I (naturally) respect your arguments, and I did know that you co-mod a het comm - and I don't think it was your intention, personally, to do what I'm suggesting het-only comms do. Like I say: the problem isn't in individual comms. It's in that they exist as a culture.
The problem I see is that it's really hard to separate fictional characters as not relevant to real social issues. Fictional characters are heroes and role models. And it's not just a case of excluding gay characters, either - it's excluding gay relationships - because that's where the real issue is. Nobody gives a crap whether you're gay or not until you're holding hands with someone of the same gender in public. The problem with het-only is that it validates one kind of relationship while inherently invalidating another. It is basically saying 'you're not allowed to hold hands in public'.
What I don't think is that you (general you) get to separate fandom from real life - this is real life, it's just a fiction-centric part of it. Views are unlikely to change from fandom to the real world, and if it's okay to say 'no gay relationships' online in one place, surely it's okay to say it in other places? Or offline? Is it okay to exclude gay people from your pub because you're not interested in seeing them together?
I agree that a lot of slash fiction does other real gay people. But just as much of it doesn't. Just as there are genuinely some really horrible people who happen to be Muslims out there (just as there are of every other religion ever, plus atheists), but not all Muslims are bad and banning them from certain places would be bad.
I know that you're not a bigot. And I know that I am approaching this from a different angle than you would, but it comes down for me to this: if someone started a no Muslims allowed comm, how would you react? What if the comm was okay with you being a Muslim as long as you don't take prayer breaks? Which is the more offensive, here?
For the record, I don't particularly like slash-only comms either, but like women's-only clubs, I put up with them because trying to argue against them only leaves me covered in 'but "they" discriminate against us!' goo. Which is sticky and smells awful.
Again, it's not you, personally. You followed your nose to a solution that makes perfect sense when it's isolated from the rest of society. But it's part of an unpleasant paradigm (again, I know it's not intentional) that is doing harm to the general, overall attitude about sexuality on a platform which is generally pretty socially aware - you've seen a part of this kind of thing that is making you question it, and there are het-comms that take it a great deal further than the one you pointed to in your original post.
Full disclosure to anyone watching who doesn't know me: I am both bisexual and an author of gay fiction (and a bit of a gay rights activist, in all honesty, so I do have a horse in this race, too, as it were).
(This is totally a blog post and with your permission, I would like to discuss this on my author blog [on your terms, naturally])
P.S. Don't mind the hysterical icon, I just haven't had a chance to dust it off lately.
no subject
The problem I see is that it's really hard to separate fictional characters as not relevant to real social issues. Fictional characters are heroes and role models. And it's not just a case of excluding gay characters, either - it's excluding gay relationships - because that's where the real issue is. Nobody gives a crap whether you're gay or not until you're holding hands with someone of the same gender in public. The problem with het-only is that it validates one kind of relationship while inherently invalidating another. It is basically saying 'you're not allowed to hold hands in public'.
What I don't think is that you (general you) get to separate fandom from real life - this is real life, it's just a fiction-centric part of it. Views are unlikely to change from fandom to the real world, and if it's okay to say 'no gay relationships' online in one place, surely it's okay to say it in other places? Or offline? Is it okay to exclude gay people from your pub because you're not interested in seeing them together?
I agree that a lot of slash fiction does other real gay people. But just as much of it doesn't. Just as there are genuinely some really horrible people who happen to be Muslims out there (just as there are of every other religion ever, plus atheists), but not all Muslims are bad and banning them from certain places would be bad.
I know that you're not a bigot. And I know that I am approaching this from a different angle than you would, but it comes down for me to this: if someone started a no Muslims allowed comm, how would you react? What if the comm was okay with you being a Muslim as long as you don't take prayer breaks? Which is the more offensive, here?
For the record, I don't particularly like slash-only comms either, but like women's-only clubs, I put up with them because trying to argue against them only leaves me covered in 'but "they" discriminate against us!' goo. Which is sticky and smells awful.
Again, it's not you, personally. You followed your nose to a solution that makes perfect sense when it's isolated from the rest of society. But it's part of an unpleasant paradigm (again, I know it's not intentional) that is doing harm to the general, overall attitude about sexuality on a platform which is generally pretty socially aware - you've seen a part of this kind of thing that is making you question it, and there are het-comms that take it a great deal further than the one you pointed to in your original post.
Full disclosure to anyone watching who doesn't know me: I am both bisexual and an author of gay fiction (and a bit of a gay rights activist, in all honesty, so I do have a horse in this race, too, as it were).
(This is totally a blog post and with your permission, I would like to discuss this on my author blog [on your terms, naturally])
P.S. Don't mind the hysterical icon, I just haven't had a chance to dust it off lately.