The K/S Concept: A Feminist Perspective -- A Personal Statement by Judith Gran

Meta
Title:	The K/S Concept: A Feminist Perspective -- A Personal Statement by Judith Gran
Creator:	Judith Gran
Date(s):	June 1981
Medium:	print
Fandom:	Star Trek: TOS, K/S
Topic:
External Links:
Click here for related articles on Fanlore.

The K/S Concept: A Feminist Perspective -- A Personal Statement by Judith Gran is a 1981 essay. The essay is followed by extensive comments by Charlene Terry.

It was printed in the feminist multimedia zine Storms #1, and is one of the earliest known essays of its kind, predating The Romantic Myth and Transcendence: A Feminist Interpretation of the Kirk/Spock Bond by a year, and Pornography by Women, For Women, With Love and Another Addict Raves About K/S (by Joanna Russ) by four years.

Gran's The Footnote: An Explication de Texte was written and published the year before.

Some Topics Discussed

• feminism
• gay rights
• the nature of family
• patriarchy
• Star Trek: TOS and Kirk/Spock
• the study of American cultural definitions of "masculinity" and "femininity" traits which Janet Saltman Chafetz conducted in 1971, reported in her book MASCULINE/FEMININE OR HUMAN? (1977), and how Kirk and Spock fit in with these definitions
• "I see the same values expressed in K/S lit that I fight for in the feminist movement."
• both feminism/women's rights and homosexuality are "the other"

Excerpts

What do K/S and feminism have in common? Very little, some feminist fans would say. In fact, it's been suggested that K/S is not only non-feminist, but downright anti-feminist. According to this line of reasoning, we shouldn't waste our time writing it when we could be writing about women instead. I am a K/S fan and a feminist, and for me, writing K/S stories reinforces rather than denies feminist values.

Must a feminist writer write only about women? Must a humanist write only about humans? If so, George Orwell would never have written ANIMAL FARM, and Gene Roddenberry could never have created the character of Questor.

There's no reason for feminists to limit their subject matter to women, feminists don't live in a self-enclosed world, after all. transforming our world into an environment in which feminism and feminist values can flourish is a critical feminist task. Certainly, literature and fantasy play an important role in helping women explore their own personal identity and individual potential. But after each of us has gotten her own head together, we still must face the task of dealing with the world around us.

All good literature has a symbolic dimension; and only the most pedestrian mind would expect a rigidly literalistic one-to-one correspondence between idea and literary expression. Many K/S fans find strong universal elements in the K/S concept, just as many of us find strong universal elements in Trek itself.

It is the universal principle in K/S that links it to feminism: the principle of each person's unique individuality and personhood. K/S and feminism affirm the right of every person to be an individual rather than a member of a stereotyped category; the right to express one's own needs and develop one's own potential regardless of what society thinks is "appropriate."

To me, the K/S relationship expresses the same optimism about human potential that feminism does. Feminism says that women can be whatever they choose to be. K/S celebrates the joy of choosing as one's life partner the person with whom one has the deepest rapport, regardless of what society considers the "appropriate" gender, regardless even of one's own "usual" preference.

Because K/S and feminism share the same goals, they tend to share the same adversaries. Within fandom, it isn't surprising that the most vociferously anti-K/S fen are also the most vociferous anti- feminist. Of course, this simply mirrors a familiar pattern in the mundane world: there is much affinity between the supporters of Anita Bryant and those of Phyllis Schlafley. The Moral Majority is both anti-gay and anti-feminist.

The opponents of feminism and gay rights both evoke the sacredness of "the family" when they attack us, and that's no accident. Both feminism and gay rights are certainly a threat to the traditional family, with its rigid division of labor along gender lines, which subordinates women and consigns them to the role of kind, kuche, kirche. Of course, when our opponents sing the praises of the American family, they're not talking about the family's role in raising children -- for gays, lesbians, and feminists all do that (and, indeed, Moral Majoritarians will gladly break up a natural family unit if a gay parent happens to be involved). Nor are they talking about couples who've made a lifetime commitment to each other, for there are gays and lesbians who do that, too. No, by "the family," our opponents mean the patriarchal family. The patriarchal family has a man who's "head of the house," a woman whose principal task in life is to serve the "head of the house" and to reproduce the same pattern in the next generation. In the world of the patriarchal family, woman has no independent existence of her own; her role is derivative from that of men. That role is to produce and reproduce males --who will do the "real" work of society -- and vore females, who in tum will produce and reproduce males, and so on ad infinitum. Women are non-persons in the world of the "traditional" family, and of course so are gays. A gay man can't be a paterfamilias, after all!

Thus a strong appeal of the K/S relationship to feminists is that the partners have chosen not to assume the traditional "paterfamilias" role. And there's little risk that they'll ever become mired in the domestic division of labor. They're both strong, independent professionals, good at their jobs, and it would be impossible to imagine one of them keeping house for the other. They have the same kind of relationship with each other that feminists insist upon in their own love relationships, whether those relationships are with men or with other women.

Because women's sexual relationships with men have all too often become a source of male power over women, many "straight" feminists like me have become convinced of the importance of the "gay alternative" for all women, gay or straight. All too often, I've seen women fall in love with men and wind up doing their housework. For this reason I think that the awareness that we don't need men to meet our sexual needs is liberating for all women. I have several friends whose general sexual orientation is heterosexual, but who've fallen in love with another person of the same sex, much as I imagine Kirk and Spock doing. I also know several previously "straight" women who've chosen to adopt a lesbian lifestyle. So I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that "gay" and "straight" are not immutable ontological categories. We're all capable of a sexual relationship with another person of the same sex. The idea that one must be either "gay" or "straight" is an example of the sort of rigid, pedestrian stereotypical labelling that's harmed and inhibited women Throughout herstory. I reject this sort of labelling for everyone, including Kirk and Spock. In becoming lovers, Kirk and Spock are not "becoming gay" [or, as one anti-K/S fan expressed it, "turning gay" -- I suppose that's like "turning sour"). They are exercising a profoundly significant and a profoundly liberated personal choice.

Because feminists and gays are fighting the same struggle for individual self-determination, tactical alliances between feminists and gay rights activists are common. It's probably because gay men reject many of the same stereotypes and assumptions about the "proper" roles of the sexes that many feminists feel comfortable with them. Gay men tend to accept us as persons, not as sex objects.

I also feel "comfortable" with the Kirk and Spock of K/S lit (though not all of K/S lit, of course, since it's highly variegated), a Kirk and Spock who are open and honest and not hung up about their own masculinity.

In short, I see the same values expressed in K/S lit that I fight for in the feminist movement: the values of individual self-expression and personal choice. To ins, that's what feminism and K/S are all about.

Some feminists have claimed that writing K/S must be a form of "self-hatred." Because there are no women in these stories, they argue, we must be "leaving ourselves out" of them. I disagree. When I read or write a K/S story, I feel I'm very much in that story, through my own identification with Kirk. (Incidentally, I do tend to include strong female characters in K/S stories, but I won't belabor the point.) I know many K/S writers who also strongly identify with Kirk. What can it possibly mean for a feminist to "identify" with a man? If men were automatically "the enemy," of course, it would be as difficult for a feminist to identify with a man as for a Jew to identify with a Nazi. But, as I've indicated, I don't think that men are so much the enemy as are social instituions based on stereotypes about the "proper" roles of men and women.

Paradoxically, feminism is both a celebration of the special qualities that we women have developed as a result of our historical experience, and at the same time a rejection of the belief in an innate "women's nature." Feminism asserts that a woman can be whatever any human can be. The argument that women are fundamentally different from men -- that "biology is destiny" -- has been used against women for centuries. Although the irarcdiate goal of feminism is mare power in personhood -- the belief that individual character is not determined by X and Y chromosomes.

Feminism rejects the idea that there is a necessary correspondence between gender and personality. According to our society's stereotypes, however, there are "masculine" and "feminine" personality traits. A study of American cultural definitions of "masculinity" and "feminity" which Janet Saltman Qiafetz conducted in 1971 and which is reported in her book MASCULINE/FEMININE OR HUMAN? (1977) elicited from respondents the following lists of "masculine" and "feminine." traits.

Incidentally, I frankly enjoy K/S lit as porn, and I consider this another legacy of the feminist movement. Through feminism many women have become more open and more candid about their own sexuality, more ready to go after what turns us on -- whether society finds it "respectable" or not.

Like many women who are now in their thirties and who spent much of their childhood in the pre-feminist 1950's, I've had a lot of practice in identifying flexibly with both men and women. [much personal information and psychoanalysis snipped]

It wasn't that we were confused about whether we were men or women. It's just that to the extent that we required role-models, we had to look at the men around us as well as the women. And we found that it wasn't impossible to learn from men without losing our own identity. At times, identifying with men was simply a rational cognitive strategy. Maybe this is another reason why I find it so easy to identify with Kirk.

I don't want to minimize the problems and conflicts that women of my generation grew up with -- the conflicts between our own needs, society's expectations, our self-concept, our attitudes towards men and towards other women. It was tempting, for example, to succumb to the "exceptional woman" syndrome -- to look down on women who hadn't tried to make it in a man's world. But if we'd succumbed totally to that temptation, we wouldn't have needed the women's movement, with its emphasis on changing the world that men have made rather than joining it.

For me, the feminist movement brought greater understanding and acceptance of myself and other women, especially the "traditional" women whom a sexist society had separated me from. But ultimately for me, feminism requires changing the world, enlarging the definition of what it means to be human -- creating a world in which each individual can reach her or his own highest potential. In K/S, I see some of those values realized.

Fan Reactions

Comments by Charlene Terry, the Editor of "Storms"

Charlene Terry was the editor of the zine where Judith Gran's essay was printed, and Terry included her printed comments directly after Gran's.

From those comments:

When Judith and I first discussed the possibility of her writing an article explaining the link between K/S and feminism, I was very intrigued but somewhat skeptical: intrigued because I and many of my feminist friends enjoy K/S, and I was curious to discover if there was any link between this enjoyment and our convictions; skeptical because I did not at first see any evidence of a link, and was happy to go on thinking that K/S was just an inconsistency in our lives. After confirming plans for the piece with Judith, I began thinking more about the issue, and discussed it with my friends who read and/or write K/S, coming up with several interesting observations. After reading Judith's manuscript, I correlated some of these observations with Judith's and my own, and found that I wanted to add my own comments to the end of Judith's statements. I do so here with her foreknowledge.

Judith is correct in her opening statements: many fannish feminists do see K/S as non-feminist and anti-feminist because it deals with men, men's responses, and more often than not either excludes women totally or uses them as baby machines ("After all," one K/S fan has opined, "wouldn't it be awful if Kirk or Spock died without children?") or obstacles to the happiness of K/S. And there are feminists who see writing about men in any way (save as background characters or antagonists) as essentially self-defeating — while George Orwell as a humanist could write about animals, some women as feminists do not feel they can write about men, because of one essential difference between the two: animals have never been the oppressors of human beings, but men have oppressed women (this leads into Judith' s later comment about a Jew not "identifying" with a Nazi: for the same essential reason — oppression — many women cannot "identify" with men) .

She is also correct in her observation that the anti-feminist and anti-K/S fen tend to be the same people — although I have met feminist women who were anti-K/S because of the feminist objection pointed out above. These women, please note, are not anti-gay; they are against women writing about men.

I found Judith's comments concerning the "gay alternative" to be personally significant. I'm currently in love with a person who is not of my usual gender preference. This situation has a bit of a twist from Judith's meaning, however, in that my usual preference is women , and my "significant other" is a man. I've either chosen to exercise my right to choose the person most suitable to me, or I've happened on some sort of "straight alternative" previously unheard of!

[very personal info snipped]

As I wrote the K/S piece, I realized that most of it probably would not apply to any woman who's not heterosexual. To enjoy K/S, I think you really have to dig men's bodies as sex objects. From a feminist perspective, I don't see anything wrong with viewing men as sex objects, but I've heard the opposite opinion expressed.

I wanted to quote this paragraph because it brings up a couple of interesting points. I have found her statement about non-heterosexual woman not enjoying K/S to be not entirely accurate: I don't consider myself to be heterosexual, and I enjoy K/S; I have lesbian friends who not only enjoy K/S, but take an absolute delight in it. Part of this can be explained by Judith's discussion about K/S representing ideas, options, and alternative to explore; part of it can be explained by one of my lesbian friend's comments — in essence, that K/S is a relatively safe substitute for a lesbian relationship for women who can either not bring themselves to consciously think about this, or cannot bring themselves to write about it. When one examines the difference between K/s and gay porn written for men, this concept becomes clearer: K/S explores options, alternatives, love, and is very often very tender in its passion. Gay male porn explores sweat, hormones, lust, and is often quite brutal. These are, of course, sweeping generalizations, as K/S can be brutal and gay porn can be tender, but the difference is usually apparent. Examining lesbian written works — fiction, articles, poetry, erotica — one can pick up an underlying theme of exploration of options, alternatives, love, and tender passion, and thus the similarities.

Also, I agree with her about seeing men (or women, in some cases) as sex objects from a feminist viewpoint. Actually, I don't know if I'd use the phrase "sex objects," since feminism stresses the de-objectification of everyone, not just women; but a healthy, respectful lust is enjoyable, whether one is on the sending or receiving. Genuine physical admiration and non-exploitative lust are the key concepts in this aspect of human sexuality.

1982

'The K/S Concept: A Feminist Perspective': this article points out the ideological similarities between feminists and Kirk/Spock interactions in their personal fantasies. To give her credit, the author attempts it, but the effort comes across as her personal justification, rather than an unslanted statement of facts as presented at the article's beginning. She proceeds to explain her attraction to K/S literature by relating personal history. Interesting, but out of place in a factual piece. The article would have been better if one format, either personal opinion or unbiased reporting of evidence, had been chosen. Still, it was enlightening. Tigriffin hopes 'Storms' will continue to receive and print good quality articles as well as fiction, since it is one of the few zines inclined to feature this type of food for thought.

The K/S Concept: A Feminist Perspective by Judith Gran -- I m not sure I can agree with the idea that K/S and feminism have a lot in common. However, I can agree that men are "not so much the enemy as are the social institutions based on the stereotypes about the 'proper' roles of men and women." Mind if I memorize that, and quote it when appropriate, Judith? it's the best phrasing of my own opinion that I've seen to date.

Judith Gran's "The K/S Concept" is definitely one of the more interesting commentaries I've read lately. I have to admit that the idea jolted me -- a feminist perspective on K/S? Well, if nothing else, it shows that STORMS is going to be a vehicle for the unusual and unexpected! Again, not being a reader of the genre, I can't comment intelligently on K/S itself, but I'm definitely a feminist, and like Gran, happily married and in my thirties. So I'll concentrate on the feminist aspect -- which, I was interested to note, dominated the article. I was especially glad to see the statement that social attitudes based on stereotypes, rather than men, ar the enemy. This is a point that doesn't get anywhere near the emphasis it should have in a lot of feminist writing, especially among fen, who seem to lead toward the radical (is misanthropic) end of the spectrum. ((Oh, really? Personally, I've noted exactly the opposite; fannish women in general are more likely to support men's and people's liberation, too. Of course, it depends on which fandom you speak -- general SF fandom tends to be negative about a lot of things, as a general rule, so I believe that is your reference point. -- Editor)) [snipped] "The Feminine Mystique" which I read in college changed [my] life, but Gran is right, next to it has to be the world that's changes. And feminist franc can help, by encouraging fans to think and act in the mundane world as well as in fandom. After all, it's practically impossible to be a feminist in fandom without a least somewhat changing the way you deal with the outside, isn't it? Think about it.

Charlie, your commentary added on [to Gran's article] was also interesting, especially your statement that you may "have happened upon a 'straight alternative' previously unheard of." I haven't read much lesbian commentary, especially in fanzines, but all too much of what I have read has been more or less hostile and/or defensive concerning heterosexuals. Your calm, reasonable statement is very refreshing!

I've never understood the connection between feminism and porn as Judith Gran asserts there is. Perhaps feminism and erotica would be better words. As for K/S: some of us are strongly anti-K/S not because we're also anti-gay or anti-feminist. Some of us simply feel thai no amount of rationalization can account for the distortion of aired Trek that K/S demands, especially not personal gratification. ((Has anyone considered the possibility that no tuo fen see aired Trek the same? And why can't everyone who doesn't care for K/S just see it as an alternate universe vision, so we can stop all this useless bickering? -- Editor)) I am glad you mentioned the strong element of hidden female homosexuality in K/S. I can remember once getting soundly trounced for suggesting such. It's a sad commentary on our cultures that loving one's own sex should be so difficult to imagine that such stories that exclude women are a sole, lonely outlet for the feelings. Aside from the argument of whether K/S accurately portrays aired Kirk and Spock, I have never understand female interest in the subject on

a purely sexual level. The gay women I know don't care for K/S, in fact, are often insulted by it. These are women who enjoy both lesbian and heterosexual erotica. In K/S, though, they find nothing to interest them. ((If you're interested, I'll put you in touch with some lesbian friends of mine who not only enjoy K/S, but positively rejoice in it. The gay women you know seem to be the exceptions in this respect, from my observations. -- Editor))

Thank you, first of all, for the dedication. Not exactly a "happy one", but interesting. I'm pleased to be associated with the zine, because I thought it was very good. I had a little bit of deja vu reading our commentary after Judith's K/S article. That aspect of the K/S relationship's appeal to fandom really needed to be mentioned. I think it might also be mentioned that a lot of fans worked out their feelings about gay relationships, in general, by being exposed to K/S. I know so many fans who were at first turned off by the relationship, then grew to enjoy reading about it -- and finally investigated other gay fiction and non-fiction, only to find that they enjoyed it, too. -- Kirk and Spock, though I think it's absurd to dub them "gay" -- did a lot of indirect work for the gay rights movement and for gay consciousness-raising.

Judith Gran's "The K/S Concept" is definitely one of the more interesting commentaries I've read lately. I have to admit that the idea jolted me -- a feminist perspective on K/S? Well, if nothing else, it shows that STORMS is going to be a vehicle for the unusual and unexpected! Again, not being a reader of the genre, I can't comment intelligently on K/S itself, but I'm definitely a feminist, and like Gran, happily married and in my thirties. So I'll concentrate on the feminist aspect -- which, I was interested to note, dominated the article. I was especially glad to see the statement that social attitudes based on stereotypes, rather than men, ar the enemy. This is a point that doesn't get anywhere near the emphasis it should have in a lot of feminist writing, especially among fen, who seem to lead toward the radical (is misanthropic) end of the spectrum. ((Oh, really? Personally, I've noted exactly the opposite; fannish women in general are more likely to support men's and people's liberation, too. Of course, it depends on which fandom you speak -- general SF fandom tends to be negative about a lot of things, as a general rule, so I believe that is your reference point. -- Editor)) [snipped] "The Feminine Mystique" which I read in college changed [my] life, but Gran is right, next to it has to be the world that's changes. And feminist franc can help, by encouraging fans to think and act in the mundane world as well as in fandom. After all, it's practically impossible to be a feminist in fandom without a least somewhat changing the way you deal with the outside, isn't it? Think about it.

"The K/S Concept" was interesting for a number of reasons. Not that I disagree, but that just got to thinking about some things. Housework, for example -- why is it considered "no-status" work (I know, because it's "woman's work.") -- but leave that aside and consider this: housework is something that is essentially contributing to the basic comfort of life.: clean clothes are more comfortable than dirty clothes; well prepared food is more appetizing and appealing than badly prepared food. ... Why is pushing a lawnmower a more useful and respectable occupation than pushing a vacuum cleaner. As to the question of whether you can be a feminist and still life K/S? ((Everybody, go get a copy of Nicole Hollander's excellent book of cartoons, "Ma, Can I Be A Feminist and Still Like Men?" Recommended reading for every feminist K/S fans... and even some of us morons holdouts who still like The Village People... -- Editor)) Can you be a feminist and like Georgette Heyer/Bogie movies/country music? It depends on what kind of a feminist you are. The more puritanical feminists want to live lives totally disassociated from men, and they think of men the way a passionate fundamentalist might think of booze, cigarettes, pot, rock music... Others aren't so rigid. Personally, I like men about as much as I like women, which is to say it depends on the person, and there aren't a whole lot either that I like a lot. I find K/S a turn-on because I identify with Spock, and in the K/S I like best, he learns/discovers that he really is a bing of value to someone else -- his insecurities get taken care of -- something my insecurities could stand occasionally. I don't particularly enjoy the streak of sadism to be found in such zines such as The Price and the Prize. But I don't find S/M a turn on even in heterosexual situations.

Judith Gran has an article regarding K/S and feminism, views she sees as capable of mutual coexistence as each affirms the humanness of all and the choices of any of us. Though nothing new, it is well-structured and craftswomanly written. The editor's comments after this piece try, in part, to explain the erotic fascination K/S seems to hold over some if not all of us Dirty Old Broads. This to me has always seemed like explaining the unexplainable. Instead of being aroused by the loving, caring nature of the relationship, which, Ms. Terry points out, is different from the sweat/pain of gay porn (except in the case of Gayle F's work, where it's not), why not just leave it to all that can really be said: we're aroused because the writer wanted it that way. K/S works because it's written by people who know (viscerally, so to speak) whether it's working or not. Oddly enough, this is one zine where the editor has not chosen to include any of her own work ... beyond the editorial, the aforementioned comments, and some zine recommendations among the ads. This may be a good thing, because the editorial set the tone for the disappointment that was to come. While the following reference is decidedly antifeminist, many of us are old enough to remember the wildly successful Clairol ad campaign pegged on "Is it true blondes have more fun?" And most of us will remember the quiet little disclaimer in all the ads: "Chances are she would have gotten that young man anyhow.... But you'll never convince her of that."

1982 Comments by Gran Addressing Terry

[comments by Judith Gran, the article's author]:

I enjoyed your comments on my article very much, and chuckled over your notion of the "straight alternative." Well, it's only logical, after all -- if we heterosexuals can depart from the straight path occasionally, it's only fair that it should work the other way around. I agree regarding the difference between Orwell's voicing his ideas via a work about animals and women's writing about men -- animals have never repressed humans, and men have oppressed women. No matter how much we may claim that it's really "the system" that is oppressive, and not individual men, nevertheless less it is individual men who benefit from that system, and wo are in fact the agents of women's oppression in everyday life. This is a fact that can never be ignored in sexual politics. ... It's all very well to claim that in the abstract, one can express oneself equally well via a male or female character -- but the fact is that men and women are not equal yet and this is a reality that cannot be ignored. The fact that Kirk and Spock aren't real-life twentieth-century men but part of an imaginary future that we can idealize is salient, however.

I received some very interesting letters on the article; the most enlightening were letters from lesbians who, as you said, enjoy K/S because it portrays alternate relationships, etc. One writer pointed out that the K/S relationship is similar to the ideal lesbian relationship. I almost kicked myself for not having seen that! I learned a lot from your comments and those of other women, so writing the article turned out to be a rewarding experience for me. Thanks.