Feminism

by

Are Real World Heroes Hard Done By Romance Ideals?

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.”

romance-heroMODELS 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:

  1. Men who are engaged and active LISTENERS
  2. Soothing SWEET TALK
  3. Amusing: DROLL, SILLY, ZANY, WITTY  banter to make her laugh and relax
  4. ENTERTAIN & INFORM, intelligence, engaging STORYTELLING, witty banter, big ideas
  5. 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.

 

 

 

 

by

Professional Women, Love and Carl Jung

Recently I realized there’s a definite pattern to the books that I’ve been writing. In some ways I suppose it’s obvious, but since it’s quite unintentional, it kind of caught me by surprise.

The female protagonists, and often the males as well, in at least two of my novels, and probably another three that I’ve outlined, are adults in their mid-thirties to early fourties, and who have, for one reason or another, chosen to put their energies into their career at the expense of finding love. Sometimes their single-minded focus on their careers is related to their backstory– something that happened to them in their family of origin or in their youth. Sometimes their avoidance or downplaying of love in their lives is due to their commitment to their career, but often to their backstory as well. Sometimes committment is the issue.

These things tend to get muddled together, and often there are issues characters don’t want to admit to or confront. Personally, I think this makes for interesting values-in-conflict story-telling, just like Randy Ingermanson recently wrote.

When it comes to career, we’re talking about identity. For modern working women, this is a complicated issue. I discuss this a bit in the Essay elsewhere on my website entitled: What is it about romance? I also think that this pattern is not uncommon, and that not all women talk openly about this issue with their friends. Men possibly not at all. For a serious, career-driven woman to admit that she is looking for love seems like a cop-out. It’s something that should “just happen” but never take one’s attention away from the all-important career. It feels like they are pandering to outmoded “fairy tales” from the past. Perhaps today, with internet dating sites, the whole “mate searching” problem has become more open and explicit than it was in my day. Even if women are open about wanting to find love as well as have their career, I think it remains a challenge for modern women to be comfortable with the idea that they place importance on finding true love without feeling like their identity as a professional woman is somehow compromised, or that they will be perceived as not “serious.”

Identity in conflict with a character’s essence is how Michael Hauge talks about the character arc in a plot. It reminds me of Maureen Murdock’s writing in The Heroine’s Journey. It differs significantly from The Hero’s Journey in that for men, there is only the quest. For women, there is both the quest and the hearth–the desire and need to nurture and have a family. Perhaps these two goals have always been in conflict for women through the ages, but the Feminist movement brought it into the light. I happen to think that in these Post-feminist times (and I mean that like Post-Modernism, the Feminism hasn’t gone away, we’re just living in the historical wake of a huge societal change) the challenge is all the greater because each successive generation of women openly discuss the rights we’ve come to expect less and less. So much is taken for granted, that I think individual women often struggle alone to come to terms with these conflicting values without the rhetoric to guide them.

In Murdoch’s view, the Heroine’s Journey is not linear, but rather circular, or perhaps spiral. A woman may begin the journey by rejecting the “mother” and embracing the strong “masculine” role for herself, but she cannot attain her ultimate essence until she takes a little detour down to the underworld of the primal Earth mother, embraces her essential feminine, and returns, having discovered the source of her own power. Only then can she come to terms with her own mother, internalize the strong male and emerge empowered as her true feminine self, as both a “warrior” and a “mother” figure (whether or not she in fact is or becomes a mother). (My sincere apologies to Maureen Murdoch if I’ve completely mangled her ideas in my attempt to distill and condense them here.) This “coming to terms with the essential power of the feminine” brings to mind the re-told stories of Clarissa Pinkola Estes in her Women Who Run with the Wolves. There’s a Jungian link between these two writers, so the connection is no accident. In any event, the journey is a bit more complicated for women. Murdoch suggests that any given woman may be stuck at, or experiencing, a particular place along this path, which raises certain issues and puts particular challenges before our heroine.

This is how I envision my heroines. Depending upon their individual story, I try to keep in mind what challenge they most need in order to take the next step toward their own happy ending, and find a way for that to happen in my stories. You may or may not recognize Murdoch’s Jungian stages in my stories, but they definitely help me trace each of my heroine’s journeys.