Thanks to Arethusa, I read this humdinger of an article from the Guardian featuring two writers, Daisy Cummins and Julie Bindel, squaring off from their respective positions on the relative quality and contribution of Mills & Boon novels.
Daisy, who writes them, says that “The women who populate these books come from as disparate and wide-ranging economic situations as the women who read them. To say they are all mindless romantic illiterates yearning to be saved is lazy ignorance.”
Well, yes, sweeping generalizations about all women are not wise. One or more of us will beg to differ – especially those of us who (a) read romance and (b) bristle at the idea that we’re mindless illiterates. It is a lazy generalization that I’ve seen too much of, personally speaking.
Meanwhile, Bindel, who isn’t mad at the readers or the writers of the novels (who then is she so fired up about? The publisher? Mr. Mills and Mr. Boon who thought up the great business venture?) counters that, “My loathing of M&B novels has nothing to do with snobbery. I could not care less if the books are trashy, formulaic or pulp fiction – Martina Cole novels, which I love, are also formulaic. But I do care about the type of propaganda perpetuated by M&B. I would go so far as to say it is misogynistic hate speech.”
Bindel then delivers the final blow that made me wheeze and roll my eyes at the same time: “This is what heterosexual romantic fiction promotes – the sexual submission of women to men. M&B novels are full of patriarchal propaganda. I can say it no better than the late, great Andrea Dworkin. This classic depiction of romance is simply “rape embellished with meaningful looks”.
Oh, please. Can we all just take a deep breath? I’m the first to defend the genre and my deep abiding love of it, but we are talking about romance novels here. Are they a primary factor contributing to the continuation of the subjugation of women? Do women get raped because they read romance? Are they asking for it if their copy of “The Flame and the Flower” peeks out of their handbag? Is Roe v. Wade in the US teetering on the edge of being overturned because someone read “The Boardroom Sheik’s Remodeled Kitchen With a Virgin on the Corian Counter?” Hardly! Sweet weeping Moses in a steaming shit sidecar.
As Candy stated in her review of Dark Lover, the patterns of Othering and depictions of fertility are fascinating and revealing in romance novels, and certainly the genre as a whole is ripe for literature folks to uncover unstudied areas of narrative portrayal. But what does “The Roman Sword Master’s Giant Sword Of Mighty Wang” reveal about the reader and the writer of very alpha-male romantic fiction? Yes, it’s not fiction to my personal tastes, and I do find it hilarious that many writers and readers would really rather not have dinner with the buttnoid alpha bonehead hero they enjoy, but is it the end of the known world for all women that some women enjoy reading that particular storyline? Nice of Brindel to throw that caveat in there that she doesn’t blame the writers or the readers (Thanks!) but is the existence of romance fiction Keeping The Womyn Down?
Please. Women harshing on the freedom of other women to read and wank off to whatever fantasy they want is what’s Keepin’ the Womyn Down.
Hmmmmmmm anyone ever thought of a group read on SBTB? It would be interesting to have an in depth debate and some textual interpretation of an ACTUAL text. ( As in see here on page 84. Ok maybe its the nerd in me….)
Too often the discussion devolves into “That book didnt oppress me” without seeing how some of themes expressed in romance novels are reinforcing some of the same themes we find oppressive in our everyday lives ie she’s a bitch, she’s shrill, she’s emotional, she’s a ballbuster, she’s a whore.
Thanks to all the folks that have made a lively and thoughtful discussion. I, for one, think that for the most part romance is patriarchal propaganda. Want to see more propaganda walk into a toy store. There are so many examples of popular culture that reinforces patriarchal archetypes and stereotypes and many fewer examples of popular culture that tries to subvert it.
I may not be the most well read romance reader. But I know when I first came to the genre I was initially disgusted with the fact that the heroines consistently had one happy future. And that to be fulfilled and happy in a romance novel seemed to be you had to be married and having babies.
E asked for some examples of romance novels where a HEA with man and kids isnt the be all and end all. What does it say about the genre that the only well known author that is consistently subversive is Jennifer Crusie? What does that say about romance as a genre? What does that say about its readers?
Wow! All I can say is thank god I am a Gay man.
It’s like that old man in Fahrenheit 451. Just pile the books around me when you light the match…
I’m staying here.
Trumystique said “E asked for some examples of romance novels where a HEA with man and kids isnt the be all and end all. What does it say about the genre that the only well known author that is consistently subversive is Jennifer Crusie? What does that say about romance as a genre? What does that say about its readers?”
I don’t think it is just Crusie who has the nontraditional ending of the HEA heroine who gives it up for their hero. A lot of the romantic suspense writers have very strong females who find their HEA with strong men and don’t necessarily stop what they are doing. Add Allison Brennan, Kathryn Shay, Nora Roberts and Suzanne Brockmann to the list of authors whose females don’t fall in the traditional homemaker at the end of the book. That is not even touching the paranormal realm where their are many females characters that are not looking for that hearth and home of a traditional romance.
As a romance reader, I like that HEA. I like knowing all will work out. I know that it is fantasy. I’m nothing if not a realist to know that things don’t tie up as neatly as a book, if only. 🙂
Ann M.
Hey, we’ve yanked ourselves, by the shorthairs, out of the CLOSET with these damned books! No more secret gardens. Nuh-uh. (I, for one, am finally able to admit to something an ex-boyfriend once accused me of—being a woman who wants to be a gay man. So now I can say it loud: I want a weenie and I’m proud! (Or, at least, I can read about willy-nuckin without having to buy really bad, overpriced smut from a place riddled with glory holes.)
Moreover, fewer and fewer HEA’s entail wrap-ture in a domestic package. I actually take a perverse (or maybe not so) delight in refusing to let my heroines marry and immediately get down to breeding. And I know I’m not alone.
Oh, bugger Bindel. She’s firmly stuck in 1984, and may she rot there. Leaving aside her name-checking of Dworkin as the holy-of-holies, cherry-picking a couple of dire books does not an argument make. And that’s true of most her statements.
There are just some feminists who give ridiculous amounts of ammunition to the idiots who believe in the “humourless sex-negative feminist” stereotype, and I wish their retrograde rantings were not portrayed by the media as the feminist mainstream. Of course, Bindel is a regular columnist for the Guardian, so we’re stuck with her for the foreseeable.
There are about 15 more comments I wanna read but I have to get the kids on the bus in 10 minutes and then get on to work. So for now I’ll just say:
Ms. Roberts – That is far and away better than “I Write About Morons,”
which wouldn’t at all apply to you. *g*
If we scorn marriage and childbearing as beneath the educated, intelligent woman, whose responsibility do those tasks become?
Why is marriage tied to childbearing? Marriage is an institution that is rooted in power over women, and is also denied to many. Whether you’re married or not is still used to bludgeon many women, as an unmarried woman is an object of pity in society. Although I’ve been married for 17 years, and our love is still strong, if I had it to do over, I wouldn’t go through a meaningless (we aren’t religious) ceremony.
I read and participate on many feminist boards, and at least half the women have children, although are not necessarily formally married. Much of the supposed conflict between mothers and non is manufactured by non-feminists. Take a look at the throat-clutching articles about how guilty women should be feeling for whatever crises is going on today: these aren’t written by feminists, who have been instrumental in matters such as obtaining maternity leave, daycare, and allowing for homebirth.
As for staying home: the only person I have seen flat come out and say women should not stay home is Linda Hirshman. Most of the problems come from her tone, but a lot of what she advocates is actually helpful for women – that men DO THEIR SHARE of the housework and childrearing, which face it, is considered the purview of women by society. I’d be leery of staying at home because even if your marriage isn’t one of the 50% that ends in divorce, all it takes is one medical crisis or a layoff. A frightening number of Americans are a couple of paychecks away from being in trouble.
My husband recently finished treatment for lymphoma. Despite having insurance, we were 3000 dollars out of pocket for just the initial scans. Plus, he wasn’t working. Fortunately, we had savings, plus I was working.
This is a great conversation, and I totally agree with Trix and others about feminism getting a bad name with this sort of condemnation. Originally, feminism was about freedom. This sort of feminist critique of romance novels feels more about removing freedom and limiting choices, not literally, but through shoulds and shouldn’ts.
People often vilify those things they hate most in themselves, and I wonder if there isn’t a bit of that going on here. If these journalists aren’t comfortable with the full spectrum of their femininity, please, don’t take it out on romance novels!
Novels are a highly artificial construct. They’re like a play, with first, second and third acts and a nice neat resolution to end the story satisfactorily.
I ‘got’ a story the other day that I thought might fit in the Harlequin Presents line. Lord knows where it came from but I don’t question my muse any more.
So I asked a few Presents authors of my acquaintance what was the key to the line. “Fairy tales in a modern setting,” was the reply, along with some other great advice. These ladies are the best, you know, very generous and kind.
Nobody should take the books as anything but that. I love a stack of Presents if I’m ill in bed, for instance, or just tired and I want a break. What’s wrong with a good fairy story once in a while? And should the authors be taken to task for a reader who thinks this is all real and one day her prince will really come?
Clearly a reader who thinks that has more problems than an addiction to Harlequin romance, and the people who care about her should look a little deeper into her obsession, to find the root cause.
Like the kids who cite video games as their “reason” for committing senseless slaughter. That’s as much a symptom as a reason and on further investigation far more serious problems are usually discovered.
Simple reasons, simple solutions? Life is never that easy.
“Because for me the whole point is that everyone’s choices should be respected by everyone else. Otherwise there’s no point in struggling for equality, is there?
AMEN! I didn’t choose to stay home because it was my only option. I have a college degree and worked before having kids. It was the choice I wanted to make. Now that both boys are in school full-time, I am back to working part time. My degree is in Elementary Education, so I substitute teach now, which again is choice I made b/c it works for my family.
that men DO THEIR SHARE of the housework and childrearing, which face it, is considered the purview of women by society”
That is a really good point. Even though I stayed home for 8 years my hubby still chipped in with the housework. Since I was home I did most of it, but he would wash dishes if I was nursing one of the boys or throw a load of laundry in if he was heading for the basement anyway, etc. As far as childrearing goes, I married a man that is made to be a father. He loves to do things with the boys and I never have to ask. So, my experience may be different than a large percentage of SAHMs.
But again, I think it goes back to Azteclady’s quote at the top of my post here~respect all around. I think I just get frustrated with the automatic assumption that I stay home b/c I am uneducated and had no choice. I’m not saying anyone here is doing that, but I’ve run across it enough.
I have to say that the one book I received the most email about in regards to the ending was one where my heroine leaves my hero because he’s established, wealthy, set in his ways and she’s just found herself after being a homeless grifter and she wants to explore her own education, life, career, et. al. In the end, the hero chucks his jet-setting lifestyle, buys a house a few blocks away from the university she’ll be attending and begs her to live with him, though he promises not to get in the way of her pursuits. No engagement, no marriage, no kids…but definitely the right HEA for that particular book. And I did get a lot of mail on it. I’ve written similar endings, but that is dictated not by any political leanings, but by the characters themselves.
I’m a stay-at-home writer—best of both worlds, IMO. I’m very fortunate. I do not, nor have I ever found romance novels to be holding up romantic love as an ideal that must be accomplished to the exclusion of all other things. I grew up in a very traditional, Roman Catholic household and I was always encouraged to further my career and follow my dreams. If I got married and had children, that was icing. I’ve always looked at it as icing, not the cake and I’ve been reading romance novels since I was 13.
My point is, it’s not the novels we read that shapes us so much as the way we are raised and supported by our friends and families. It’s the difference between fiction and reality!
Maybe instead of us females berating each other for what we all think each other should want, we should instead start requiring more males to step it up and be real men, the kind of men that a strong woman could lean on if she wanted to.
Women are always trying to please men by fitting some impossible fantasy of perfection that the male oriented media shoves down our throats, whether it’s sheer physical perfection alone, or the super-woman who can look like Angelina Jolie, run a major corporation, take care of 4 kids and a 5000 square foot house, and then be a sexual olympian every night.
But perhaps we should put a little pressure on the men to try and attain a female driven genre’s idea of the fantasy. I’m not saying that men should start trying to be highland warriors or dark broody vampires, but there are obviously some common and attainable qualities in romance novels that women like in men. Strong, dependable, nice, loving, honest, considerate, protective, etc.
There’s nothing wrong with loving a man unless you’re loving a jerk. Females should stop nit-picking each other for their choices and make the men buck up. Far too many people are settling for sub-par behavior from men, and it has nothing to do with whether they’re reading romance novels or not.
Wow, I think I just sort of had a feminist thought.
What a terrific, reasonable, educated discussion. Thanks bitches, I’m enjoying it immensely. Yes we all want a society that values individuals for their individual choices. And yes, these books by and large posit romantic love as the greatest goal/life changing force.
But if I’m honest about what I love about romances, a lot of it is the ability to re-live the sexual and emotional high of physical/emotional infatuation. This is the fantasy for me. I don’t really want to return to the full reality of meeting and trying to connect and being rejected by a potential lover, but that incredible buzz you get from a first attraction is the reason I’m addicted to these novels. Am I alone?
“Too often the discussion devolves into “That book didnt oppress me”
without seeing how some of themes expressed in romance novels are
reinforcing some of the same themes we find oppressive in our everyday
lives ie she’s a bitch, she’s shrill, she’s emotional, she’s a
ballbuster, she’s a whore.”
This strikes a chord in me. I get very uncomfortable with the portrayals of any women other than the heroine in some romances, particularly of the M&B variety. They are so often portrayed and literally described as harpys, man-eaters, back-stabbers, just out for money and men. (And of course, wanting money and men is the worst possible thing, though you are inevitably rewarded with them if you are a good heroine and DON’T want them.) It’s very divisive.
One of the things I think tends to hobble these kinds of discussions is the framing of analysis of Romance novels within the context of “oppression” or something else negative. I don’t know if there’s a fear that if we look too closely what we’ll see is negative, or if we just need to reframe the parameters of the discussion so it’s not all about those things we find destructive or negative or unpleasant in the genre. Either way, I know I’ve had a number of pleasant surprises by looking more closely at certain genre elements and types.
In any case, IMO it’s too bad we get into this groove of “readers can tell the difference between fantasy and reality” because IMO that’s not even on the table as a point of discussion. To me this isn’t about fantasy v. reality or being shaped and influenced by books as opposed to family, peer groups, etc.
It’s simply a matter of the way in which our literatures serve as cultural artifacts, reflective of society, not in a one book to one person way, but in a general set of cultural values kind of way. Just looking at the evolution of the Romance genre we can see a gradual change in *some* values at work, whether it’s through fewer marriage/baby epilogues or kick ass immortal paranormal heroines or a number of other variable elements in the genre.
Personally, I’d hate to think that the best we can say of the genre or believe of the genre is that it’s good fantasy. That feels to me like a consolation prize somehow.
I think I just get frustrated with the automatic assumption that I stay home b/c I am uneducated and had no choice.
Yeah, I agree that this is a huge insult, as are those characterizations of successful corporate women as ball-busters. And how often is it other women who levy these judgments? Which just, IMO, is a reflection of the way we’re struggling with our own roles, and with what we think they do and don’t say about us as women and about our society. I tend to think that people are most prone to make condemning judgments when they themselves don’t feel particularly free and empowered.
Also, I think the women who are really caught in the SAHM/career vise are those who begin a career path and then pause to have children before trying to return. Many of the traditionally male-oriented careers are not welcoming to women who return after having a child or two, forcing women down several pegs while men or women who don’t choose families sliding by them on the advancement track. For some women, it really doesn’t pay to try to return to a career path, which is one of the reasons you don’t see women in greater numbers at high levels in certain professional environments. And why those corporate cultures don’t change faster or more authentically.
And in the meantime, women STILL do the bulk of the housework and the child care even when they are working, and as for family leave, women take far more time than men, even in those societies that have much more liberal family leave periods than the US. Whether it’s the stigma that still seems to attach to men who gravitate toward privileging family over work, or whether it has to do with similar penalties accorded upon return to men who take any significant time off, or whether there are other considerations has been debated by scholars and legislators.
But whatever it is, it definitely seems that whether women are dinged for wanting to be SAHMs or for wanting to be totally career focused or for wanting both, there are powerful social obstacles in place for ALL of us that are not evenly distributed across gender lines. That women have to formally marry to gain certain legal rights is also reflective of this conundrum (even in community property states for various reasons), because it’s still largely women who are disadvantaged socially and financially by divorce and widowhood.
When you consider that Romance is the biggest money maker of all genres, that it is 90% or more women writing it, and that it is probably 90% women exercising the buying power to make it such a juggernaut… well the idea of oppression sounds reather appealing.
Yes, please, with sprinkles. May I read about women who have sex in a way that appeals to women, and may I send some of my money to some women who want to write for me?
And I don’t give a damn what anyone says… it’s LOVELY to see SB discussing the issue. The article was citing out-dated materials to make an out-dated point.
It’s a completely useless piece of crap. THIS discussion is great… but the article that inspired it is C*R*A*P.
Do. Your. Fucking. Homework.
Until you do, sod off and get your lazy-arsed opinions off my back so I can concentrate on my dirty books.
Why is marriage tied to childbearing? Marriage is an institution that is rooted in power over women, and is also denied to many.
It isn’t in the greater context, but for the purposes of this discussion—the traditional HEA of the romance genre—they are tied together. I just hink it’s silly to read a book thats all about people falling in love—be it m/f, m/m, f/f, or more—and not have them end up together. And part of that “together”, in traditional m/f romance at least, is getting hitched and having children.
And it seems like fighting nature to me, when every other species on the planet has this fierce drive to pass on genes, and yet some of us (not all, to be sure, and not necessarily anyone here) look at procreation as something only stupid women would get stuck doing. After all, we should all be doing more important things like discovering uranium or running a country. Oh, wait, both women and men can do those things AND have kids? You learn something new every day.
foot55—I probably just put a size 55 foot in my mouth just now.
I think that path was inevitable because the Guardian article wasn’t looking at romance on a whole, but at Mills&Boons, a not even the entire spectrum of their published sub-genres, but one particular line. And then, contrary to a previous comment, ties it directly in with rape statistics:
As usual, Bindel the alleged feminists jumps on the bandwagon of centuries of critics eager to protect women’s vulnerable sensibilities from that exciting fiction.
And, admittedly, I’m not really invested in the kind of cultural studies critiques romance fiction lends itself so well to. Changing values in society, pop culture, all that stuff, don’t strike me as particularly “literary”, and that’s generally the sort of stuff I prefer.
But I’ll be happy to read some! It’s why I like SB so much: they do the heavy lifting with romance fiction that I almost never do, because I like to gobble down my patriarchal Lisa Kleypas and (old time) Linda Howard. 😉
For another suggestion on atypical romance authors, there’s always Emma Holly, although she might not be popular enough to count for some.
E asked about the kind of books I liked where men helped out and marriage/children weren’t necessarily part of the Happily Ever After…
Several people have already mentioned my two favorites (Nora Roberts especially in her J.D. Robb series and Jennifer Crusie).
I also really like romances by Katie Fforde – I think there is a nice career/home balance in her books and when there are multiple suitors the heroine always goes for the one who supports her career and personal goals.
Paranormal romances like those by Marjorie Liu, C. T. Adams & Cathy Clamp, and MaryJanice Davidson offer a number of strong interesting characters who don’t always choose to pursue marriage/motherhood (though I like that some of them do… I like to see some heroines pick that route and others not, based on their own character and the kind of relationship they get with their hero).
And Emma Holly books also spring to mind as ones where the HEA doesn’t necessarily involve monogamy, marriage, or children (though sometimes it does involve one or more of those).
The other big thing I look for, that pretty much all of these authors do – is I like the heroine to have female friends, that she cares about and doesn’t just ditch when the perfect guy comes along. That’s part of why I like MaryJanice Davidson’s Betsy books so much, or Nora Roberts’s trilogies.
My ultimate position in this discussion comes down the famous Gloria Steinem quote:
“I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career.”
Maybe it’s because the gentlemen aren’t liberated enough to feel confident asking for such advice, but I kinda doubt it.
Unfortunately, even now, in 2007, a typical woman has a lot fewer real choices about her career, if she chooses to have children. Realistically, she can:
-Bag the career and focus on the kids.
-Work herself to death doing both.
-Find a career that allows her time to be with the kids. (This is not a solution, however, for the women who want particular careers that they can’t do from home or bring the kids to, e.g. surgeon or corporate lawyer or busdriver.)
Now, in an ideal world, we would have:
-Husbands taking over fully 50% of the childcare and housekeeping. (Or couples hiring someone to help. Dammit, it’s not a failing if you want to pay for a cleaning service or babysitter! I acknowledge that it isn’t always fiscally possible, but I have friends who earn plenty of money, they complain about not having enough time, yet they won’t hire a cleaning service. WTF?)
-UNIVERSAL DAY CARE. (Fuck yeah, that, more than anything, would eliminate the dilemma right there. I think if I had access to affordable day care at my job, I would consider becoming a single mother.)
Also, I want to thank everyone for their reading suggestions. I wasn’t thinking of romantic suspense or paranormal as part of Core Genre Romance (I realize I’m coming awfully close to saying “those don’t count because they don’t fit the narrow definition I was pointing at”), but I will certainly give Jennifer Crusie a try.
Actually, I read a fair bit of paranormal, and I prefer the ones that aren’t romance novels, but rather are under the SF/F umbrella. I’m in the middle of the ARC for Kim Harrison’s next book and whoo! It’s great.
In contrast, my frequent reaction to midlist romance-as-paranormal is summed up by example in three of my blog posts, here, here, and here.
Anyone have suggestions for historicals? I loves me some historicals, but so far I like the “It’s a historical novel with a romantic subplot” books, but don’t care for the “It’s a romance novel with historical setting” books. I keep getting burned by the “really keen, complex plot is resolved quickly so we can move along to the marriage and babies in the Epilogue” sort of books. Those always smell of an author up against a deadline.
Robin, I get where you’re coming from—but for me, when it’s stated these books oppress women and/or rape statistics are trotted out, it not only hobbles discussion, it begs the answer women are not idiots and know the difference between fiction and real life.
I consider my books entertainment. I don’t consider that a consolation prize. Note I wouldn’t say *just* entertainment. I think good, solid, quality entertainment is valuable, is important. It’s what I try to provide—and what I look for when I sit down to read.
I realize you come at this not only as a reader, but as an academic. I’m all for academic and critical analysis of fiction, of Romance as a genre. I think it’s necessary, and discussions here and on other blogs can be just fascinating.
I object when the genre—or M&B books (which aren’t even to my particular taste)—are criticized or vilified as tools of oppression. Or when the old and insulting chestnut: They create unrealistic expectations for women is hammered out.
I have too much respect for myself, my work, the genre and readers in general to accept that.
Examine a book for themes, style, craft, social commentary, whatever—that’s great. Pull out a specific title and tell me this book fosters patriarcal oppression, and I might agree. I’d still think the vast majority of women reading that specific title wouldn’t feel oppressed because of it, or chose to be oppressed because of it.
Any more than the reader who enjoys erotica, and elects to read about threesomes can’t wait until her husband or lover or boyfriend brings home his pal so they can all go at it.
Or maybe she does. But that would be about choice again.
E—I don’t disagree with you altogether either. But I do feel there are changes in the making. And some of us who raised kids helped make them.
My older son and dil have two young kids. He owns and runs a restaurant, she works in my husband’s bookstore. She’s his right hand. They’ve always parented those kids together—every element of parenting. He does as much housework as she does—sometimes more, sometimes less depending on their schedules.
He wasn’t raised to look at running a house, cleaning one, and all the crap work that goes with it as `woman’s work’. It’s just work. It’s life.
I might think he’s particularly special, being he’s mine. But I know others like him.
Like you, I wish this was just a given. It SHOULD be.
I’ve been lurking here wondering whether to post. But what the hell, I’ll jump in, at least in response to a couple of earlier comments.
“~A woman who is raised to believe that romantic love is the be-all and end-all is not a woman who’s likely to spend her energetic youth in pursuit of discovery, invention, or artistic achievement.~”
Somehow I—a boy—was raised to believe that romantic love was the be-all and end-all. It wasn’t by my parents, or by romance novels, unless you count “Little Women.” Broadway and Hollywood musicals, Sam’s love for Frodo, Simon Tregarth and Jaelith in Andre Norton’s “Witch World,” and poetry, lots of poetry, by Yeats and Cummings and Neruda: those pretty much did it for me.
Did I spend my energetic youth looking for love, rather than in search of discovery, invention, and artistic achievement? Yup. Cost me a lot of time, money, and heartache—until I met my wife. After that, well, I’ve spent much of my energetic middle age building a happy marriage and raising my children, again at the expense of my career and my artistic aspirations. That’s just life—there’s only so much time and energy to spend.
E, you say that you “have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career.†Not to play into stereotypes here, but no, I never thought to ask for advice! I bitched and moaned, and other men did the same back to me, but we never asked each other (or anyone else) for advice. I did listen up when my father told me, literally on his deathbed, that he wished he’d spent more Sundays at home with my mother and not at the office, and I did watch a friend ten years older than I am go through a nasty divorce, and think to myself—OK, let’s NOT do what he did. But no, I never asked for advice, or saw any given.
The assumption down at the office was frequently that I’d be much happier to ditch my wife and kids and come to work. I wasn’t, so I didn’t. After a few years of marriage I figured out that I had it in me to be either an average poet or an above-average husband. I chose the latter, & gave up the writing. No great loss to the world, and a big gain for me.
One other thought: most jobs don’t entail being a scientist or an inventor or an artist. Many are dull, unsatisfying, uninteresting, and call on very little of one’s strengths and talents and (for lack of a better word) soul. Work can be pretty thin gruel when it comes to supplying your life with meaning and value, and many jobs (even professions) don’t offer much by way of deep, satisfying rewards for a job well done—except, perhaps, in the relationships you have with co-workers, students, and the like. (At which point, they’re not all that different from romantic relationships, maybe.)
Courtship and marriage and family can turn out horribly, of course. But I’d say that for many, many people these offer a realm in which the impulses to understand and create can be put to rewarding and amply-rewarded use, in a way that work simply doesn’t.
As for the sorts of novels that have been attacked—I’ll leave them to others. Some good discussions of them, and of why folks read them, over at the Teach Me Tonight blog (http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com). Check ‘em out, and feel free to chime in!
Sorry to rant so long—
“My ultimate position in this discussion comes down the famous Gloria Steinem quote:
“I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a career.†“
But people *are* starting to take note of how difficult it is to combine fatherhood and a career. A very relevent issue for me right now, because my husband is away on a long business trip and he is really our son’s primary caregiver. He tells me he hates to complain about how long he’s been gone, because some of his coworkers have barely seen their families in a month, but the requirements of his career are really interfering with our family life.
“I think that path was inevitable because the Guardian article wasn’t looking at romance on a whole, but at Mills&Boons, a not even the entire spectrum of their published sub-genres, but one particular line. And then, contrary to a previous comment, ties it directly in with rape statistics:”
Exactly. My “fairy tale” comment didn’t refer to the whole of the romance market, just to that particular line, ie Presents (known as Modern in the UK). I don’t write for the line, but I love reading them and I see no reason to have to defend my choice of reading matter.
I write historical romance and paranormal romance and neither are fairy tales. I try to discuss dilemmas and situations many women face or have faced in the past (as well as providing a hunky male for her to get off on!) The idea I had for a Presents came out of the blue, so researching the line was a given.
Oops! My mistake, E—I forgot you were quoting Steinem, and not speaking from your own experience.
I would say that just about the only time I did hear, in the media, about this issue (men trying to balance marriage and career) came when there was “Faith and Family First” push from the Christian right. I’m neither Christian nor conservative, but I was glad to hear that discussion, however briefly it went on.
As usual, Bindel the alleged feminists jumps on the bandwagon of centuries of critics eager to protect women’s vulnerable sensibilities from that exciting fiction.
As much as I don’t agree with Bindel’s argument, I read her comments very differently. What I think she’s saying is that M&B Romances end up “feeding into” what she sees as a pervasive system of patriarchal propaganda. Again, I DISAGREE with her argument.
I think she’s also saying that women are not to blame for this, because we are in an ambivalent relationship to the patriarchy, in that we fall in love with and marry those who represent patriarchal power, which differentially and substantially disadvantages women. That, IMO, is a more interesting argument, but let’s just say for argument’s sake that I also disagree with that.
Removing the argument from the gender context, I think Bindel is saying the equivalent of this: Romances featuring “savage” Native Americans or “wild” desert sheiks or “young buck” African Americans feed into a widespread system of racism and racist propaganda. Which doesn’t for one second lead me to see non-white Romance readers as infantalized, stupid, or unable to recognize their own oppression. To me, anyway, what Bindel is arguing is that she sees M&B novels as part of a larger ideological system in which women are oppressed. Which, again, is an argument with which I DISAGREE. But I don’t think her argument is itself paternalistic or that she undervalues the intelligence of women, and I absolutely don’t think she was advocating censorship or anything like it.
Which is interesting because not that long ago Eileen Dreyer/Kathleen Korbel argued explicitly that rape should not be part of the mainstream Romance genre, and there didn’t seem much of a public response to what I thought was an incredibly provocative and potentially chilling assertion.
—E, I prefer Historicals, and I would recommend Jo Goodman’s books, many of which actually feature marriage in trouble plots, where marriage actually imperils the relationship for various reasons. Try A Season To Be Sinful, One Forbidden Evening, and If His Kiss is Wicked to start, although my favorite is My Reckless Heart, which is an earlier book.
Also Loretta Chase’s Miss Wonderful, Mr. Impossible, and Mr. Perfect are IMO quite unconventional, as well. Judith Ivory’s Black Silk, Bliss, and Dance are great, too, as is Laura Kinsale’s For My Lady’s Heart.
Not that these books don’t include marriage and in some cases children, but they are, IMO, quite self-conscious in the way they deal with issues of gender, personal identity, and power relations within the couple and within the society. Kinsale’s For My Lady’s Heart features one of the most powerful heroine’s I’ve ever read (as does The Dream Hunter, too).
Christine Monson’s Rangoon is fascinating, IMO, as is Patricia Gaffney’s Crooked Hearts. I also highly, highly recommend Joanna Bourne’s Spymaster’s Lady.
So lemme get this straight. I should give up reading what makes me happy because some misty “patriarchy” is rubbing collective masculine hands together and setting me up for oppression with it, in favor of taking up what somebody else says *should* make me happy? How is being controlled by the “patriarchy” different from being controlled by Julie whatsername?
E asked for some “examples of romance novels where a HEA with man and kids isnt the be all and end all. What does it say about the genre that the only well known author that is consistently subversive is Jennifer Crusie? What does that say about romance as a genre? What does that say about its readers?”
Not to belabor the point…but isn’t the relationship HEA one of the core definitions of a romance novel? Romance fiction is about the relationship between the main characters (m/f, m/m, f/f, multiples, m or f/alien /giant robot /shapeshifting creature, etc.). Just swing a book thong and you’ll hit books whose HEAs don’t include kids or conventional weddings. In a previous post, someone (E again, I think) asked where were the books that identified home and family as being a goal men should strive for. The answer there is in those same romance novels. I’m having a hard time coming up with titles that didn’t end with heroes also coming to prioritize their relationships with the heroines.
Look. My mother burned her bra in the 60’s and wore “dress for success” clothes in the 70’s so that I could have a choice. Now I’m reading some comments here that seem to say that the choice I made wasn’t *really* a choice…because it wasn’t the “right” one. So which is it?
Romance novels are my fantasy fiction. Fantasy is often not politically correct. We fantasize not about what we should think about, but rather what we do think about, appropriate or not.
Spamfilter: needs49 ::so not commenting on that one…:::
Xandra, I don’t think you should stop reading anything you want to read. I thoroughly enjoy the many, many romance novels I read each year and don’t plan to give them up anytime soon.
Robin said something that gets at what I’m thinking on this topic:
“I know, for example, that I am influenced by advertising, despite the fact that I think I’m reasonably intelligent and independent.”
We can be influenced by themes and messages in the books and I suggest that as readers (and perhaps as writers) we bring a certain self-conciousness to what we read (and write).
It’s like when I pick up an issue of Cosmo or Vogue—most of the girls pictured in them are skinny and stunningly beautiful. It’s easy to be influenced into thinking we should be skinny and beautiful, too, unless we consciously are aware that this is one message being delivered and it’s not one that I have to buy into or follow. I can, if that’s what I choose, but I don’t have to.
I used the word oppression a lot earlier in the discussion and my intent wasn’t to imply that we’re mindless automatons doing what we’re told, and I don’t want to frame the discussion in negativity, though it is a polarizing word.
I guess what I am trying to say is that when we hear a message often enough we can start to believe it’s true. I want women to have freedom of choice.
My mom used to always tell me to enjoy whatever entertainment I wanted but to be aware that the images and stories that I encounter might make me feel that the choices I’m making in my own life are not right/proper. She would say, “trust in yourself”,
that she was raising a smart girl who made smart choices.
When Mom saw me pick up one of her Rosemary Rogers books she sat me down to have a talk about healthy and fulfilling relationships; when I brought home a diet magazine she talked with me about healthy body images and the messages girls are sent to be skinny.
My whole rant boils down to: read consciously. Which, based on this discussion, it seems like most of us do.
Np, first, you had a very smart, very loving and aware mom growing up. That’s a wonderful gift.
I guess I figure grown women don’t need to be told to read consciously. Or that grown women always *need* to read consciously. Sometimes a grown woman may just want to have fun with a book about a naked pirate with a big schlong who yo-hos his way into the heroine’s heart through her magic hoo-hoo. Or a billionaire CEO/secret agent who kidnaps her for reasons of national security.
Yes, advertising, images, books, movies, TV shows, any and all forms of entertainment can and do influence. And even the intelligent and self-aware can fall victim to wishing she were a size two and/or had shiny, perfect hair.
But I’m just not going to sit down with a novel—or urge my readers to do so—with a conscious and deliberate stipulation that I’m about to read some sort of propaganda.
Children and young people need to be guided and given direction. Grown women should have earned the right to make their own choices—and read what they want for their own reasons.
Myself, if I’m reading ‘consciously’, the story hasn’t pulled me in and taken me where I want to go while I’m reading it.
Nora said: “I might think he’s particularly special, being he’s mine. But I know others like him.” Yep. My hubby is one of them. And what’s funny is his dad is NOT. He’s very “old fashioned” and does not one thing around the inside of the house. Yet, my hubby helps out consistently. hmmmmm Interesting.
We also have a core group of 4 couples we hang around with. I don’t know about the housework aspect, but I do know that all the men are very involved fathers. The men have gotten together to take the kids camping for the weekend, hiking, ice skating, sledding, etc while we women sleep in and relax! LOL
that seem to say that the choice I made wasn’t *really* a choice…because it wasn’t the “right†one. So which is it?
More that choices don’t occur in a vacuum, and that the general societal expectations for women are that she be primarily responsible for housework and childrearing on top of anything else she may be doing…not to mention willing sex kitten whenever her man’s in the mood. Many of the ‘can this marriage be saved’-type articles that I see, even within the last year boil down to ‘women should have sex even if they don’t want to.
And part of that “togetherâ€, in traditional m/f romance at least, is getting hitched and having children.
Isn’t that part of Bindel’s point? That mainstream romance almost invariably ends with marriage and childbirth?
. This sort of feminist critique of romance novels feels more about removing freedom and limiting choices, not literally, but through shoulds and shouldn’ts.
Analyzing and critiquing doesn’t equal forbidding. Everyone needs to make the choices that are right for her. As I’ve become more familiar with feminism and thought about its theories, some of my choices have actively changed, not because of any order, but because my worldview has changed. For example, my reaction to some of the alpha heroes I’ve heard described is to want to kick them right in the ol’ windswept desire to quote Tanya Huff. 🙂
BEGIN So lemme get this straight. I should give up reading what makes me happy because some misty “patriarchy†is rubbing collective masculine hands together and setting me up for oppression with it, in favor of taking up what somebody else says *should* make me happy? How is being controlled by the “patriarchy†different from being controlled by Julie whatsername? END
Nope, read whatever floats your boat. But be aware that Romance (like other products of popular culture) is the product of a culture that has an ambivalent and sometimes violent relationship with women.
Patriarchy like any other system works because both men and women participate willingly/unwillingly
and consciously/subconsciously. Men can be perpetators and victims as well as women can. Think of the young man who is victimized for effeminate or “girly” behavior who is called a “sissy”. That man might be coerced into acting a certain way by teasing from other men or by women who tell him he isnt manly enough. Or think of the man who doesnt have tens of female partners who is ridiculed by his peers because he is not a “stud”. Both men are being targeted because they do not conform to patriarchal ideals of manhood and masculine sexual expression. Think of the older women who uses intimidation to keep other younger women in line that are too “slutty”, overemotional or family-oriented in a work setting. These are examples of how individuals participate in a patriarchal system. A person can be both privileged and underprivileged in these relationships. And thats how patriarchy or any other system works. You dont have to consciously start rubbing your hands together and decide to be oppressive- you can be an unwitting participant.
BEGIN As much as I don’t agree with Bindel’s argument, I read her comments very differently. What I think she’s saying is that M&B Romances end up “feeding into†what she sees as a pervasive system of patriarchal propaganda. Again, I DISAGREE with her argument.
I think she’s also saying that women are not to blame for this, because we are in an ambivalent relationship to the patriarchy, in that we fall in love with and marry those who represent patriarchal power, which differentially and substantially disadvantages women. That, IMO, is a more interesting argument, but let’s just say for argument’s sake that I also disagree with that.
Removing the argument from the gender context, I think Bindel is saying the equivalent of this: Romances featuring “savage†Native Americans or “wild†desert sheiks or “young buck†African Americans feed into a widespread system of racism and racist propaganda…. To me, anyway, what Bindel is arguing is that she sees M&B novels as part of a larger ideological system in which women are oppressed. Which, again, is an argument with which I DISAGREE. But I don’t think her argument is itself paternalistic or that she undervalues the intelligence of women, and I absolutely don’t think she was advocating censorship or anything like it. END
Robin, I perfectly agree with your assessment or recasting of Bindel’s arguments. And thats why I can agree with the argument that most cultural products of modern Western society(for the most part) will reflect the racist, sexist, homophobic and patriarchal culture from which it is produced.
I think an important point that you brought up is that for many people oppression is a polarizing word. Racism and homophobia too. It shuts down conversation because people cant deal with the psychological discomfort that comes from admitting they are participating in a system that simultaneously privileges some people and disadvantages others. I actually dont have a problem with that cause I realize I constanly have to check myself and unpack my privilege (whether its gender, class, racial or heterosexual privilege). Thats why analyzing romance novels critically is an area ripe for discussion and study.
Dont get me wrong, I am not saying that Romance is bad. Romance just is. Romance might be feeding into the patriarchal system for reflecting and perpetuating some patriarchal stereotypes. At the same time Romance CAN be subversive by taking some gender stereotypes and tweaking them. As people have rightly noted some patriarchal ideals of feminine sexual epxression are being challenged in paranormal novels where the heroine has spiritually and sexually fulfilling relationships with multiple partner or doesnt want children or to give up her career. Where once she would have been the amoral villian she is now the heroine. But thats the whole point- Romance as a product of our culture is working outthrough the fictional telling the ambivalence we feel regarding gender, power and sexuality .
~More that choices don’t occur in a vacuum, and that the general societal expectations for women are that she be primarily responsible for housework and childrearing on top of anything else she may be doing…not to mention willing sex kitten whenever her man’s in the mood~
Boy, I don’t see this. Not in my world, or the world of my close women friends. Not in my dil’s world or that of my almost dil. (wedding in June).
This is not how I raised my boys to think, not how they live. Not how I think or live. I can’t be that far removed from the majority.
I’m not saying this doesn’t exist, but I don’t believe it’s the way of most relationships, marriages, lifestyles.
And if magazine articles are touting it as the way to go, those magazines are absurd. And insulting not only to women, but to men. Men are not so selfish, so self-absorbed, so completely oblivious to the needs and wants of the women they love, and who love them to—as a whole—subscribe to this.
I raised two boys into men, and have a lot more respect for the species than this.
I think an important point that you brought up is that for many people oppression is a polarizing word. Racism and homophobia too. It shuts down conversation because people cant deal with the psychological discomfort that comes from admitting they are participating in a system that simultaneously privileges some people and disadvantages others.
Which is why I like to talk about it in terms of privilege and advantage rather than the various “isms.” One of my main differences from Bindel is that I see society as much more complex ideologically than she seems to. I don’t see blanket sexism, blanket racism, or blanket homophobia; I see it as a bunch of competing and cooperative ideologies, all simultaneously affirming and subverting. In other words, when one rebels, they indirectly affirm the power of that thing against which they rebel. But the opposition itself can be incredibly subversive, and I think we see over and over again that extreme views begin to turn back on themselves and sort of somersault ideologically.
If I thought Bindel was actually trying to convince anyone reading Romance that she had a point, I’d say she’d be an abject failure because her rhetoric is so overblown and oppositional (that line about “misogynistic hate speech” really went over the line, IMO).
But I also think she’s mainly targeting the Romance motif of *rape,* which curbs my negative response to her, as well, because I do think there are many instances of rape in the genre that go beyond the sexual fantasy (e.g. the rapist villain, the pimping for rape villanness, the threat of rape to the heroine, the (mis)use of history to excuse the sexual powerlessness of the heroine, etc.) and while I think that there are ways in which rape in Romance is very subversive, I also think there are ways in which it isn’t, and what’s the harm of talking about the issue, especially when we continue to struggle in RL with the issue (and can we bring race into the discussion, as well, another under-analyzed aspect of the genre, IMO). Because IMO not all fictional portrayals of rape, even those expressed as pure sexual fantasy, are so far removed from the issue of rape in RL as to be insignificant. Which is why it’s such a hot button issue for so many people, IMO.
Men can be perpetators and victims as well as women can.
Thanks so much for bringing up this point, because IMO it’s critical. Ultimately I think society is harmed by patriarchy just as by racism, even those certain people or classes of people may be privileged in certain ways.
Not in my world, or the world of my close women friends. Not in my dil’s world or that of my almost dil. (wedding in June).
Shrug. Anecdotes don’t equal data. I know at least one marriage counseling session where ‘more sex’ was the husband’s stipulation for staying in the marriage. Not that he cared if she wanted it, just that more sex would be had.
Plus, from what I can tell in these articles (and these are mainstream magazines), it’s just something you do.
Romance novels don’t help with this, I don’t remember many where the heroine successfully had a headache, at least one that wasn’t ‘overcome with passion’.
There are some interesting comments on the article here
http://smalltownscribble.blogspot.com/2007/12/mills-boon-know-sex.html
and here
http://www.teachmetonight.blogspot.com/
and here
http://natashaoakley.blogspot.com/2007/12/here-we-go-again.html
Bindel wins. Like my old art history professor always told me “Your first book should be about something extreme and ridiculous. Then, when you have the eyes of the world on you, publish the book you really want to present.”
You have to be careful not to make the first book something so stupid people don’t take you seriously, but it’s an old technique used for years on the academic circuit.
Trouble is, this isn’t Bindel’s first go at getting the limelight. She’s awfully good at it, isn’t she?
E-
You love SF/F, and you love historicals where romance is a subplot? I just read a wonderful book by a Canuck named Marie Jakober called the Black Chalice. An Arthurian style legend set in Germany during the time of the Crusades. Freaking awesome!