What Does It Mean to Say that Slash is (or isn't) Subversive? - Mo's Journal
What Does It Mean to Say that Slash is (or isn't) Subversive?|
|Date:||January 23rd, 2007 01:14 pm (UTC)|| |
Married, With Children
replying to musesfool: however, in RL an awful lot of people get VERY upset about same-sex marriage, so in a sense it's the 2.4 kids/SUV/golden lab lifestyle that's subversive when the spouses are both women or both men.
|Date:||January 23rd, 2007 02:53 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Married, With Children
That's a good point. I had my kids (at least the first one) on the early end of the gay-by boom. I remember vividly in 1988 with my baby strapped to me, going to a workshop on lesbian parenting. The leader said (among other wise things) - "We are at the same time doing the most conventional and the most unconventional thing."
There's nothing more conformist than having a child, but at the same time asserting our rights to do so when it's denied to us is very threatening to TPTB. Of course, that's a long way from slash, but I think it's something that real life gay and lesbian parents grapple with a lot - are we giving up our outcast culture and conforming to mainstream culture? I have Adam reflecting on that when he realizes he wants to live with Jean-Paul and have a baby together. He says something like "I don't know what's happening to me. I had a life that I loved and suddenly I want to give it up. A live-in boyfriend, a baby - if I say I want a minivan, someone please shoot me."
I think a lot of us have felt that way somewhere along our parenting journey. I know when a woman introduced herself to me as my partner's "friend from the school bus stop" I really wondered what my life had come to!
|Date:||January 23rd, 2007 04:27 pm (UTC)|| |
Re: Married, With Children
I think it's in the essay that launched the phrase "compulsory heterosexuality" that Adrienne Rich said that it's not that wearing makeup is inherently un- or anti-feminist--the problem is when wearing makeup is *compulsory* and all women are locked in to a single vision of what women are supposed to look like.
I guess you've helped me refine my thinking--that what's subversive is writing in terms of "imagine a level playing field." So in RL I think that the legal benefits and consequences of marriage should be available to same-sex couples on the same terms as female/male couples. But that doesn't mean that marriage is necessarily the right choice for Jeff and Joe any more than it is for Cathy and Tom, and in either case, the objection may be to the institution as a whole or simply to the unsuitability of the particular partner.
And what's bad is not women who have real choices deciding to be homemakers or have pink-collar jobs: what's bad is women being deprived of other career choices, hobbled when they try to combine parenting and paid work, or convinced that it's pointless to take science and math courses because "girls don't do that."