Categories: Random Musings • The Link-O-Lator
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
by SB Sarah • Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Suppose for a moment that words can take on three dimensional qualities, like sticks, stones, etc.
I present for your perusal my imagination’s depiction of Joss Whedon’s quote from this article in the Globe & Mail about sexism in popular culture as a perfectly warm and friendly bathtub of water that I can curl up in for hours and won’t ever get cold:
“Women’s inferiority - in fact, their malevolence - is as ingrained in American popular culture as it is anywhere they’re sporting burkas,” wrote Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon on a website recently. “I find it in movies, I hear it in the jokes of colleagues, I see it plastered on billboards… Women are weak, manipulative, somehow morally unfinished. The logical extension of this line of thinking is that women are expendable… There is a staggering imbalance in the world that we all just take for granted.”
It’s not that this quote makes me happy, but it’s comforting that there are people who Get It.
[Thanks to Emily for the link.]
Oh yes. The judgment of women’s physicality, that pubic hair, cellulite, wrinkles, and any signs of humanity that might possibly be unattractive - Hillary Clinton has long been the subject of that judgment. Even before she ran for president, any unflattering picture of Hillary was eagerly published by the media. I remember (but can’t find) a very unflattering pic from possibly 1992 or 1991 of Clinton adjusting a mic cord behind her head that was all over the front pages of newspapers. In color. Because, you know, that’s news.
The funny thing is, like I said in my comment to that entry, as I read the Safran article that bashed American and British women’s personal upkeep, I thought he sounded more like a woman criticizing another woman - even more specifically, he sounded like what I say. To myself.
Please pass the kick in my own ass, thanks, because I need one.
So back to romance and how that fits in. (It’s not all about me. It’s all about romance. I’m generous. Not narcissistic. Except for the whole blog thing, which is gleeful narcissism.) Brindel’s accusations that romance is the shield of the attacking patriarchy and the endless question of whether romance novels and feminism (and related words and concepts) can sit on the same park bench and feed the ducks leads me to more questions.
61 comments •
Categories: Random Musings • The Link-O-Lator
Categories: Random Musings • The Link-O-Lator
I’ve given this a lot of thought as a feminist and long-time romance reader and I think that it is not an either-or question. Romance both affirms strong women (in myriad ways) and reproduces sexist representations (in other myriad ways). Why does it have to be one way or the other?
Not terribly coherent today (bronchitis, ugh).
Maura
Molly said on...OK, so obviously some romances are more empowering than others, and it’s really hard to make a blanket judgement about the whole genre. But yes, most romance heroines are “beautiful” by whatever standards the author chooses. Which could mean anything from fair, delicate and mysteriously body-hair-less, to athletic and kick-ass.
Although I agree that having warriors, vampire hunters, and other physically stronger heroines is a step forward, the whole emphasis on being buff and “fit” (read: no body fat) is its own kind of beauty standard which is increasingly enforced in our culture. And not necessarily any easier or more emotionally healthy than what women have aspired to in the past. Romance heroines may have been getting more muscular lately but so has the “ideal” body type for American women - at least by my observation.
Personally I’m happy to read about plump heroines as well as not conventionally pretty ones but I don’t like books that go on and on about how plain the chick is. Look, if she keeps whining about feeling unattractive, I’m gonna believe her and start seeing her as unattractive.
Oh and you know what else? I would love more non-handsome heroes. I kind of hate it when they’re always described as soooo hot and pretty. I wouldn’t want to date a damn male model and I don’t want to read about one either, how about a hero who sounds *real*? To me so much description of physical beauty in these stereotypical terms (tall dark and handsome hero, slim heroine with big blue eyes) is just lazy writing by someone who doesn’t know how to make the characters seem sexy and desirable in any other way.
I’m rambling here. Essentially I think that romances hold up the beauty standard, not subvert it. And I will think that until I start seeing books that take the heroine’s looks for granted, as just another small part of her character, instead of harping on and on about either how beautiful or how plain (but secretly beautiful) she is.
dillene said on...My God, you’ve been ranty lately. What’s going on? It’s Christmastime! Feel the cheer! FEEL THE CHEER!
Kimberly Anne said on...Blech. Who has cheer this close to Christmas?
If I hear Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer one more time - and YES, I’m including the doo-wop, gospel, hip hop, and whatever other versions are out there - I’m going to get medieval on the next giant inflatable snow globe I see.
Eunice said on...When it comes to a heroine’s looks, that really doesn’t bother me one way or another to be honest. In fact there have been times where I’ll skim over the description. The only time a heroine’s physical appearance bothers me is if I feel like I’m being bludgeoned to death with it (whether she’s heart stoppingly beautiful or plump or mousy or has three heads, etc).
But that isn’t the fault of the genre, that’s the fault of the writer. If a writer can’t flesh out a character beyond appearance, or create a story that goes past a superficial attraction, I’m not going to give up on all Romance books. Since books are written by people they vary, and the idea of generalizing them grates me. So I guess that means I refused to answer the question of “are they or aren’t they?” I can be frustrating that way :)
I guess all I want is a variety of heroines, not to replace one stereotype with another. Beauty isn’t only measured by physical appearance. Strength doesn’t have to be just muscles. Give me complicated, well written, women of all shapes and personalities.
Molly> You ever seen a movie called Sliding Doors? That has to be one of the best cases for a guy can be totally attractive without having much by way of looks. I’d love to read some books with a hero like that!
Octavia said on...Oh yes, he gets it. Here’s the whole Joss Whedon post from which this quote was pulled. It’s very powerful.
(word: truth21)
Melissa said on...Thanks to Octavia for the link to Joss’s post. As usual he proves that he gets it.
As far as romance and stereotypes, I usually identify with the heroine’s ( and /or hero’s voice) their attitude, I guess, more than looks so it really doesn’t matter if they are really beautiful or not as long as they have an attitude to life that I can admire or relate to. I realize that is kind of vague, but I relate to people who think like me more than people who look like me.
PS. I’m with Kimberly on holiday cheer. I never listen to Xmas carols until at least June if at all.
Charlene said on...Holiday cheer, feh. I’m sure many Smart Bitches are now just reeling from the “joy” of Chanukah and are in post-holiday grouchiness.
And Joss Whedon needs to be cloned.
Candy said on...No time to compose a detailed reply, but holy damn I want to. At any rate, I think that by and large, the majority of romances still reflect a lot of the fucked-up expectations we have for women. So many of the so-called kick-ass heroines I encounter are barely capable. The author tells us over and over and over that they’re good at what they do, but what we see instead is quite different. There are a number of reasons for this, some of them cultural, and some of them based on the nature of storytelling (fucking up = conflict = fodder for plot).
OK, back to swotting for Contracts, but I’ll try to write something...tomorrow?
I think the “beautiful” aspect can be handled one of two ways. Does the author go at length to describe the heroine’s beauty - nose shape, eye color, hair style, what-have-you...or is the heroine’s beauty judged through the eyes of the hero (and thereby a reflection or function of his attraction to her...no matter what her physical attributes make up)?
Part of the “fantasy” aspect of romance is the concept of attractive people finding each other and a good relationship that is both emotionally and physically fulfilling. And within the context of the fantasy, the characters are, if not fit or ideally “beautiful” then they are--or come to be--comfortable with themselves, and attractive to the other person, and it is the attraction that creates the beauty, and the love and wholeness that the characters experience with each other, that expresses that out into the world of the story.
My word? own52. The romance heroine’s credo. I own my beauty and it comes from within. I am beautiful, even if I’m a hatchet-face, because I’m in love and someone loves me back.
TracyS said on...“there’s a heroine who undergoes a makeover as part of her evolution towards her happy ending”
Gah~that makes me crazy. I’ve got nothing against the chubby heroine starting to eat better to get healthier~hey THIS chubby heroine (ask my hubby! I am a heroine, really!) needs to get healthier. BUT, BUT, BUT we don’t need to see her loose 40 lbs before she gets her HEA. That makes me crazy.
One book I read had the heroine getting lasik surgery so she didn’t have to wear glasses anymore. She decided and did this in like 3 days?! Really. Glasses are that ugly? sheesh.
I’m chubby and I wear glasses, it’s amazing I’m still married. *rolling eyes*
Very good question. The short answer is that obviously romances in which heroines get all made over and prettied up in party gowns are furthering a stereotypical view of beauty. But it’s a holdover from doll playing in our childhoods, and that’s why it is so appealing.
In plenty of romances the good looks of both characters are described as mostly in the eye of the beholder. Yes, chiefly in historicals, there is a nasty tendency to make the heroine the prettiest girl in the room. And the hero always is the tallest. But only very occasionally are romance characters described as outside the norm of TV star attractiveness, i.e. as wildly beautiful or incredibly ugly. The women are normal and so are the men, the better for the readers to bond with them. And lots of times, the heroines talk of feeling that they need to lose some weight. The fairy tale aspect comes in because they actually don’t need to, whereas in real life, lots of us do.
But are romances perpetrating stereotypes of beauty any worse than, say, magazines do? I just read an issue of a magazine meant for over-40 women and realized that there was not one single photo in it, whether in editorial or in ads, of a woman who was plump. Not fat, not morbidly obese, just plump--like ordinary women who get to age 40 via a couple of kids, long commutes, and stressful workdays. So the fact that romances take cognizance of women’s very real feelings of being imperfect, and arrange for some fairy dust now and then, well, I don’t mind it. Because in the world around us, we always see a skewed version of reality.
And I do agree that the kickass heroine is changing the fitness requirements of the romance heroine. We’re now fantasizing that we are masters of arcane Asian fighting techniques. Is this an empowerment fantasy (and thus good) or just another version of setting the bar too unrealistically high (and thus bad)???
I think that the sexist tropes (the oddly smooth legs, as you say) are the result of this overall mindset. It’s not that the authors are thinking, “Muah ha ha ha ha! I’m going to put forth a ridiculous standard of beauty and help the patriarchy keep the wimmens down!”
It’s that the writer’s own standard of beauty is caused by/derived from contemporary standards. I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with is that the author needs to say it. To draw attention to it. I realize that “telling details” are important in the crafting of fiction, but hairless legs in Regency England is not a telling detail.
Part of the problem is that romances, in general, are fantasy. Just as no one ever farts during sex in a romance novel, they will have bodies that are very close to contemporary standards of beauty, even if those standards are utterly unrealistic.
That’s where Romance, in particular, can and does come under fire. There’s a lot of sex in them thar books, and if you’re going to talk graphically about people’s bodies in an idealized way, you’re going to write images of idealized bodies; and in that way, unintentionally, they become part of the parade of Professional Bodies we see on TV.
----------
sidebar:
“Professional Bodies” is my new term for actors. Most of the men and all of the women are required to have good bodies. That is their job. They hire teams of employees and freelancers to help them, and they spend their days doing things to sculpt and refine themselves into these artifacts of perfection. Being a body is their job. The rest of us have other jobs.
---------
I’m more offended by the books that try to subvert the stereotype, but do the Utter Fail. I read a light, fluffy supernatural romance a few months ago wherein the heroine was annoyed with her breasts because they were too big.
If her ample bosom is an issue, I want to see that on the paper. I want to hear about the strap-marks on her shoulders, or at least about the price of high-quality bras. Or about the uncomfortable feeling of having men stare at her tits instead of talking to her face. What I don’t want is for the character to say, “My breasts are too big” but give no explanation how they make her unhappy.
I’d start to feel bad about my makeover if it wasn’t for the fact that the happiness derived from it has nothing to do with attracting the attention of morons. Though being prettier AND still smarter than them gives me warm and fuzzy feelings. I guess stupid people forgives pretty bitches better.
“I want to hear about the strap-marks on her shoulders, or at least about the price of high-quality bras. Or about the uncomfortable feeling of having men stare at her tits instead of talking to her face>“ I’ve experience all of that and it is very uncomfortable. Or how about having a boy give you the nickname “boom boom” in Jr. High? Oh, so fun!! (serious sarcasm there)
And seriously, how much more material is there in my DD bra? Surely, not $10 worth!!
“My breasts are too big.” is just shorthand for “Look at my big breasts.” Obvious, and smug, and stupid.
But let’s be fair. Some women and some romance writers are obvious, smug, and stupid.
Luckily, this isn’t the best we can do.
Ri L. said on...I don’t read romances, I just work in publishing, so I don’t really know how qualified I am to hold forth on anything romance-related.
This is probably off-topic, but I find that not only is there the tendency for the women to get made over physically, there’s also a great sense of making her over emotionally. What of the romances where the story takes a woman and settles her into a subservient role raising the hero’s children?
I’m continually disgusted by the array of Home and Family romances that Harlequin barfs out every month, because I think they effectively declaw the heroine by relegating her to this sterotype. Every one of them seems to involve each woman, as Doris Lessing put it, “sinking without a murmur into marriage and motherhood.” Sometimes they have kids, sometimes they don’t, but each one’s goal seems to be A Man (usually another damn cowboy) and A Family. Now I realize I can’t go “OMG, the heroine’s goal is to catch a man!” when criticizing romance, but it seems that these stories focus on the family at the expense of the woman. Plenty of women lead successful and fulfilling lives as single mothers. Also, it’s entirely possible, isn’t it, to fall in love and carry on as an independent woman? There are plenty of strong, independent women who fall passionately in love and get married with no intention of ever raising a family.
I know my argument is limited, because I’m uninformed, but it just makes me seethe to see this presented, affirmed, and celebrated as a woman’s ultimate goal.
or is the heroine’s beauty judged through the eyes of the hero (and thereby a reflection or function of his attraction to her...no matter what her physical attributes make up)?
Yes! Yes!! YES!!!
This is always the way I come at it as a writer, because this is how I’ve come at it as a person. Often the man I’m all hot and bothered by isn’t HOT by the standards of GQ or Models Inc., but because we have a connection, he’s DAMN HOT to me. I can even step back and analyze his looks. I “know” he’s not the most beautiful man on the planet. But I also know that he’s working for me, and that’s all the matters.
Robin said on...I think the genre is just too large to make a value judgment as to its propagation or subversion of patriarchal standards. I think we could line up many books on both sides of the debate, and many of those we would argue over as to what side they really belong on.
The passage in the article that really caught my attention was this one:
Valenti, meanwhile, posits that a commercial and tabloid culture that encourages women to obsess about their so-called imperfections is a dangerous distraction from bigger issues, such as the rollback of reproductive rights in the United States.
Beyond the notion of beauty in Romance heroines IMO lurk questions about other gender issues in the genre—those things that are idealized, those that are scorned, those that are ignored. Not, of course, that we should be trying to politicize the genre—just that maybe it wouldn’t hurt to look at all the ways the genre is already politicized, often without our noticing.
Tracey, it’s not the fabric, it’s the engineering. In my experience, buying a bra that’s exactly the same in all sizes won’t guarantee a good fit (I’m a DD/E). What I pay for is quality of cut and fit.
And yes, I did write a heroine who was big-breasted and enjoyed it...sometimes. Other times she complained that she needed special equipment to run anywhere, and that no one ever talked to her face.
As for beautiful heroines, I don’t personally mind them. But just like the gal with the big boobies, I want to know how this affects her life. You can scorn all you like, but beauty comes with a rough as well as a smooth side.
A beautiful woman can never expect anyone to credit her with intelligence, and she can’t really hope for much in the way of male friendship, either. I’ve written two very beautiful heroines: one whose beauty attracted the vampire who killed her, and one who used her looks to become a courtesan. They didn’t live normal lives, and their looks were a big part of that.
So, I don’t mind a beautiful heroine, but I do mind if it’s gratuitous.
Cat~ know know, I know, I just like to bitch about it. LOL I hate paying so much more for a bra just because the genetics in my family = gigantic boobs.
Ri L. - thank you, thank you, thank you. It’s nice to know that I am not alone, I don’t understand that type of book either. I also don’t understand the appeal of the “ready made family” at all. I’ve read several where both the hero and his kids treat the heroine like crap all through the book, but it’s ok, they’re her family now. She’s miserable in her magical, wonderful family, but she’s a better person because she’s not alone. Barf.
Can anyone recommend books where the happily ever after does not include children (by choice)? The only one I know of is Bet Me by Jennifer Crusie.
SandyO said on...Maybe that’s the reason I prefer historicals. In my feminist brain, I can justify the beauty seeking the gorgeous guy, marrying and having many children. In the past, that was the basic job of the upper class woman.
I don’t mind the atractiveness of the hero and heroine. To me, in a book, it’s just the quick shorthand for the first physical attraction. Besides, it is a fantasy.
But in general, it’s the way media (books, movies and tv) portrays women. rant on/ On TV, I heard plenty about the “strong female character” of Sydney Bristow on Alias. I found her to be the writers/producers’ Stepford doll wet dream. /rant off
And finally, Joss Whedon is a God.
Rae said on...I think the reason that I love romance so much is that you are using your imagination, and generally speaking most romance authors really allow us to use our imaginations. While they might have an idea of what our heroine looks like in their head, most don’t give SO much description of the heroine that I feel like I could pick her out in a line-up. It’s up to me more than anything, so while my heroine may have red hair and freckles which stand out a lot in the book, the body shape tends to be left a bit more to the imagination, so rather than imagining Nicole Richie in a wig, I’m imagining someone a little closer to myself (okay, not my whole self, because I would like a couple pounds shaved off in my fantasies).
That’s really one of the reasons I prefer books to other forms of entertainment, I get to put myself in the role, rather than feeling bad for eating that popcorn with butter while I’m watching a film with a size-zero heroine, or just generally feeling bad about myself while seeing almost any other news or television show that features the sticks of society that I (sometimes) wish I looked more like.
It really depends on the book. Some are crazy subversive. Some are crazy patriarchal. I like to think that there are lots of subversive ones going on, but that could just be me not reading any of the reactionary ones.
As for beauty, I don’t mind beautiful heroines. The world is full of beautiful women--I see ‘em all the time.
This question bothered me a lot in grad school. All the Feminists said romance=bad for women. Romance readers and authors content that in romance the heroine always gets what she wants, etc. so they are actually quite feminist in nature. But no one had ever stood in the middle of the road and taken a fair, thorough look at both sides. Feminists haven’t read romance and romance readers and authors haven’t read much if anything in the way of academic feminist critiques. So I stepped up and did it.
I did my best to remain unbiased (although I recognize this is never truly possible). I did an in depth reading of 10 novels of different subgenres, all of which had made the NYTimes extended bestseller list. Good research looks at what the public is consuming the most rather than a few books I picked off some shelf and no romance reader has heard of.
Here’s what I found: yes, she always wins and gets what she wants, yes she is powerful, and yes she is her own person. But when you look deeper, it’s a different story. Sure she gets what she wants, but you have to examine exactly what that is. Often, she is happily absorbed into his world. In historicals she always moves into his house (accurate, but not feminist) and even in comtemps she often begins to move in his world rather than him moving in her world. Sure she’s powerful, but where does she get that power?? In Kenyen’s Unleash the Night, the heroine becomes more powerful but does so at the hands of a man. And the sexual encounters were damning. She is often “possessed” by the man, often this is expressed with that words specifically.
There were of course limitations to the study such as a small sample size. There was also no erotic romance, which I would like to study more. But judging from my personal reading, these findings don’t seem to be anomalous. But perhaps it’s just me.
I do agree that romance is becoming progressively more positive on the female/male portrayal front, it still has some room for improvement.
pennifer said on...If you want more proof that Joss Gets It (although I don’t know that many people here need it), check out the speech he gave when he was honoured by Equality Now, an organisation that works for human rights for women.
I’ve watched this repeatedly, and I still get teary towards the end.
Say, Lindsay--any chance you’d be willing to share that paper with the rest of us romance scholars? It’s probably too late for the PCA conference in San Francisco, but there are a few of us out here who’d be very interested in reading it and talking about it! Let me know, or get in touch with Laura, Sarah Frantz, or the rest of the Teach Me Tonight / RomanceScholar crew--
Let’s face it, the youth-and-beauty combo is still largely the norm in romance heroines. Little by little, that’s been changing...but only little by little.
Quite frankly, I’ve never seen anything even remotely redemptive about the introduction of “kick-ass” heroines. They represent yet another impossible-to-meet ideal . . . and, even worse, often conjure images from those sexist fantasy covers someone here just recently described so well. (Hell, I would’ve paid one of Anita Blake’s 3,284 were-nemeses to take her the fuck out. Except, uh...well, they weren’t real.)
When is the genre going to have done with ALL these freakin’ caricatures and start embracing just plain ordinary and flawed “broads” whose attributes are genuinely admirable? Intelligence, sense of humor, compassion, courage, joy in sensuality, etc. etc. have infinitely more appeal than large mamm’s and lightning-fast Ninja moves or trigger fingers.
Is it just me? I think romance objectifies men as much as women, perhaps boiling them down to their “parts” on an even more marginal (or maximized) level.
I don’t think that the power struggle between men and women has anything to do with fantasy, and if anything, romance novels level out that playing field in a way that makes it seem possible that a man and woman can truly understand each other, when in all other aspects of media, the opposite is going on.
I think it’s funny that feminists pick on romance novels as the scourge, when films like Knocked Up are blockbusters.
I sometimes wonder if feminists are afraid to take on what men really think about women, and instead turn their wrath on what women think about women.
And SBSarah, your comments re physicality, wrinkles, pubic hair, reminds me of an article by Naomi Wolfe, The Porn Myth, in which she states that the effect that the porn industry has had on our culture has not been what the feminists of the 60’s so feared (that men would become sexually raging beasts with no self control), but rather a more subversive destruction of the expectation and ideal of what a Real Woman is, in that real sex with a real woman has simply become bad porn.
I think I reached the “end of civilization as we know it point” when I read about women getting plastic surgery on their vulvas because their “nether lips” weren’t attractive enough.
WOMGWTF? Attractive enough for what? Or better question, for whom?
As far as attractive vs. non-attractive heroines, sometimes it’s simply a plot device and if the author handles it well, it can advance the story. If it’s just lazy writing, the reader will know the difference.
It’s not the fabric, it’s the engineering. In my experience, buying a bra that’s exactly the same in all sizes won’t guarantee a good fit (I’m a DD/E). What I pay for is quality of cut and fit.
Cat, have you tried Natori? When I, let us say, blossemed into a D-cup that was the ONLY brand of bra that worked for me. They’re hella expensive, but worth every penny IMO.
Mary said on...This country has become obssessed with useless celebrities, youth and beauty. Talk shows and reality TV stress that a make over from simple to extreme will guarantee happiness. Women are shown as victims over and over - I don’t watch Oprah. And that’s not counting that morality and vulgarity have become the norm with shows like I love NY, Tea, pairing the geeks with brainless beauties, the smartest model, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. This is what our children are watching. This is what they are learning. Forget about manners, there are none. A slap or catfight gets more attention. Come on, throw up on TV. So turn off your TV or change the channel, don’t buy celebrity rags. Who wants to see another crotch close-up of Britney? And as for romance, I buy for enjoyment. I don’t feel brain-washed or exploited by their characters or stories. I can discern that it’s fiction whether the heroine is a sweet, virginal heroine or a kick-ass. But I might get frustrated, forcing me to throw the book against the wall...I’m doing that more and more because I’m out of patience with this endless supply of annoying, super-women.
As to men exploiting or victimizing women...oh please...gagging. I’m not even going to defend that point, that’s so 60’s. No one exploits me, men or women, I don’t let them.
Chris S. said on...I’m with Xandra and Kalen who mentioned upthread that in many a well-written romance the point is not that the Heroine and Hero are attractive, but attractive to one another. Of course, the key to that is ‘well written’, but that’s true about every qualifier.
<>
Ha! I tend to agree. And then, of course, we mustn’t forget anal bleaching (so your bung-hole and the crack between your cheeks isn’t so darkly pigmented) and fast-lipo on the pubic mound (so you don’t have a fat crotch), and cutting off the middle part of your toes and having the tips reattached so your toes are shorter. Wow. Scary.
<
My, God...yes. You can barely read a romance novel these days without reading about how the guy is blessed with a super-schlong. Amazon has whole message board threads devoted to “Well Endowed Heroes.” ‘Cause that’s all that matters about a guy, after all: the size of his penis.
<
I’d like to refer you to MANY of Nora Roberts’ books. The reason I enjoy her books so much is because she writes about grown-up characters with the attributes you describe, plus a few others like maturity and competence and the ability to deal with what life throws at them. Sure...some of the situations in (some of) Nora’s books are a bit...fantastical. But that doesn’t detract from the basic appeal of the characters themselves.
<
Nora’s In Death series. I’m sure that one day...in the far off future...Eve and Roarke will have children. But in the meanwhile, children are not part of their HEA and yet, hey...they’re still happy.
<<“there’s a heroine who undergoes a makeover as part of her evolution towards her happy ending”>>
Nora Roberts’ MacGregor Grooms heroine Naomi Brightstone did this, but it’s one of the reasons she remains one of my favorite heroines. She didn’t change for a man. She changed before she met Ian. She changed because SHE wanted to...because she wanted to stop being so shy and so frumpy. She did all the work: started exercsing, lost weight, changed her clothing, redid her hair and makeup, practiced being more assertive. It wasn’t about “landing a guy.” It was about self-discovery and taking proactive measures to be the best person she could be. I think that’s admirable.
It’s not the fabric, it’s the engineering. In my experience, buying a bra that’s exactly the same in all sizes won’t guarantee a good fit (I’m a DD/E). What I pay for is quality of cut and fit.
Cat, have you tried Natori? When I, let us say, blossemed into a D-cup that was the ONLY brand of bra that worked for me. They’re hella expensive, but worth every penny IMO.
Try getting into the larger cup sizes, like FF and G--even J. Most lingerie stores don’t even carry those sizes. I just spent $450 on three bras last month, and only one of them was anything other than utilitarian. Big boobs are a freaking curse.
That said, I love physically flawed characters, both men and women. Scars, crooked teeth, or even just not goodlooking. I’m currently writing a villain who lost half his face to a mace and I have to constantly resist the urge to have some woman see past his disfigurement and cure his evil ways with her luuuurve. Maybe in another book.
Yvonne said on...Think about it, we, as women are still creating ourselves very much like teenagers. We need ways to explore different possibilities of self that are not destructive. Additionally, we can use this same outlet as a way to experience feelings, emotions and ideals that we would never entertain in our regular lives.
I was thinking about historicals and particularly regencies as having strict structures within which these things are explored. However, it occurred to me that as much as we think things have changed, we are still operating within VERY strict social structures that regulate the way we act, dress, think and do.
Never forget, it is fiction and is read for enjoyment.
Personally, I like romances where the heroine just IS until something specific catches the hero. She has a sexy voice or a decadent laugh. I’m currently devouring “The Serpent Prince” and the hero was snagged by the heroines smile. Since this is my particular secret power, I can identify.
“I’m going to get medieval on the next giant inflatable snow globe I see.”
Kimberly Anne, I got this mental picture of someone using a battleaxe on one of those stupid snow globes and I almost hurt myself laughing. I so want to drive around suburbia with a blow gun.
darlynne said on...… and the question of whether the reader relates to the hero, the heroine, or both, or neither, still hasn’t been resolved in my debating mind.
I posed a similar question on another board. Could or would we, as female readers, embrace as enthusiastically a heroine as fundamentally flawed as the hero who engages in the behavior we often read: hard drinking, frequent, meaningless or anonymous sex, emotional unavailability, and the ever-popular major dose of angst.
Not surprisingly, the answers revealed that we relate to the heroine and lust after the hero. We need the heroine to be sympathetic, approachable, desirable--attributes we want people to see in us--because she is us on some level. She isn’t just the narrator or provider of the POV, we relate to her and, therefore, she must be closer to an appealing vision of ourselves.
Hard edges, emotional distance and social ineptness don’t prevent Eve Dallas from being someone we really like, however, because of everything else J. D. Robb brings so expertly to the “In Death” table. Holly Hunter’s Grace Hanadarko, on the other hand, is in-your-face unapologetic about how she lives her life, which makes some viewers of “Saving Grace"--my favorite show--uncomfortable.
Dragonette said on...I agree with SB Sarah - that’s why I tore out the last few chapters of “Wishes” by Jude Devereaux. I loved the first part, where they were walking on the wall, snapping green beans and eating apples, but heavens forfend that there should be a happy ending for a fat woman that doesn’t involve magically losing 60 pounds. *grrrr* And the one sex scene in the book? Came after the presto-chango. ‘Cause fat chicks aren’t sexy, dontchaknow.
I’m more offended by the books that try to subvert the stereotype, but do the Utter Fail. I read a light, fluffy supernatural romance a few months ago wherein the heroine was annoyed with her breasts because they were too big.
Oh, word. I read an excerpt a few days ago wherein a heroine bemoaned her full breasts and small waist. And, God damn it, her mouth was too full. Don’t you just hate that?
It drives me nuts. Judith MacNaught heroines used to make me batty, all that gleaming, innocent perfection.
I love to read about beautiful heroines who know the power they wield over men. That’s interesting. The other ones, the ones who have the bodies of porn stars and the self-confidence of aging spinsters make my blood boil.
There were a couple of Shannon Mckenna’s I read recently where I basically ended up imagining the heroine as a blow-up doll, so objectified was she by the hero. She was tits and an ass. It was both hilarious and alarming.
It’s the heroines that are idiosyncratic, who you see through the eyes of the hero who really stick. I still remember the slight imperfection of Submit’s teeth (Black Silk), Rachel’s silvering hair (To Have and to Hold). Jonna’s flattened mouth and the dimple that appeared when she was annoyed (My Reckless Heart).
The anodyne, paint-by-number heroines in their unrelenting and equally bland legion- who can tell them apart?
My question to Romance genre-bashers is: What is so scary about women having fantasies? Romance is female wish-fulfillment literature, as complex as that is for the women who read and write it. It’s not always politically correct, sometimes it’s poorly written and not terribly effective, but it’s ours.
The day I start seeing monographs examining male fantasy literature, (e.g., Fleming’s Bond series, Clancy’s entire ouevre, etc. ad nauseum) and lamenting how they set up unrealistic and harmful expectations for men, is the day I’ll take all the many many hissyfits over how dangerous Romance is for women readers seriously. And guess what? That ain’t ever gonna happen, folks.
Alice said on...I’ve got to say, I don’t think the problem is necessarily with the authors, or with the novels themselves. I complain about how the women in stories are always beautiful, but I read a YA book recently where the heroine was really, really ugly (The Fairest by Gail Carson Levine-it was pretty good!). She is ugly, but her personality gets the guy. It sounds nice, but all I could think was “What? That doesn’t happen! In life, ugly girls don’t get the guys!”
Maybe it’s just because I’m still in college, where ugly girls don’t get the guys, but I don’t know if guys ever grow out of that.
So what I’m saying is that maybe the heroines of romance novels are beautiful because as much as we are prepared to suspend reality to believe in amnesia and vampires, the reality of our culture’s obsession with looks is too well-ingrained to be suspended.
The problem, I think, is not with the romance novels, but with every part of our culture that values looks as the ultimate good. Think about fairy tales- it’s always the beautiful princess and the handsome prince. Even when we were children, we were told that looks were important. No wonder we always make the heroines beautiful now.
Romance novels may perpetuate stereotypes, but let’s face it- if a woman is old enough to be reading romance novels, they’re not gonna shape her anymore. We should probably be focusing on changing the value of beauty in children, rather than complaining about it in the books we read.
And while I’m ranting:
One of the reasons I think that children are often part of the HEA is that that’s just what many women want. All of my friends want children, and see that as part of our HEA. In fact, having children IS the biggest part of what I want in my HEA. Romance novels reflect that need, is all. It’s not their fault, and it’s not a bad thing. Getting married and having 50 kids is NOT acting subservient to men, but celebrating our womanhood and our power. Creating and raising children is the most powerful, beautiful thing anybody (including men!) can do, so why shouldn’t it be part of a happy ending? What’s wrong with it?
Also, I think a little bit too much praise is being given to ass-kicking heroines. Kicking people’s asses is not really a good thing, and although Buffy may teach people that women can be powerful, she also teaches people that violence and aggression are valued in society. I’d rather see a hundred men (or women, actually) that compromise, negotiate, or forgive as much as they can, than one Kill Bill heroine who asserts her power through vengeance and violence. Talking your way out of a difficult situation is actually more of an expression of power than just being able to drop-kick the villain.
Getting married and having 50 kids is NOT acting subservient to men, but celebrating our womanhood and our power. Creating and raising children is the most powerful, beautiful thing anybody (including men!) can do, so why shouldn’t it be part of a happy ending? What’s wrong with it?
Joss brought up “womb envy”, and I think he has a point. But part of me wonders why men would envy a part of us we value so little ourselves that we cannot celebrate it, or that we can only see as a tool of male domination.
And I don’t love the KAH so much, myself. It’s an equally impossible standard for women to live up to, and kind of a cop-out when she can only kick ass because she has super-powers or extreme ninja training. I would much rather read (and write) about mostly ordinary women who are strong enough and brave enough to force themselves to do things that terrify them when necessary. Even if they don’t knock a hundred vamps on their asses, that’s my definition of kicking some serious ass.
Yvonne - I’ve had that blow gun fantasy myself.
The day I start seeing monographs examining male fantasy literature, (e.g., Fleming’s Bond series, Clancy’s entire ouevre, etc. ad nauseum) and lamenting how they set up unrealistic and harmful expectations for men
I did a quick Google search, and there does seem to have been a fair bit of research done on the propaganda/political aspect of this type of literature (see here, for example). As for the effect on readers, I suspect that’s also been studied, for example this looks like it might deal with that.
I also have the impression that there’s been a vast amount of research done on the effects of television/film/video-game violence and viewers/players (see, for example, this report, and note that “the ability of individuals to discriminate between fantasy and reality” is also mentioned).
Creating and raising children is the most powerful, beautiful thing anybody (including men!) can do
Well, it may be one of those things, but I don’t think it’s the absolutely most powerful, beautiful etc thing. Are you really saying that creating a cure for cancer, working towards world peace, composing beautiful music that gives pleasure to millions over generations etc is really less powerful and/or less beautiful?
Phillip Larkin certainly wouldn’t have agreed with you. I think it’s worth remembering that childrearing can be something that many people (including many women) are not temperamentally suited for. In some cases, for some people, childrearing could be one of the most dangerous, harmful things they could do.
Oh, and re “In life, ugly girls don’t get the guys!” (where “ugly” is defined by some consensus at school) we can indeed get a guy. I know some people were quite surprised/shocked when I turned up at my ten-year high-school reunion accompanied by a husband and child. Not everyone has the same idea of what’s “beautiful” and there are men out there who, unlike Tad Safran, know that beauty is more than skin deep.
MZ said on...“Getting married and having 50 kids is NOT acting subservient to men, but celebrating our womanhood and our power.”
---------
Well...I agree it is a celebration of something alright, but 50?? Can she even walk? The poor woman must have knee problems…
Not surprisingly, the answers revealed that we relate to the heroine and lust after the hero. We need the heroine to be sympathetic, approachable, desirable--attributes we want people to see in us--because she is us on some level.
I always find that view--which I’ve heard lots of times before--both interesting and bewildering. Almost without exception, in my reading I want a beautiful heroine. And I don’t care what the hero looks like. I don’t have a clue why this is, and I don’t think it’s very feminist of me. Maybe it’s the fantasy thing--I’m a good bit taller than average and I have a great fondness for tiny little doll-like heroines.
And Laura V, I agree with you (except about you being ugly--sorry, your point is still a good one). I think it’s kind of obvious that men, like women, fall in love with something other than physical appearance. Which is why we call it falling in love rather than just physical attraction or lust or infatuation.
I see lots of happily married women who are, to me, physically unattractive. I specify to me because it’s all a bit subjective.
regarding “ugly” and getting the guy, etc.~~
Here’s an example: Physically, I am usually attracted to darker skinned men. Most especially Hispanic men. *sigh* My hubby is a blonde haired, blue eyed, fair skinned, Norwegian. LOL Obviously, his personality and character traits are what attracted me. And because of that I find him very attractive physically.
So, I think that “ugly” people (or what others perceive as ugly) do find someone because who they end up with is someone that is attracted to who they are and because of that finds them physically attractive.
Did I make any sense? LOL
The day I start seeing monographs examining male fantasy literature, (e.g., Fleming’s Bond series, Clancy’s entire ouevre, etc. ad nauseum) and lamenting how they set up unrealistic and harmful expectations for men, is the day I’ll take all the many many hissyfits over how dangerous Romance is for women readers seriously. And guess what? That ain’t ever gonna happen, folks.
I know Laura Vivianco offered some examples, but I also wanted to add that one of the most powerful works written on the impact of male fantasy lit is Male Fantasies by Klaus Theweleit. Also, feminist and cultural studies scholars have long been examining these issues, albeit from different perspectives. One of my grad school professors had done a ton of work on military literature and the construction of male identity and violence (I’ve never been able to handle Full
Metal Jacket after that class).
American studies scholars have been long-focused on the literatures of the frontier and the mythologization of masculinity and violence and its impact on both national and personal identity (one of the seminal, har har, texts is Richard Slotkin’s Regeneration Through Violence). And lots of work has also gone into the impact of pornography on male sexuality and sexual violence, as well.
I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest that the study of masculine identity is more extensive, but since the women’s and civil rights movements of the 1960s and 70s, and the huge influx of women into academia, lots and lots of intellectual resources have gone into the study of popular constructions of masculinity and the impact of that on everything from national identity to domestic violence.
As to men exploiting or victimizing women...oh please...gagging. I’m not even going to defend that point, that’s so 60’s. No one exploits me, men or women, I don’t let them.
I assume you’re talking about Romance exploiting women, but I just wanted to point out that in RL one out of three women have had to deal with some type of domestic violence, and many experts believe that the numbers will eventually reach one out of two. And while many women believe they could never be a victim of DV, 25 years of research has shown that there is NO profile to indicate or predict victims—not class, race, education, intelligence, social position, career success, etc. Also, the number one cause of death to pregnant women in the US is HOMICIDE, usually by a husband or boyfriend.
And in cases of rape, there persists a stereotype that women are “asking for it” somehow. It hasn’t been that many years since women actually had to show proof they physically fought against their attacker as an element of rape at trial. Marital rape exceptions were not successfully challenged until 1984, and some states still provide some sort of marital rape exemptions in their statutes.
So while I would never want to argue that fiction of any kind has a direct influence on individuals, it’s not, as many have suggested, without power. It’s just that most people who read the genre will argue for *positive* influence and dismiss the possibility of negative influence.
Anna said on...The thing is, its a fantasy. Thats why we read them. And because its a fantasy, many women are comfortable reading about, and being turned on by things that they wouldn’t tolerate in real life, for example rape fantasies.
So what is the purpose of romantic fiction? Is it there to entertain? Or is it there for social commentary and justice? Is it there to please people or to teach people? All romances do these things to some extent, but the genre is so broad its impossible to pin it down 100% accurately.
Ultimately I don’t think we can be mad at romance fiction for being unrealistic, since thats why we read it.
And since romance is FICTION, we can’t debate the merit of the genre, only the merit of the book.
People have to use their own brains. Which I’m sure we’re all capable of dong.
Laura V and Robin:
And yet, as far as I know, there is very little stigma experienced by men who choose to read male fantasy literature. Rather, these books and similar films are a celebrated aspect of our Western culture. While academics may point out the problematic aspects to these iconic representations of the masculine, in their day to day lives do men hear over and over about how they are being undermined and damaged by them?
The same cannot be said for women and Romance. It’s the difference in degree as well as in the general tone of the discourse that I was referring to in my post.
While academics may point out the problematic aspects to these iconic representations of the masculine, in their day to day lives do men hear over and over about how they are being undermined and damaged by them?
The same cannot be said for women and Romance. It’s the difference in degree as well as in the general tone of the discourse that I was referring to in my post.
I agree with you that there are differences in how women and men are addressed in different media. But one thing I’ve noticed is what I call the ‘sit-com effect,’ in which men are readily portrayed as buffoons—in a cheerful way, of course. Whether it’s their puffed up egos regarding their looks, or their inferior intelligence relative to their wives, or their emotional inadequacy when dealing with their children, I see it all over. IMO if you portrayed women like that, there’d be widespread revolt. But because men have traditionally been seen as powerful, and perhaps because they’ve appeared less open to talking about their vulnerabilities, they’re lampooned pretty regularly on mainstream television. So I think inferiority is communicated to men on a pretty regular basis in popular culture.
By contrast, what I think you see with women is what’s described in that Globe and Mail article—a fear of women’s sexuality that weirdly both demeans and mythologizes women. In terms of the commentaries on Romance, most of them are delivered by other women, which IMO reflects partly on the culture of self-improvement women seem always to be on. We’re socialized to interrogate ourselves, to critique ourselves endlessly, and to talk about our shortcomings. And because we’ve traditionally been disempowered, IMO there’s much more anxiety about how we’re portrayed in popular culture and how we portray ourselves.
Is that good or bad? I don’t know. But I do think that those who have historically held social power won’t automatically just give it up, which means that those who are struggling for equity have to be more vigilant about how they’re managing that progress. Which for me means recognizing a difference between the way women are portrayed and portray ourselves in popular culture and *talking about* those portrayals, even if that talk seems self-critical. Because IMO talking about what we’re doing in genre Romance isn’t about putting women down but about trying to work our way out of long term patterns of patriarchal preference—in other words, are we challenging or perpetuating the kind of stuff Schneller is talking about.
Men fuck up women, and women fuck up women even more.
Y’know, considering the fact that any of them maintain sanity in the face of all the mental baggage that’s foisted upon them from all fronts, it’s darkly amusing that women are referred to as “the weaker sex.”
Women are NOT the weaker sex.
I work for a couple of men who own a restaurant, and I see their business partnership almost like a marriage. John is the man. Bill is the woman. This doesn’t mean John is better or stronger or smarter. It means he has a sense of entitlement that Bill does not. While Bill works, John stands there and chats with him. While Bill works, John plays on his ipod. While Bill works, John reads GQ and thinks about buying a 50 inch flatscreen. While Bill works, John puts in his six hours, complains about how hard his job is, and then puts his feet up and reads the paper. Bill may not have a vagina, but he is clearly, CLEARLY a woman.
Women are strong. Throughout history they have always worked longer hours than men, and men have gotten away with it by claiming women’s work is worth nothing. And because it is worth nothing, men on the whole have only recently deigned to do things as valueless and demeaning as changing a diaper or washing dishes.
But there is a bright side to this. When I think about the vagaries of fate--fires, car accidents, cancer--I have no fears about my ability to get on with my life and care for my kids if my husband fell off a cliff. I know I’m strong enough. What keeps me awake at night is the fear of what would happen if I died and left my old man to deal with it all.
P.S. Robin. You are one smart bitch.
always24--There have always been 24 hours in a woman’s workday--how appropriate.
What was that about celebrating wombs and womanhood and feminine power by spawning 50 kids? (Power? Power to do what? Crash some state’s social services system? Crash the planet?) Did somebody really write that? (I can’t find it. This thread has alreay gotten WAY too long and analytical for me. I mean, lord, we’re talking about commercial fiction here.)
Back to that really, truly weird and frightening statement. Uh...are superbreeders drained down to husks all that glorious? Is recklessly, selfishly contributing to human overpopulation all that glorious? Are freakin’ painful, bleeding wombs all that glorious?
Ferdachrissakes, we’re talking about a common, biological function here. Problem is, people aren’t subject to the same natural regulation of that function as the rest of the animal kingdom. And that is the TRULY terrifying, bottom-line fact.
I must go. My brain is really twitching now.
P.S. Robin. You are one smart bitch.
LOL, kis; thanks. I keep trying to let it go, but I’m like one of those idiot moths and these discussions are like a naked 150 watt bulb (or maybe one of those halogen monsters).
Tam said on...I really enjoyed Eloisa James’ Regency romance about Josie, who is unfashionably plump and bosomy, and gets landed with the mocking nickname ‘The Scottish Sausage’ in her first season. (She’s also called a piglet by a reluctant suiter - the book captures rather painfully well the way that large women are open game for mockery...) She doesn’t suddenly and magically slim down; she’s still the same size at the end of the book that she was at the beginning. That was rather refreshing.
That said, the book cover illustration showed a rail-thin slender torso of a woman with no discernable breasts at all. Fearfully depressing.
Flo said on...We’re different. We compliment each other. That’s just damn fine.
It’s like anything out in pop culture. Where I may take it one way, a smartbitch here may take it another.
Where I may see one heroine as a waste of paper and pushing women’s rights behind 50 years another may just see it as silly stupid fun.
The only problem comes in when someone tries to apply something that was meant for fun and fluff to everyday standards.
Rachel said on...I’m reading a bunch of Georgette Heyer’s 1930s detective novels, and it’s noticeable how few details of the heroine’s (and hero’s) appearance are given. It’s really rather refreshing, and I wish more authors followed her lead. Unless a character’s looks are essential to the plot, leave ‘em out!
And even if they are essential, don’t make them the defining factor. I read Bet Me and was SO frustrated by Min’s constant focus on her weight—real “throwing the book across the room” frustrated. Until we as women stop buying into the consumer industry’s obsession with “beauty,” we’ll never be free.
I’m glad so many women are speaking out against the “we’re so powerful, we’re the ones with uteruses, having a child is the MOST IMPORTANT THING A WOMAN CAN DO!!!!one!” trope I keep reading in romance novels and elsewhere. Tell it to Klara Hitler.
Okay, I know that no one’s been commenting on this, but I feel obligated to respond to Charlene. Her mention of Klara Hitler actually reinforces my point that raising children IS one of the most (if not the most) important things a woman OR MAN can do. We need to do whatever we can to make sure we don’t raise a Hitler. Now, I imagine he was sociopathic by nature, but plenty of murderers and rapist got that way by inadequate mothering, either from mothers who neglected or mothers who smothered.
Yes, if you have a child, it may be a Hitler. But if you don’t have a child, you may be denying the world a Churchill, a Roosevelt, a Joan of Arc, a Steinem, or a Joss Whedon! As responsible, inspiring feminists, I am confident that whatever children y’all raise will be a force to conquer the Hitlers of the world.
I’m not saying that every woman should have a child. Laura is right; some people should NOT have children- perhaps Klara Hitler is an example. But they will, and how beautiful is it that other women can raise children that have 100 time the goodness that Hitler had evil?
12.19.07 at 11:17 AM |