![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
As writers, there is going to be some point that we will need to research something. Unless one is writing something completely new and original, requiring no backup data or confirmation of an idea or theory, research is always going to play at least a minor role in the process of writing. Sometimes that research involves a day trip to your library and perusing microfiche or rare books; sometimes it involves using Google-fu and link hopping; sometimes it involves asking professionals in a given area; sometimes it involves asking your friends and/or colleagues; sometimes in involves all of the above.
Only an idiot would consider marching into a community unprepared and presenting oneself as the be-all and end-all of raw data accumulation in that community. Only the prince of the kingdom of idiots would do so even when the errors of their behaviour and research processes were pointed out to them in gradually increasing volume. And only the emperor of the empire of idiots would back-track after being raked over hot coals by the very community they hoped to engage with the most beloved of internet statements, "OMG U GUISE R SO EBIL/MEEEAN!!!1111!!"
Of course, the above is a satirical and extremely tongue-in-cheek summary of what has happened within research and fanfiction communities. As an academic myself, a researcher and a writer, I find myself raising my eyebrows as this trainwreck unfolds. As a writer of queer fiction and erotica, I find the methodology and language used by these researchers to be problematic at best, highly offensive at worst. The basic theory these two researches are proposing boils down to the following:
The wimminz on the internetz like the porns, which is just as titilating and quaint as those skeery men who like the porns about *gasp* transsexuals.
I wish I could say I was joking, but no, that was the basic premise. Certainly it was geared towards slash writers who are, by and large, women, but certainly not exclusively, and with the expectation that these women are married housewives with nothing better to do than clutch their pearls and exchange naughty stories on the internet. The debate has gone beyond slash writers and fans however, to suggest that any and all women who enjoy same sex erotica fall into this extremely narrow idea.
The thing (out of many in this, not least the lack of research ability applied in this whole scenario, my inner academic and historian is weeping for the future,) is not just the basic lack of understanding of the community or misrepresentation of that community, not just the condescension of the researches towards their key group, but the staggerinly offensive terminology and skewed data collection tools employed. They had a survey up for writers/readers/artists/fans to fill in, which lacked any sort of age cutoff, leaving them open to legal issues regarding age of majority and consent; questions that could - and were - triggering, such as 'Do you have rape fantasies?'
I went and looked at their survey and found many of the questions odd for something that was purporting to be academic. I fail to see how asking which fictional characters you think is your ideal mate is academic. I'm also still stuck on the rape fantasies question which leapt out jarringly at me from the screen with no warning prior to taking the survey or any indication that there would be such questions included. I'm sorry, but I don't see how my finding Dean Winchester a sexy, sexy man is going to in any way, shape or form assist in an academic paper. As an example, natch.
So as boggled as I was, I was still observing this as my personal love of research is something I hold dear and because, well, as the superhero says, 'My Spidey sense was tingling.'
The absolute icing on the cake however, was the final post prior to journal locking by these academics talking about transsexuality with the term 'shemales', using Wikipedia as a citation (!) and comparing women who like m/m erotica with men who watch transsexual porn as a guilty pleasure. (Paraphrased as the exact quote has been locked down in the journal locking.)
To add the final sparkles to all this was the (again paraphrased) belief that only men write and enjoy m/m erotica and we women folk are anomalous for doing so. (Out, out damn spot!)
I'm not going to post the names of these researches because they are already bandied about the internet enough, but I will add a couple of links with excellent roundups and summaries. However, it has since been revealed that this data was being collected not for an academic paper in the field of Neuroscience for Boston University PhD students, but for a book, titled, Rule 34: What Netporn Teaches Us About the Brain.
Methinks the researches have failed to understand the first basic problem here: that they don't quite grasp the concept of 'rule 34,' which is, if someone has thought of it, then there is more than likely to be porn of it.
Links:
Wearing the Juice: A Case Study in Research Implosion.
Fandom to Researches: We Are Not Your Lab-rats.
Ten Steps to a Perfect Fanstorm.
In short, this isn't just about fanfiction writers/readers, but about the perception of women who write and enjoy same-sex erotica in any form and needlessly complicating the reasons for that enjoyment.
Only an idiot would consider marching into a community unprepared and presenting oneself as the be-all and end-all of raw data accumulation in that community. Only the prince of the kingdom of idiots would do so even when the errors of their behaviour and research processes were pointed out to them in gradually increasing volume. And only the emperor of the empire of idiots would back-track after being raked over hot coals by the very community they hoped to engage with the most beloved of internet statements, "OMG U GUISE R SO EBIL/MEEEAN!!!1111!!"
Of course, the above is a satirical and extremely tongue-in-cheek summary of what has happened within research and fanfiction communities. As an academic myself, a researcher and a writer, I find myself raising my eyebrows as this trainwreck unfolds. As a writer of queer fiction and erotica, I find the methodology and language used by these researchers to be problematic at best, highly offensive at worst. The basic theory these two researches are proposing boils down to the following:
The wimminz on the internetz like the porns, which is just as titilating and quaint as those skeery men who like the porns about *gasp* transsexuals.
I wish I could say I was joking, but no, that was the basic premise. Certainly it was geared towards slash writers who are, by and large, women, but certainly not exclusively, and with the expectation that these women are married housewives with nothing better to do than clutch their pearls and exchange naughty stories on the internet. The debate has gone beyond slash writers and fans however, to suggest that any and all women who enjoy same sex erotica fall into this extremely narrow idea.
The thing (out of many in this, not least the lack of research ability applied in this whole scenario, my inner academic and historian is weeping for the future,) is not just the basic lack of understanding of the community or misrepresentation of that community, not just the condescension of the researches towards their key group, but the staggerinly offensive terminology and skewed data collection tools employed. They had a survey up for writers/readers/artists/fans to fill in, which lacked any sort of age cutoff, leaving them open to legal issues regarding age of majority and consent; questions that could - and were - triggering, such as 'Do you have rape fantasies?'
I went and looked at their survey and found many of the questions odd for something that was purporting to be academic. I fail to see how asking which fictional characters you think is your ideal mate is academic. I'm also still stuck on the rape fantasies question which leapt out jarringly at me from the screen with no warning prior to taking the survey or any indication that there would be such questions included. I'm sorry, but I don't see how my finding Dean Winchester a sexy, sexy man is going to in any way, shape or form assist in an academic paper. As an example, natch.
So as boggled as I was, I was still observing this as my personal love of research is something I hold dear and because, well, as the superhero says, 'My Spidey sense was tingling.'
The absolute icing on the cake however, was the final post prior to journal locking by these academics talking about transsexuality with the term 'shemales', using Wikipedia as a citation (!) and comparing women who like m/m erotica with men who watch transsexual porn as a guilty pleasure. (Paraphrased as the exact quote has been locked down in the journal locking.)
To add the final sparkles to all this was the (again paraphrased) belief that only men write and enjoy m/m erotica and we women folk are anomalous for doing so. (Out, out damn spot!)
I'm not going to post the names of these researches because they are already bandied about the internet enough, but I will add a couple of links with excellent roundups and summaries. However, it has since been revealed that this data was being collected not for an academic paper in the field of Neuroscience for Boston University PhD students, but for a book, titled, Rule 34: What Netporn Teaches Us About the Brain.
Methinks the researches have failed to understand the first basic problem here: that they don't quite grasp the concept of 'rule 34,' which is, if someone has thought of it, then there is more than likely to be porn of it.
Links:
Wearing the Juice: A Case Study in Research Implosion.
Fandom to Researches: We Are Not Your Lab-rats.
Ten Steps to a Perfect Fanstorm.
In short, this isn't just about fanfiction writers/readers, but about the perception of women who write and enjoy same-sex erotica in any form and needlessly complicating the reasons for that enjoyment.
