FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON ROMANCE FICTION
Recently I occasioned to re-examine a blog post that I’d bookmarked some time ago, two actually. The first, by Kat Latham, and a second, in a guest blog post by Sara Megibow. Both make enlightened and persuasive arguments against detractors of romance fiction, in response to the typical negative feedback fans universally face, making the point that there is nothing inherently “anti-feminist” about romance fiction. Especially the modern variety. Both are worth a read, or a re-read if you’re familiar with them.
http://katlatham.com/2011/03/confessions-of-a-feminist-romance-novelist
Kat makes the valid point that: “Throughout a novel, a heroine’s character arc often involves her struggling with the expectations society has for her as a woman, and it can be heartening to see how others (authors, not characters) confront the issues I face.”
http://katlatham.com/2011/03/guest-post-by-sara-megibow-being-a-feminist-romance-reader/
Sara raised these points in rebuttal to those who compare romance to pornography for women:
“I maintain that healthy sex is an important women’s issue. Raising our daughters to have a thorough, healthy, self confident, realistic and safe understanding of their sexuality is important (incidentally, raising ourselves to be healthy sexual adult women is also important and…difficult).
Addressing the way-too-prevalent scars caused by rape, incest and other molestation is an important women’s issue. And having a mouth-watering sexual relationship with one’s husband or partner should be an important women’s issue too. Sexual fulfillment is a part of sexual health, yes? There’s nothing about sex that isn’t political and our brave and luminous authors are tackling these very issues right under the noses of potential readers who would snub them for it?”
BEYOND FITZWILLIAM D’ARCY
I agreed with both Sara’s and Kat’s posts and with most of the commenters, but it was a particular comment by “A. Lady” that prompted me to type a reply. “A Lady” says:
“I agree that the genre has improved in its gender politics, but a couple of things still grate on me. One is that even though the hero doesn’t have to have a personality disorder or be a rapist to be well-matched with the heroine, I do think there is still a preponderance (in historical fiction) [MACS NOTE: not exclusively] of members of the aristocracy or bringands/priates [sic]/warriors of some desccription [sic], which tends to re-inforce the stereotype that the hero needs to be socio-economically well-off or physically active and “tough” in order to be attractive. This is obviously not without exception, but when did you last read a historical romance where the hero was a clergyman with a fairly middle-of-the-road income who likes reading? Emphasising income or physical attractiveness is okay (hey, Jane Austen did it), but it does seem to indicate that there are no other models of masculinity or male attractiveness.”
MODELS OF MASCULINITY
While I’m as guilty of the next girl of swooning over the stoic and socially awkward Mr. Darcy, I have to say that all the feminine stereotypes aside, I think this is one thing romance fiction needs to seriously examine. Fantasies are well and good and serve their purpose, but where contemporary (I mean modern, as opposed to the sub-genre) romance fiction has come a long way toward addressing modern women, their shifting place in society, and issues of real relevance to women today, it pretty much ignores the impact these changes have had on our everyday heroes.
Here’s my comment to Kat Latham’s post:
“This is a great post and I’ve enjoyed the comments/discussion and agreed with all of it. I do want to pipe up here to say that A.Lady’s point about stereotypical heroes is extremely valid and the most important one so far. While heroines have changed a great deal and for the most part kept up with changes in society and mores, heroes definitely have not. I do think they have become more psychologically complex, and in that sense have improved. On the other hand, why can’t we read romance fiction with heroes who are not alpha-types? Is this really all romance readers want or will tolerate? Or are publishers for the most part afraid to deviate from this standard?
TRAPPED IN SOCIAL STEREOTYPES
I try in my own novels to make sure that while the heroes have some traditionally attractive qualities, they are either “fringe” alpha or not alpha at all – exploring characters that are introverted, intellectual, spiritual, insecure or even socially awkward geeks, for example. (Could this be why I’m not published yet, I wonder?) These are more relevant to today’s society, both for women readers and for potential male readers who perhaps can’t relate to romance novels because they CAN’T SEE THEMSELVES ON THE PAGE. Perhaps some of the vocal critics of the genre secretly resent the fact that so many women’s fantasies focus on rare or unrealistic stereotypes for men – ones they themselves don’t meet.
I would also point out that in some ways the world has changed more for women than for men. They are still trapped in their own social stereotypes, with all the attendant expectations to BE alpha, be providers and protectors, keep their weaknesses and feelings closed up, and dealing with that. Unfortunately for men, they don’t have the same dialogue and peer support that women do as they work these things out and renegotiate or even DEMAND that society accept these other, less stereo-typical attributes. Some of their worst detractors are other men, and it’s extremely difficult for men to go against the expectations and limitations of their own “group.” (As an aside I’ll take this opportunity to plug one of my favourite TED Talks.) It take courage to deviate from these expectations, and stereotypes in romance fiction do none of us any favours. We need to give men permission to NOT be alpha, and send that message out to society that they are still valuable and attractive. ALL characters are more attractive if they are strong and self-sufficient and have spunk. They are also more attractive if they are sensitive, caring, expressive of their true feelings and well-groomed. DUH. But we don’t have to distort reality or exclude real human beings in order to satisfy our craving for love stories with happy endings.
REAL MEN VERSUS ROMANCE HEROES
And, in that way I have of unintentionally casting a net and catching all manner of flotsam in it, and afterwards remarking that there appears to be a pattern, I also dog-eared an article from the July 2012 issue of RWR (Romance Writers Report, issued to the organization’s members) by Betsey Prioleau entitled, “Talking the Lady into Love” Tips from Nonfiction.”
“To listen seductively isn’t as simple as it sounds. A man must be all in, mentally and emotionally engaged, and attuned to subtexts and unvoiced feelings.”
This article was meant to provide romance writers with information to help them “amp up a hero’s allure” by providing some hints about the types of language and behavior that succeed in making a heroine think about love (and lust); it also points to some interesting contrasts between real men and romantic heroes.
Without repeating the entire article, for those who are unable to access it for themselves, I’ll summarize the key points. Prioleau argues that a man’s attributes or skills that are most able to seduce a woman include the following:
- Men who are engaged and active LISTENERS
- Soothing SWEET TALK
- Amusing: DROLL, SILLY, ZANY, WITTY banter to make her laugh and relax
- ENTERTAIN & INFORM, intelligence, engaging STORYTELLING, witty banter, big ideas
- LYRIC: poetry, rhyme, rhythm, music of the soul, mesh of sound and sense (the romance of the singer/songwriter/poet)
Nothing about social status, titles, income, sports cars or biceps.
This list could be looked upon as yet another list of stereotypical attributes which most modern men would fail to measure up to. Certainly many of the men I know would not score so well on these parameters. That was my first reaction to it. But upon further thought, perhaps, if men MUST change to adapt to a new, feminized society, and to establish and strengthen their relationships with women, these are the characteristics that they should augment. We cannot ask modern men to be dukes, Scottish lairds or bucaneers, but maybe we could ask them to cultivate more of these attributes. At least the playing field would be relatively level, and who can complain about that?
“The brain can be the sexiest part of the male anatomy – if the man knows how to spin his smarts and stories with conversational charm.”
And, because why make something simple and short if you can make it convoluted and complex, I have one more piece to this post. Today, a fellow named Jeff has been working on a new patio here at the house, and, like many residents of this island, he is multi-talented. During a brief respite from his heavy excavation work, as he often does, he pulled out his acoustic guitar and sang a few old Dylan and Beatles tunes, belting out the lyrics across the landscape. The number that struck a chord with me today was, “Girl” by John Lennon. Curious, I searched up the lyrics of the song:
Girl, by John Lennon
Is there anybody going to listen to my story
All about the girl who came to stay?
She’s the kind of girl you want so much
It makes you sorry
Still you don’t regret a single day.
Ah girl
Girl
When I think of all the times I’ve tried so hard to leave her
She will turn to me and start to cry;
And she promises the earth to me
And I believe her
After all this time I don’t know why
Ah girl
Girl
She’s the kind of girl who puts you down
When friends are there, you feel a fool.
When you say she’s looking good
She acts as if it’s understood.
She’s cool, ooh, ooh, ooh,
Girl
Girl
Was she told when she was young that pain
Would lead to pleasure?
Did she understand it when they said
That a man must break his back to earn
His day of leisure?
Will she still believe it when he’s dead?
Ah girl
Girl
Curiously, I found the following comment from “Soma” attached to the post, only the most eloquent of the bunch, but telling, I felt. Are there voices we are not hearing because it is “political incorrect” to express these, perfectly valid, feelings?
“Was she told when she was young that pain would lead to pleasure? Did she understand it when they said that a man must break his back to earn his day of leisure? Will she still believe it when he’s dead?
To me this is the most profound line John ever wrote. I hear people saying all the time that “it’s a guy’s job” to do this or that, especially to earn all the money, and subtly or not so subtly people are telling girls that if a guy isn’t constantly breaking his back for her temporal well being then he’s not worth being kind to. Then some girls grow up thinking they just have to act sweet when things get rocky and they’ll prolong a relationship where the guy gives her his all. %45 of suicides are by unemployed men between 35-50 (about %2 of the population) because people don’t put any worth on them and then proceed to blame them for it. And there are many more deaths from men having stress related health issues because they’re too scared to take the “easy way” out. To me, this isn’t just John’s story, this is a story of gender bias that’s politically incorrect to address.”
For further discussion on related topics, read my Essay: What is it About Romance?
Well. Food for thought. What do you think? Do you agree that stereotypes of attractive masculinity as portrayed in romance fiction are harmful, outdated and discriminatory? Do you think they work against the ideals of feminism? Do you think these images of manhood contribute to the discrimination that romance fiction faces in broader society?
In closing, here’s John Lennon and the Beatles, singing Girl.