There have been some pretty heated discussions going on lately at the Romantic Times Readers’ Roundtable Messageboard and at the AAR Potpourri Messageboard about Anne Stuart’s new book, Cold as Ice. Apparently, Stuart had the audacity to write about…oh, steel yourselves and be sure to have your hartshorn ready, ladies…a man who’s had them homosexual encounters.
The threads are huge, and I admit, time and my blood pressure aren’t allowing me to read through all of them. Some of the old standard canards have been brought up, from “OMG IT’LL RUIN ROMANCE BECAUSE IT’S VIOLATING THE ONE MAN/ONE WOMAN RULE!” to “OMG IT’LL RUIN ROMANCE BECAUSE HOMOSEXUALITY IS AN ABOMINATION!” Sigh.
The kerfuffling began with this report from LLB on the 2006 RWA conference included this snippet about Stuart’s upcoming book:
…the hero, a spy who slept with a man in Black Ice, has total control over his body, which allows him to have sex with men or women, whatever the job entails, without any emotional feelings whatsoever. At one point in the upcoming release, the hero informs the heroine that he kissed her to distract her in order to knock her out. When she asks what he would do if he needed to distract a man, he answers, “I would do the same thing.” Cold as Ice will be released in November. Given Harlequin’s sometimes old-fashioned reputation, I asked what the editors at MIRA thought about this. Stuart indicated hers loved it and that other editors who heard about it thought it was “cool.”
I noticed this bit of information when I first read the conference report last week, and it raised a brow, sure—but probably not for the usual reasons why anyone would raise their brow at the idea of a bisexual hero for a mainstream romance novel.
Why can’t a guy in a romance novel just enjoy cock because he enjoys cock, and not be a freak, emotionally cut-off to the point of pathology or a sociopathic villain who’s looking to shag anything that moves and a great deal that doesn’t? Not that Romancelandia is populated by the healthiest of heroes, but c’mon, now. A guy can like cock or cock AND pussy without being a sociopathic freak, you know. No, trust me, I know this, if you know what I mean, and I think you do..
I’m here to explode some myths about bisexuals. Hold on to your panties, people, because they are ground-shaking revelations of the first order.
1. Not all of them are polyamorous.
2. Not all of them are into group sex. Just because they’re omnivorous doesn’t mean they want all of it, all of the time.
3. Not all of them are indiscriminately slutty. Liking both sets of bits doesn’t mean they’re sex fiends, or that they don’t care who’s attached to those bits. That’s like saying omnivores don’t care about the quantity or quality of their food, simply because they enjoy both meat and vegetables.
4. Being bisexual doesn’t mean they’re wishy-washy or unable to make up their minds about what they want sexually. That’s like saying an omnivore is somebody who can’t make up their minds whether they like meat or vegetables, so they must be confused vegetarians or carnivores.
Furthermore, having a sexual encounter with the same sex doesn’t, in my opinion, immediately make somebody gay or bi. A lot depends on context of the encounters. Would a man who was raped by another man be considered gay, or bi? What about a man who had sex with other men strictly for the money? What about a man who was in a confined situation in which women were scarce for extended periods of time (as in jail or a ship)? What about a guy who was curious about what it would feel like to sleep with another man, but otherwise felt no real attraction to them?
And to flip this around: would a person who self-identifies as gay but married and slept with somebody of the opposite gender so the person could serve as a beard be considered bisexual?
People have this tendency to immediately go “AHHHH TEH GAY GERMS!” and label somebody bisexual or homosexual based on a few encounters, when to me, the true test boils down to: are you able to fall in love with a person of that gender? Does your interest immediately perk up when you see an attractive specimen? In short, are you attracted at a primal level to people of that gender? By that standard, I’m not sure that the hero of Cold as Ice is, as described, bisexual—he just happens to be willing to take on the cock for king and country.
But back to the debate. Of all the objections I’ve read, the one about “OMG IT VIOLATES THE MAN/WOMAN COVENANT OF ROMANCE” to be the most puzzling, because dude: it’s romance about a man and a woman. Just because it makes you go “EW, he touched peener in the past!” doesn’t make the hero any less monogamous or any less in love with the heroine by the end of the book.
And I won’t even begin to address all the “you can write it, but don’t call it romance—it’s actually EROTICA!” claims I keep stumbling over in the discussions. I’ve ranted plenty over that issue already.
Something else I keep stumbling over: people keep vigorously complaining about their right to be asshats without being called out on their asshattedness. “Stop judging the judgmental” etc. etc. etc. And true, people have their right to their opinions—but we also have a right to call you on your bigoted reactions. Look at it this way: if the hero to Stuart’s book, instead of shagging men in the past, had shagged black women in the past, and some people railed against the book in disgust, what would you think of those people? In that context, let’s look at some of the comments I’ve culled from various messages:
“…it [sic] warped , dysfuntional and abnormal …”
“I won’t be buying it because it’s too far outside my comfort zone.”
“Either way, it sounds gross”
“No thanks, I had trouble with this with Laurell K Hamilton and Anne Rice, but got past it because the men in question were not human.”
Mmmm-hmmmm.
I’m glad a mainstream romance author has a protagonist who’s had some homosexual encounters in his past, but I’m disappointed that Stuart, who’s pushed some interesting envelopes in the past, seems to be sticking with tradition in making those same-sex encounters traumatic.
Ana said: Romance should be slotted with romance.
I agree. Every other writer I’ve talked to about this agrees, but I don’t know if this opinion is in any way universal in the romance-writing community.
Why, then, do so many bookstores do it? Are they just guessing that AA romance readers want the books to be shelved in the AA section, or is their decision based on market research? If the latter is the case and a store decided anyway to shelve AA romance novels exclusively in romance, would that hurt sales?
I don’t know the answer to that. The good thing about most of the bookstores I frequent here in Atlanta is that AA romances are shelved in romance as well as the AA section.
Ana: Fixed!
Lots of things I want to touch on, like damn. Please bear with my longwindedness.
Roseread said: “For someone who believes that homosexuality is NOT a choice, but a genetic imperative, the logical extension is that it’s EXACTLY THE SAME as inter-racial relationships and therefore NOT a moral issue at all, ever, in any universe.”
I’m not sure I’d agree that homosexuality is a genetic imperative. What I’ve observed and what I’ve experienced is that homosexual behaviors and desires can have all sorts of different components, with context playing an important part in the expression of certain sexual behaviors and the shaping of sexual identity. Some gay and bi people I’ve met are gay or bi the way I’m straight: they’ve always liked what they’ve liked, and they never had to think too much about it. Some gay people I know have played around with people of the opposite sex because they were confused for a while, but eventually decided that they were gay and identify as gay. Some people I know identify as bisexual because of this very same reason, even though they now engage exclusively in homosexual behavior. Some bisexual people I know tend to be attracted to one sex more frequently than the other, but the strength of the attraction is the same once it forms. One bisexual girl I know finds women physically attractive, far more so than men, but forms close emotional and romantic ties mostly with men. And having gone to an all-girls’ school all my life, I know there was quite a bit of “incidental lesbian” behavior. This occurs whenever you pack hundreds and hundreds of horny, hormonal girls together, and some of that sexual energy that would normally be expended on people of the opposite sex is instead concentrated on handy targets—from my observations, usually attractive tomboy types.
Sexuality and sexual identity are so incredibly complex, and I think we can only boil things down so far before the generalizations cannot hold.
This may weaken the whole “it’s never immoral, ever” argument, because this implies that homosexual behaviors sometimes include a component of choice for some people, and many find the choice offensive, whereas other factors such as race aren’t necessarily choices. I’d argue, however, that using the “consenting adults” rule of thumb should pretty much be sufficient for determining the morality of sexual behavior. It may be squicky to some people, but squick does not equate to immorality, which doesn’t seem to be something many people have internalized properly.
And to briefly wade into the stormy waters of racism vs. racialism, and prejudice and bigotry in general: I can appreciate the differences Robin is trying to point out. My parents are deeply prejudiced against dark-skinned people, and the Very Tall Husband’s parents are prejudiced against gays (they’re hardcore, devout Catholics, so this is not too surprising). However, their behavior towards the individuals they’re prejudiced against has generally been good. They treat them with courtesy and consideration, though my parents sometimes use epithets in private conversation that make me cringe. Is this the best way to operate? Not in my opinion—I do wish they’d change their minds and attitudes. But there are degrees and variations on prejudiced behavior, and we need to recognize that. Somebody expressing a strong distaste for bisexual heroes on an romance-related Internet forum is miles away from, say, the people who attacked Matthew Shepard, though they’re probably the same people who voted for the constitutional amendments blocking gay marriage.
SandyW said: “I’m trying to puzzle out the ‘bisexual partners are more likely to be unfaithful’ argument.”
Oooh, this is another bisexual myth that drives me up the WALL. “Oh, I’m so afraid he’ll cheat on her and bang the footman instead.” Honey, like the probability of the hetero Duke of Slut cheating his wife and banging the scullery maid isn’t an issue? Indiscriminate and unethical sluttiness are separate components from sexual orientation, and I wish people could recognize that. Rar.
Monica said: “The only writers of romance and other popular fiction segregated by race are black authors.”
I’m sure you’ve seen this, but it’s not necessarily done in all bookstores; I didn’t see a separate shelf the last time I was in B&N (admittedly, I may have missed it, as I’m not in there often, but a black romance shelf was not present, unless it was tucked in the children’s section), nor is the practice present where I normally shop – online. I regularly get referrals to black writers (including Monica) on Amazon (and I may get even more than I know, because a writer is just a writer, and unless I have reason to know her/his race,there’s no way to tell.)
I’m not privy to the secrets of the publishing business, but since the primary motivation has to be profit, perhaps the initial reason for black romance being labeled was to let the large numbers of potential black readers see the books, in a “hey, here we are” kind of way. It was a marketing move to establish a customer base, nothing more or less.
That being said, now that the market is established and the presence of black writers is a given, the time is long past to fold ‘em all back into the mix.
Is there any place, do you think, for ethnic labels on literature? Good writing is good writing, I’d say, but I also see the worth of recognizing different ethnicities in order to appreciate different points of view, different senses of the world. (Coming at it from an academic viewpoint, however, rather than as a recreational reader. In this sense, the divisions are certainly not to infer inferiority but to explore how universal themes are expressed through different filters – surely the aim of Black or Women’s or Latino or Asian Studies, etc., departments)
***
Unless you’re saying, Monica, that one of the reasons black writers are shelved apart is to help white readers avoid black characters, rather than to help black readers find black characters. I do get the impression that you are. And then do you see this in all genres, or just romance? If that’s the case, it would lead into some observations about gender-based attitudes, wouldn’t it?
Just throwing out some thoughts, because, as I said, I don’t see any such segregation in my shopping online, and haven’t noticed it in my rare visits to brick and mortar stores. (And yeah, I’m just a dumpy middle-aged white woman, but I do realize that my whiteness may blind me to the more subtle realities.)
I’m going to speculate that shelf-segregation is actually a marketing ploy. I think publishers intend to appeal to racial solidarity: black women will buy this book so we’ll put all romance novels written by black authors together in hopes that they will hit the same target audience.
This may be the case, Ana; I’d actually like some more publisher or bookseller feedback on this issue. Where I live, in California, EVERY cultural/racial/religious group has their own literature or history or culture section. There’s Asian American literature, African American literature, Native American literature, Chicano literature, etc. Same for history. At our colleges and universities, there are Asian American Studies and Asian Studies programs, Chicano Studies, African American Studies, Jewish Studies, Islamic Studies, Native American Studies, etc. Many of the scholars in these fields prefer to separate designation because they feel it gives them academic legitimacy, while others feel there would be more legitimacy to be integrated into a larger discipline. We have a Cross-Cultural Center on our campus that has long been the object of contention, since it’s largely a place for “minority” students to hang out and sponsor programs. Some people feel it’s reverse racism to have the center, while others feel it balkanizes the campus and promotes divisions among groups, and others feel it’s necessary to build cultural pride and a sense if representative identity among certain groups of students.
I don’t see why I have to defend that segregation is dehumanizing and degrading. The fact that historically segregation is a bad thing seems to be a given.
You don’t have to defend anything, Monica. But as I said above in my response to Ana, where I live and work, there are numerous instances of “segregation” that are actually insisted upon by non-whites as positive rather than negative.
The only writers of romance and other popular fiction segregated by race are black authors.
As I said, this is very much NOT the case where I live. Everyone gets their own shelf space here.
I don’t know what the cultural and racial diversity is like in Kansas, but in CA, our diversity has created a double pull. For example, bilingual education has been nixed on the theory that non-English speaking children need to be “integrated” into English speaking classes (the so-called immersion theory). But much language theory indicates that it does not matter so much which language a child has as a primary language, as long as they have a strong enough grasp on that language to be able to transfer the general language skills over to a second language (i.e. when you move them too early, they don’t master either language). Some people think that immersing non-English speakers in English speaking classes is racist, and some people think that keeping them in bilingual classes (which are segregated, generally on the basis of race or culture, because there is MAJOR debate here as to whether Chicano and Latino folks are white or a separate race) is a form of racist segregation.
As I said, this is very much NOT the case where I live. Everyone gets their own shelf space here.
Really? I had no idea. There’s not much diversity in Kansas, although we’re getting a lot more Mexicans. I can understand separating the books in Spanish from the English ones.
I could see the opportunity for marketing.
But how do they figure it out? Are the publishers designating author race in their publisher sales catalogues for other types of people than the way they do for black authors?
Do they put Jennifer Weiner and Lee Goldberg in the Jewish Studies section, and Dirty Girls in a Hispanic section? Do they put Tess Garritsen, Jade Lee, Marjorie Liu and Amy Tan together in the Asian section?
Do they double shelf them (put them in two categories)? So Julie Leto goes into both into the Hispanic and romance section?
What about the darker skinned East Indians? Where do they go? Do they have a separate section? It seems as if they should. Lots of East Indians that buy books.
Well, in romance, we now know that very few are permitted to engage in “indiscriminate and unethical sluttiness.”
Basically, that privilege is confined to straight males. Because they can be “redeemed” if they fall in love.
Straight females aren’t generally permitted this latitude within the genre.
And now we see that bisexual or gay people aren’t allowed to have “too much” sex, either, lest readers find their promiscuous “gay lifestyle” upsetting.
Sleeping around is just a straight male privilege. Got that, everyone?
I was going to agree with you, sherryfair, and then I realized that you’re actualyl looking at this backwards: straight males are allowed the latitude they are because of the all-magical healing powers of the Magic Hoo-Hoo. The Magic Hoo-Hoo not only destroys all non-monogamous urges in previously slutty males, it also cures them of the herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, HPV, syphilis and assorted other nasties the men have picked up from such such slutbags. The Magic Hoo-Hoo also has tremendous power to heal psychological trauma in the male, ranging from “My mom was a slut!” to “I was raped! Up the ASS!”
Scientists are not absolutely sure which compound in the Magic Hoo-Hoo is responsible, but they have a reasonable suspicion that it may be related to the “slick cream” emitted while the vagina is sobbing and/or spasming. (A Magic Hoo-Hoo is often a a histrionic hoo-hoo.)
However, Magic Hoo-Hoos work only on penises. Two (or more) Magic Hoo-Hoos cancel each other out.
Sleeping around isn’t a straight male privilege. It’s a testament to the powers of the Magic Hoo-Hoo.
You know, Candy, I’d agree with you, but I believe that some Magic Hoo-Hoos are more powerful than others. (And I don’t mean their owners have done a lot of Kegel exercises.)
Like, if you REALLY need redemption, there’s nothing like that virgin’s blood. That’ll do it every time.
You can’t just be sticking it into a Magic Hoo-Hoo that’s been well-used. The magic wears off a little after a certain number of uses. It’s just a very thin coating, apparently. (Even if it’s only been used by someone’s husband; thus, importance of the virgin widow.)
I just don’t get this obsession with comfort-zone friendly fiction.
A well-told story SHOULD make you think, fire your emotions, push your boundaries, open up new facets of awareness.
How can a reader be truly engaged if that tension isn’t there, if emotions aren’t being stoked? How can you care about the consequences to characters who are never truly challenged?
None of the “comfort zone” comments make any sense to me at all.
Yeah, I DO know what you mean. One of the best flings of my life was with an admittedly promiscuous man who was 99.9% gay but once in a while, for some inexplicable (even to him) reason, got a hankerin’ for female companionship of the intimate kind. It was a wonderful two months, full of champagne and laughter and lovely sex and devoid of expections, demands, and dishonesty.
Would that all my relationships with straight men could’ve been that enjoyable!
In part as a paean to that old liaison, the male “love interest” in my upcoming novel from Samhain has had homosexual relationships. However, since the book isn’t strictly a romance, I suppose I have a better chance of getting away with such a blemish on his past. (I wish you could hear the tone of that last sentence lest you think I feel relieved.)
Candy said:
And to briefly wade into the stormy waters of racism vs. racialism, and prejudice and bigotry in general: I can appreciate the differences Robin is trying to point out. My parents are deeply prejudiced against dark-skinned people, and the Very Tall Husband’s parents are prejudiced against gays (they’re hardcore, devout Catholics, so this is not too surprising). However, their behavior towards the individuals they’re prejudiced against has generally been good. They treat them with courtesy and consideration, though my parents sometimes use epithets in private conversation that make me cringe. Is this the best way to operate? Not in my opinion—I do wish they’d change their minds and attitudes. But there are degrees and variations on prejudiced behavior, and we need to recognize that.
What? Their behaviour towards dark-skinned and gay people has ‘generally been good’; they deign to say good afternoon; smile; touch them with a handshake; share workspace – this means they’re ‘less’ prejudiced or not racist?
I never knew racism was behaviour – racism is belief. You don’t have to spit in my dark-skinned face to be a racist. You don’t have to have a banner. Third parties don’t need to declare you racist to make it official. So, your parents ‘sometimes use epithets’ in private conversation and this somehow makes a difference? How is this possible? The differences I see between people who keep their ‘prejudiced’ thoughts to themselves and those who shout it out are manners, decorum and most importantly – the ability to cover their ass. Your parents know the repercussions of stating their problems with dark skinned people in polite society but this no way no how makes them less prejudiced or able to avail themselves of a more palatable degree of prejudiced behaviour.
Robin (I think) said:
there are numerous instances of “segregation†that are actually insisted upon by non-whites as positive rather than negative.
My 14 year old cousin and her friends wanted to buy skin-lightening cream to be ‘prettier’. It’s unfortunately a booming business in the Caribbean amongst blacks and Indians, these creams – in both adults and teenagers. They don’t want to change the status quo – they want to reach over to the white side of it. They’ve been brainwashed by media and larger society. Non-white people who ‘insist’ upon books being segregated are really insisting on it staying segregated because they’ve grown accustomed to the status quo. If they started off integrated and then there was a push to segregate they’d be up in arms. No, I can’t prove it – just taking a wild wild wild guess.
I’m sorry for continuing along the ‘racist’ branch when this discussion is supposed to be about some narrow-minded people who post at AAR. I got sidetracked with the narrow-minded people posting here.
“What? Their behaviour towards dark-skinned and gay people has ‘generally been good’; they deign to say good afternoon; smile; touch them with a handshake; share workspace – this means they’re ‘less’ prejudiced or not racist?”
Dude. Did I not state clearly that my parents are still prejudiced people? I agree with you: prejudice (call it racism, call it racialism, call it whatever—I’ve engaged in one semantic argument already, and one a week is plenty) is more than behavior, it’s also a state of mind, an attitude. But I don’t see these things as a black-and-white switch, more as a gradation. There’s a prejudiced frame of mind, and then there’s prejudiced behavior, and even then, we can have varying degrees in terms of how hateful those beliefs and behaviors are. Someone can think somebody dark-skinned is more prone to be a criminal or less smart than they are, but still acknowledge their humanity, while others don’t even think of black people as humans at all. Same thing with gay people: some people view them as immoral but acnkowledge their right to lead their lives as they wish, while others think they’re abominations who need to be wiped from the earth. That you can’t see this gradation bothers me, actually, and puts your mode of thinking in the same camp as people who are unable to differentiate between a kid swiping some spare change and a CEO embezzling millions of dollars.
As for my parents being nice to cover their asses—do you know my parents? The hell? They’re not American, by the way—they’re Malaysian and living in Malaysia, where race is a major issue but with different baggage than the American variant. Don’t assume you know what’s going on in my parents’ heads. Shit, I’ve know them for decades, and I have no clue sometimes.
I lost my post so in a long nutshell:
Candy, no need to waste time being bothered at my inability to see the gradations. I understand them just fine. My life as an Afro-Caribbean woman in London involves constant navigation through these gradated minefields of racism. I have a problem when talk of gradation is used to bring the element of ‘acceptability’ of the lesser forms of prejudice/racism into the discussion and this is what I inferred from several posters here.
Personally, I would rather prejudice laid bare than having to suffer the pinpricks of gradated prejudice to the ilk of ‘you’re pretty smart you know, for a…you’re smart.’ – and suffer it with a smile.
Your comment upset me because I was reminded of my white S.African roommate who told me her parents still felt very uncomfortable sharing restaurants etc with black people but she would just give them time to come to terms with it on their own and wanted them to take it slow so it wasn’t too ‘sressful’ for them. This is not what you said but I was reminded of it.
I don’t know your parents, of course not. You introduced them as an example of prejudice though deep, as differentiated from other violent forms and I commented on it. I’m ‘assuming’ things as much as every other poster here is because none of us knows the other. That your parents are Malaysian don’t change my views and I certainly did not intend disrespect but since it appears I have, I apologise.
Dalia
Here’s the tricky part about changing minds, especially the minds of prejudiced people who are, let’s face it, old and set in their ways, and they’re in your lives and you love them: what can you do? They’re not bad through and through, they’re just blinkered in certain specific ways, and while I find racism vile, I don’t think having a distasteful, ignorant opinion should be a jailable offence (talk about free speech issues). You can talk to them, you can argue with them, you sometimes stop talking to them, but at the end of their day, this is not something that’s necessarily susceptible to rational persuasion. I brought my parents up because I wanted to show that good people can often have bad or ignorant opinions, and also to show that their asshole beliefs aren’t necessarily reflected in their behaviors.
I’m not quite sure how you’re perceiving that any of us here are arguing that racism is acceptable. We’re arguing for a more nuanced take on the issue of prejudice.
(First of all, apologies if the italics don’t work; I’m used to LiveJournal, where the
< and >
keys denote the coding, but some blogs use the [ and ] keys. Ack, technology.)
Marie Brennan said upthread:
But I know that in fanfiction, m/m is astronomically more common than f/f, and the majority of it is written by women. There’s plenty of speculation about why that is the case, but I suspect whatever the causes are, they’d apply to romance, as well, since the majority of the authors (as I understand it) are, again, women.
Or, to put it another way, as long as the majority of writers and readers of romance are straight women, they’re more likely to find m/m action hot than f/f. For whatever reasons that may be.
Speaking as a reader and writer of m/m fanfiction, for me the equation goes like this: I am attracted to men. I am not attracted to women. Therefore, a m/m sex scene is hotter to me than a f/f one.
Because yes, m/m slash is exponentially more available than is f/f slash, to the point where I think we’re close to “slash” being the default term for m/m pairings and using “femmeslash” or “femslash” to denote f/f pairings. (As opposed to the historical usage of “slash”—yes, fanfiction has a history!—which denoted any same-sex pairing, whether m/m or f/f.) And I think it’s because the majority of fanfiction writers are women, and (dare I say it?) most of them are straight.
Which brings me to the Romance portion of the discussion. I’m new to the Romance genre, and really just bopping around, trying to figure out what (and whom) I like. But I do know for sure that a male bisexual or gay character would induce me to give a book a chance, because I’m already inclined that way from my decade of activity in m/m slash.
All of which is to say, those people who are trying to narrow the definition of Romance, or influence the market to discourage publishers from releasing Romances with bisexual or gay characters, should tread carefully, because in my case (and probably those of a number of other readers), they’re actually *driving* us to read those books. *writes down Stuart’s name in ‘books to read’ notebook*
I really don’t understand why anyone is bothering to point out the graduations prejudice, ‘cept to maybe assauge their own concious or feel better about their relatives. If you say and think hateful shit about gays, you’re a homophobe. If you beat gays you’re a violent homophobe. If you say and think hateful shit about blacks, you’re a racist. If you drag black men behind trucks you’re a violent racist. But, the existence of one bolsters the other, and neither is guiltless. Why the desperate clawing for a blameless space to enshrine hatred and bigotry?
I don’t get it. What is the ‘shades of hate’ stchick supposed to prove?
Woo hoo! This is like when LFL and I were compared to KKK members for defending the forced seduction scenes in Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold on AAR.
Non-white people who ‘insist’ upon books being segregated are really insisting on it staying segregated because they’ve grown accustomed to the status quo. If they started off integrated and then there was a push to segregate they’d be up in arms. No, I can’t prove it – just taking a wild wild wild guess.
My life and my work would be so much easier if things were this simple. I don’t know how much you know about the rise of ethnic studies departments in US universities, there has been a tremendous amount of scholarship on both sides of the discipline segregation line, including much cogent and sophisticated work in support of separate academic programs for particular national/cultural/religious/racial identity groups. Some of the arguments forwarded have to do with respecting the individual integrity of certain histories, raising social and political consciousness (i.e. changing the status quo), and, perhaps most materially, ensuring adequate departmental funding and FTE appointments (that is, dedicated faculty positions, which much be fought over in a large integrated department). Whether or not I agree or disagree with any of these arguments is, IMO, irrelevant to the larger point, which is that some of the scholars who want dedicated departments actually believe that such a structure is a path to greater social and political capital for “minority” groups (I hate this term, especially because in CA, for example, Chicanos are statistically a majority but politically a minority).
Not that long ago, we had a discussion here about the merging of morality and politics on the far Right. How is designating anything that falls short of some sweeping absolutist standard of racism one may personally define from the Left any different? Because we know racism is wrong? Of course it is; that’s not at issue. What’s at issue for me is the flattening out a lot of complex intersections of identity and race and culture and religion and politics and class and gender, etc. and deciding that anyone who doesn’t recognize these obvious black and white differences is “narrow-minded” or racist or (fill in the blank with the derogatory adjective of your choice). No one here is trying to defend hate crime; I’m not even trying to defend people who don’t want to read interracial Romance. I’m simply saying that I’m not ready to condemn all those folks as racists. If that makes me racist, then I think the campaign for social and political equity across line of circumstantial difference in America is in way more trouble than I did before this discussion. On the most basic level, I don’t think calling those people racist is going to do one thing to eradicate racist beliefs and behaviors. In fact, I think it’s going to facilitate the exact opposite of creating any greater understanding across lines of difference.
Why the desperate clawing for a blameless space to enshrine hatred and bigotry?
If you can find a quote somewhere in these comments in which anyone tries to paint racism as blameless, or in which someone tries to argue that hatred and bigotry are GOOD things, I’d like you to find it.
Veronica said: Why the desperate clawing for a blameless space to enshrine hatred and bigotry?
Oy. I don’t read Candy’s comments that way. At ALL. My relatives are Southern whites, and I have similar issues with them. Not for ONE MINUTE do I excuse their bigotry. They are my family, however, and the best I can do is influence them by example and argue with them outright when it’ll do the most good. I’ve been beating my head against this particular wall for a few decades now, and the jury’s still out on whether I’ve made one bit of difference.
If you think Candy is enshrining or excusing bigotry, I think you’ve seriously misread her comments.
Robin, I have yet to call you racist so I hope your comparison to a situation when you yourself were compared to KKK members is not drawn from something I wrote.
I know absolutely nothing about the rise of ethnic studies in US universities. The support for separate academic programs for particular groups – is this like an ‘Hispanic-American History’ class for Latin-Americans (though I’m assuming anyone is eligible to attend but the focus would be on Latin-Americans) or is this like a Macro-economic class for Latin Americans?
Focusing on black or gay romance novel segregation: I think it’s dangerous to use ‘non-whites agree with it’ or ‘booksellers say its best marketed that way’ as reasons for keeping it as such, no matter how intelligently worded or argued these reasons are. They always seem to be reactive statements to the existence of novel segregation when I just can’t get past why they were separated in the first place. Romance is romance is romance.
It’s possible to love someone without subscribing to their views.
You can also ruin family relations by telling people exactly what you think of their bullshit ideas. I’ve done exactly that, and I haven’t changed anyone’s mind. Arguably, I’ve done the right thing and stood up for my principles, but it’s lonely at Christmas sometimes.
SandyW said: “I’m trying to puzzle out the ‘bisexual partners are more likely to be unfaithful’ argument.â€
I can totally understand this and (for me) it had nothing to do with whether or not bisexual men are promiscuous. Hypothetically, I think I’d be very aware that there was something my partner wanted (or would want or HAS wanted) that I simply could not give him. I’m not just talking twigs and berries here. If it were that simple you could just say to your gay friend, “Honey, just marry me and I’ll wear a strap-on and we’ll live happily ever after!”
I’m sure I’d have this fear that he was unfulfilled and missing that type of intimacy with another man (assuming this is a monogamous relationship). THAT’S where the fear of cheating comes in. And if you do start to feel insecure or worried, there’s no comfort in the fact that he’s just out playing hot, sweaty basketball with his buddies! *snort*
If there is intimacy missing in your relationship with your straight guy, you can at least feel confident that you have a chance to work back to that. But if it’s a whole different need he’s experiencing. . . Well, shit. Of course, I’m not bisexual. Am I wrong in assuming, for some at least, that these relationships (m/m, m/f) might be very different?
Candy said:
I’m not quite sure how you’re perceiving that any of us here are arguing that racism is acceptable. We’re arguing for a more nuanced take on the issue of prejudice.
For me, nuances and gradations – though real – are the stuff of nightmares. I see many rolling hills and slippery slopes whenever there are discussions about *forms* of prejudice. This isn’t the first conversation I’ve had on the subject and in my experience, for every person who clearly differentiates between acceptance of prejudice/racism and understanding of its different forms – there are at least three who conflate the two.
But how do they figure it out? Are the publishers designating author race in their publisher sales catalogues for other types of people than the way they do for black authors?
Do they double shelf them (put them in two categories)? So Julie Leto goes into both into the Hispanic and romance section?
I have no clue, actually, how these differentiations are made, only that they do not seem to be consistent on any rubric you might design (actually, a lot of stuff is double shelved, but even then there’s no real rhyme or reason, IMO). All I know is that it’s often exhausting trying to find a book, and the specification of certain specific shelf space seems to proceed along the lines of population and presence in a particular area of the state. In one part of the state, for example, you might find some shelf space dedicated to Persian studies, but not in other areas of the state. I was going through the Native American history section at my local Borders not long ago, and I found everything from fiction by Native American authors (that didn’t necessarily even FEATURE any Native American characters) to incredibly backward ass history purportedly about Native American peoples to captivity narratives written by white people who were at war with Native American nations—it was mind boggling.
One of the interesting things coming from a CA university is that the literature in higher ed that comes out of the Eastern US often refers to the “race issue” as specifically black and white. But for us, it’s not that way at all. Right this minute, actually, the most explosive division is between Muslim Arabs and Israeli Jews, and so now, for example, you’re starting to see Judaic Studies and Islamic Studies departments popping up on campuses and the interesting infusion of religious differences into identity politics that for a long time seemed to coaslesce primarily around race. After 9/11, that changed. Now there are some further conflations of religion and politics (i.e. to protest against Israel is to be anti-semitic) to complicate things even more.
Race issues for us run on a series of axes, Chicano-Anglo, Chicano-African American, Arab-Israeli, Chinese-Vietnamese, etc. Regardless of what the US Census might say, our state still very much treats Chicano and Latino identities as racial rather than simply cultural. Then there are the fine distinctions among Asian groups that very much come into play. Are those racial or national? Depends on who you ask, of course, because even the designation “Asian” (and East Indian studies is often folded into Asian Studies on university campuses) is under fire for being too reductionist.
Victoria said:
This is how it works for me. I did the usual f/f experimenting in college, and it was okay, but I really like the cock. I like a real one, too—not one that someone has strapped on or is using on me manually. In general, I like big, tall bulky, substantial men. I’ve never seen a woman in real life as big as I like my men. Those are physical attributes I like.
However.
I do have it in my character to be attracted to people, not just their build or their body parts. In fact, I’ve
never been attracted to someone purely based on looks. I can admire someone and think (very detachedly) that they’re attractive but I never start putting myself together with them sexually until we’ve achieved emotional intimacy, I’m attracted to their mind, their ideas, their way of thinking, sense of humor. I’ve been attracted to women a couple of times because I got to know them. I’ve followed up on that once.
Does that make me bisexual? I dunno. Probably, at least in theory. But it doesn’t mean that if I’m in a healthy, happy, fulfilling hetero relationship that I’m going to need to go chase some pussy now and then. If I start yearning after a woman, it’s because my relationship is lacking, not my partner’s gender.
Monica, you said:
which I find interesting and I wonder if I disagree with you only because we are on opposite sides of a racial divide. I believe there is a difference between the two. In my mind, the distinction is similar to what Robin noted (identifying differences, etc.), though I have an additional nuance attached to it whereby racialism includes a kind of pride and promotion of a race. What comes to mind for me is a friend whose family is Croatian. Similar to how some people see all Asians as the same and can’t distinguish between the large variety of differences in culture that are lumped together under such a large umbrella, to me there were no differences between one Yugoslovian and another until I came to know this person. I came to see it as a kind of racialism that her family, two generations on as citizens of the U.S., still strongly identify themselves as and take great pride in being Croatian. Having this pride in being Croatian is, to me, a far cry from racism and having attitudes or taking actions with the purpose of doing harm to or with an intent of keeping down those of other races.
In other words, I believe it’s perfectly possible to be proud of being Italian without being an asshole to someone who’s Irish for no other reason than the fact that she or he is Irish.
This leads me to something else you said:
I’m not here to argue that this isn’t true. I’m perfectly sure it is true. But I am here to say that we have yet to reach a level of openness in communications among/between races which makes me believe that certain actions by one person of one race aren’t misinterpreted by another person of another race. For example, some years ago I attended a seminar wherein the lecturer gave us some statistics about how long people feel comfortable in a business setting engaging in small talk before they got down to business. Not surprisingly, there was a divide of some minutes between people raised in northern states vs. those raised in southern states. What did surprise me – and I don’t believe this makes me a racist, only ignorant of certain nuances of culture – was the large difference between what white, Asian, Latino and black people felt comfortable with. This was an eye opener for me because it made me realize that while I would be perfectly comfortable at the number of minutes that had passed between the shaking of hands and the discussion of business, there would be others distinctly uncomfortable – if not insulted. For those from cultures that require a longer period of chit chat (and a deeper delving into personal matters, such as discussion about one’s children), there would be a feeling of insult that they didn’t have the opportunity to ease into business. Thus, completely unknowingly, those more comfortable with a brief opening segment give off the impression not only of rudeness, but also a hint that they are racist. It’s my belief that there are innumerable things such as this that occur that have one race calling racism while another is pushed back on its heels feeling blindsided.
Again, I’m not attempting to say that racism doesn’t exist, only that each of us is apt to interpret certain actions and words through the lenses and filters of our own experiences. Perception is reality, sure, but my reality isn’t necessarily someone else’s reality. I believe the discussion about segregation of books illustrates that point well enough. If one is hopeful of walking into a bookstore and finding a whole section of books devoted exactly to their interest – say sci fi – it’s a good thing: they can go right to that section and delve in knowing (from their point of view) there’s no wheat to separate from the chaff. If one is instead looking at it from the point of view of sci fi is as good as every other kind of literature, it’s as legitimate as anything by Proust or Shakespeare and the authors of the genre should be shelved right in there with them, they are more apt to see it as an insult that sci fi has its own section.
That segregation of sci fi can be seen as either elevating or denigrating the genre, depending on one’s point of view. And sometimes the most innocent of actions can be interpreted to have had the most vile of motivations when in fact no such motivation existed.
So while I’m sure that racism is alive and
well
hell in America, I’m also sure that if we were more capable at communicating with one another with true honesty, what is seen as deliberately insulting behavior in some cases is merely an ignorance of the codes for conduct of someone else’s reality.
If I start yearning after a woman, it’s because my relationship is lacking, not my partner’s gender.
I totally understand. But I’m talking fear here, not necessarily reality. I think a lot of women worry about whether or not this man they’re in love with will cheat on them. This may have to do with self-esteem issues or just past experience, but I think many women would find it exhausting to have to worry about other men being a “threat” to their relationship too. Again, I’m talking average, everyday anxiety in an average relationship with all the problems that come with it.
Yeah, I understand your point, Victoria.
However…
If the relationship is damaged to the point where a woman is really worried about cheating or thinks it may already be going on, honestly the bi/hetero question isn’t the issue to tackle. And if the woman is just unable to trust fully, unable to believe this man loves her and her alone, then the problem isn’t whether her man is bi; it lies within herself.
I know absolutely nothing about the rise of ethnic studies in US universities. The support for separate academic programs for particular groups – is this like an ‘Hispanic-American History’ class for Latin-Americans (though I’m assuming anyone is eligible to attend but the focus would be on Latin-Americans) or is this like a Macro-economic class for Latin Americans?
This is like whole programs devoted to the study of a particular culture, race, group of cultures, etc.—from history to literature to religion to philosophy, etc. They have served different purposes over the years, from carving out a space for dedicated ethnic studies (i.e. no “token” classes in big departments) to functioning as recruitment tools for minority graduate students, to providing a place for students of particular backgrounds to study their own culture or race (and for students who don’t come from those backgrounds to get a strong background). Differentiation, in the minds of some of the scholars who have built these departments, is power, whether or not I agree with that position.
Focusing on black or gay romance novel segregation: I think it’s dangerous to use ‘non-whites agree with it’ or ‘booksellers say its best marketed that way’ as reasons for keeping it as such, no matter how intelligently worded or argued these reasons are. They always seem to be reactive statements to the existence of novel segregation when I just can’t get past why they were separated in the first place. Romance is romance is romance.
I agree. But there are two issues here, as I see them. First there is the issue of readers who don’t want to read non-white or interracial Romance. The second issue is the issue that Monica brought up, which is the segregation of African American Romance on bookstore shelves and the subordination of AA Romance authors. In the first case (that of readers), I’m not convinced that every reader who doesn’t want their escapist fantasy to be non-white (especially if the reader is white) is racist. As to the second, since I don’t know enough about what Monica is asserting—that is, why do bookstores separate different books and how are AA authors treated as inferior—I’m not ready to render a judgment there, either. I’m not denying that Monica feels that way, and because I know she’s a smart woman, I certainly am not going to discount her view. But while I agree that treating someone as inferior solely on the basis of race is racism, no one has given me specific examples of how and where that’s happening so I can say, oh, yes, absolutely. And furthermore, the fact that I am white, IMO, makes it such that if I don’t see a certain situation as motivated by racism (as opposed to some dumb ass marketing thing or ignorance or something else), I wonder if my opinion will be seen as invalid because of MY race. Personally, I think there are a lot of white people who are terribly afraid of being viewed as racist and who will go out of their way to make these grand gestures to prevent such a thing from happening. Me, I’m an almost lawyer and a long-time academic who’d rather be called racist than casually accuse someone else of it. Because in my experience, the accusation creates hostility and division resistance to change.
racialism includes a kind of pride and promotion of a race
Thanks for pointing this out, fiveandfour; I had in mind Malcom X when I posted about racialism originally, but I don’t think I mentioned that certain separatist philosophies and movements qualified, as well.
Many white Americans share your views that prevasive racism is a made-up construct.
I don’t think I addressed this quote of Monica’s. I don’t think racism is made up, but I do think race is an artificial construct. That is, I believe that beyond circumstantial differences including skin color, culture, language, religion, etc., the notion of essentialized racial categories is a socially invented construct. It doesn’t make it any less socially powerful, but it’s not monolithic or independently stable.
Candy: If you can find a quote somewhere in these comments in which anyone tries to paint racism as blameless, or in which someone tries to argue that hatred and bigotry are GOOD things, I’d like you to find it.
I don’t know that anyone has tried to say it’s a GOOD thing, but so far people have argued that it’s blameless for:
1.) old people
2.) Catholics
3.) book publishers
4.) White Southerners
5.) People that were “raised” to be bigots
For the record, I’m white. I have Southern, old, racist and homophobic family members, and you know what? Those people are Racist and Homophobic.
Period.
They are not physically prevented from letting go of hate. They hold on to it, claw at it, and are proud of it in a few cases. They are not, “Racist, but…”
As, in: “Racist, but old.” Or, “Homophobic, but not aggresive.” And, they are certainly not, “Racist, but good people, in spite of it because I love them and want you to know that they wouldn’t hurt you.” They are simply racist. They may be nice to puppies, and donate to the red cross, and love thier grandkids. But, they are also simply racist.
Until we stop making these excuses, and adding bullshit qualifiers to ease discomfort with admitting that we and our families aren’t perfect and have irrational biases and hateful streaks, then no one is going to really let go of bigotry. It’ll just continue to hurt people. And, for what? So you can feel more comfortable about your origins? That’s more important that being honest and a part of the solution, instead of being an apologist?
I want you to know that I really loved your entry, and I wrote about it over in my little blog in glowing terms. And, I don’t think you’re a bad person, Candy. But, I do totally see a lot in this thread that’s pretty sad, and evidence of just how far we have to go.
but so far people have argued that it’s blameless for:
“Blameless”? Really? And “argued” it, no less?
Victoria said: “I’m talking fear here, not necessarily reality. I think a lot of women worry about whether or not this man they’re in love with will cheat on them. This may have to do with self-esteem issues or just past experience, but I think many women would find it exhausting to have to worry about other men being a “threat†to their relationship too.”
And I look at it from the other side: If my male SO was to turn to another woman, it would be worse than having a male rival. My thinking would run this way: cheating with a woman tells me there’s something wrong with me as a woman. I’ve failed the relationship. But cheating with a man means my SO is looking for something I couldn’t have given him, so it wouldn’t reflect on me at all.
Either situation would be painful, of course. But I wouldn’t feel so personally rejected if SO took up with another male.
“I see many rolling hills and slippery slopes whenever there are discussions about *forms* of prejudice.” (Dalia)
Like the “slippery slope” described by Jan Butler in her diatribe against gay romance, in which RWA’s inclusion of gay romance would lead inexorably to cultural decay, the oppression of True Moral Americans, and pedophilia? Once you start talking in absolutes, you’ve limited the discussion to, well, to something that is not discussion, but speechifying.
I’d rather have conversations and learn.
Veronia: you have officially confounded me. I’m sputtering and speechless. For one thing, your assertion that I argued that Catholics are excused from prejudice is positively mind-boggling to me (well, I’m assuming you’re referring to the fact that I mentioned how my in-laws are Super Catholic). Dude. I in no way tried to excuse their prejudice. I’m merely explaining the source—people who are devoutly Catholic are more likely to be prejudiced against gay people, if only because they’re more likely to toe the Church party line, which is prejudiced against gay people. Prejudice against gay people is bad, mmmmkay, no matter where they get it from. And I’m not sure WHERE you would’ve picked up that I believe otherwise, or that it’s OK to be bigots because you’re Catholic. The leap in logic this requires makes my head hurt, especially in the context of every freaking thing I’ve written on this goddamn website.
I don’t see what’s so controversial about saying that not all racists are evil people through and through.
Yes, they’re prejudiced. No, they’re not completely iredeemable. Yes, they’re assholes. No, they’re not completely evil.
What the? Wha? My parents are racist because they were raised racist in a country with truly wacky race issues. Their way of thinking is wrong. I’ve said so over and over again.
Please point out, sentence by sentence, where I’ve tried to argue that my parents aren’t accountable for their beliefs, or that their racism is a good thing, or that it’s OK for them to be racist because they’re old, or what-the-fuck-ever.
Egad. Arguing with intractable people who share my beliefs is every bit as exasperating as arguing with people who don’t.
Veronica, I don’t think you’re hearing what’s being said.
You said: Until we stop making these excuses, and adding bullshit qualifiers to ease discomfort with admitting that we and our families aren’t perfect and have irrational biases and hateful streaks, then no one is going to really let go of bigotry. It’ll just continue to hurt people. And, for what? So you can feel more comfortable about your origins? That’s more important that being honest and a part of the solution, instead of being an apologist?
In what way did anyone express that they were COMFORTABLE with their relatives being this way?
Let me be clear:
I find it incredibly hurtful and fucking REPREHENSIBLE that I am related to people with these beliefs.
Does that mean that I cut them off and never speak to them again?
Tried that. Accomplished nothing.
The best chance they have of getting past these racist, fucked-up beliefs is if someone they trust engages them, talks honestly with them, and occasionally kicks them in the ass.
Is it comfortable? Fuck no. But I owe it to myself and to them to at least fucking try. And if I only see the ugly racist part of them and nothing else, my job is a lot harder. There is a decent human being in there somewhere, and that’s the part I want to reach.
To clarify my position, and honestly, if y’all don’t get it, I’m not sure there’s any way for me to put it any clearer: If I try to introduce context and explanations, it’s because I believe it’s useful to see WHY people believe what they do as well as WHAT they believe. Throwing out “WELL THAT’S JUST RACIST” or “THAT’S JUST HOMOPHOBIC” isn’t always the most fruitful tack, is it? If you’re truly invested in change, shouldn’t you attempt to understand root causes?
What’s baffling to me, and what makes me hopping mad, to be honest, is how providing context and refusing to enter a completely black-and-white mentality is suddenly painted as trying to make excuses. This is nothing other than an variation of the classic “with us or against us” mentality.
Oops, are my relativist, non-absolutist roots showing? Time for a touch-up.
Morality has been highjacked by certain segments of society who use this word to browbeat the rest of us. To them, as an athiest I can’t have any morals. To me, as an athiest I chose my moral code very carefully, acquiring it not from a book or orginazation but from within myself, from experience, from observation. It is fine to express ones discomfort with a choice someone else has made but judging is not okay. That book so many “moral” people claim to have read clearly states “judge not lest ye be judged”. It also says “ye who has not sinned may cast the first stone” and “love thy neighbor as thyself”.
Grr…I meant to say I find it repugnant, not reprehensible, that I’m related to bigots. My vocabulary gets shot to hell when I get a rant on, sometimes.
Uh-oh, Thera. We went from bisexuality and sex issues to racism and race issues. Now you have opened the door to a religious debate…. this has been a fairly complex couple of days!