Subject: I should note...
Author:
Posted on: 2010-11-02 08:37:00 UTC
... that I didn't mean that authors were being deliberately homophobic, but rather accidentally, because as you say, they apply a norm they have internalised regardless of the circumstances of the character(s) in question.
It's discrimination to treat people differently in equal circumstances. It's also discrimination to treat them equally in different circumstances.
With most people away on nano duty, I thought it be nice to have a discussion.
Or rather, there is something I want to share and I'm sure people are going to disagree and want to put in there two cents (et presto: discussion).
I'll start being saying that I rarely read romance stories, whether they be het or slash. I'm just not interested in them. My knowledge of what are common tropes in romance stories comes from fanficrants. One of these tropes is that a love-relationship is not complete without a baby. This goes for both het and slash pairings. I'm not here to bash on Mpreg. My issue is with the trope that a relationship is not complete without a baby.
It struck me, that the notion that even two people of the same gender should have a baby together, is a bit homophobic. I mean, "you and me and baby makes three" is a heterosexual norm. Forcing a heterosexual norm on homosexuals is homophobic (forcing a heterosexual norm on heterosexuals isn't nice either).
I know most of these authors think babies make for perfect happiness and they only want to make their characters happy. But why is their subliminal message that a relationship can't be happy unless it meets some (arbitrary) heterosexual norm?
Thoughts?
And yeah, I'm definitely with you on that and not procrastinating from NaNo at all!
The orientation spectrum is far from a toggle-switch from "homosexual" to "heterosexual," and to assume so is... well, ignorant. And terribly insensitive to the people on the map (it's really more of a three-dimensional sort of blob, with points plotted out to the infinite decimal place on the x, y, and z axis) who don't fit one's definition-- which is generally the overwhelming majority, whether we realize it or no.
So once you realize that there is no real "norm" status for a relationship, nor an ideal relationship, really (besides the ideal that all people are happy, and not deceiving or being deceived, and there is love-- though I've gathered that plenty of people don't really want a relationship with Love, either, so... uh, yeah), to impose strict guidelines on people as to what makes their relationship "legitimate" is again, ignorant and rather stupid, if not outright X-phobic. Some people want to get married-- good for them. Some people believe marriage is a conspiracy by the Church to trick guys into being figuratively gelded, but still want a monogamous, loving relationship with kids. Some people are polyamorous. Some people are asexual, but have the desire to raise a child. Some people are monogamous and more-or-less straight, but don't have any strong feelings one way way or the other about children (hi!).
The sooner our society grows the hell up and realizes that, the sooner we can stop witch-hunting everything that doesn't fit the given plot-points of The Perfect Relationship, and learn to live and let live. And I mean that every bit as much in the fictional sphere as the Real Life one.
(You know the really scary part? That is the clearest way I can phrase it. Ow.)
There are pairings where it would make total sense for the guys in question to want a kid, whether by adoption, mpreg, or surrogacy. Some guys canonically like kids and wouldn't be happy without a few of their own eventually. Others are blatantly unsuited, and then it's not good, but I don't think it's particularly worse than giving a kid to fantastically unsuitable straight couples. Saying any relationship needs a baby is wrong, but there are some that do and some that don't.
(And, in fact, same-sex couples do have various means of acquiring a baby, depending on location.)
Um, I know it's kind of off-topic, but the link you posted to fanficrants doesn't seem to be working. Just saying because it might be pesky for those who want to know more before getting into this discussion.
This one ought to work: fanficrants
As I see it, romance stories always seek an "end" - something that will 'guarantee' that the couple will continue to live Happily Ever After once the screen has faded to black and the book cover has closed. In many cases this means a wedding - look at how many movies, particularly children's movies, end with a wedding. Having a child tends to be treated in the same way, at least by most of the fanfic writers I've read. The point that either a wedding or a child does not by any means make it certain that the couple will be happy together forever is not, apparently, relevant.
I also think that many fanfic writers accept the 'norm' of a Happy Marriage requiring a child simply because they have internalised it as the way every life goes, even if that's not true; barring infertility or some other angst-worthy (they think) obstacle, I imagine a lot of the thought processes involved are less along the lines of "would these two characters be the kind to want to have and raise a child?" and more like, "why not? Everyone does!" And thus even couples who are in no position to sensibly choose to have a family (characters who are criminals, for example, always on the run or whatnot) end up being written as doing so anyway, because it's 'the norm'.
I don't think the gender of the pairings actually has anything to do with it. Ficcers are a persistant bunch; the only obstacle they seem to face with slash pairings is that they can't use the convenient "accidental pregnancy" plot device - and even that, they get around. Personally, I read het romance, and avoid slash, but I don't see any homophobia in the "one and one is three" notion - just biology, and rather naive perceptions of what real romantic relationships are actually like.
There's my two cents :)
... that I didn't mean that authors were being deliberately homophobic, but rather accidentally, because as you say, they apply a norm they have internalised regardless of the circumstances of the character(s) in question.
It's discrimination to treat people differently in equal circumstances. It's also discrimination to treat them equally in different circumstances.
I still don't see it as a homophobic thing to do, even by accident, but more just a social norm that is being applied, and our society is heavily heterosexual in terms of norms. I completely and utterly agree that one can't treat people qually in different circumstances, but I think it's just as unfair to blame members of the society for applying its norms within that society, regardless of demopgraphics.
As a parallel example, one could just as well criticise the makers of coloured contact lenses for not considering that people with very dark eyes won't be able to use said lenses the way that people with very pale eyes can (or at all, really) - no one can change their eye colour, and regardless of whether an equal amount of people have light blue eyes as dark brown, coloured contacts will continue to be manufactured for and used by those people with pale eyes - they're fashion, and people who can follow a fashion often do. Those people may then go and write a story including an offhand reference to a character using coloured contacts. Is that wrong, just because a dark-brown-eyed writer or character can't use them? Could it be called colour-phobic? Or is it just something that happens and that can be annoying and even upsetting, but is nonetheless neither wrong nor right?
(I really shouldn't be getting into this discussion - I'm one of the people doing NaNo!)
So are you angry because het norms exist or because het norms are forced on slash pairings... or... ?
Why is it bad in a slash pairing but not in a het one?
I'm rather tired, which may explain the turtle like speed my brain is moving... excuse me if that's a redundant question... but I find it's better to be sure on the topic before jumping in. That's like doing a dive headfirst into the Amazon without checking for pirahnas, or something along those lines...
I did say that forcing heterosexual norms on heterosexuals isn't nice either.
For any pairing it's bad because it is a common trope, but that's just bad writing. In slash pairings pregnancy and babies equals happiness also seems a bit homophobic, because it doesn't seem to accept that same sex pairings are different from opposite sex pairings.
One must consider that in more civilized countries (hint hint :P) homosexual couples can adopt or have children in other ways, so I don't see it as strictly a heterosexual norm.
I don't think that the trope itself is really sensible. Until a point, I suppose a large family had benefits such as the parents having people to take care of them when they got older. These days that concept persists in some sense (the idea that lots of children is great) while everyone seems to ignore that just having more children won't necessarily make anything better.
Well, I don't think that is really the intended message, altough I'll admit I might be wrong as I generally avoid romance stories. I too really dislike it when heterosexual norms are forced on either heterosexual or homosexual couples. (Stereotypes! Argh!) I think that the reason the authors add babies is the "aww factor" or because they want the readers to be able to relate to the family (and also, by abiding to norms that have been successful in other stories, they try to make their own stories successful). But of course, the intent of the author varies from person to person.