013-02-07T14:22:38.866-05:002013-02-07T14:22:38.866-05:00It's the ability to bypass the baggage of gend...It's the ability to bypass the baggage of gender roles so the characters meet on more of an equal playing field that most attracts me to m/m romance. Also, it expands one's horizons regarding what constitutes romance and an appropriate relationship and permits the consideration of acts -- painplay, bloodplay, rough sex, etc. -- that run the risk of coming across as abusive in a heterosexual relationship if the woman is the submissive or masochist, as is generally the case in romance novels.<br /><br />It would be great if we could have these same freedoms with heterosexual characters, but it's still not okay for women to have the freedom of choice granted to men. Until we do, m/m romance is the best way to model such relationships. <br /><br />Address the potential elephant in the room, f/f, in addition to possibly appealing less to heterosexual women than m/m, can't overcome the ways in which women are oppressed. Although the playing field is leveled, the characters are still subject to the same societal and physical constraints. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-71008349510709422712013-01-22T13:03:01.526-05:002013-01-22T13:03:01.526-05:00J9:
Welcome! Glad you stopped by, and that you en...J9:<br /><br />Welcome! Glad you stopped by, and that you enjoy the blog.Jackie C. Hornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04146684628443152376noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-630346294397505634.post-26514067359023626602013-01-22T12:06:55.846-05:002013-01-22T12:06:55.846-05:00I adored this review! I'm a newcomer to your b...I adored this review! I'm a newcomer to your blog and it's going on my favs list. I can't wait to read more of your reviews with this unique perspective. J9https://www.blogger.com/profile/02164989228219592780noreply@blogger.com