fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #900 ]

[ SECRET POST #900 ]

⌈ Secret Post #900 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

101.

__________________________________________________

102.

[Scrubs]

__________________________________________________

103.

[Daniel Radcliffe & Tom Felton]

__________________________________________________

104.

[Phantom of the Opera]

__________________________________________________

105.

[Vampire Knight, Twilight]

__________________________________________________

106.

[Fallout 3]

__________________________________________________

107.

__________________________________________________

108.

[Trek/SPN]

__________________________________________________

109.

[Little Shop of Horrors]

__________________________________________________

110.

__________________________________________________

111.

__________________________________________________

112.

__________________________________________________

113.

[Pushing Daisies]

__________________________________________________

114.

__________________________________________________

115.

__________________________________________________

116.

[Total Eclipse]

__________________________________________________

117.

[Prison Break]

__________________________________________________

118.

__________________________________________________

119.

[MGS, FLCL]

__________________________________________________

120.

[ReBoot]

__________________________________________________

121.

__________________________________________________

122.

[Super Junior]

__________________________________________________

123.

[Producing Parker]

__________________________________________________

124.

[LotR]

__________________________________________________

125.

__________________________________________________

126.

__________________________________________________

127.

__________________________________________________

128.

__________________________________________________

129.

[FF9]

__________________________________________________

130.

[Stephen Fry]

__________________________________________________

131.

__________________________________________________

132.

__________________________________________________

133.

__________________________________________________

134.

__________________________________________________

135.

__________________________________________________

136.

__________________________________________________

137.

__________________________________________________

138.

__________________________________________________

139.

__________________________________________________

140.

__________________________________________________

141.

__________________________________________________

142.

__________________________________________________

143.

[Constantine]

__________________________________________________

144.

__________________________________________________

145.

__________________________________________________

146.

__________________________________________________

147.

__________________________________________________

148.

[Hourou Musuko]

__________________________________________________

149.

[Red Dragon]

__________________________________________________

150.

__________________________________________________

151.

__________________________________________________

152.

__________________________________________________

153.

__________________________________________________

154.

__________________________________________________

155.

__________________________________________________

156.

__________________________________________________

157.

__________________________________________________

158.

__________________________________________________

159.

[Secret Diary of a Call Girl]

__________________________________________________

160.

[Stephen Colbert]

__________________________________________________

161.

__________________________________________________

162.

__________________________________________________

163.

__________________________________________________

164.

__________________________________________________

165.

__________________________________________________

166.

__________________________________________________

167.

__________________________________________________

168.

__________________________________________________

169.

__________________________________________________

170.

__________________________________________________

171.

__________________________________________________

172.

__________________________________________________

173.

__________________________________________________

174.

__________________________________________________

175.

[NCIS]

__________________________________________________

176.

__________________________________________________

177.

__________________________________________________

178.

__________________________________________________

179.

__________________________________________________

180.

[LOST]

Notes:

Sorry for the earliness.

Secrets Left to Post: 09 pages, 207 secrets from Secret Submission Post #129.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken ], [ 1 2 3 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - doing it wrong ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Dude, that's all on you. Sorry that you're having trouble explaining yourself, but if you wanna get all srs bsns and frustrated over nothing up in here, okay.

Just jumping in for a minute: You don't win just because you're either too thick-headed to communicate correctly or being deliberately misleading in order to make yourself appear educated. You have to present an intelligent and properly expressed argument while considering your opponent's logic, and you have done neither of those things.

I'm not saying anyone's winning anything here. She wanted to give up on explaining what she meant, which was apparently that to use a relationship that didn't include women (on the surface) was degrading to women when held up as an ideal (which is what slashing attempts to do sometimes). I asked that since slash was made by women, for women, how does it really degrade women, but she doesn't want to go into it, so again - it's on her. I didn't give up on trying to hash this out.

...Oh, I see what the problem is. No, they didn't want to go into it (correct me if I'm wrong,

pikabot because that's not what they were talking about, and constant attempts to reassert the fact that your point was irrelevant weren't getting through. Jesus, anyone would have given up after that.

The point, as I see it, is that conflating the terms "slash-like" and "equal", as they pertain to a relationship, implies that a relationship built on parity and mutual understanding cannot exist simply between a man and a woman, but rather two men or a man and a "masculine" woman - a woman who acts as a stand-in of sorts for a male counterpart to her male significant other. Now, if I understand you correctly, you assume that the term "slash-like" as applied to a relationship implies that the relationship is one of equality because slash is a genre invented by women, priginally used to express the ideals of a heteronormative relationship that said woman holds ideal or prefers - one of equality.

The problem is that this idea is backwards. You assume that slash itself is a genre created by women an an expression of the ideal male/female relationship rather than, primarily, because they find the preexisting, male dynamic between the characters involved attractive. Essentially, you imply that in order for a heterosexual relationship to be equal, it must be comparable to a relationship between two men who act like men, because the women who write about it find that attractive, and apply that dynamic to themselves and their relationships.

I see why you think what you do, and how it makes sense to you. But it breaks down. You want to say that slash is based on heteronormativity, therefore heterosexual relationships can safely be compared to slash, which is still a roundabout and ridiculous way of expressing the original sentiment, but what it reads as is that an equal relationship is defined as one based on male power and dominance.

I don't consider slash to be wholly about equality, which is what I should have corrected a long time ago. Also important is that it's about relationships where gender roles do not have a place.

When a lot of gendering falls along the lines of strengths/weaknesses, there is a desire to render the point of gender moot, which is what slash does. Behaviors are no longer become a "male" way of acting or a "female" way of acting (which is a socially constructed notion to begin with) - in a slash ship, behaviors just become how these particular characters are acting. When - I don't know - Kirk is acting "weak" in what is a traditionally feminine way in relation to Spock (like, say, bottoming), it's not because a certain weak behavior is expected because that's how women are, it's because it's a facet of his personality.

You assume that slash itself is a genre created by women an an expression of the ideal male/female relationship rather than, primarily, because they find the preexisting, male dynamic between the characters involved attractive.

That's not exactly right. Let me try to explain what I assume:

I think when women looked at Kirk/Spock, Mulder/Krycek, or Duncan/Methos, they saw a hugely interesting dynamic that transcended gender. You know, they saw men, who were on equal footing, being vulnerable and intimate with each other, saw them supporting each other or saw them engaged intensely with each other, and they saw them being "men" but they also saw something of themselves in them, too (and not just in those who "bottomed"). So they started writing about the dynamic as they saw it.

So when I talk about idealization, I don't it's correct in saying it's an idealization based on men being "men." I think it's an idealization based on being able to embody certain characteristics and not have gender come into it - "strong for a woman", "weak for a man." Which challenges heteronormativity, I think. I absolutely do not think that slash is based on heteronormativity - the opposite, in fact.

Way to be rather hypocritical. I know this idea is crazy, but perhaps a woman being strong (or weak) is part of her character, and not the fact that she's a woman (or resembles a man)

I just said that the men had "feminine" characteristics, so the women related to that. So I'm talking about behaviors having no basis in gender. I'm not talking about women needing to resemble a man to be strong. I am saying that what gets called "strong" is often attributed as a "male" thing by society and people want to break free from that, that people want to see either gender carrying the whole rainbow of "masculine" and "feminine" characteristics. Men just get used more often because 1. there are more fleshed-out male characters than female and 2. attractiveness does still play a role, and the straight women who write slash like to think about attractive guys.

That's not what you said. You said

"When a lot of gendering falls along the lines of strengths/weaknesses, there is a desire to render the point of gender moot, which is what slash does."

Implying that only slash can make gender moot, when any combination can do this.

Attractiveness plays a role? In other words you're basing this on gender. You aren't making gender moot, you're just changing the gender dynamic. It's no different than a woman and a woman or a man and a woman. Frankly you just can't get passed the female in said relationships. That does not make you 'gender equal' or more open minded, it simply makes you gender biased.

That's all very interesting, and you bring up some fine points, but the fact remains that referring to a heterosexual relationship as slash-like is still sexist. No matter what the intent or the logic beyond the description, slash depicts a relationship between two men, and a heterosexual relationship includes a woman. Comparing the relationship between a man and a woman to that of two men, as though a relationship between two men is the default standard for equality - because that is how it reads, regardless of the intent - is no less offensive than defining a homosexual relationship by heteronormative terms as though they are the default standard.

That's all very interesting, and you bring up some fine points, but the fact remains that referring to a heterosexual relationship as slash-like is still sexist.

I don't understand this. Recently, I fell in love with a het pairing that reminded me of the dynamics in slash, specifically in terms of gender having nothing to do with it. I even described it as "het, with a slash dynamic", so it's like I understand the words you're saying, but they don't make any sense to me. You're not the first person that has said that slash is misogynistic for "erasing women" or that to compare the two is offensive, but I think it's really just a matter of the wires being hopelessly crossed.

You're right, you don't understand. That's not what she's saying at all. Stop putting words in her mouth.

At no point did I describe slash as misogynistic, nor did I insinuate that it "erases women". What I said was that to categorize a male/female relationship by the standards of a male/male relationship is as backwards and offensive as categorizing a homosexual relationship by heterosexual standards.

I also need to point out that heterosexual relationships do exist, both in real life and in the media and fanworks, wherein gender has nothing to do with the dynamics or equality of the relationship.

I also need to point out that heterosexual relationships do exist, both in real life and in the media and fanworks, wherein gender has nothing to do with the dynamics or equality of the relationship.

Well, yes, because I just pointed out one that I enjoyed. But the type of dynamic I'm talking about is found with greater frequency in slash. It's not impossible to find in het, but it is the reason I find myself attracted to slash.

Well, that speaks to an unfortunate trend in the het in your fandoms, but either way, I think it would be better for the advancement of equality if we could all agree to just refer to it as an equal relationship and leave it at that.

I'm confused as to which part of my comment seems to be causing you consternation, because you quoted all of it, for...some reason. It seems to make sense to me.

I was originally going to respond, but this is about the point that the conversation seems to be taking place in completely different languages, so I thought it was best to just give up.

I read het, I love het, but I understand that the dynamics therein are usually different from slash. I like it when slash relationships reflect the things I like in my het relationships, and I like it when het reflects the things I like in my slash relationships--but very often those things are different.

If that's horrifically offensive, so be it.

O...kay. That's not what the point is, so yeah, two different languages. You're right. The point was that the terminology is offensive by nature of implication, no matter what you want it to mean.

The point was that the terminology is offensive by nature of implication, no matter what you want it to mean.

Okay, are you maybe trying to say it's offensive because you think it puts slash as something "above" het, as though het is naturally inferior and only when it is "slash-like", does it achieve equality?

Yes. Because that is the meaning the term conveys, and if you have to spend twenty comments explaining that that isn't what you mean when you said it, you might want to consider that it isn't the best term to express your sentiment.

I know what you mean by it. You've given your explanation. It's just not really adequate to dispel the inherent bias in the words.

Yes. Because that is the meaning the term conveys

No. That is the meaning the term conveys to you. To someone like me, who instantly grasped the concept, I had to struggle with what you were finding offense with in the term itself, which is frustrating to me because I don't think of myself as stupid or insensitive.

"Slash-like het" just means het that is like slash, whatever the term slash means to you. To me, slash confers a sense of "gender blindess" (equality is probably the wrong term, since, yes, that can certainly happen between any possible mixture of gender) that you don't usually get in fictional het relationships. Therefore I would assume that "slash-like het" is het that has a similar sense of gender-blindness, something that I really like and only rarely find in my fictional het. "Gender-blindness" doesn't make slash superior, it's just a trope.

I don't want to offend people, but that's sort of hard when the terms under question mean such different things to whoever is participating.

(no subject)

runic-binary.livejournal.com - 2009-06-24 07:41 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-06-24 13:49 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-06-24 16:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-06-24 16:12 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2009-06-24 16:15 (UTC) - Expand

Great frequency in slash? I beg to differ.

Great frequency in slash? I beg to differ.

You don't even know what dynamic I'm specifically referring to. It's a highly antagonistic rivalry that, yes, is usually found between men and men. So, yeah, "beg to differ" all you want, doesn't mean you're right.

Wow, apparantly you've never heard of hate!ships. (And sorry to burst your bubble, but slash doesn't hold the monopoly on rival ships either)

And sorry to burst your bubble, but slash doesn't hold the monopoly on rival ships either

Apparently you have trouble with reading comprehension. Slash has more of those things, not a monopoly. Male/Female rivals are relatively rare, in slash, they're common as dirt.

That's all I'm saying.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only