Women Writing M/M Romance
I interviewed three groups of m/m romance authors at the Romantic Times convention in May, asking the authors primarily the same questions. I let the discussions go in any direction the authors wanted with the idea that the mix of authors would put a different spin and focus on the topic.
Authors Z. A. Maxfield, Mary Calmes, Amy Lane, Anne Tenino, and Josephine Myles gave new insight into why women write gay romance fiction.
Amy began by saying that “love is redemptive” and if any group needs the redemptive qualities of love, it’s gay men.
ZAM agreed, saying that what was missing from the previous fiction about gay men was the happy ending. By writing gay romance, “we’re rewriting the traditional endings the way we want them,” she said.
“Romance itself is the emotional side of literature,” Anne explained. “That’s what we’re bringing to gay fiction.”
Writing about two men falling in love is completely different than the traditional romance. For one thing, both characters are equals, each with his own power.
“In fact, in many ways, I feel like a man,” Josephine stated in her British accent. This realization makes it easier for her to bypass all the traditional tropes found in mainstream romances.
“I’m tired of women’s nasty, mean games, and don’t want to write about them,” Amy added. Backbiting and undermining of friends’ goals and aspirations aren’t often found in gay romance since men are more direct in their interactions.
Mary echoed this thought by saying, “I don’t want to write about bitchy women.”
ZAM said the equality of the partners is much more interesting to her. “There’s an equality at the beginning of the relationship that’s a very powerful dynamic to explore,” she explained.
This power extends not just to the gay couple but to the fans as well.
Mary told about fan response to her writing. One letter was from a husband of a reader who started by saying in capital letters I AM NOT A FAN. The letter went on to say that his love life had improved since his wife had started reading Mary’s books, and he thanked her. He ended the email with I AM NOT A FAN.
As we laughed, everyone wondered if the balance of power had shifted in the non-fan’s marriage.
Pat Henshaw
“”Simply want to say your article is as astounding. The clarity to your put up is simply nice and i can suppose you’re knowledgeable in this subject. Fine along with your permission allow me to snatch your RSS feed to stay up to date with impending post. Thank you 1,000,000 and please carry on the enjoyable work.Feel free to surf to my homepage horse head masks””
I’m really sorry for cropping up here a THIRD time in quick succession, but I just had to say…
Any female author of M/M who avoids writing M/F because they believe female characters are automatically bitches, is saying a fuckload more about their own writing abilities than they are about whether or not women are more bitchy in this genre or that.
By the way, I don’t give a toss if the authors cited are lovely people in real life. I don’t know them. I only read their books, and quotes they give. So that’s how I judge them.
What I get from this article and a great number of the comments following it are, if you disagree with something said by a woman who writes M/M, you’re disrespecting the entire genre and you’re a meany poopy-head who needs to go read some books by the authors cited. Well, I have and I still find it offensive. I’m a woman who’s WRITTEN M/M and I still find it offensive.
And no, the fact I’m in possession of a fully-working vagina and dare to disagree with other vagina-ed ones doesn’t mean I’m nurturing a festering ball of internalised misogyny. It means I have a brain of my own which is able to formulate its own opinions.
The whole problem I have with a M/M author saying “”I don’t want to write about bitchy women,”” is the assumption “”Girl cooties or M/F = bitchiness and snark from all female characters.””
Hell, some of the worst-written women I’ve ever read have appeared in M/M novels by some pretty big female authors of the genre. Tell me you haven’t read a M/M novel where the ex-wife is a raging harridan who succeeded in turning the hero gay with her self-hating nagging ovaries.
Yay for demonising the vagina!
/sarcasm mode off
(PS: Bit late to the game here; had a Twitter break for over a month so I’m not up on all the drama in the erotic romance world…this discussion illustrates exactly why I’m sick and tired of it.)
As a gay man, I can say the opinions expressed in the interview are outrageously ignorant of how REAL gay men and relationships operate.
‘Writing about two men falling in love is completely different than the traditional romance. For one thing, both characters are equals, each with his own power.’
‘Backbiting and undermining of friends’ goals and aspirations aren’t often found in gay romance since men are more direct in their interactions.
This is ignorantly generalising at best and at worst a huge insult and disservice to the gay community.
Real M/M relationships are never ‘equal’, they are diverse, complicated and not just a ‘genre’ the author can appropriate and simplify to suit his/her fetishized fantasies.
Social politics, bitchiness, manipulation, and every emotion under the sun exists in the gay community. To simplify men as ‘more direct’ to suit one’s idealisations of M/M undermines both the genre and gay community itself.
If you want to write fantastical gratuitous smut with sexy hotties by all means do so – but as with all genres, to write authentically requires research and an educated insight into the topic.
As Jamie Fessenden explains: “MM Romance may be about gay men, but it isn’t really ours.” It’s become very clear to me that most M/M romances are heterosexual fantasies written for the titillation of heterosexuals, conversations between authors and readers to which actual gay readers, such as I, are not invited. It truly appears that the realistic depiction of life as lived by actual gay men is beside the point. Fessenden does go on to claim that female authors of M/M romance want their stories to be authentic, but you couldn’t prove it by the stories I’ve read, alas!
He or she still looks like he’s 30. Amazing.
My web page: anti gay
The reactions of fans in this thread is even more embarrassing than the words in the article. Pat Henshaw didn’t throw these women under the bus. They said what they said, and it wasn’t good. The rude comments here aren’t doing the authors any favors. If my readers were trying to defend me by calling women bitches and telling them to grow some balls, I would be appalled. I would also step in to stop it.
At first, I was upset when I read this interview. Then I quickly realized that had this been a real interview, Pat Henshaw never would’ve been hired by a decent publishing firm or allowed to conduct an interview in any shape or faction. A reporters first job is to remain neutral and report facts. This is nothing more than the ramblings from the crazy cat lady down the street. If you don’t enjoy books published by women then grow a pair and don’t read them. That’s really hard to follow, isn’t. I’m so tired of these articles! These authors are amazing. They work hard, take time away from their families, and stay up all hours of the night working. They do not deserve to be raked over the coals for be women. Are you 5 and afraid of getting cooties? Grow the hell up and stop posting.
Attacking the messenger is not very classy. Also Ms Henshaw is a blogger/reviewer, not a reporter.
“”This is nothing more than the ramblings from the crazy cat lady down the street.””
Well that’s not sexist or anything, is it?
“”They work hard, take time away from their families, and stay up all hours of the night working.””
So what?
“”They do not deserve to be raked over the coals for be women.””
They’re being raked over the coals for being misogynistic and clueless/offensive about gay people. Their gender is irrelevant.
“”Grow the hell up and stop posting.””
Excellent advice. Why don’t you take it?
I’ve been a fan and regular reader of AAR longer than I’ve been married – so close to 20 years. The past couple years I have been concerned with the quality of the site but it’s volunteer-based, so I have appreciated the efforts and I keep coming back. I don’t want to be accused of bigotry, back stabbing, nastiness…so I’ll sum up my opinion in 3 words: I miss Laurie!
I would like to hear Pat Henshaw’s comments about her article.
What shocks me most is that a lot of commenters immediately feel offended and imply misogyny. Or fell justified – yes, m/m is obviously bad.
Geez…no benefit of the doubt with those here.
On the other hand, readers of those authors are all shocked by this accusations because longtime following of them had shown them to be all very loving, caring and great women, who write great books with wonderful characters, male and female.
And what strikes me the most interesting is that the author of this article is still missing……
This article sure caused a ruckus, didn’t it?!
Prior to this I had no idea why women wrote m/m romance. This is because it didn’t matter to me why. I figured it was because their muse told them to and they loved men and wanted to explore the dynamic in a relationship between two men. That’s wonderful. And as a happy coincidence writing these stories helped normalize m/m relationships. Double wonderful. In fact I’m downright proud of these writers and feel nothing but admiration for them.
But then I read this article and found out from the quotes that some writers wrote m/m because they’re, “tired of women’s nasty, mean games and don’t want to write about them,” and “don’t want to write about bitchy women” Which translated in my brain to: women suck, so forget them, I’m writing about men. Ouch. Wait a second here- I thought we were all on the same page, writing about romance, furthering the advance of women’s portrayal in literature as well as the portrayal of LBGTQ relationships. Why must we trample one to get to the other?
So okay, it was pointed out that these inflammatory quotes could be misinterpreted and taken out of context and maybe the article itself is at fault here. Alright. Then Amy Lane (smart, classy lady that she is) wrote a blog entry to explain her views which was linked here and I read because I was really, really hoping it would clear things up for me. Well, to be truthful it still didn’t, but, I can see where Amy is coming from and I respect her point of view. (see Blackjack1 responses, she said it all better than me). I still feel that if you think women are incorrectly portrayed in our genre, then be that agent of change and write the heroines you wish to see and self pub them if you have to! I completely respect wanting to explore the dynamics of power between a m/m couple as opposed to a m/f couple and the freedom there is in throwing out stereotypes. Just please don’t talk poorly about women while you’re doing it! (I’m not referring to Amy when I say that last bit, but to the blog commenters in general- again, Amy is a smart, classy lady who’s opinion I respect. In fact I’m planning on tracking her down at a future rom con and buying her a drink at the hotel bar so we can bond over this. lol).
One more thing-
There are quite a few commenters who have basically called people posting here “bitches”. Ugh. Please don’t do that. “Bitchy” is what men call us when we are arguing/debating and have an opinion different than theirs and they don’t like what we’re saying! It makes me sad to see women appropriating this word and using it against each other, picking up where men left off.
I guess this article set off the sticky intersection between women’s rights and gay rights that we didn’t realize needed to be explored. I’m hoping that our take away from this discussion is that we are still all on the same page. No one is maligning m/m writers or the genre. NO ONE. If I heard anything like that at a rom con, or at my local rwa chapter, or anywhere, I’d be the first person to shut down that bullshit. I can’t even listen to it for half a second. I adore and have befriended m/m romance writers both male and female. I love their books, and their writing is exquisite! Again, I’m just saying, please don’t use women’s portrayal in m/f as a reason to leave the genre- instead help m/f to change! We’ve come a long way already, with your help we can go even farther.
Since I have read a liked books but several of the authors highlighted in this post and read their personal blog pages I feel that this presents some great authors in a bad light. It feels like the writer of the blog post had their own agenda.
I’m told the writer of this interview is actually a supporter and writer of m/m fiction. If this is so – why was this article so completely derogatory to a genre you are a member of?
If you want to know what I think of this “”interview”” (besides that it’s full of crap) is that the author just won. People are talking about it. Lots of people. I think that’s what the author wanted. No matter how you reach celebrity as long as you reach it. Well, you did it! You’re famous. I’m not sure it’s a fame I would like to experience but hey, if you’re happy…
And for the record, I love all these authors and read lots of their books.
You’ll have to forgive me English as it is not my first language, but I think you’ll understand what I tried to say.
You all have a good day, now.
First of all, I read many of these women’s work and I personally knew some of them. I don’t recognize them in these comments, nor I recognize their books. So my question is:
> Amy began by saying that “love is redemptive” and if any group needs the redemptive qualities of love, it’s gay men.
who said “”if any group needs the redemptive qualities of love, it’s gay men”” cause you didn’t quote it, so I suppose it wasn’t Amy.
> ZAM agreed, saying that what was missing from the previous fiction about gay men was the happy ending. By writing gay romance, “we’re rewriting the traditional endings the way we want them,” she said.
this can be true, meaning that, aside from some example like Vincent Virga (Gaywick) or Gordon Merrick (The Lord Won’t Mind), there weren’t many happy ending in gay fiction, and romance is all about happy ending; it wasn’t that these women are changing gay romance, it’s that gay romance was really limited before.
> “Romance itself is the emotional side of literature,” Anne explained. “That’s what we’re bringing to gay fiction.”
maybe I don’t entirely agree with this comment, even if it’s not romance, gay fiction can be very emotional, even without an happy ending.
> Writing about two men falling in love is completely different than the traditional romance. For one thing, both characters are equals, each with his own power.
I suppose this is a comment of the interviewer, but I have to say I agree with that. I was talking with Rick Reed, a man and a gay romance writer, who asked me why I was reading Gay Romance, and I told him that is probably cause I wanted that equal balance of power in the main characters I wasn’t finding in “”traditional”” romance (even if, sorry, I really hate this “”traditional”” term, who is saying heterosexual romances are traditional and gay romance aren’t?)
> “In fact, in many ways, I feel like a man,” Josephine stated in her British accent. This realization makes it easier for her to bypass all the traditional tropes found in mainstream romances.
well, me too feel like a man sometime.
> “I’m tired of women’s nasty, mean games, and don’t want to write about them,” Amy added. Backbiting and undermining of friends’ goals and aspirations aren’t often found in gay romance since men are more direct in their interactions.
Amy isn’t saying she doesn’t write positive women characters, cause she does (I even remember a woman who found out her boyfriend was gay, and boy, was she supportive of him?). So please don’t put words that aren’t hers in her mouth.
> ZAM said the equality of the partners is much more interesting to her. “There’s an equality at the beginning of the relationship that’s a very powerful dynamic to explore,” she explained.
Completely agree with ZAM, that is what I think too.
to end, I agree with many of the other commenters, for being an interview done to so many authors, it’s really strange you managed to cut out so few comments. I’m not saying I like longer blogs, actually I use to skip them cause I don’t have many spare time, so concentration is a good thing, but it seems to me you drove concentration towards a goal that wasn’t reflecting the above authors’ words.
I wish blogs had ‘Like’ buttons. There are a few comments here that I’d really like to do that for.
*lowercase yawn*
Once again, Pat Henshaw, regardless of her motives, has managed to perpetuate the stereotypes that female writers of MM fiction somehow have an agenda. Well… we do, but it is certainly not to show female characters in our novels as petty or vapid… unless called for.
My agenda, because I will not speak for other authors, is to write good love stories between men… that is all. Sometimes they have happy endings, sometimes they don’t, but always, I endeavor to write honest love stories with honest emotions between the characters, both male and female.
These quotes were taken out of context of a total “”interview”” (where is it, and the questions asked, BTW?)
When the plot calls for it, damn straight (pun intended)… that’s what I write, bitchy and nasty women… but it is hardly the only way that I write female characters in my MM books.
I also write female characters in my MM books as strong and brilliant allies/sisters/mothers/daughters. Please do not lump all female MM authors into one category… again. It’s getting really old. We are as diverse as the SEALS, assassins, vampires, spies, cowboys, bikers, Doms, submissives, sisters, mothers, and “”bitchy”” ex-wives and girlfriends that we write about.
Articles like this perpetuate misogyny, not equality… any way you slice it. Thanks for setting us all back and putting us in our places. I need to leave now. It’s time for my caveman to drag me off by my hair.
I don’t read M/M, but all my solidarity goes to Pat. Your reviews talk for you.
Thank you, Pat Henshaw, for once again perpetuating every negative stereotype associated with women writing gay romance.
Please don’t tell me you didn’t do this to stir up controversy. You did. Congratulations. Well done.
As for my reaction to a woman saying “”I don’t want to write about bitchy women””? Well, I don’t either. I write about strong women in my M/M fiction, women of integrity and substance. Could I do that in M/F romance or mainstream fiction? Sure, and I do that as well.
But growing up, I got mortally tired of the gay character being a stereotype or a psychopath and usually dying or arriving at some other bad end. Gay characters deserve the variety of straight ones, the variety of fates and plots that straight ones have had all along.
I find it very sad that all through the comments here, we have women attacking women whichever way you look at it. This article is very badly constructed with all the author’s comments taken as sound bites and out of context. If you actually read the comments as in the ones in “” “” they are not the ones many of you are arguing about. The women who write m/m romance are in the main writers of flawed human beings and understand the pain they go through whilst searching for love, family and home. I have read works by all the authors mentioned here and none of them write ‘bitchy women’. The adjective ‘bitchy’ is applied derogatively to Gay men as often as Straight women. Gay men and straight women have long been mutually supportive in their struggles for recognition and equality. I’m afraid comments such as I have read above do nothing for either struggle.
No offense, but I think this entire post just proved the point about women being bitchy
a-freakin’-men!
Bitchy is an adjective often used to describe women who have opinions that disagree with whoever is order to stifle them. Thank you for demonstrating its usage and for being so brave by doing so anonymously.
LOL! Yep, I’m okay with being called a bitch. It amazes me how a thread that started out as a defense of women has turned into posts talking how bitchy and horrible women are.
Clearly there is offence, since many commenters have said that they are offended by what has been said.
Or did you mean that no one should take offence at your own comment? When you have denounced all women, including all the commenters here as bitchy? I’m taking offence at that, whether you tell me to or not. Because, and let me explain this very slowly and clearly, it is not bitchy to disagree with someone. It is not bitchy to point out that what someone else has said is offensive or problematic. It is not bitchy to point out that a blog post has been poorly constructed.
It is, of course, bitchy to make snide remarks about people who do disagree and point out problems. So yes, there are some bitchy comments on this post. It would be nicer if you hadn’t bothered to leave yours.
I have to say, out of context or not, the quotes are concerning and obviously problematic. I absolutely understand the defense of the authors and the outrage (I am a fan of these authors myself). I just want to know why these things were said in the first place – why those words?
So, Pat, if you wouldn’t mind, could you please post the rest of the interview? If not in it’s entirety, at least the context (questions and complete responses) of the things you’ve highlighted?
The comment thread is actually what I find the most troublesome to be honest. Sweeping generalizations and chest-pounding anger are not conducive to healthy discussion. All this is doing is creating a you vs me, us vs them, m/f vs m/m landscape that is hurtful to romance as a genre and hurtful to writers (no matter what gender) as a whole.
It all feels very nasty and accusatory and misinformed.
Well said.
There is nothing in any of the posts objecting to m/m as a genre. There is nothing saying women shouldn’t write it.
The problem is with the REASONS given.
1. They’re creepy:
WTH? That comes across like there’s something wrong with them. Very poorly expressed.
2. They’re simplistic:
This is ridiculous. Gender is not the only thing that affects power dynamics. There’s race, class, income, level of good looks even. Come on. Think it through. Women can write m/m, but this makes me think the quality of plotting and characterization isn’t exactly going to be nuanced in this author’s case.
3. The comments about why they don’t like to write about women. Again. Come on!
Sweeping generalizations about women characters, first of all – well, about as simplistic as the sweeping generalization about equality between men.
On top of that, you’re the AUTHORS. Write whatever characters you want.
The problem people in this thread have is not with the genre. The problem is with the statements explaining the authors’ role in it.
If the root of that problem is a poorly-written article, then the article author deserves criticism. If the problem is with the interviewees actually saying things as they appear in this article, then they should perhaps re-examine what they said, and think about their implications.
Trying to silence everyone by misrepresenting as a backlash against the m/m genre isn’t helping anything.
I completely agree with this. It’s why I was commenting that the quotes themselves were problematic. And I’d like to know why these authors actually said these words, out of context or not. It’s why I was hoping to see more of the actual interview rather than just the snippets.
The comment thread has concerning posts across the board from both ‘sides’ of the argument. Misrepresentation and misinterpretation are happening both from people questioning the message of the original post and those coming to the defense of the authors.
My comment was not meant to silence…it was meant to challenge the nastiness of the tone. Lots of accusations, lots of generalizations. lots of misunderstanding rather than trying to actually hear and see what each person (and especially the original authors quoted in the piece) are trying to say.
Well, the tone reflects how appalled people are. I don’t have a problem with that.
What I see here is a lot of people who were offended by the content of the article. The lack of clarity within the article – the unclear division between the perspectives of the author and the interviewees – helped create some fogginess over who is really responsible for the views represented. And the fact that Henshaw has not commented isn’t helping clear that up.
However, robust – even appalled, angry, outraged – criticism of views is a far cry from nastiness. What I don’t appreciate is others saying that when something makes us angry, we can’t express it. That’s not progress.
(And some people reducing a passionate protest to just being “”bitchy”” or women “”cutting down”” other women and their “”dreams””? Is that the best they can add to the discussion?)
Thank you, Cecilia! You’re posts are spot on!
“I’m tired of women’s nasty, mean games, and don’t want to write about them,” Amy added. Backbiting and undermining of friends’ goals and aspirations aren’t often found in gay romance since men are more direct in their interactions.”
Well, that is probably the reason why Amy Lane writes wonderful female characters all the time…..like for example, Cory, Benny, Amy, Bella Ariadne and many more.
Okay, I’ve read this “”article”” – and I used the quotes on purpose – because this isn’t an interview and it doesn’t even give the apperance of a well researched article.
I’ve also read the comments….and I’m really taken aback by some of the nasty and mean remarks. Well…wait…where have I read “”nasty and mean”” in connection with women before?
Let’s be honest for a moment. Most of the f/m romance still carters to stereotypes. This IS the reason I have stopped reading it, because it was the same over and over again. I’m NOT sayint there aren’t great books out there in f/m romance, no way, there are! But they are sometimes very difficult to find. Btw. try the Little Godess series written by…oh wait…that’s Amy Lane again…and it’s not contemporary :(
If there had been a change in the last few years in f/m romance – good for them.
Next moment of honesty: Men and women are still not equal. They should be and we want them to be – but while I live in an equal relationship – I’m not BLIND to the world around me.
Judging the authors and their motivation by this assembly of “”taken out of context-quotes”” is as fruitless. Personally I think the blame lies with the author of this “”article””.
Just to make my point clear, here is a quote taken out of the comments:
Seriously, Katie, you think that bad of woman?
Oh…wait…did I take your quote out of the context? How does it feel if it happens to you?
Another thing that bugged me a lot:
Ann Somerville says:
“”A lot of the m/m genre is hatefully misogynistic.””
Wow…I must have read the other 500 books of that genre then. Oh yes, sometimes there are bitchy women in m/m books, sure, sometimes we need the “”anti-person”” and we only can choose between men and women (so it’s a 50/50 thing) It would be funny and not realistic if the homophobic people were all male, right?. Btw. there are also cruel men in m/m books…or bigotted people. You know which m/m autor writes wonderful and strong female characters in her m/m books? Geeez…it’s Amy Lane. ;)
Personally I think that this discussion shows only two things:
-Do not trust articles in newspapers and on the internet (seriously, I’ve been interviewed twice in my life and both articles didn’t get it right)
-Woman can be as judgemental as hell.
I’m 48 years old, I’m reading about 150 books a year, since 2010 mostly m/m. Before that it’s been romance and thrillers. Seriously…I know my books.
I don’t think you understand how to use a quote. When you are quoting someone’s words then you can assign the quote to them. When you have quote by someone else used in a post and assign it to the poster you are indirectly plagarizing someone’s words.
I’m not blind either. I don’t live in a world where men and women aren’t equal. I live in a world where some ignorant and cruel people treat women as less but that doesn’t mean they are. I also don’t live in a world where gay people are not equal.
Well – I actually quoted you, so I think everything is okay with my quote. You wrote that and I assigned it to you. Nothing wrong with that.
Well – about equality – you’ve hit the spot. I agree, men and women are equal, gay people are equal, too. I probably have worded this not correctly, I’m not a native speaker, sorry. The problem is that they aren’t TREATED and REGARDED equal by ALL people and this is fact.
Okay, lets’s try again. I don’t think you understand how to use a quote. When you are quoting someone’s words then you can assign the quote to them. When you have quote by someone else used in a post and assign it to the poster you are indirectly plagarizing someone’s words.
Well Katie – you weren’t quoting anybody when you wrote:
Katie (kat) says:
Women are backbiting and men are direct.
These have been your words, you wrote them, you didn’t quote anybody with them. Yes, I assume you ment them sarcastically in an reply to J.P.Barnaby’s post. But you weren’t quoting her. I’m only quoting them/you to show how easy it is to give the wrong impression by taking a sentence out of the context.
So, I am quoting your words and so I can assign this quote to you. I’m not quoting you saying someone elses words.
I don’t see the problem here. If you don’t believe me, check out your post…I can’t find a “”J.P. Barnaby says”” in it.
Lady (or is Sunne a guy’s name? – not being mean here just don’t know), I’m through talking to you. Here is what is in the article above:
“”“I’m tired of women’s nasty, mean games, and don’t want to write about them,” Amy added. Backbiting and undermining of friends’ goals and aspirations aren’t often found in gay romance since men are more direct in their interactions.””
My posts are here in their entirety. The only way someone can misconstrue what I’m saying is to do it intentionally.
Seems like you don’t understand what I’m trying to show (and I’m not saying this is your opinion).
I’ve done what I think the author of this article has done, I’ve taken one sentence out of its context. I’m quite sure all the interviewed authors have said much more than the one sentence. And then I quoted the one sentence, in this case yours. And voila…a whole different meaning than you intended. So I wanted to show how easy it is to interpret something quite the opposite into a sentence when it is taken out of context. I think I’ve been clear that I know that this is not your opinion. It’s just an example for me to show how easy it is to give your words another meaning. Just imagine someone else writing a summary of all these discussions and quoting you with the words: And Katie said “”Women are backbiting and men are direct.””
Of course when we know the whole discussion and the source of the sentence we can see you didn’t mean it that way :)
Btw. that below was your post I took the sentence out.
And if you still don’t understand what I’m trying to show, I think we can close this discussion.
“”Katie (kat) says:
June 14, 2014 at 4:38 pm (Quote)
Of course there are exceptions (for both sexes) but, for the most part, I don’t find women to be unequal to men or have less power in a relationship. What appears as weakness (more willing to compromise, to keep the peace, to be the nurturer) may actually be strength. A woman might handle things differently than a man but to believe they are being dominated is naive. I was raised by strong women who were kind and compassionate and put up a lot of crap but, when push came to shove, stood up for themselves and got what they wanted and what they needed. The fallacy is in using masculine criteria (such as directness, loudness, being definite) to determine equality or strength.
Men are always so open and honest about their feelings, their thoughts and their actions. What was I thinking. Women are backbiting and men are direct. Men also never gossip, they never play games and you know exactly where you stand with a man. LOL, sorry, but what utter BS.””
Okay, I’m going to try to explain this one more time which is probably futile. Commenters here did not take out of context or twist authors words. We responded directly to what was in the article. You have a problem with the article, fine, that is not me but I’m having a hard time believing the whole interview was taken out of context.
I would like to hear from Ms. Henshaw along with all these authors who, it would seem, would want to come here and explain to readers how AAR distorted their words.
Lovely to see women wanting to shut up other women when they point out inherent misogyny within the community. Way to go.
Now, let’s untangle this mess.
I love that m/m romance writing has become relatively mainstream as I cut my m/m romance reading on slash fic. It’s extra sad to see this sort of treatment and debate here – both among authors and readers. I’m not going to jump up & down and demand a degree in Gender Studies from anyone – but basic awareness of basic concepts would probably be a good idea if you want to write something which IMPLICITLY AND EXPLICITLY deals with gender and sexuality. If you love m/m romance (and so many of us do) – don’t give us a bad rep.
Yes, there is much internalised misogyny in both the article AND the comments. Yes, I want us to think hard about the fetishization of gay men: if you are tired of seeing it prop up again and again, maybe ask yourself if there might be a reason for people addressing it again and again.
In short: yay for m/m romances becoming so much more mainstream but we are not helping ourselves with this sort of article or the level of debate that’s going on here.
I can’t believe that Pat, who regularly reviews m/m romance intended anything but a positive representation of these interviewees, but I agree the quotes were poorly chosen, and given the resulting ruckus the authors should be given the courtesy of a right of reply or the publication of the entire interview.
Are y’all for real? This is not even a good enough article to form an opinion about any of these women. Don’t tell me you believe this person had “”discussions”” with 5 women and only managed to obtain one quotable sentence from each one. And all those quotes happened to be inflammatory. And the backbiting and undermining comment was not directly attributed to any of the authors, so I’m not sure why they are getting scolded for that particular line.
And the outrage expressed here on behalf all women? What. Ever. It’s silly to me. Yes I think women should be supportive of each other. But if you can read one sentence in a shittily-written blog post and form an opinion without even attempting to find out more about these authors, I can’t take you seriously.
And OMG STFU about this “”fetishization of gay men”” business. It’s like a catchphrase at this point that people like saying. I’m not even sure half of these commenters understands what that is exactly. And this “”I’m wary of the M/M genre…”” What? WARY of it? I don’t think the genre intends any harm, so your wariness is probably unwarranted.
And there are about 15 uses of the word misogyny (or some derivative thereof) in these comments. Again, shut-up. Nothing said here indicates a misogynist is in our midst.
Lastly, what is with the fascination about why straight women write about gay men? Does it matter? Really? Maybe they just want to. And maybe some of y’all need to examine exactly why this genre and its authors disturb you so much.
Thank you! My feelings exactly. oh the drama….
There is no way that this… post can be labelled as either an article or interview. It is most decidedly neither.
And many of those who have commented negatively have used the “”quotes”” as gospel to malign not only the five authors named here but, in effect, women in general who write m/m romance. These commenters, to my mind, have shown that they have been dying to drag down anyone whom they consider incapable of writing ‘proper’ romances.
The childish glee with which some of these people have displayed in their negative comments bring to mind nothing so much as schoolyard bullies.
“”The childish glee with which some of these people have displayed in their negative comments bring to mind nothing so much as schoolyard bullies.””
Oh please. Can you keep the schoolyard metaphors out of this? The quoted remarks are incredibly offensive and people are offended. Unless they’re fake comments, the speakers have to live with the consequences. That’s the way grownups deal with things.
Was this “”article”” published before it was finished? Or has it been over-edited until it makes no sense? Either way, it makes no useful contribution to any discussion.
Another explanation is of course that it was intended to reinforce divisiveness or create it. What a waste of the opportunity to talk to some excellent authors, and what a breach of the trust implicit in an interview to quote people fully and in context.
I am disappointed that such a prestigious website should publish such rubbish.
“” I would like further examples of misogyny within the m/m genre because I truly haven’t seen much myself.””
Jennifer, I guess you miss the whole “”girls have cooties”” drama
http://scarlettparrish.wordpress.com/2013/07/04/girl-cooties-in-mm-books/
Honestly, I am too fed up today to look up more examples. But the erasure/demonisation of women in m/m is pretty well documented if you care to look.
Not trying to start a fight here, and the article you linked to definitely had some misogyny in it, but the one with the issue was not an author, but a reviewer of m/m books who didn’t want to review het sex. Yes, still misogynistic, but in fact m/m authors stepped up to say this was wrong and to stand up for their right to include het couples and het sex in their m/m stories. (I especially liked Heidi Cullinan’s response)
I’m just pointing this out because the issue being discussed at length here is that female authors write m/m romances because they, presumably, hate writing bitchy females in het novels. I’m sure there are probably examples of females authors who are misogynistic, and I would never defend them. But this article in particular was horribly misguiding and it’s not fair to paint these authors with the same brush just because some other bigoted idiot somewhere on the internets has been misogyinistic in the past.
Just checked Amy Lane’s blog. she says here words were “”grossly mischaracterised”” in the article.
Her lengthy response is here: http://writerslane.blogspot.com.au
that blog of hers doesn’t exactly help. She seems to think that gay men have paradisical relationships and that writing women is okay as long as we foreground the men. And that’s just rubbish.
If you think Amy Lane’s books show men in paradisical relationships you’ve clearly not read many (if any) of Amy Lane’s books. She writes delightful female characters in a lot of them too.
I’m not going to presume what these authors’ intentions were but clearly you’re getting incomplete and out of context snippets. I beta read for a friend writes m/f romance and there are clearly defined parameters as to what those relationships should look like. I read a book for her that had a strong intelligent female MC and she was told that she needed to butch up the male MC so that he was clearly the Alpha in the relationship. It’s a cookie cutter formula that must be followed if you want to get your book published in this m/f romance genre.
I’m glad I’ve not ever read AAR before. Considering the quality of this post I haven’t missed anything. This post is crap. Judging by a lot of the comments, the “”women are bitchy”” quote was entirely accurate, in this context.
Thank you! I’m fine with someone calling me (okay, indirectly me as a AAR poster) a bitch because I have a problem with misogyny and ignorance. :)
The person who wrote this article said “”I let the discussions go in any direction the authors wanted””. So unless she is a speed writer or had a recording device going, I don’t see how she could get so many quotes down as accurately as she supposedly did.
She also said “”I interviewed three groups of m/m romance authors””. Were all these authors from a single group? If so, where are the answers from the other two groups? Or are they just a select few from all three groups?
Either way it seems the writer of this article is NOT giving us a complete story, which makes it appear(to me at least) that she is trying to influence our opinions on female authors of m/m romance.
As a writer of both M/M and M/F books, I’ve been subjected to the same ridicule as these authors have because I’m a woman writing M/M romances. I’ve been interviewed, sat on panels, wrote a blog about it, and talked in depth with other authors and readers of the genre. And yes, even been blasted at a small con for ‘perpetuating the stereotypes of the gay lifestyle’. But I have to say that this ‘article’ is the worst I’ve read yet on the subject. To take such small snippets of what has been said is an in depth interview with these authors is not only misrepresenting the authors, but makes the writer of the ‘article’ seem like she has a bone to pick with this genre.
Romance in general has been labeled the red-headed step-child of the literary world for decades. No matter the money, the best-sellers, or the millions on fans worldwide, we’ve never gotten the respect we deserve. Now, to add insult to injury, we have one more hurdle to jump with GLBT romances. Why there’s such a problem about the gender of the author simply baffles me. Men certainly haven’t had this problem when writing about women. So what’s the problem about women writing about gay men? Just because I don’t have a penis means I can’t write a credible gay male character? Men don’t have vagina’s yet they still write credible female characters all the time. And this so called ‘article’ just makes an already uncomfortable situation worse.
As for the ‘whiny and bitchy female’ character. I’ve been reading romances since I was 13. I’m 44 now. I have every book I’ve ever read. Yes, that’s a lot of books. And my tastes have changed over the many years. Most of the authors I have, I don’t read their work anymore for the simple reason that a lot of the female MC’s are TSTL, the same stereotype is used over and over again, or the female starts out strong then gets weak after winning her man. And those are the contemporary books. Women have evolved in their reading tastes over the years. I know I certainly have. And the same tired romance just won’t cut it anymore. It’s mainly why I decided to write my own. And also why I think the snippets about female MC’s has been taken way out of context. A credible writer would have more than just a few sentences to explain a very brief quote. And a credible blog site would do the same.
I have had the pleasure of meeting a few of these authors. I’ve talked with them, even sat next to one at a book signing. In no way did these authors act the way they were portrayed in this ‘article’. And I think it’s a shame that, once again, good people have to suffer for one person’s need to be in the spotlight.
I think women writers can and should write in any genre that attracts them. However, I wish that all of us, readers and writers alike, would critique thoughtfully any negative and recurring stereotype of women such as you’ve characterized above in any fictional book. I read many wonderful romance novels that portray strong and complex women, and I stay away from shallow writing that falls prey to stereotypes, female or male. I do not believe giving up on m/f romances and looking for other subgenres is the answer to that specific problem. Engagement with the books and thoughtful conversations is a better response so that we can move toward more and more complex female representation.
Seems to me misquotes and misinterpretations abound in this interview, in order to give it a particular slant. NONE of those writers–I have read their FB pages, their blogs and their books–come across as misogynist. They are also all wonderful gay-allies and it makes me unhappy that someone has portrayed them in a confusing and unflattering light.
Pat where are you? your audience has questions about this post.
Your opening sentence says you interviewed 3 groups of m/m authors. Who exactly were in the “”3″” groups? Please specify.
More importantly, your stated “”asking the authors primarily the same questions. “”
Well which is it? Did you ask the SAME questions or PRIMARILY the same questions? Again, please clarify.
Lastly, this entire “”post”” read like a JR High School Homework assignment and this blog should be ashamed it was posted.
I am calling for this blog to POST THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW ASAP!
Personally I think the “”interviewer”” should publish each group interview in its entirety with full quotes and context in the interest of allowing everyone to make up their own minds. Until then I don’t believe that what is implied is what the authors interviewed actually meant – even if they were that sexist (which I don’t believe) they’re savvy enough not to say anything so blatantly misogynistic for an interview, so my money is definitely on their actual words being twisted or taken so far out of context as to be completely misleading.
Unfortunately, interviewers using only bits and pieces of quotes in order to sound more “”sensational”” is nothing new – most media outlets do it all the time. It’s actually such a common thing that it was a minor plot point in a freakin’ Scooby Doo movie.
I don’t know why the article writer chose to put this slant on what was said (and clearly only a small portion of what was said at that – three separate group interviews with only 8 very similar sounding quotes?), but I can’t judge these authors based on what amounts to interest-grabbing soundbites rather than full quotes.
*In the interest of full disclosure I will say I’ve read stories by all of the mentioned authors; some were great, some were good, some were just ok. None of them came across as even remotely anti-women.
Some of the strongest female characters I’ve read have been written by female authors writing MM romance. Just sayin’.
I feel the interviewer and the comments offered are a smear campaign against very talented authors, and not only demeaning to them but to the readers who love their work. You are not impartial and you people offering your hateful comments are doing it with only a few of the comments by these authors and not the entire interview. Smh, people continue to amaze me and not in a good way.
You all are just reading extremely small snippets of the interviews. When placed in this blog post, they were posted totally out of context from the entire interview. In fact, I’d say this interviewer totally screwed (not in the biblical sense) these fabulous female authors.
I think it would only be fair for this poster to post the interviews in their entirety.
“”I think it would only be fair for this poster to post the interviews in their entirety.””
Be careful for what you wish for. I suspect the entire interview makes these writers look even worse than the quotes above do.
I absolutely abhor what they’re saying, but it doesn’t suprise me. A lot of the m/m genre is hatefully misogynistic.
Examples please? I’ve read a lot of romance that runs the gamut of m/f, m/m, f/f, mmf, mfm, and I’ve seen relatively little misogyny outside of the older bodice rippers.
you’re looking at examples in the OP. None of that is new.
Oh. You said “”A lot of the m/m genre is hatefully misogynistic,”” so I thought maybe you had examples other than a few out-of-context quotes.
I’ve read thousands of romance novels (including hundreds in the m/m subgenre), and met quite a few authors from various sub-genres at events and conventions (including three of the authors mentioned above), and I’ve seen very little misogyny personally (and none of it was from these authors).
Re-reading what I wrote I realized the first paragraph came across as snarky and hateful – I didn’t mean for it to. I have a headache, but that’s really no excuse. I apologize.
My second paragraph stands, though, and I would like further examples of misogyny within the m/m genre because I truly haven’t seen much myself.
Inaccurate. And a grossly irresponsible thing to say.
I’m sorry, but I truly can’t believe that so many people here are basing sweeping indictments of these authors on an “”article/interview”” that is comprised — in total — of thirteen paragraphs, of which: SIX are one sentence long. Only EIGHT contain things the authors actually said (and are clearly out of context), while FIVE (and a half) of the paragraphs are Ms. Henshaw’s intro, closing, and (apparently) personal thoughts on the subject.
For those who are arguing otherwise, YES, context is important!
As an example, consider you’re hanging out with several friends over cocktails, and one of them is more of an acquaintance you’re friendly with, rather than a bestie. In the course of the evening, the group of you talk about lots of things. At some point you’re all talking about exes, and you mention that you broke up with whomever because you didn’t feel like the relationship was going well and that you two wanted different things… and you know, sometimes the sex was a little unromantic and every now and again, it was over sooner than you would have liked.
Next day, you have the ex and all his buddies saying shit about you because that “”friendly acquaintance”” started telling people you said the sex wasn’t good and that’s why you stopped seeing whomever. Then people you don’t even know hear about it and give you the stink-eye every time you set foot outside.
Now, you actually did sort-of say that about the sex, but it was just one element of the reasons behind the breakup, and in no way the most important part.
That’s pretty much the exact situation we have here. Or do you guys really believe that Ms. Henshaw sat down with five authors who only had eight sentences’ worth of things to say?
I know most of the authors maligned by this disgraceful and reprehensibly selective posting, and I can guarantee you that there was MUCH more to the “”interview”” than is written here. In fact, that much is entirely clear simply by the way this “”article”” is constructed.
Why no list of questions? Why no verbatim answers? Why such a short “”article”” after what Ms. Henshaw herself went to the trouble of saying that she sat down with and interviewed three different groups of M/M authors? Is this really the sum total of what all those authors said? (Sorry, but I doubt it.)
Context is a beautiful thing. It’s a shame that it’s entirely missing from this “”article.”” (This is, of course, solely my opinion. I neither ask nor expect everyone to reconsider their positions, regardless of how misguided I may find them. :) )
I’m sad that the person who did the interview has not had the respect—to both readers of the blog AND the authors—to show the entire interview.
And that only stinks of one thing: a sabotage, an ‘interview’ under the pretense of genuine interest which was obviously really a trap intended only to pick out items without their proper questions in order to bash the genre.
What the ‘interviewer’ (and I use the terms extremely loosely) accomplished was not only to INSULT the m/m genre but ALL genres and her own blog by falling into the old media trap of false representation.
Shame on her for her deceitfulness. And, to be fair? I was not there. I do not know what WAS said. But therein also lies the damaging factor…NOBODY but the people there DO know what was actually said. NOBODY but them. And yet, quite successfully, the ‘interviewer’ has encouraged bashing by only—-very intentionally—presenting what she knew would do damage.
NOT professional. Not at all. Childish and mean.
And I write BOTH genres…m/m and m/f. So my thoughts are NOT a defense of a genre. My thoughts are disappointment in an hugely unprofessional handling of a subject in the writing market.
Poorly, sadly done.
I’m still looking for the in-depth interview, not just a few random quotes posted to raise controversy and increase page views.
There have been so many other well written interviews on women who write m/m romance, that this interview doesn’t even come close to.
BTW, Pat Henshaw, since the details are clearly lost on you – you spelled Josephine Myles’ name wrong in your tags.
That is my fault not Pat’s. I run the blog and post the pieces. I have just started putting in author names. I should have checked twice. Thanks for pointing it out. I’ll change it when I get home.
Bitchy, whiny, dumb woman characters is the reason I have such a hard time reading m/f books. It’s rare you find strong woman characters that are level headed. They’re always bitching and moaning about something. Sorry to say but most m/m books don’t have that and it’s what I enjoy. So what if these authors don’t want to write about bitchy woman. Can’t blame them because honestly, I don’t want to read about it either.
I would be very critical of any author, male or female, that perpetuated negative stereotypes of women in general as “”dumb,”” “”whiny”” or “”bitchy””. I read plenty of wonderful romance novels however that do not engage in such negative and damaging portrayals. I agree that we can’t blame authors for not wanting to write about “”bitchy women,”” but I disagree that those are writers’ only options. I question therefore the assumption that women are leaving romance writing to escape portraying women negatively. There is something disingenuous going on here in the interview above and assumptions that writers only have two problematic choices.
Yes, what she said!
Thank you Blackjack1, love all of your responses. You’re saying everything I wanted to say, but much better. :)
I think the issue isn’t that they were *writing* women that way, but that the strong female characters they wrote were being insulted/criticized for being that way, when all the authors were trying to do was portray them the same way they would a strong male lead. For example, the actions of a male leader would be seen as heroic and just, whereas a female lead doing the same would be seen as overly demanding and bitchy. So it’s not that the authors didn’t want to write women in those stereotypes it’s that inevitably women they wrote would be cast in those stereotypes and it was frustrating.
And I do see their point, because I’m sick of seeing women who I think are so strong and I adore in books being called out in reviews for being too tough and bitchy and annoying. It’s frustrating. Just like it’s frustrating to see the opposite; men who aren’t physical alpha males being described as pushovers or worse.
At least that’s my take on it.
Well, I absolutely think that we live in a sexist society still. But if the option is to abstain from portraying women at all, that is extremely troubling. There are many authors doing the hard work of portraying complex female characters and getting plenty of praise and readership from the process. The answer to sexism cannot be to throw our hands up and give up, can it? There have to be better responses to the issues than that, surely.
No, maybe the right answer isn’t to give up. But I can say that, at least for Amy Lane, she does still include incredibly strong women in her m/m stories. And maybe that’s because she feels like they’ll be received better by those readers, or maybe it’s because she’s found her niche and is happy to keep writing only in that genre, I don’t know.
I don’t begrudge anyone the right to choose their own path and I respect any woman’s right to choose m/m or f/f stories for their creative process. I do again though question the author’s statements that strong women are too difficult to represent in m/f romances because of heavy criticism from publishers and/or the public. That belief is very troubling and I hope if nothing else, the author is aware of how dismaying such comments have been for many of us here.
Knowing every single one of the women quoted in this article, I have to say that I’m more than a little horrified by the depiction of them and their alleged views of the genre and of women. Someone mentioned their participation in this interview in passing during RT, and I know that a lot more was discussed than these brief, misrepresentative quotes.
Clearly, the author had an agenda and these authors just were a little too trusting. She should be ashamed and AAR should be embarrassed.
Shame on you, Pat Henshaw. Random quotes taken out of context does not make an interview. Where are your questions? Where are the authors’ full responses? Did you write this in attempt to validate your own opinion of women in romance? Or to bring negativity to LGBTQ romance?
Amy Lane’s true views on female characters and women in fiction for anyone interested in reading: http://writerslane.blogspot.ca/2014/06/to-thine-own-self-be-true.html
Interesting response, though I’m still left troubled by the association between sexism in our society and the desire to walk away from representing female characters as leads because of sexism. The author puts much blame on the publishing industry for the sexism, which may well be true, but only engagement with sexism and attempts to construct fully complex female characters can there be important changes for women and men in how we interact with each other. I have no problem at all with M/M romance as a subgenre within romance writing, or even F/F romance novels. I do have problems though with concerning attitudes about women being expressed.
This, so many times.
I read M/M. I read het and lesbian and bi fiction (I’d read trans fic, but it’s very rare). I’ve been to a LGBT writers’ conference.
My problem with the authors here is exactly as expressed above – whether the quotes are out of context or not, it’s that writing M/M is being excused as an “”easier”” option to writing M/F because of sexism. It should not be about that. It should never be down to following the path of least resistance.
Any author writing for those reasons is doing both men and women a disservice.
If this blogger’s intent was to do a study in IRONY, she was highly efficient. Because the level of nastiness being flung about here for the sake of “”outrage””,as another person said is depressing to see.
How anyone who reads this can’t clearly see these quotes were handpicked with the intent of making people angry, and to portray people who are not only incredibly talented authors, but exceptional women as simplistic, self-loathing delusional ninnies is a mystery to me?
I am an M/M fan. I read these books because I love the redemptive quality of the stories. I read them because there is a bounty of amazing reading to do in this genre. I love the fact the gender roles are NOT part of the equation. It IS a more level ground. And any woman who says that across society women AND men are not subjected to expectations and roles in their relationships whihc exist solely due to gender are either naive or just lying to themselves…So I’m not even going to argue that.
Furthermore it is incredibly disturbing to me that Pat Benshaw took the words of people I am certain would have never expressed themselves in that way without a broader context, and strung them up here to be tarred and feathered.
She should be ashamed of herself. I don’t know she was looking to gain here whether to malign the genre as a whole or just to have a little fun ridiculing good people, but one thing is very clear to me this was not done from a place of goodwill. It is a sad thing when people use others just to get hits on their blog, or just out some morbid desire to see a people get this ugly.
It might be nice if some of the people commenting on the genre as a whole, or on how these authors have a “”gay men fetishization”” problem, would actually read one of the books.
I certainly haven’t and the comments I’ve read aren’t bashing gay romance. I did however read quite bit of woman bashing in the interview and these comments about how sad people are (I guess because some of us have a problem with misogyny) and advocating m/m books is really turning me off from ever buying one, not the article above.
I’m reposting this because it fits here:
Hare author’s direct quotes:
“I’m tired of women’s nasty, mean games, and don’t want to write about them,”
“I don’t want to write about bitchy women.”
So, the author’s words were taken out of context and Ms. Henshaw’s thoughts on the interview were false and/or distorted?
I guess I’m just incredibly naive and didn’t realize that m/f romances require that authors characterize women as bitchy, nasty game players.
Thing is, probably many of us have read at least some of the books. I’ve m/m books that are DIK for me – but the reason I don’t read more in the sungenre is that I find I miss female characters.
I can’t imagine Pat is trying to malign the subgenre: if you look at her reviews she reviews predominantly m/m, and is enthusiastic about many of the books she reviews.
I’m marginally interested in the question of gender roles, just because a friend of my daughter’s did his dissertation piece on it. I never read it, so can’t say anything factual, but I know he was writing around the idea of gender roles in gay relationships. Do you think his experience is atypical?
Why did you not just title it Women writing MM Romance is Icky and leave it at that?
Out of three sets of interviews you couldn’t find anything positive to write about the MM genre? Not one single thing?
This was possibly the most horribly written article I’ve ever read. If the point was to create controversy and a flurry of comments, congrats you’ve achieved it. If you were aiming for a well-researched and written article, maybe next time. I don’t blame everyone who’s read this and is now bashing these authors; I would feel the same way after reading this if I hadn’t actually been following most of these authors for a while and know this had to have been taken completely out of context.
Also, has anyone noticed that the one quote that keeps being thrown around as most problematic (“”Writing about two men falling in love is completely different than the traditional romance. For one thing, both characters are equals, each with his own power.””) wasn’t actually a direct quote? If it was meant to be a direct quote then I’d like to know who said it.
Again, way to throw a half-assed article out there and causing all this unnecessary bashing/arguing.
How, exactly, can this be called an “”interview””? I don’t see any of the “”questions”” that were posed – per the author’s statement at the beginning of the article: “”I interviewed three groups of m/m romance authors at the Romantic Times convention in May, asking the authors primarily the same questions.””
What were the questions that were asked? All we are given in this article is a collection of random, out-of-context statements. Would any of the commenters be willing to let someone pull 2 random sentences out of an entire discussion, on any topic, and then let us all judge you solely based on those sentences, with no context?
If by “”judge you”” you mean “”point out how what you said is problematic,”” which is what people here have done, then I’d be fine with that. It’s happened before and I learned from the criticism.
This is pretty basic stuff. No one’s character is under attack here. The only people making this about the authors as people are the people defending them.
Yes, it is pretty basic. The author stated that she interviewed all of these authors. What questions did she ask to elicit these replies? That’s all I’m asking. All you have here is a collection of random, out-of-context statements – the author doesn’t even attempt to give any context, she just wraps the. Up in her commentary.
You’re right, it’s an incredibly badly-written article. Apparently it’s been so badly written that we’re all supposed to just assume that none of the things that were said by these authors actually means what it appears to mean.