solitary_summer | (no subject)

I'm not all that comfortable posting this, because while I generally follow the big fandom ---!fail debates, most of the time I'm too scared to offend someone or make a fool of myself to speak up, but between

aviv_b's (now locked) RTD-finds-out-about-homophobia story, and the recent debate about (straight) women writing m/m fiction I have this sort of theory why TW fandom blew up so spectacularly after CoE, and it has a lot to do with this slightly uneasy alliance between gay people and the straight part of slash fandom, since both want the same thing, more gay storylines, and there's strength in numbers, and numbers count when it comes to TV. On the other hand that common interest doesn't mean that gay people (fans as well as those involved in the creation, especially in the age of the internet and fandom becoming increasingly mainstream and public) aren't aware of the more problematic aspects of slash fandom (fetishisation/appropriation), or that straight fandom doesn't tend to forget that for gay people it's also very much a matter of identification and representation, and not just, and that's putting it as politely and generally as possible, of fanish squee. (Cf. the 'But It's not about gay men, it's about female sexuality' argument.)

And for the straight side it all worked rather well ('Yay! Canon slash!'), and I'd hazard a guess that even after Ianto's death the greater part of TW fandom would probably have got over it after a while, if RTD hadn't spoken up about what he thought was problematic about—straight, beecause 'people picking up gay rights as an issue' clearly doesn't refer to gay fans—fandom, and suddenly it wasn't one happy family any longer.

So, yes, the 'hysterical women' comment was sexist and misogynist, everyone can agree on that, but after six months fandom can maybe start to look beyond that, and realise this was also coming from somewhere, namely a gay writer thinking he wasn't just dealing with straight women fetishising homosexuality and making judgements about what gay relationships were supposed to be like, but straight women now explaining homophobia to him. Now clearly the situation was more complex than that, clearly there were gay people as well as straight people who disliked CoE for a wide variety of reasons, but I think this was the main impression that came across, and I doubt anyone involved in TW fandom can honestly say that it was wholly unfounded in reality.

And considering that he stated this very explicitly more than once (here and here and probably elsewhere, too, but I wasn't following media that religiously and only picked up what was generally linked in fandom) I find it a bit worrying how this got swept aside almost unanimously by the straight part of fandom. Admittedly emotions were running high all round, and no one was thinking very clearly at the time, but after half a year maybe it's time to acknowledge that among other things there was also a lot of hurt privilege and entitlement in the post-CoE fallout. Because when straight people are gleefully writing RPF subjecting RTD to homophobia they honestly believe he doesn't know about, and are convinced they're doing it in the name of gay rights and karma I think this is a problem that isn't just limited to one writer, but symptomatic of the wider state of TW fandom.

*breathes* Okay. Now everyone tell me how hard I've failed.

[Obligatory disclaimer: I don't consider myself straight, but I'm also too not-much-of-anything-sexual to feel justified claiming any kind of queer label.

Obligatory disclaimer the second, for those who aren't on my friendslist and don't know me. Yes, I cried. Yes, I cared. Click the tag.]

~~ETA: I'll be at my sister's for the afternoon, so if I'm not replying to comments it's not that I'm ignoring anyone.~~

ETA2: Addendum, sort of.

More ETA, since my brain is slow and some things only untangled themselves in my head replying to the comments. If I wrote that post now, I'd phrase it a bit differently, because even while I thought I was being clear, different issues did in fact get jumbled together. The 'hysterical women' comment— and while we're at it, I was getting curious and looked for the exact source, and now I'm left wondering, was this ever said more publicly than (possibly off the record?) to the AfterElton writer who put it into his editor's note without giving the context or even a full quote? In any case, that comment is one thing, and I'm not going to tell anyone they can't be offended by its sexism, even if personally I can't bring myself to be very outraged, given the context, situation and the fact that we're all human and fuck up occasionally.

OTOH, the two interviews I've linked where he is clearly pissed off about straight people lecturing a gay man about gay rights and homophobia—that's a separate issue and a legitimate concern about what was happening in TW fandom, and something I don't think straight fans should immediately react to with outrage and discard as nothing but hurt vanity. It's an issue that deserves consideration, whether or not someone is willing to forgive killing Ianto or the 'nine hysterical women'.

The one is about male privilege and prejudice, the other very much about straight privilege, as is using the sexism as an excuse to ignore the anger, lumping it all together; and they don't cancel each other out. This is essentially what I should have made clearer from the start. And I'll really shut up now; but on some level I keep naively hoping that attempting to untangle this whole mess might also eventually help a little bit towards making TW fandom a less toxic place again. I know, I know. *sigh*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Admittedly I'm not in the fandom and would only know Children of Earth from Children of the Corn because of whispers I hear around, but there's a point in your post that I think needs addressing, and that's the implication that straight fans wouldn't be concerned for gay issues because of simple civil rights issues. The post seems to say that straight fans could only want gay storylines/characters for fic or fetishization purposes, and that's not true at all.

For a popular example, there's reasons Rowling's audience cheered when she revealed that Dumbledore was gay, and it had nothing to do with fanservice.

I'm going OT and I'm sorry to be a party-pooper but I have issues with the Dumbledore example.

When JKR revealed the fact that he was gay, it was very much after the fact, not only had he died years before, it had been said once the canonic story was over.

It's very nice piquancy to talk about the old man being gay, but it had no relevance to the story as she told it and once again, it showed that gay love is doomed - it would appear that Dumbledore loved Grindelwald and then loved no one else. Ever. Because that's what JKR answered when someone asked if Dumbledore was ever in love, her answer was "he was gay".
To me that says, he was gay and therefore his love was doomed.

People may have cheered the declaration, but where was he in the actual storyline and why out him after a book in which the ugliest stereotypes about Gay men were told about him (being a child molester, comes to mind from Rita Skeeter's biography)?

But that that specific relationship was doomed has a great plot significance. Wasn't that what cleared up WHY he never stepped in when he could have? I don't think you can make a blanket statement on an author's thought on gay relationships based off one doomed one. Besides, we all know that JKR's relationships in general seem to be "only one love your entire life".

I didn't make a blanket statement, I said I had issue using Dumbledore as an example for a gay storyline, since it wasn't, in fact a gay storyline. We only discover he's gay and that his relationship with Gridelwald was more significant after he was dead and after the canonic story ended.

We don't even know if they even has a romantic relationship - Dumbledore may have loved him and the other guy may have not known, not cared or considered it disgusting. We don't know, because JKR didn't actually write the relationship as anything other than a friendship and if it was significant that it was in fact a love affair, why not write it in the book rather than out him after the fact?

Yes her Monogomy is Bestest Thing Evar is clear, with the fact that Snape does what he does out of "love" and not "decency" and the 19 years later epilogue of Saccharine.
Yeah, fandom has dealt way better than JKR when it comes to characters development, ethics and over all plot.

To be honest, I haven't read it. I was talking about the reaction from the fans when she said it rather than how it played out in the books since I have no knowledge of that. And the fans cheered.

I never said or implied that straight fans couldn't be legitimately concerned about gay rights. But if they insist on being outraged at RTD telling them that he considers it rather condescending when they are trying to lecture him about something he's been dealing with his whole life, without even considering the truth of the statement for a moment, I rather doubt they are.

As for Dumbledore's outing, I agree with what

eumelia said—it was problematic. At the very least she could have added something along the lines of, and X years later he fell in love with XY and they lived happily for a long time until X happened... Not one doomed and tragic love as a teenager and nothing but loneliness ever since.

That was what I got out of the post.

And again, didn't read it and was talking about the reaction, but also again, isn't that par for the course for anyone in the books?

, isn't that par for the course for anyone in the books?

You do have a point there, what with everyone marrying the people they fell in love with at school, but there are plenty of both happy and unhappy heterosexual relationships in the books, and Dumbledore is the only gay character

And any staticitian will tell you that it's impossible to get any sort of information off a single sample.