| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Schola
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1867
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| dick wrote: | | To me, the sexism/anti-feminism in romance fiction is best exemplified by one word, which occurs so often in romance fiction it seems it's required. And nearly always it's put in the hero's thoughts or words: "possessive" and its synonyms. It's usually the hero's first clue; the heroine nearly always reacts positively when she recognizes it. |
When I was in high school, I read a Harlequin that turned me off precisely because the hero whispers in the heroine's ear, "You're mine, _______." I found it really sexist. That was the year I think I wrote my term paper on feminism, which I was for at the time. 
Anyway, I don't really have much of a problem with it at all. I know men in real life who feel possessive towards their wives or girlfriends (though admittedly not in the larger-than-life way Romance heroes do), so it's something from reality and not merely fiction.
I confess, Dick, that I'm not sure what you've been getting at these past few days.  Are you saying that readers should react negatively to the heroes' possessiveness towards the heroines? Or that just because men react one way in a relationship and women react another way, then the relationship is sexist?
_________________
"To be in a romance is to be in uncongenial surroundings. To be born into this earth is to be born into uncongenial surroundings, hence to be born into a romance." (G.K. Chesterton) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Linda in sw va
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Tee"] | Linda in sw va wrote: | Regarding the terminology, I know you're right in this, Linda (as is Retrograde); but I was having a play with words there. I was trying to show that a spin could be put on any word or phrase. So, say women have that legal right (and we do), then what is the choice really when you come down to it? It's to keep or kill? Why is it alright to do that in the womb, but not outside the womb? Women should have the right to make decisions about their body, but a baby is not an arm or a leg or another of her attached body parts; the baby is a separate being with a separate heart-beating system. And that difference in belief (or not) is really at the core of the entire issue.
This discussion came about here only because of why romance authors don't include these types of scenarios in their stories. I believe that's due, as I said before, to the great divide between the two camps (as evidenced briefly in this thread by other posters). As of now, this genre would have a difficult time handling these issues on a consistent basis in romantic fiction. The better place for them would be women's or general fiction.
I'm not sure if I over-stepped the parameters in expanding on this particular subject on these threads. If I did, I apologize. If anyone wants to comment further, maybe the Wild West board would be the better place for further discussion (unless we're still within bounds here).  |
Tee, well I'm certainly not going to get into a moral debate over the issue and we obviously feel very different about this topic. I don't really think this is the place and you're right perhaps better left to the Wild West board if you're so inclined, which I am not, I honestly just get so weary of it all. I just wanted to clarify why it's called 'Pro-Choice', it's about having the right to choose. Some believe we should have this right and others do not. Many that are pro choice would choose to keep their babies but still support the right of another woman to choose differently.
Linda
_________________
"The Bookshop has a thousand books, all colors, hues and tinges, and every cover is a door that turns on magic hinges." ~ Nancy Byrd Turner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tee
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 4045
Location: Detroit Metro
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Linda in sw va wrote: | | Tee, well I'm certainly not going to get into a moral debate over the issue and we obviously feel very different about this topic. I don't really think this is the place and you're right perhaps better left to the Wild West board if you're so inclined, which I am not, I honestly just get so weary of it all. |
Agree with you totally, Linda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linda in sw va
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Schola wrote: | [quote="
I confess, Dick, that I'm not sure what you've been getting at these past few days. Are you saying that readers should react negatively to the heroes' possessiveness towards the heroines? Or that just because men react one way in a relationship and women react another way, then the relationship is sexist? |
I absolutely love possessive heroes!! I have to admit though I consider it a 'guilty pleasure', along with those yummy alpha heroes. Something that I enjoy reading but that toay's society sometimes tell me as a modern woman I shouldn't.
To be fair, I"d love to see a jealous or possessive heroine for a change, it's so very rare in romance land.
Linda
_________________
"The Bookshop has a thousand books, all colors, hues and tinges, and every cover is a door that turns on magic hinges." ~ Nancy Byrd Turner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Schola
Joined: 10 Jun 2007
Posts: 1867
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Linda in sw va wrote: | | Schola wrote: |
I confess, Dick, that I'm not sure what you've been getting at these past few days. Are you saying that readers should react negatively to the heroes' possessiveness towards the heroines? Or that just because men react one way in a relationship and women react another way, then the relationship is sexist? |
I absolutely love possessive heroes!! I have to admit though I consider it a 'guilty pleasure', along with those yummy alpha heroes. Something that I enjoy reading but that toay's society sometimes tell me as a modern woman I shouldn't. |
Ha! I love them, too! 
| Linda in sw va wrote: | | To be fair, I"d love to see a jealous or possessive heroine for a change, it's so very rare in romance land. |
Do you really think so? I can name several jealous heroines right off the top of my head . . .
All of Kresley Cole's heroines are just as possessive of their heroes. The heroines in Lisa Kleypas are the same; if it doesn't seem that way, it's because Kleypas writes in more incidents in which other men try to poach the heroine than those in which other women try to poach the hero.
There's also a comically jealous heroine in Karen Marie Moning's Kiss of the Highlander (so far, the only Moning I've read). She doesn't come off as ridiculous, though, but as easy to relate to. I mean, if a snotty saleslady were going after my man, I'd snap back at her, too.
Even when the heroine isn't portrayed as jealous, I think that she is. In Donna Lea Simpson's Awaiting the Moon, the heroine isn't half the spitfire the above examples are, but her otherwise neutral curiosity about the hero's sex life before they met is a dead giveaway that she does feel possessive towards him. He even mutters in frustration at one point, "Why do women always want to hear about their predecessors?"
_________________
"To be in a romance is to be in uncongenial surroundings. To be born into this earth is to be born into uncongenial surroundings, hence to be born into a romance." (G.K. Chesterton) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shilohmm
Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yulie wrote: | it just so happened that they did not meet the right person and were not comfortable with casual sex. So there is an element of choice (not to have casual sex) but there is also an element of chance (not meeting someone you are comfortable being intimate with).
|
Yah, the "not found the right person" thing works for me (Linda Howard uses it all the time, memory serves). That, to me, is deliberately choosing not to have sex for personal reasons. But I've run across heroines who wistfully review old boyfriends and wonder why they never had sex, where the impression is the fates or the gods or some mystical force has kept her virginal for the hero, and that I cannot handle.
| LizA wrote: | | For me, the anit-feminist sentiments are mostly in the subtext of the novels. Like the heroine next to always winds up in a situation where she needs to be saved, sometimes doing really stupid things which feel tagged on, like "get her into trouble so the hero can save her". |
But I consider those poorly written romances, with a TSTL heroine. I just read an old Linda Howard story, "White Out," SPOILERS where the heroine ends up getting the drop on the hero (who is a cop, but she has good reason to suspect he's a criminal), and the hero is terrified for fear she's going to release the bad guy and get done in. She ties the hero up while he's begging her to trust him and then holds them both prisoner until she finds a way to positively verify the hero's identity. She saved the hero's life earlier in the story, too, when he would have frozen to death without her.
He does all the fighting in the story, but it would be rediuclous to argue that she is there just to be rescued. To be honest I don't mind a damsel in distress kind of romance if she's presented as intelligent and strong in her own right - for example, if she's a scientist the bad guys want and he's a warrior there to protect her - but we do need to see her strength and not just hear about it. She doesn't need to punch anyone or to carry a gun, but she needs to hold her own in some fashion, contribute to the solution or whatever.
| dick wrote: | | To me, the sexism/anti-feminism in romance fiction is best exemplified by one word, which occurs so often in romance fiction it seems it's required. And nearly always it's put in the hero's thoughts or words: "possessive" and its synonyms. |
Heh. I love possessive heroes - and heroines, since I'm pretty possessive myself.  Sex involves binding hormones, after all, and there are solid biological reasons for both partners to prefer exclusivity. It's less true than it used to be, but for most of human history, a child's odds of survival were much higher if both parents were actively involved in the child's life and with each other. Even now, in some marginal environments, kids can have five or six times higher odds of surviving to adulthood if they have both parents with them.
As has been shown, the term "feminism" covers a pretty broad spectrum, but I don't know why one or both partners feeling possessive would be, by itself, antifeminist. If the hero goes on to compare his ownership of the heroine to his ownership of land or his dog and he doesn't get thoroughly trounced for it and change his mind by the end of the book, that I think should be called anti-feminist, but the concept of "mine!" itself doesn't bother me.
Hubby certainly knows that I think I have specific rights to him, a type of ownership, and that if he doesn't honor that, he's OUT.  And if he didn't feel the same about me I'd be disappointed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xina
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 6627
Location: minneapolis
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hubby certainly knows that I think I have specific rights to him, a type of ownership, and that if he doesn't honor that, he's OUT. And if he didn't feel the same about me I'd be disappointed.[/quote]
Off topic, but this reminds me of the Faith Hill, Tim McGraw incident where a female fan grabbed McGraw's crotch while he was signing autographs. Faith saw the woman do that to her husband and she ran out and confronted her saying something like, "someone should teach you some manners my friend!" I'm not a country music fan but when I heard that I had newfound respect for Hill. She was standing up for her hubby in no uncertain terms. cool.
_________________
"As you wish"
~The Princess Bride |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yulie
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1045
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shilohmm wrote: | | Yah, the "not found the right person" thing works for me (Linda Howard uses it all the time, memory serves). That, to me, is deliberately choosing not to have sex for personal reasons. But I've run across heroines who wistfully review old boyfriends and wonder why they never had sex, where the impression is the fates or the gods or some mystical force has kept her virginal for the hero, and that I cannot handle. |
Ok, if that's what you were getting at, I'm totally with you - it doesn't make much sense to me either, though I must say I've been lucky enough not to come across too many of those. Now, virgin widows are another matter...
| xina wrote: | | Off topic, but this reminds me of the Faith Hill, Tim McGraw incident where a female fan grabbed McGraw's crotch while he was signing autographs. Faith saw the woman do that to her husband and she ran out and confronted her saying something like, "someone should teach you some manners my friend!" I'm not a country music fan but when I heard that I had newfound respect for Hill. She was standing up for her hubby in no uncertain terms. cool. |
This is the first time I've heard this story - pretty funny stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kerstin
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1124
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yulie wrote: |
A significant proportion of the population does oppose abortion, and I'm not sure you're correct in suggesting that most romance readers are pro-choice. And maybe others who are pro-choice feel uncomfortable with having the issue in a romance, as I do. So I'm not surprised authors and publishers have stayed away from this debate. It's such a minefield: write a character who has had an abortion and feels fine about it and you alienate many readers and may be perceived as being insensitive to the actual experience of many women who have had abortions; make her conflicted about it and you'll be accused of being anti-choice; make her a bad person and you're anti-feminist on top of that. For an author, I see it as a no-win situation. |
While I agree you with you I'm surprised at the number of authors who have written romance heroines who got raped and find themselves pregnant who don't even contemplate having an abortion. I mean I can imagine a no more uncomfortable situation in a romance than a heroine that not only gets raped but also gets pregnant as a result. I don't want that sort of reality in my romances and I think most readers don't but anyway these books get written. So why not have a heroine have an abortion or at least think of an abortion (the most natural reaction in a woman in such circumstances). Actually I think the fact that these heroines don't even think of an abortion after they got raped somehow lessens the impact for me about the selfless choice they made. And because they don't appear conflicted at all about the situation it lessens even the impact of the rape and I wonder why authors bothered with all of that in the first place if they do not want to deal with the situation they created with a modicum of realism. And I have even seen good authors totally chicken out when it comes to these situations and create unbelievably sappy, weak and cheesy stuff that comes along as one great big soap opera instead of given us at least somewhat realistic heroine.
I can see why authors don't want the heroine to have an abortion but why do they want their heroines get raped then? Both things are extremely uncomfortable facts of life. Why have one thing and shy away from the other?
Kerstin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kerstin
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 1124
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LizA wrote: | . I am no body buidler, but I don't consider myself "weak". The whole emphasis on physical strenght seems very dated to me, too, as a lot depends on training. I am sure I could not take out a large guy, but neither could my brothers. A policewoman or soldier who has training can propably take out pretty much every man, except a hulk - and I am sure there are plenty of trained men who could not win against someone like that either!
Sorry for my babbling.... |
I go to a fitness studio regularly and though I'm really tall, even not at all muscular looking men with pot bellies, who are about my height, lift more than double the amount of weights than I do. The young, tall and muscular men in the studio lift about trice the amount of weights than I do. It is really most frustrating. And might I add: I'm not fragilely built. Men are physically a lot stronger than women. Men tend to forget that, that's why they ceased to help women carrying luggage and think we all can do the stuff that men used to do. But this is one area where we have to concede that women are really the weaker sex.
Kerstin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
maggie b.
Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 2252
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kerstin wrote: | | LizA wrote: | . I am no body buidler, but I don't consider myself "weak". The whole emphasis on physical strenght seems very dated to me, too, as a lot depends on training. I am sure I could not take out a large guy, but neither could my brothers. A policewoman or soldier who has training can propably take out pretty much every man, except a hulk - and I am sure there are plenty of trained men who could not win against someone like that either!
Sorry for my babbling.... |
I go to a fitness studio regularly and though I'm really tall, even not at all muscular looking men with pot bellies, who are about my height, lift more than double the amount of weights than I do. The young, tall and muscular men in the studio lift about trice the amount of weights than I do. It is really most frustrating. And might I add: I'm not fragilely built. Men are physically a lot stronger than women. Men tend to forget that, that's why they ceased to help women carrying luggage and think we all can do the stuff that men used to do. But this is one area where we have to concede that women are really the weaker sex.
Kerstin |
I have to go with Kerstin on this, most research supports it. 
For my part, I dislike strength being portrayed strictly as a physical issue. What about cleverness, strength of conviction, strength of character, intelligence? I like it best when the h/h bring equal but different strengths to the table. Makes it more of a partnership and less of a competition, imo.
maggie b. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shilohmm
Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kerstin wrote: |
So why not have a heroine have an abortion or at least think of an abortion (the most natural reaction in a woman in such circumstances). |
On a survivor's board I post to, about half the women who got raped aborted, and half didn't - many if not most of those who didn't said they never seriously considered abortion. I haven't read any contemporary romances where the heroine is raped and gets pregnant (although I did read one where she'd been raped in the past and aborted), but it wouldn't bother me if I did and the heroine never considered abortion. I wouldn't assume that meant the thought never even occurred to her, but I would figure it was something she never seriously considered.
If I read romance after romance with a rape leading to pregnancy but no consideration of abortion, that would bother me, but although I've read a ton of romances dealing with rape I don't remember any where pregnancy was much of an issue (I have some on my wish list that deal with that but haven't yet found them at a UBS or kicked out the cash for them at Amazon). Unless you count a half dozen Bertrice Smalls where the heroine ends up in a harem and is technically being raped (although it isn't generally treated that way), but is also being dosed with something to prevent pregnancy...
| Kerstin wrote: |
I can see why authors don't want the heroine to have an abortion but why do they want their heroines get raped then? Both things are extremely uncomfortable facts of life. Why have one thing and shy away from the other?
|
I've always assumed a fair percentage of rape romances were written to work out something the author had actually dealt with, either personally or through a friend, and in real life, few rapes result in pregnancy. I know tons of women who've been raped in real life; the only ones I've known who got pregnant that way I met on a Survivor's board, which is a tiny subset of all women who've been raped but often those most motivated to find support. So logically there'll be more people wanting to work through rape issues than through rape-plus-pregnancy issues.
| Kerstin wrote: | Men are physically a lot stronger than women. Men tend to forget that, that's why they ceased to help women carrying luggage and think we all can do the stuff that men used to do. But this is one area where we have to concede that women are really the weaker sex.
|
Plus where the disparity is greatest is upper body strength, so any time we're talking wrestling or grappling the guy's likely to have a considerable edge. Guys also have a weight advantage - wrestlers fuss about a ten to twenty pound difference, but when it comes to a lot of men and women the difference is often in excess of 50 pounds. With a lot of romance heroines in historicals, the difference between her and the hero is more likely around 100 pounds!
Skill and strategy can close that gap a bit, but the reality is your average man can overpower your average woman, and training is only likely to help much in a street fight situation, where there's considerable room to maneuver; if we're talking someone she knows who has her pinned before she realizes the danger, her odds are not good no matter what her training.
I still enjoy River's fight at the end of Serenity and I don't toss a book when the dainty romance heroine can take on any man twice her size in a sword fight, but I definitely know it's fantasy in both cases.
OTOH I reject the concept that "strength" should equal "sheer physical power." There are many different kinds of strength, and in the long run physical strength is not the most powerful or the one that'll get you furthest. I tend to prefer strength of character or strength of mind myself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LizA
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 140
Location: Austria, Europe
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I bow to your great knowledge on this topic - but my point remains that romance tends to overexaggerate the physical differences between men and women. In most romances, the women are really dainty, and the guys are huge. In real life, the difference is not so big. I know there are small woman and hulking men, but by writing these pairings over and over again a message is conveyed, which I personally see as anti-feminist.
| Quote: | | OTOH I reject the concept that "strength" should equal "sheer physical power." There are many different kinds of strength, and in the long run physical strength is not the most powerful or the one that'll get you furthest. I tend to prefer strength of character or strength of mind myself. |
I completely agree. In fact, I find it very odd that romances emphasis physical strenghts so much, as it does not play much of a role in our society. Unfortunately, I have come across a lot of weak minded heroines as well - esp. when matched with the hero.
| Quote: | | But I consider those poorly written romances, with a TSTL heroine |
So do I. But as those heroines aren't exactly rare in romancelandia, I still think they convey a certain sentiment. And I have read very well written romances (some of which I greatly enjoyed) only to realize aferwards how contrived some of the " trouble" was, or that it is only the heroine who always gets into trouble and never the hero.
And on a side note - I really liked that Howard novella. The heroine was very cool - but she completely stands out with her common sense! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linda in sw va
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 4707
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LizA wrote: | I bow to your great knowledge on this topic - but my point remains that romance tends to overexaggerate the physical differences between men and women. In most romances, the women are really dainty, and the guys are huge. In real life, the difference is not so big. I know there are small woman and hulking men, but by writing these pairings over and over again a message is conveyed, which I personally see as anti-feminist.
[! |
I find it an annoyance but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it anti-feminist. An exaggeration yes, but anti-feminist no, imho. Being tall myself I get tired of the small and dainty heroines but do very much enjoy the tall and muscular heroes. My husband and I are the same height exactly (5'10") and yet he is much stronger than I am physically, his hands are also larger and his feet are larger. He is built more solid with strong forearms, broad shoulders and more muscular legs. I will admit to a 'feminine' thrill at these differences between us, I am deeply attracted to him physically. I wouldn't consider that anti-feminist but rather enjoying the differences between us.
Linda
_________________
"The Bookshop has a thousand books, all colors, hues and tinges, and every cover is a door that turns on magic hinges." ~ Nancy Byrd Turner |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xina
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 6627
Location: minneapolis
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Linda in sw va wrote: | | LizA wrote: | I bow to your great knowledge on this topic - but my point remains that romance tends to overexaggerate the physical differences between men and women. In most romances, the women are really dainty, and the guys are huge. In real life, the difference is not so big. I know there are small woman and hulking men, but by writing these pairings over and over again a message is conveyed, which I personally see as anti-feminist.
[! |
I find it an annoyance but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it anti-feminist. An exaggeration yes, but anti-feminist no, imho. Being tall myself I get tired of the small and dainty heroines but do very much enjoy the tall and muscular heroes. My husband and I are the same height exactly (5'10") and yet he is much stronger than I am physically, his hands are also larger and his feet are larger. He is built more solid with strong forearms, broad shoulders and more muscular legs. I will admit to a 'feminine' thrill at these differences between us, I am deeply attracted to him physically. I wouldn't consider that anti-feminist but rather enjoying the differences between us.
Linda |
And on the other hand, I am smaller than most women. Does that make me an anti-feminist???? Every male is pretty much larger than me, but the small women in my family could never be pushed around by a man. They also accomplished many things in their careers even when it was unheard of women to hold those kind of jobs. So, we are small, but we are mighty.
_________________
"As you wish"
~The Princess Bride |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
