Odd thoughts knocking around
Nov. 12th, 2013 12:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
valarltdMay be offensive
The usual "Women writing gay men is appropriative" stuff is going around.
And a gay friend was shocked to find out I don't consider men when writing same-sex romance. For me, m/m romance is a LESBIAN encounter. I am a woman, writing for the erotic pleasure of women readers. I choose to convey this pleasure through male bodies, since the female body is marginalized, the words to describe it are silly or crude, and most of us have body issues and sex issues. We are used to identifying with male protagonists, and so, the maleness of the characters is no big deal. In fact, the simplicity of the penis and the straightforwardness of male orgasm allows a very safe space to explore our own complicated sexuality.
I've also been having qualms about writing men. Just in general. It comes under author responsibility issues. I have a responsibility to my reader to get the details right.
So why am I making men palatable to women?
One in three people--regardless of gender--in a romantic relationship with a man reports domestic violence. (I found that stat years ago, when someone was arguing that 1/3 gay men abuses their partners. I found the stat was the same for heterosexual couples, but nobody liked the idea that the problem factor was simply being in a relationship with a man.)
Intimate partner violence is 22% of the violent crime committed against women. (1)
25% of women report having been raped. In my experience--real life, online and across many states and countries--the number of women raped (defined here as sexual penetration of the body by genitals, hands or objects without the penetrated one's consent) or molested (defined here as any sexual contact with a child incapable of consent) is 85%. In my husband's experience, it's 100%.
Between 1200 and 1600 women are murdered every year by their partners. The number for men has fallen sharply from 1300 in 1976 to about 500 in 1998. (1)
These things alone would argue that no, I shouldn't be writing about men for women.
(1) http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf
I know there are good men. I know there are kind and loving men. But all I ever seem to hear about are the kind who want control.
They don't love their wives. Their daughters are property.
The behavior of their women is a point of honor with them, regardless of religion (although this is primarily found in monotheistic fundamentalist circles in ALL three Abrahamics)
And even those who do care about the women in their lives seldom realize exactly how they treat them. (most often it's as an appliance with sex settings)
My mother was telling me about lobotomies. How they were commonly done on difficult housewives, turning them into order-following drones. My response was "We're lucky any woman escaped the 50s with a functioning brain." I read The Stepford Wives as horror, as a prediction of what most men would prefer in their women.
"Why do men feel threatened by women?" I asked a male friend of mine. (I love that wonderful rhetorical device, "a male friend of mine." It's often used by female journalists when they want to say something particularly bitchy but don't want to be held responsible for it themselves. It also lets people know that you do have male friends, that you aren't one of those fire-breathing mythical monsters, The Radical Feminists, who walk around with little pairs of scissors and kick men in the shins if they open doors for you. "A male friend of mine" also gives--let us admit it--a certain weight to the opinions expressed.) So this male friend of mine, who does by the way exist, conveniently entered into the following dialogue. "I mean," I said, "men are bigger, most of the time, they can run faster, strangle better, and they have on the average a lot more money and power." "They're afraid women will laugh at them," he said. "Undercut their world view." Then I asked some women students in a quickie poetry seminar I was giving, "Why do women feel threatened by men?" "They're afraid of being killed," they said.
--Atwood, Margaret, Writing the Male Character (1982)
These are thoughts that bother me as I write male characters. I am making men palatable to their prey.
The usual "Women writing gay men is appropriative" stuff is going around.
And a gay friend was shocked to find out I don't consider men when writing same-sex romance. For me, m/m romance is a LESBIAN encounter. I am a woman, writing for the erotic pleasure of women readers. I choose to convey this pleasure through male bodies, since the female body is marginalized, the words to describe it are silly or crude, and most of us have body issues and sex issues. We are used to identifying with male protagonists, and so, the maleness of the characters is no big deal. In fact, the simplicity of the penis and the straightforwardness of male orgasm allows a very safe space to explore our own complicated sexuality.
I've also been having qualms about writing men. Just in general. It comes under author responsibility issues. I have a responsibility to my reader to get the details right.
So why am I making men palatable to women?
One in three people--regardless of gender--in a romantic relationship with a man reports domestic violence. (I found that stat years ago, when someone was arguing that 1/3 gay men abuses their partners. I found the stat was the same for heterosexual couples, but nobody liked the idea that the problem factor was simply being in a relationship with a man.)
Intimate partner violence is 22% of the violent crime committed against women. (1)
25% of women report having been raped. In my experience--real life, online and across many states and countries--the number of women raped (defined here as sexual penetration of the body by genitals, hands or objects without the penetrated one's consent) or molested (defined here as any sexual contact with a child incapable of consent) is 85%. In my husband's experience, it's 100%.
Between 1200 and 1600 women are murdered every year by their partners. The number for men has fallen sharply from 1300 in 1976 to about 500 in 1998. (1)
These things alone would argue that no, I shouldn't be writing about men for women.
(1) http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv.pdf
I know there are good men. I know there are kind and loving men. But all I ever seem to hear about are the kind who want control.
They don't love their wives. Their daughters are property.
The behavior of their women is a point of honor with them, regardless of religion (although this is primarily found in monotheistic fundamentalist circles in ALL three Abrahamics)
And even those who do care about the women in their lives seldom realize exactly how they treat them. (most often it's as an appliance with sex settings)
My mother was telling me about lobotomies. How they were commonly done on difficult housewives, turning them into order-following drones. My response was "We're lucky any woman escaped the 50s with a functioning brain." I read The Stepford Wives as horror, as a prediction of what most men would prefer in their women.
"Why do men feel threatened by women?" I asked a male friend of mine. (I love that wonderful rhetorical device, "a male friend of mine." It's often used by female journalists when they want to say something particularly bitchy but don't want to be held responsible for it themselves. It also lets people know that you do have male friends, that you aren't one of those fire-breathing mythical monsters, The Radical Feminists, who walk around with little pairs of scissors and kick men in the shins if they open doors for you. "A male friend of mine" also gives--let us admit it--a certain weight to the opinions expressed.) So this male friend of mine, who does by the way exist, conveniently entered into the following dialogue. "I mean," I said, "men are bigger, most of the time, they can run faster, strangle better, and they have on the average a lot more money and power." "They're afraid women will laugh at them," he said. "Undercut their world view." Then I asked some women students in a quickie poetry seminar I was giving, "Why do women feel threatened by men?" "They're afraid of being killed," they said.
--Atwood, Margaret, Writing the Male Character (1982)
These are thoughts that bother me as I write male characters. I am making men palatable to their prey.
The D-Man Checks In
Date: 2013-11-13 10:39 am (UTC)Anyone threating or imposing on your personal power/territory, regardless of gender, is considered a threat, and will be dealt with as best one is able, depending on personality, personal ability, and the perception of how serious the threat seems to be, with some consideration mayhbe after that for any consequences.
Men tending to be physically bigger & stronger will tend more to meet threats with physical violence, while women will tend to make more subtle attacks... with poison or gossip (which can be just as toxic over time), or by refusing to do things that are needed or wanted, although I have witnessed some vicious cat-fights between women that would make most men tuck tail & run in fear.
When men hit, they will leave bruises & maybe broken bones. When women hit, they will leave scars & missing clumps of hair.
When men are done fighting though, they walk away, and might even befriend their defeated opponent if he accorded himself well in the contest. When women are done fighting... the ill feelings tend to remain, and there shall rarely be any reconciliation between the combatants. The defeated just knows better now than to ever again cross the victor, unless she wants more of the same, or unless she has since gained an advantage to tip the scales in ther favor in advance.
Prey? Anything weaker can be considered prey to the stronger, but physical strength is not everything. I personally know a number of men who would be considered pussy-whipped because their wives simply out-think them, or they've learned their partner's weaknesses, so they know where to strike or what to threaten to do the most damage if strike they ever must.
I notice that you also do not tend to write men... but gay men. There is a remarkable difference. You are not making "men" palatable to your audience. You are making gays palatable. The heterosexual male & homosexual male are very different animals when it comes to how they regard & handle women, their partners, and other males.
Re: The D-Man Checks In
Date: 2013-11-13 05:26 pm (UTC)The reason for the drop homicides against husbands by wives is women's shelters. Women could now get away from an abuser instead of having to kill him.
Men are men, gay or straight. There are all kinds of gay men and all kinds of straight men. I am convincing my audience that men can love, instead of merely possess. I am saying they have feelings (although my gay men are less emotionally expressive than some writers') beyond anger, that they can actually care about their partner.
I know gay men who are proud they were born cesarean (means they have NEVER touched a vagina), who refuse to undress with female nurses in the room, and who generally regard women as nothing more than uteri to produce more gay sons, and they would prefer if they could manage it artificially. (Niall is NOT as extreme as a lot of people think. He's just a composite of 3 people)
I know gay men who are one of the girls, in every sense, down to female pronouns. They're all about Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and other divas. They're also a dying breed. A lot of young gay men today are all about being men, with a capital Grr. It's all action movies and frottage (because penetrative sex feminizes the receptive partner and they're all about being men) instead of drag and lavender kitchen tile.
Straight men hate gay men for the same reason straight men hate women. Because our culture equates gay with female and female with inferior.
Men are men, regardless of orientation. There are good ones and bad ones. But when it comes to dealing with women, the bad almost always outnumbers the good. (one of the reasons there are no good men in my lesbian collection)
Re: The D-Man Checks In
Date: 2013-11-16 02:20 am (UTC)Straight men chafe at gay men because gays are an affront to masculinity if they are of the girlie persuasion, or they are percieved as threats/predators who might be looking upon the straight men as straight men look upon women. Straight men are not used to be objectified as potential sex objects, which makes them uncomfortable and/or angry, and what makes straight men uncomfortable and/or angry tends to get assaulted if not destroyed.
Essentially, fear naught. You are not making men (wolves) palatable to their prey. Women in general have little or nothing to fear from (predatory) gays (Yorkies), which is what you write.
...And up here in Denver, the girlie gay male sub-culture is very much alive and thriving. Their clubs & venues & visibility are increasing, not diminishing.
Re: The D-Man Checks In
Date: 2013-11-16 04:10 am (UTC)The fact remains, my readers are identifying with/as the male characters (as media has taught us to do), and having a brief romance with a male character. The rest is plumbing.
I am saying that men are safe love objects.
Re: The D-Man Checks In
Date: 2013-11-19 02:55 am (UTC)Let's take Conan (from the Conan The Barbarian series) & Tarl Cabot (from the Gor series). Let's keep everything about these MANLY men the same: great warriors, big muscles, master cavalrymen, ruggedly handsome, highly capable outdoorsmen, unsurpassed with a bow or blade, the Alpha male in any group they choose to enter, and terrific in bed; both living in a pre-medieval culture & time period where slavery is an accepted fact of life... but now let's make them gay. WHAM! These men are instantly no longer what they once were to readers. Straight males no longer identify with them; they no longer wish to be them, nor do they want to have them as companions. Straight women are no longer fascinated by them; they no longer wish to be pursued nor possessed by them. Gays are not (as) interested in women, nor do they desire women at all sexually... so why bother? The appeal & allure is totally different. Despite identical personalities, physical characteristics & capabilities... the straight & gay male/hero is NOT the same, and readers will not identify/accept them as the same.
Instead of dogs--wolves vs. Yorkshire terriers--let's make the comparison in the realm of bears: Grizzlies vs. pandas. Both are undeniably bears. Both are potentially dangerous to humans/women who venture into their established territory. One however is an omnivore, while the other is an herbivore. The hungry grizzly bear will look upon any woman he encounters as a potential meal, while the hungry panda would not. The straight human male looks upon & frames most women in the context of potential mates/conquests/possessions; the gay male does not. These bears/men are thus not the same.
As you seem to fear making grizzly bears palatable to women through your writing, fear not, for you are not... being as how you mainly write about panda bears, which are not necessarily inferior to grizzly bears; they're just different as a breed in how they will behave towards the prospect of making a meal out of a woman. If pushed to fighting though, a panda can be just as vicious and powerful and rip-your-limbs-off dangerous, ounce for ounce, pound for pound, as a grizzly of the same size.
Like the panda, gay men tend to be looked upon & framed in the context of being cute, cuddly & harmless, while the grizzly is a mindless killer. These are both mass media-generated misperceptions. You rarely see footage of pandas savagely fighting tooth & nail over turf or a mate, but they do. You rarely see footage of grizzly bears tenderly nuzzling their mates or contentedly eating berries, but they do.
By nature, or misperception, while both are bears, a panda is NOT the same as a grizzly. One poses a greater threat to women than the other, and will be motivated by different appetites (hungers).
By nature, or misperception, while both are men, a homosexual male is NOT the same as a heterosexual male. One poses a greater threat to women thant he other, and will be motivated by different appetites (lusts).
Women, not being stupid, will know the difference. Write gay men all you want. Make gay men the equal of straight men in every way as you can. Women will still know the difference, and still (maybe curiously) wish to be pursued & possessed by the straight Conan or Tarl Cabot instead of the gay one. Why? Because they can't fight their nature & what they are attracted to, anymore than gays can.
Re: The D-Man Checks In
Date: 2013-11-19 05:13 pm (UTC)Straight women make up about 75% of the audience for male-male romance (used to be 90%). Who do you think is BUYING my books? Who bought 2000 copies of Glad Hands? Who bought 800 copies of Heart of a Forest? Women. Who would pay good money for a Conan/Cabot, sword and sorcery romance? Women. My audience is not gay men. They are not on my radar as a writer. And no matter how many times I tell you this, it never seems to register.
And we aren't wanting to be pursued and possessed by these heroes. We are wanting to BE these heroes and have a lover who is our equal. We want adventures and swinging a sword right alongside him, not waiting to be rescued or being his prize when he triumphs. It's why we always liked Isparana in the Conan books better than we liked Cymoril in the Elric ones.
Let me explain it as I explained it to Ben, a gay friend of mine who didn't really get why women write same-sex romance, and especially didn't get how I could write it without even thinking about my gay male readership.
"When I was 9 years old, I saw Star Wars. I immediately fell deeply, hopelessly in love with Luke Skywalker. BUT! I was not the princess. Being a princess was for smaller girls, prettier girls, girls who didn't tower over their hero and outsmart him. I was Han Solo. And I was still in love with Luke. That's how."
Re: The D-Man Checks In
Date: 2013-11-19 06:14 pm (UTC)I do not know why straight women read gay romance. Perhaps they want the romance & relationship gays are (perhaps) more capable of with their partners instead of the conquest and usery more typical with heterosexual men... who are not really allowed to show more than just 4 emotions: Excitement, celebration, anger, and lust. The rest were drummed out of us as boys. Pain, sadness, love, tenderness, etc. All pretty much gone or repressed, if we expect to be accepted as men one day. "Big boys don't cry."
For gay males though, I must say that The Wheelman & Gemini from your cyberpunk series are certainly no better than Zaran--arguably the worse example of what heterosexual masculinity can be & offer--when it comes to their love lives and how they seem to treat their partners/possessions.
...And Niall? He must somehow come to grips every day with the fact that he and every other man who did not spring from a test tube sprung from a woman, and is thus demon-spawn. Quite the cosmic joke, same as his whacky religion.
Re: The D-Man Checks In
Date: 2013-11-20 09:51 pm (UTC)I'm not going to lecture you on slash 101. There are ample resources, both from women explaining why they read it and from academics speculating on it. (Also from gay men complaining of appropriation) Mostly, it's equality with the partner and a boredom with cream-cheese heroines. Google it up.
Gemini aren't gay. They are bisexual, leaning strongly toward women. Men are men. They are all going to treat their partners roughly the same, tempered only by their personalities.