Bitchin' Blog Posts
Conjugal Enemies vs. Loving Adversaries
by Candy | by Candy | June 30, 2008 | Monday at 12:49 pm | 138 CommentsMy friend Ben (of LOLPorn fame) came up with the phrase “conjugal enemies” during a conversation in which I attempted to describe old-skool romance novels to him—I think I was talking about Catherine Coulter’s ouevre in particular, especially the WTF factor of “he uses cream to ease the way of the rape, so it MUST be lurve!” However, I can’t be certain; at the time, I’d shotgunned five old-skool romances in a row as part of research for The Book, and my brain had been addled by all the punishing kisses, cynical smirks, pointless misunderstandings and non-consensual fuckin’.
Anyway: conjugal enemies? Hell yes. The protagonists in these old-skool novels couldn’t stand each other. The heroine’s loathing for the hero was writ large every few pages (at least, until the first orgasm, and then the loathing transferred to her own body as well), but they still couldn’t stop conjugatin’ all over the piece. This lack of control over their passions—even if it was passionate hatred—was often transformed into passionate love through a mysterious alchemical means I’m not entirely sure I’ve figured out yet. At some point in the book, the heroine suddenly sees the hero’s lack of control and little signs of tenderness (not raping her until she bleeds, not forcing her to meet his former mistress, allowing her the freedom to indulge in some unconventional-for-the-time activity like sailing or running a business or communing with the whales or whatever the fuck) as signs of affection, and she re-interprets her actions and reactions as being signs of True Luuuurrrrve as well. I don’t find these transformations convincing, but I know many other people do, and the different reading and interpretation process is fascinating to me.
This isn’t to say that adversarial relationships aren’t fun to read about, or that they can’t be used as convincing indicators of two people who resist falling in love with everything they have. When these relationships are more balanced, I tend to think of them as “loving adversaries”—circumstances or their own personalities don’t allow them to act on their attraction, so they spar and snipe as a way to act out some of their tensions in ways other than bonin’ each other six ways to Sunday. I recently watched His Girl Friday, and that was the term that immediately came to mind. Underneath the constant quipping and sparring and attempts to one-up each other between Walter and Hildy was a sense of attraction and true affection.
But there was more to it, too. I think what made it an adversarial relationship as opposed to one based on enmity was the way the two of them were portrayed as equals. Walter would try to pull a fast one on Hildy, but oftentimes, she’d be just one step ahead of the game and have blocked his move before he could complete it. Hildy, at least until the end, is a strong woman with enough power and experience to make her choices and moves count.
And that’s not something you can say about the old-skool heroine. Most old-skool novels make a point of systematically stripping power from the heroine—she’s young, she’s alone in the world, and most of the meaningful choices over when, how and to whom she wants to express her sexuality is denied her. The only true power she has is her hold over the hero, but she’s unaware of this until a significant part of the book is over; her constant expressions of hatred were a way for her to deny the hero his emotional hold over her. The power imbalance results in a much more virulent hatred instead of a more playful sparring, and it’s this hostility that raises my hackles and makes it difficult for me to accept the transformation from conjugal enemy to lover. Adversarial relationships, on the other hand, are not necessarily based on enmity, and I find the resulting clashes much more satisfying and believable to write about.
Interestingly enough, the old-skool romance and His Girl Friday end in much the same way: the heroine capitulates to the hero, and the resolution feels a bit limp as a consequence. Hildy’s transformation at the end of His Girl Friday is less than convincing for me because the writer made her pliant—almost wide-eyed and confused. It’s disappointing because Hildy has real power that she seems to cede over to Walter once she acknowledges that she still loves him. The old-skool heroine’s often abrupt about-face, while startling, is at least consistent with the worldview of the book—she gains power once she stops struggling against the hero and accepts him.
Not all romance novels end this way. One of the reasons why I love Midsummer Moon by Laura Kinsale so much, for example, is how Merlin and Ransom are locked in an adversarial relationship throughout much of the book, but you never lose sight of how much affection and love the two of them feel for each other. Ransom finally makes a significant power-grab when he takes what Merlin loves away from her (those of you who’ve read the book know what I’m talking about), but in the end, the power balance equalizes when he learns to love and live with Merlin as she is, not as he wants her to be.
Not all romance novels use the conjugal enemies/loving adversaries model; Patricia Gaffney’s best work, for example, as well as Barbara Samuel’s, don’t set up their conflicts that way. But it’s a fun way to set up a story, and like the Energizer Bunny, it’s easy to allow the conflict to go on and on and on. I also know that many people view the adversarial relationships between hero and heroine in old-skool romances than I do. What do you think about power structures and loving adversaries vs. conjugal enemies?
Filed: Random Musings
snarkhunter said on 06.30.08 at 03:10 PM • [link]
I have never read one of the old-skool rape romances, and when a couple came into my hands (one was, admittedly, a Connie Mason novel), both left the house unread as soon as I figured out that there was not so much consent going on. So the conjugal enemies concept is not one that I’m totally familiar with—except Midsummer Moon. And I was a little uncomfortable with the power dynamics of that book, but it was so strange, b/c Merlin really didn’t seem to care one way or another about her own power—just that thing she loves.
I will probably never read the romance “classics.” Rape as a plot device between the hero and heroine makes me physically ill. Even knowing all the justifications for it in the old-skool writing, I personally find it reprehensible to portray a woman falling in love with her rapist. (I know it’s been done well, and I think certain historical settings might enable it better, but I don’t come to romance for realism. Rape by the hero takes away the possiblity of an HEA for me.) I can’t see true hatred so easily becoming love, and it seems like it really is hatred in some of these books.
Holly said on 06.30.08 at 03:43 PM • [link]
I’m about to send the first three chapters of a manuscript to Barbara Samuel for her to critique. (I won an auction).
I’m just a wee bit petrified.
GrowlyCub said on 06.30.08 at 03:47 PM • [link]
I’ve read the old skool stuff back in the day (the cream one was the first one I ever read actually, besides the Heyers which I don’t count as old skool) and I’ve read what you call loving adversaries and neither concept does anything for me. Matter of fact, I close the book when I see that the story line is based on people who can’t stand each other.
Just doesn’t work for me anymore. I’ve read romance for over 25 years and found that I’m a lot less tolerant and a lot narrower in my tastes since my return to reading romance full-time last year than I used to be when I first started.
I tried to read Merlin’s story and couldn’t stand the slapstick quality of the story line, I really disliked The Last Hellion, but I read other books by both authors which I loved. I find internal conflict that’s not predicated on distaste for the purported partner so much more convincing and enjoyable to read.
Eunice said on 06.30.08 at 04:04 PM • [link]
Bingo! My feelings exactly.
To me, in those old movie loving adversaries relationships, the couple may quip like mad and drive each other crazy, but there tends to be a line. One wouldn’t kick the other when they’re down. This understanding, and the fact that both quipping participants need intelligence, wit, and charm to pull the whole thing off, are the things that give these relationships more of an equal feel.
But the “hero” half of a “conjugal enemy” has no lines. Won’t just kick the heroine when she’s down, but kidnap her, give her some punishing kisses, call her a slut, was the one who knocked her down, kick her, rape her, and then tell her it’s her own fault. While the walking door mat of a “herione” sits there in a crying heap wondering about the sensations her body felt when she was being attacked. The hostility and hatred that radiates off these kinds of stories? Gag me.
Elizabeth Wadsworth said on 06.30.08 at 04:22 PM • [link]
Well, the only “old skool” rape-fantasy romance I’ve ever read is REALLY old skool - E.M. Hull’s The Sheikh, circa 1919 or 1920. Hull was a competent wordsmith, but she couldn’t convince me that a woman could fall in love with her rapist, not without some major pathology going on. I didn’t buy it then, and I don’t buy it now.
As for the “conjugal adversaries” schtick, it always felt forced and artificial to me. If two people loathe each other this much, why the hell do they bother to associate with one another? And if some cynical, world-weary rake decided to punish me with his burning kisses and cynical smirks, I’d get a damn restraining order. I mean, gimme a break!
On the other hand, I do love me some good snarky repartee, provided there is a genuine sense of respect and affection behind it. Mean-spirited, angry, and misognystic are off the menu.
Suze said on 06.30.08 at 04:42 PM • [link]
I was just around puberty when I started reading romances, and this type of book was HUGE (late 70’s). Woodiwiss’ The Hawk & The Dove stands out in my memory as one of the earlier books I read, and I devoured the Coulters.
Keeping in mind that I was VERY YOUNG, I totally dug the use of the cream. To me, it signified that hero was Doing It Wrong, and that he had to change and be more considerate of his bride, which he eventually did. (Did I mention I was young?) Also keeping in mind that, while the feminist movement was still relatively young, as far as I was concerned, it had always been around, and women had always had choices and the protection of the law.
I’d read these historicals, and put myself into the story, and try to imagine what I’d do in that situation. And of course, I was always strong, decisive, skilled, spunky, independant. And if things got too bad, my Viking relatives would come in their longboats and I’d leave with them, blowing contemptuous raspberries at the unenlightened schmucks trying to subjugate me (Vikings being so much more enlightened). I had CHOICES, damn it!
During the reading of one of those books, though, I had the realization that, back then, women didn’t have choices, and if I suddenly got plunked down in the middle of all that, I would not do well. You know, not having any skills that would be marketable before around the 1950’s.
If you didn’t like the man picked out for you, you could make the best of it, rebel ineffectually, rebel effectually and make everybody’s life hell (unless that got you killed), run away and die on the streets, or just die. Probably there are historians out there who could tell me of more options, but in general, women just didn’t have a lot of choice when it came to keeping themselves fed and clothed and out of the weather.
So I think that these old skool romances are sort of an exploration of feminine power. They contrasted women’s former lack of choice with the modern (possibly overwhelming) array of choices. Maybe they were a reaction to the fear that many women have to accepting responsibility for their own choices.
Or maybe I’m just talking out my ass.
Catherine said on 06.30.08 at 04:57 PM • [link]
I don’t mind loving adversaries because you usually see the core affection between the two and there are lines that they won’t cross. I always like the reunited lovers/old friends theme (if it’s done well) because I like them being snarky with each other while still wanting what they once had but better. (Anyone with recommendations for this theme lay ‘em on me)
The conjugal enemies just do not work for me. I know that some people like them and think they are beyond sexy, but they make me throw up in my mouth. I find nothing romantic or loving in some guy dominating a girl and raping her until she becomes so fucked in the head that she thinks she’s in love with him. To me there are rules. The major one is that you do not rape the other person in the book. The next big one is that you don’t fall in love with said person who abused you. That goes for hitting too!
I guess I’m too modern to appreciate any attraction to that. Besides that, coming from a background where some of those issues came into play for me the thought that some people see these guys as heroic makes my skin crawl. I don’t mind rape in a book where there’s no romance angle (or it happened to the girl/guy by someone other than the hero and she’s working to overcome it) but rape from the hero/heroine crosses boundaries for me that should never be crossed.
I’m ok with persuasion if it’s done right. I’m talking about the, “I don’t know if this is a good idea right now. I really want you, but what if someone finds us?” not the persuasion that happens while the girl/guy really doesn’t want sex. My first romance book (that I stole from my sister) was Linda Howard’s After the Night. That really pushed the line for me because there was such a disproportionate power dynamic. It made the eventual love feel really false and kind of icky. Another book that I recently read, Julia Quinn’s The Duke and I crossed a big line for me too. How Daphne handles the issue with Simon not wanting to have kids was horrible. I truly believe that if the situation was reversed and he did the same thing to her there would be a huge outcry from her fans. I found it pathetic and really sad that he turned around and basically apologized because it was really all his fault of course. Enough about that though… Needless to say, those story lines do not work for me at all.
Darlene Marshall said on 06.30.08 at 05:12 PM • [link]
I like almost any storyline if it’s done well. Some of those old skool romances would horrify a lot of readers today, but at the time the reader wanted to see it work out to a resolution where the heroine would regain her power, or find her power in some fashion. And the best of them accomplished this. Even a classic like These Old Shades, which has a massive power imbalance throughout, works at the end because of the hero’s insecurity and need for the heroine—he needs her a lot more than she needs him.
Jill Sorenson said on 06.30.08 at 05:13 PM • [link]
.
I agree. I also started reading Catherine Coulter at a very young age, and her medieval romance ROSEHAVEN (yes, there was cream) is STILL one of my favorites. Every time I hear someone equate Coulter with rape I cringe a bit, because I don’t see it that way. In ROSEHAVEN the hero had to consummate the marriage immediately because the castle was under seige, and a usurper could claim he wasn’t the true lord. He doesn’t have time to woo her; he has to go out into battle.
I can’t say the scene doesn’t fit the definition of rape, especially in a modern context, but labeling this romance a rape fantasy is not accurate. Nor does the woman continue to be subjugated as the story continues. The heroine is already brave and shows her strength, while the hero becomes less unyeilding. I totally believe they’re in love by the end, and it’s more satisfying because it was such a hard road to get there.
Kimberly Anne said on 06.30.08 at 05:40 PM • [link]
Nope, punishing heroes are not on my menu. Like the question of “alpha hero or asshat?” the line is very simple for me. Is he cruel, vindictive, or violent to the heroine? If the answer is yes, then the book meets the wall. No mitigating circumstances can make that okay with me.
I read a Harlequin 15 years ago that always comes to mind when punishing heroes come up. I don’t remember the title, but the heroine is engaged to a man named Tom when she gets an invitation to a function at the home of her former lover. Former Lover was a real doucheberry, and was sure that his punishing kisses would make her leave Tom. He treats her like shit throughout the book, while Tom is always there for her. She, of course, pants for FL and ignores Tom, all the while despising herself for it. Then, FL crosses a line, and she sees the light. Declarations of love and hawt sex (snapping the antique bed in half!) ensue with Tom. YAY!
This is what I want to see. A heroine who sees that asshattery is bad, and loyalty and tenderness are good.
Oh, and if anyone knows the title of this book, please tell me. I’d love to read it again, even if it’s not as good as I remember.
handyhunter said on 06.30.08 at 06:19 PM • [link]
Discovering Lois McMaster Bujold several years ago was I think the first time I realized romance stories didn’t have to be all about the power dynamic or competition in a relationship. This was after going off romance novels for a bit because I’d burnt out on bad plots and characters.
I don’t remember His Girl Friday that well, but I love The Philadelphia Story. Would that more romantic comedies were created in that way.
*curious* What are some of Patricia Gaffney’s best books? I’ve read a few of hers - Mad Dash, The Goodbye Summer, Circle of Three - and liked them well enough, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that she used to write romances?
Leslie said on 06.30.08 at 06:48 PM • [link]
I can’t help thinking of Whitney, My Love. I know this one is a sort spot for many, but when I read it as a teenager I bought it hook, line, and sinker, even while recognizing the hero’s pricktastic behavior. Looking back on it, I wonder how the combination of TSTL, but oh-so-spirited and beautiful Whitney, and Alpha McJerkytown sold me…then I look over at my shelf and there it is (un-re-read for several years, but still…). Then I look at After the Night (one of my favorite Linda Howard’s EVER) and wonder what the attraction is (and then I think “Guy” and sigh at the bad-boy gone so good and, um, the public restroom scene).
It may be the candy part of romance…good romance is like Milka or Ritter Sport and I just cannot put it away because of the pleasure; bad romance is like a fruit-whip filled chocolate that I nibble around the edges of to get all the chocolate coating (even if it is a little waxy), while ignoring the unpleasantness at the center.
I haven’t read Woodwiss, McNaught, or Lindsay for quite a while and I think it is because their early works dominate my perceptions—have there been substantive changes in their story framing or heroines/heroes since the late 90s? They are great storytellers, but I have been nervous about diving back in.
That said, the topics last week had me checking on some OLD Janet Dailey’s and I found that my library had some of her 80s gems (Alph-tastic) that I hid under my bed during high school; The Rogue, Ride the Thunder, and Night Way—may be checked out of the city library for the first time in years this weekend.
Suze said on 06.30.08 at 07:54 PM • [link]
Just another word about cream, and then I’ll stop.
What did people used to use as lube? Coulter mentioned cream in several of her books, and there was a LaVyrle Spencer in which the secondary heroine was a prostitute in a frontier town. The bordello had a cow specifically so that the ‘hos would have ready access to butter, because “they needed that butter!” I also remember a novel in which a scene featured mint jelly.
Granted, AstroGlide is more hygienic and effective, but it wasn’t available. Unless another sign of True Luurve is never having to use lube?
She isn’t really considered a romance novellist, but a sci-fi author. In fact, a lot of her fans say they are her fans because she “writes like a man”. Which I really don’t get, because her writing is wonderfully soulful and all about the human element, which a lot of male writers miss.
MS Jones said on 06.30.08 at 08:05 PM • [link]
“Your lips say no but your body says yes†is, I think, the element that is supposed to validate the conjugal enemies conflict. When the hero forces himself on the heroine – over her protests – her traitorous body responds with enthusiasm, so he ignores the red light coming from her mouth and listens to the message coming from her other lips.
This isn’t even all that old-skool. I like Judith Ivory’s books, but the rape scene in Untie My Heart – published in 2002 – creeped me out. The imbalance of power is huge: he’s wealthy and powerful, she’s a poor farmer tied to a chair, his motivation for the rape is revenge (“For two minutes you can live with what it’s like to have surprising places of your privacy transgressed…welcome to the world of consequences, retribution, and personal trespassâ€). He wants a vindictive quickie and he knows she can’t do anything about it. And yet it’s all supposedly okay because she gets off.
Patricia Gaffney’s To Have and To Hold (1995) also has a serious power imbalance and a sexual relationship that starts out with a rape.
Loving adversaries is better.
Esri Rose said on 06.30.08 at 08:36 PM • [link]
I used to read those power-struggle romances as a teen and really liked them, but I think that’s ‘cause they were what was available. These days, I don’t even want the loving adversary thing. In my experience, sniping and oneupmanship does not add spice to a relationship, it leads to divorce.
I much prefer to read about a couple who are kept apart by cultural differences (elf and human) or a situation (villain)—a couple who are compatible and mutually attracted, but kept apart by circumstances.
I’m not comparing myself to Bujold, who is brilliant, but I’ve been told I write like a man. Could be because of being adventure-plot oriented, maybe? Or not much interior monologue? Dunno.
MoJo said on 06.30.08 at 08:59 PM • [link]
Yeah, ditto what Suze said. These things have a real soft spot in my heart. My first was Kathleen Woodiwiss’s Shanna, then Wolf and the Dove. In fact, I would argue that Shanna is damn near perfectly reasonable and logical in light of what else was being published back then.
These weren’t nearly as bad as the Rosemary Rogerses and the Valerie Sherwoods, which I also liked (but more for their sweeping saga-ish nature).
The author I adored at 15 (Carole Mortimer, Harlequin Presents), though. Wow. I read those now and I shudder. It’s like freebasing low-grade crack.
Theresa Meyers said on 06.30.08 at 09:01 PM • [link]
All I could think of when you said conjugal enemies was the movie Mr. & Mrs. Smith!
But I’ve got to agree with some of the historical basis. In the 1900’s alone things changed so drastically for women that sometimes its hard to concieve that the reality for women was far different in historical times—with death the most likely outcome if you didn’t fall in line. (But the whole rape fantasy-thing still seems a bit squiqtastic for me…)
Kalen Hughes said on 06.30.08 at 09:37 PM • [link]
No rape. Period. Nope. Don’t care about the circumstances. No. Not ok.
I read my very first romance novel when I was 16 (my mom isn’t a romance reader so I had to wait until my best friend handed one over). It was Johanna Lindsey’s FIRES OF WINTER. My BF adored it. *shudder* Put me off the genre for a decade. No lie. And I don’t think I would have EVER even tried the genre again if I hadn’t been trapped in an airport, delayed beyond all reason, and faced with only two books in the tiny newsstand: Something-or-other by Stephen King and MISTRESS by Amanda Quick. What a happy discovery that was!
willa said on 06.30.08 at 10:16 PM • [link]
Ugh. Rape scenes and storylines where the hero overpowers the heroine and renders her completely incapable of fighting back or making her own choices disgust me. They make my teeth hurt. They burn my eyes. They make my skin crawl.
“Loving adversaries” is a different matter, but they’re really hard to pull off for me.
I’m reading The Duke and I right now, and the hero is “verbally sparring” with the heroine. He’s baiting her repeatedly, enjoying it, while she gets genuinely angry and upset. Apparently, in the hero’s mind, this is a game, a flirtation. What the frickin’ hell? Making the heroine upset and baiting her is a flirtation? Good to know, I guess.
Had the same problem with Quinn’s The Secret Diaries of Miss Amanda Cheever or whatever. The hero’s “verbal sparring” made me want to reach into the book and stab him repeatedly. I couldn’t even finish the book.
Making one’s SO/partner/whatever upset and angry is not sexy to me. Overpowering her and raping her and taking away her agency is beyond disgusting. I refuse to read it in a romance novel. It’s an automatic toss for me.
That rape scene in Untie My Heart totally grossed me out, too. I hate that book.
Catherine said on 06.30.08 at 11:03 PM • [link]
This totally bothered me too! The manipulation at the end made me want to strangle the girl, but the constant bickering totally drove me insane. I’ve really liked the way that Nora Roberts handles her loving advesaries. Even “Birthright”, where the hero and heroine are divorced, handles it well. I don’t mind the bickering (in moderation) and angst, but I hate it when one half of the couple is mean to the other person all the time and thinks it’s funny. (I don’t mind a little mean when I think it’s deserved. Sometimes it takes a while to forgive that person and get back to nice.)
Elizabeth Wadsworth said on 06.30.08 at 11:05 PM • [link]
How about olive oil? More hygienic than dairy-based products and readily available since ancient times, at least in the Mediterranean countries.
My spam word: children69. Need I say more?
Catherine said on 06.30.08 at 11:08 PM • [link]
Can you explain this more? I totally don’t understand what you mean by this. Thanks.
Suze said on 06.30.08 at 11:58 PM • [link]
I’m not completely clear on it myself, but here goes:
1. In the 80’s and 90’s, there was a weird backlash against feminism that manifested in a bunch of women creating groups with names like REAL Women. These groups espoused women finding their feminine power in the traditional roles of wife and mother, and made stupid-ass press releases indicating that any woman who went looking for fulfilment in being anything but a devoted wife/ housekeeper/ mother wasn’t really a woman.
2. At some point in the last decade, I read a piece indicating that Muslim women in Saudi Arabia not only didn’t resent having to wear the chadur, but actually found great comfort and relief in it, as it made their role in society very clear, and defined any interactions they would have with males.
3. At the time these conjugal enemy stories were being written, it was still quite remarkable to see a woman in a non-traditional role, and extremely remarkable to see a man in a non-traditional role. I still hear comments about male nurses, male florists, male administrative assistants (actual secretaries, rather than secretary/treasurer of the corporation type roles).
I think that the stories were, to some extent, women feeling their way into their new roles and responsibilities, and looking back at where we’d come from a little nostalgically. There’s a kind of comfort in the idea of being financially supported, so that you are responsible only for the comfort of the one supporting you. I still know women who put up with all kinds of crap only so that they don’t have to work, and I know people who married the spouse their parents picked out for them—and they like it that way. It took all the pressure off, and the choices, while not necessarily exciting, were acceptable.
There’s also an element of the desire to be with a confident man. I think, tragically, that many of us (including authors) don’t know enough men who are both confident and non-assholes, so that we don’t really know how to describe them. So we end up with alpha-holes.
But like I said, I could be talking out my ass.
Did that make any more sense, or less?
Catherine said on 07.01.08 at 12:50 AM • [link]
That definitely made more sense. Thanks for the clarification on that. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with it though. However, just to be clear, that wasn’t my generation either. It may be harder for me to understand that.
I definitely agree with what you said about a lot of the traditional Middle Eastern woman. I know that most times the veil and other restrictions are custom as opposed to law. I know many woman who mold themselves closely to their husbands until it’s hard to view their own personality. They like the comfort of their husband making choices for them and managing the money so they don’t have the uncertainty of being responsible for making the wrong choice.
Now, while I understand that some people feel that way, I still have a very hard time seeing how the hero raping the heroine is romantic. (Even for women who prefer not to be independent) I don’t know many women who would look back with fondness and say, “Remember when he controlled and raped me? I kind of miss that. It was much easier for me; less choices.” I can, however, see that one of those women could look back and have a fond wistfulness for the days when all the choices were made for her. It’s the same way people look back and say that it was much easier when they were a kid and kind of wish they could go back for a day so they could have a break. (most people do this until they remember that childhood sucked because your parents owned you :P)
Cat Marsters said on 07.01.08 at 12:53 AM • [link]
Merlin and Ransom? These are character’s names? No wonder they’re adversaries: if someone told me his name was Ransom I’d laugh so hard he’d slap me.
Catherine said on 07.01.08 at 12:57 AM • [link]
My post got cut off. Here’s the rest of what I was going to say…
Now this is veering a little away from the topic you were talking about, but it has really been bugging me. A little while ago I was looking up different perspectives on Romance books that revolved around rape. Time and time again I kept seeing people say that no one really wanted to be raped and they weren’t trivializing it by making it seem okay. They said that it was a type of female empowerment by kind of owning the rape and ending up with the power in the end. Well, that was the gist of it.
I really didn’t understand this because (nothing against people who like this) personally I think that is a crap line of reasoning. Hand a Romance novel like this to someone who has recently been raped and see how empowered they feel. My friend had been raped and was trying to get back into the things she really liked to do before that. She picked up a Romance novel and just wanted a story that would give her a little happy. The book was a Jane Feather book and had the hero helping some king rape the heroine. She couldn’t finish it and ended up having a bit of a break down. She couldn’t understand why another woman would glorify a man who did something so horrible. It made her feel even more dirty because so many people seem to think it’s sexy to read about.
That was her situation and isn’t true for everyone, but I truly feel the same way. I just don’t understand it. Would anyone want to read about some kid falling in love with his molester? Why is it sexy when it’s adults and rape?
Also, if people do want to read this that’s okay… it’s their choice you know? Whatever floats your boat. None the less I really think that there should be some kind of clear indication on these books that it deals with the hero/heroine raping the other hero/heroine. My friend just picked up a historical on the spur of the moment (a kind of quick decision to try and pick up an old habit) and didn’t consult reviews on any website beforehand. I just think her break down could have been prevented if it had a graphic material kind of warning on the inside (or back) of the book.
Just my 2 cents.
sandra said on 07.01.08 at 01:03 AM • [link]
In Victorian porn, they use cold cream for lube. I think one reason for the proliferation of rape in old-style romances is that ‘nice’ women were not supposed to have sexual desires. The’ hero’ had to force sex on them so that they didn’t have to feel guilty about having it, and of course, it is assumed that if she ‘enjoyed’ it, she must be in love. Spamword is ways63. As in ‘how do I love thee, let me count them”?
MoJo said on 07.01.08 at 01:04 AM • [link]
IMO, the ‘70s/‘80s rape fantasy romance (where the woman ends up getting off anyway) was a way for a woman to enjoy sex without being responsible for making a clear decision to have sex. Those were the days of the “sluts” and “trashy girls,” remember.
The heroine could remain “pure” in the reader’s eyes, but still have the orgasm to go with. She could have her dick and eat it too. I think it kinda goes back to what Suze’s number 1 point was regarding that weird backlash against feminism.
Catherine said on 07.01.08 at 01:14 AM • [link]
Ahhhhhh, good point MoJo and sandra. I didn’t think of that. Like I said, not my generation. I tend to forget that it was harder for my mom and her mom in terms of sexuality. I can understand it being written about then because of those reasons (even though it still gives me the squicks) but I still don’t understand the reason they’re still written about today. But, that’s from my own standpoint and not from someone who enjoys them.
willa said on 07.01.08 at 03:19 AM • [link]
I’d appreciate that, too, something a few years back I would have railed against, the idea of a content warning seeming too much like TV and movies and a bad move toward… censorship or something. I don’t know why I thought it was a bad idea.
I’d REALLY REALLY like warnings about animal cruelty/pain. I read The Leopard Prince recently and there was a very brief mention of animal torture that upset me way more than anything else that happened in the book. I wish I hadn’t read it. And that was just a brief blip in the novel. I’d be so happy if books and movies came with warnings about that sort of thing. And torture of people as well. Content like that stays with me forever, like a haunting. I’d like to be able to avoid it, these days.
mirain said on 07.01.08 at 03:32 AM • [link]
This site had a discussion a while back (late last year, maybe?) of the rape theme in romance, and we did then discuss the historicals in which the rape is, as a few of you pointed out just now, a way of excusing a “good girl” for having sexual desires that she wasn’t supposed to have. While I still don’t like this or find it sexy, and as an historian I can say that most women were more in touch with their sexuality than Victorian novels suggest, what I really can’t stand are the romances that BEGIN with rape. I’ve come across several of these where the protagonists meet because the “hero” is kidnapping the heroine or something and rapes her, and later they get to know each other and fall in love. But I don’t get to that part because I’ve already thrown the book against the wall during the rape scene and am not reading any further. Sometimes some really weak excuse is offered for the hero’s actions, like one medieval I read where he kidnapped the fiancee of his enemy and raped her so that his enemy would be humiliated by getting a non-virgin. Oh yeah, revenge as a motivation makes it all okay. No! Yuck! I wonder how many people would think the rapes where hot if they watched them? On second thought, I don’t want to know.
Emma Bull’s “Bone Dance” (totally NOT a romance, but excellent) has a scene where the villain is forcing himself on the protagonist and says, “Your lips are saying no, but your—well, hell, your body’s saying no, too.” Way more realistic.
Moth said on 07.01.08 at 03:49 AM • [link]
Um, Darlene, I think you might be rusty on the plot or thinking of another book. Leonie isn’t under Justin’s thumb, she’s under his wing. He’s protecting her, not subjugating her and not once in the book does Leonie ever feel a lack of power. And I don’t think he needs her more than she needs him. Leonie was going to live in despair with the curate for the rest of her life without Justin.
Sorry but this is my favorite book EVER, and I don’t think that it’s plot has anything to do with the kind of dynamic you see in old skool rape romances, so I’m really wondering where this comment came from.
Lori said on 07.01.08 at 03:54 AM • [link]
I think these books really do tend to be an extension of the classic “rape fantasy” which is fairly common. As a couple of people noted, those fantasies are all about getting what you want without really having to own it. It’s about getting off on the idea of giving up control & responsibility while actually retaining total control since it’s all in your head (cue long ago women’s studies lectures here).
I suspect that part of the reason that this is less common now than it used to be is because of increased awareness of rape as a crime and also the higher profile of BDSM, which allows for the consensual relinquishment of control.
kirsten saell said on 07.01.08 at 05:49 AM • [link]
And because women are allowed to be sexual without being branded as sluts.
DS said on 07.01.08 at 12:34 PM • [link]
Are we talking about the same 1970’s? Sex was the theme of the decade. Post birth control and pre AIDs—it was not a repressed time for the people I knew and I was in the Bible Belt even.
Darlene Marshall said on 07.01.08 at 03:06 PM • [link]
I have to disagree with you, Moth, because we’re interpreting Avon’s actions differently. I saw him as keeping her under his control, up until the end when he offers to let her go because he’s not worthy of her love. At that point I saw Leonie as having the option to leave if she wanted to. She might not have ever found true love, but she could have had a satisfying life. I believe Avon would have been devastated by her leaving him. So to me, this was where the balance of power shifted (actually, it shifted a lot earlier), but I did see a power shift.
As always, your mileage may vary.
Mac said on 07.01.08 at 04:21 PM • [link]
Hey now. That’s the surname of an entire branch of my family. ;-)
The fact that sexualty was so “out there” at the time is a result of the contrast. (The book “Are you in the house Alone?” springs to my mind—not a romance, but it dealt with rape and was written because at the time, legally, your rape case could be ignored if you weren’t a virgin. Also rape of wives by husbands wasn’t recognized.) Compare today, when conventional sexuality is pretty much commonplace and nobody even expects to be a virgin past college. We’re doing more now and talking about it less.
Darlene Marshall I agree, because a power imbalance doesn’t have to imply abuse or negativity. Avon was in control of the (guardian/ward) relationship. But it’s still a power imbalance. (This is why—HOLY CRAZED TANGENT—I don’t really care for, say Frodo/Sam slash; I don’t care how much they adore each other, they are boss and manservant.)
Robinjn said on 07.01.08 at 04:22 PM • [link]
Even though the late 70s and early 80s were a very permissive time in some circles, the people who were out there having sex with different partners every night were not really the social norm, at least not where I came from.
I used to LOVE all those romances where the man had all the power. I don’t know why. Maybe I’m a sick and depraved person. Rosemary Rogers was a love/hate relationship for me but I adored the Wolf and the Dove. Maybe reading the Flame and the Flower as my first romance when I was 13 just set the theme for me. I wouldn’t buy into it today, but I did then. And I think the explanation of “nice girls didn’t do this, so had to be forced into it” is probably why. At least in my life, running out and having wanton sex with strangers wasn’t something I did. In fact I remember feeling out of place in college because I *didn’t* go pick up a guy at the bar and take him home every time I went out.
I find myself also out of place with a lot of the newer romance. I don’t mind erotica, but am not so thrilled with the blatant BDSM. Why can’t we have erotica *without* BDSM? That would be a lovely change. I really don’t associate real men with butt plugs, sorry.
Catherine said on 07.01.08 at 04:57 PM • [link]
Lol!
I find myself out of place with a lot of today’s romances too. Many of them seem to delight in having the heroine being free and sexually aware. Now to me those statements do not mean that the heroine needs to sleep with as many men as possible. Apparently my opinion doesn’t count though. :P Some of the books I have been reading seem to need to express that women are now free to do what men used to do. I have no problem with that, but it’s not something I admire or look at and say, “How cool is this! She’s totally in touch with her sexuality!” Being in touch with your sexuality doesn’t mean you have to spread it around to everyone. But then again, I also hate the connection between the hero/heroine that begins with a one night stand. I seem to be the minority though. All my friends seem to think it’s a great thing. It makes me feel old and I’m only 22.
*Let me add that books like Loretta Chase’s newest one don’t bother me because that was her job and times were different then. But then again she’s not allegedly looking for a relationship while she’s spreading it around.
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 05:09 PM • [link]
I must be reading different books than Catherine or Robinjn—I don’t read a lot with women who are really sexually adventurous or even all that experienced. It helps me to identify with them, I suppose. You can be free and sexually aware and not sleep with everything in boxer-briefs—I like Regency-era stuff, and there I find women who, despite never having had sex, are intrigued by it, interested in having it, and enjoy it once they do.
Compare today, when ... nobody even expects to be a virgin past college.
::sigh:: That’s not necessarily always a good thing. There are these weird stigmas attached to being a virgin past college that are, in their own way, equally as destructive and unfair as the virgin/whore dichotomy.
Robinjn said on 07.01.08 at 05:19 PM • [link]
I mostly read modern-era and am just coming back to some romance after an extended hiatus. I loved Sugar Daddy by Lisa Klepas but Lora Leigh and Joey Hill kind of squick me out. I mean honestly. In my world if a guy I wanted to date kept a gym bag of ball gags and other stuff like that in his car I’d think he was seriously weird. As in a “what, you need all *that* in order to get it up?” kind of squicked. I realize that is probably prejudiced, but that’s just not the kind of thing I associate with a strong confident man.
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 05:22 PM • [link]
In my world if a guy I wanted to date kept a gym bag of ball gags and other stuff like that in his car I’d think he was seriously weird.
Dude, I’d be *terrified* if a guy kept a gym bag full of ball gags in his car. There would be a snark-shaped cloud where I’d been standing if I saw that.
Nothing wrong with a little bondage, but seriously? One would think that that wouldn’t be something you carry around with you.
Robinjn said on 07.01.08 at 05:33 PM • [link]
I guess I just can’t equate strong manly-man with carting around sexual hardware. I can’t remember what book I recently tried to read that was something about were cats and the woman is coming into her heat/season/whatever and the hero, who is a sheriff, gets a ball gag out of his supply closet so he can screw her in his office bathroom—so she can’t scream (mewl? Meow?) so loud people can hear. And I was, like, WTF?!!? I didn’t get any further on that one.
And I’m not making judgments on anybody who thinks that’s hawt. It’s just way the opposite for me.
Robinjn said on 07.01.08 at 05:37 PM • [link]
And sorry, to bring it back more on topic. I’m not sure today’s BDSM stuff is any better than the old conjugal adversaries thing. Okay. The women are supposedly enjoying this all the way through as versus being afraid to admit they enjoy it. But again, my old fashioned view is that these are all about women being made slaves and submissives and being totally dominated by their men.
How is that any better/different than the punishing romances of old?
Mac said on 07.01.08 at 05:47 PM • [link]
Oh, believe me, honey, I know. =/
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 05:55 PM • [link]
I’m not speaking from experience, here, just from what I’ve read, so take this with a grain of salt. But. It is my understanding that in true dom/sub relationships, it’s the sub who *actually* had the control. The dom has to stop when the sub says stop, and nothing that happens can happen without the sub’s express permission (presumably this is worked out in advance). Safe words are sacred.
I haven’t read a lot of contemporary erotica, but what I find disturbing is that the trend seems to be almost exclusively male dom/female sub—if I’m mistaken on that front, I apologize. And I do agree that this is an unsettling trend, especially because it seems like the details of the D/s scene aren’t conveyed as they’re supposed to be? Or something?
I don’t know. I don’t have a problem with people who enjoy being dominated. I do have a problem with the idea that it’s always the women who want to be dominated. That’s absolutely not true, and to make it out that women only want to read about really Alpha men is really scary.
(IMHO, it takes a really strong man to agree to submit to a woman for a change, no?)
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 05:57 PM • [link]
:) I swear I’m going to write a book or an article about those attitudes one of these days. They drive me nuts, and I think it’s a stereotype trend that is way, way overlooked. Especially as a feminist issue. (Choice: it means choosing to or choosing NOT to.)
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 06:00 PM • [link]
I obviously failed at the nifty quoty thing that Mac did.
Cory said on 07.01.08 at 06:27 PM • [link]
@Robinjn: I think they’re different because they’re consensual; there’s a safe word in place and the woman knows she can let herself into whatever her fantasy is but retain the control to make it stop when she’s not comfortable. I just finished Kushiel’s Justice—thanks y’all, now I’m Kushiel’s bitch, too—and I thought the way Imriel came to understand, over the two books, the difference between having your sexual wants manipulated without your consent and going willfully into a safe situation was really well-handled by the author.
I would love a rape warning on material (and an animal violence warning, for that matter). I know many women have rape fantasies, and I have no judgment for that. I’m a big supporter of women gratifying their sexual needs, and if that’s what gets you off, go you. However, I think having a rape fantasy at home with your vibrator or acting one out with a trusted partner is a whole different world from the actual rapes that go on in these novels. Giving your control up willingly and having it taken away are not the same thing, and I may be fine witht the former but the latter is not ever okay with me.
I’m not necessarily against erotica that helps people get into whatever their fantasy is (I’m not against, say, pony-play erotica on principle, but I won’t read it). I’d rather know that that’s what the novel is about, so I can by-pass it. In no universe can I believe a woman falling in love with her rapist, or find it hot when a woman’s choice is violently taken from her, so. . . that book’s never gonna be for me. I’d love to know before I waste my time and money with it.
Lori said on 07.01.08 at 06:38 PM • [link]
I recall hearing recently that less femdom is being offered because it doesn’t sell. That would seem to indicate that the idea that woman only want to read about traditionally Alpha men may be sort of true. And I agree that’s unfortunate for a bunch of reasons.
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 07:04 PM • [link]
Hm. That’s sad to hear. But I wonder…how is that marketed? I would never in a million years have predicted the rise in wererotica. But I think there’s a strong marketing force behind that. Does femdom lack the necessary marketing clout to MAKE it popular?
I mean, imagine the blurbs! “Have you ever wanted a man to fall on his knees at the sight of you?”
Leslie said on 07.01.08 at 07:18 PM • [link]
Joey Hill’s best BDSM work involves women who are dominant. The Vampire Queen series is about a female in the power position in the relationship—SPOILER—
there is switching at the end, but the power relationship that structured the h/h story is primary.
Also, Holding the Cards and Natural Law (my two faves—Natural Law is the better of the two) are both populated by Alpha men who submit. I like Joey Hill’s work because there is never the sense that either party in the BDSM relationship is participating against their will. She reveals the heavy emotional baggage that some of the parties bring to the lifestyle, but uses the resolution of the relationship to reconcile those issues with “baggage-free” participation in the life.
Leslie said on 07.01.08 at 07:24 PM • [link]
BTW, Jezebel summarizes a pretty amazing piece in the UK Guardian about the death of feminism—relevant given the longer comments above about f’ism and romance and backlash. I haven’t had time to read the full article.
Take a look: http://jezebel.com/5021074/is-feminism-doomed The c.omments are also interesting.
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 08:09 PM • [link]
Heh. I’m sort of all over that thread. :D
MoJo said on 07.01.08 at 08:09 PM • [link]
In reading all the responses from the women like me who like the old-skool, I think it’s interesting that we were all in our very young teens (in my case, starting at 11) when we were first exposed to it.
I think that could be a fascinating sociological study on the nature of what a young teen girl wants to fantasize about. But then, grown women must have been eating that up then, too, but I don’t see any of those here posting. (Small self-selected sampling, I know. Go with me here. ;) ).
Robinjn said on 07.01.08 at 08:15 PM • [link]
Or if you really want to think about it….did those early experiences when we were at a vulnerable, suggestible and dare I say it, experiencing the whole sexual feelings thing for the first time influence and inform our tastes?
If you’re a kid at an age when the hormones are raging and you’re discovering that whoa, your body, it has these urges, and a novel comes along that you probably aren’t supposed to be reading but you do, and geez, there’s SEX!! in there, and that first sex scene happens to be, oh, Brandon raping Heather in the Flame and the Flower….does that have long-term influence, especially when that type of scene was very typical at that time? I think it may.
Geez. No wonder I’m so screwed up.
MoJo said on 07.01.08 at 08:31 PM • [link]
Oh, I don’t even have to question that. I still love that super-alpha but now that I’m, you know, kofffortykoff, I’ve found myself having my alpha males get a little tired around my age and feeling the need to be stay-at-home dads while their alpha wives go off and do their alpha thing.
Kalen Hughes said on 07.01.08 at 09:01 PM • [link]
Yep. Which is why so often in relationships it’s a male dom/female sub, but in BDSM dungeons or sex clubs it’s often the reverse (the guy who gets off on pretending to be submissive, but he’s actually in charge), or so the women I know who are professional doms tell me.
Kalen Hughes said on 07.01.08 at 09:05 PM • [link]
And has anyone else noticed that a lot of the books marketed as BDSM break this most basic and sacred rule? That the bondage is often just a code word for rape (or forced seduction if you prefer)? I bought a few eBooks that were supposedly BDSM and was totally disturbed by the power dynamics. Maybe I’m just not reading the code words closely enough.
Lori said on 07.01.08 at 09:39 PM • [link]
I’ve noticed this as well. I think a lot of BDSM erotica is written by people who not only aren’t part of the scene, but don’t know anyone who is & really didn’t do their research. Instead they’re projecting their ideas onto someone else’s kink because it’s currently more acceptable than the Old Skool.
Rosa said on 07.01.08 at 10:40 PM • [link]
Have you ever read any 1970’s pornographic novels for men? They are all about rape. It’s amazing they didn’t inspire more suicides.
There’s a lot of good BDSM erotica out there, and a lot of it is written from inside the community. But I think a lot of times BDSM is the way a lazy writer does “sexy” because you can write about all the props/situations (and if you stick enough of them in your book you’ll hit almost everyone’s kink so they’ll think your scenes were hot). You don’t really have to write the sex at all, just sketch in the scene and add some verbs.
There’s some amazingly hot erotica out there that has the BDSM props but focuses on the people and their emotions & responses to each other, but you have to read a lot of dreck to find it.
Has anybody read Florence King’s essay about writing a romance novel in the ‘70s? It’s hilarious, to start with, but it also has a lot to say about the editorial pressure in the romance market back then (and all the editors were men, just about.) Florence King was a snobby, literary, lesbian writer who had made some money writing gay porn and her editor said “write one of these Sweet Savage things, how hard can it be?” And then pushed her to take out any big words and add more rape scenes whenever the plot slowed down. I haven’t found the book ever but the description reminds me of Bertrice Small (who is awesome in a way that doesn’t really resemble the way good romance novels are awesome, more the way American Movie would have been awesome if the dude were making a costume porno with a cast of thousands.)
AgTigress said on 07.01.08 at 10:44 PM • [link]
Anyone who has looked even in the most desultory way at the history of feminism (and I am not talking here about very recent progress, e.g. in the 1960s and later, but the 18th and 19th centuries) will know that there is a clear pattern of achievement and progress, followed by regression, followed by new efforts to regain the lost ground, and usually, to get a little further forward. It is NEVER going to be possible to relax about women’s rights - each generation has to fight at least some of the battles afresh. And there are new battles, of course, as societies change in other ways. Imagining that legal protection will work effectively is naive in the extreme; there are always ways around legal provisions (bye the bye, those of you who don’t know of Alan Sugar will not realise what an extreme example of the vile boss he is. He is, not, fortunately, typical).
Concern about the rights and social status and role of women has been born, lived, died and been reborn many times. Vigilance is required all the time, or we shall slide back again. If feminism is currently moribund, or even dead, in some quarters, we should not necessarily worry too much: it isn’t for the first time, and the resurrection won’t be for the first, or the last time, either. But there are some other bad signs, and this is one: the bondage/domination/submission issue.
Personal view here, so feel free to shout at me, but to me, it any kind of bondage/submission, however much it is play-acting, is archetypal fascist sex, characteristic of authoritarian regimes that suffer from major conflicts and dishonesty about sexuality, e.g. Victorian England; 1930s Germany. One of the things we achieved in the 1960s (I was in my 20s then) was egalitarian sex. Seriously. The moment you introduce a specifically unequal power dynamic - even if it is allegedly consensual and mutable and all those lovely comforting things - we are back into the old, old pattern, the one that was a formal concept in antiquity: that is, in a sexual relationship, one person is active, and one passive; one is the doer, the other the done-to. The active partner (always male in antiquity) had higher social status. The done-to (often female) was always of lower status. It doesn’t have to be that way, and to seek that situation deliberately is as retrogressive as it gets.
I am pretty horrified by the apparent current popularity of bondage fantasies amongst younger American readers. It does not augur well for the future. But then, nor do fantasies of werewolves and such. Tell me, those who read shape-shifting romances - do the were-cats sink their teeth into their partners’ necks during coitus? Do the partners of the werewolves have to endure the tie which in canids can last up to 20 minutes, during which withdrawal is impossible?
Just asking.
Kalen Hughes said on 07.01.08 at 11:17 PM • [link]
AgTigress: I’ve seen all of those senarios in ebooks (and way way more).
Archetypal fascist sex? This simple string of words alone seem to me to be one of the reasons that many younger women today feel that feminism is dead or best left behind. That kind of random judgment and cobbling together of disparate issues boggles my mind.
Holly said on 07.01.08 at 11:25 PM • [link]
AgTigress: I think I can answer at least a little bit of your concern, even if I don’t share it. I think we’re coming from wholly different POVs as I was born in 63 and so fall squarely into that age group robin was talking about - I was 11 or 12 when I read my first romance - don’t remember who it was, but it was definitely a Savage Loving Lying Whirlwind thing, and that’s all I read for the next few years - even at 13, tho, I knew Rosemary Rodgers was twisted - but still, when I hit my twenties I thought - wait a minute! That’s rape! And I didn’t read romance again till my 30s, by which time rape was no longer such a popular plot device. And I do think that the “she gets to get laid without having to take responsibility for it” angle was THE main rationale, justification, whatever you want to call it, behind the old skool novels. Growing up in a religiously conservative household where you were not even supposed to be thinking about sex till you got married - if then - I’m sure that’s what I found so thrilling about the books.
But basically - I was in the first generation of women, I think, that came of age after (or as) egalitarian sexual relationships had become accepted as the norm - to the extent they ever will be - and after society, in its infinite collective wisdom, decided that it was, in fact, okay for women to have sex when, with whom and however they wanted.
In short, I’ve never considered myself a feminist because I’ve never had to. (Also had a wonderful father, never got involved in an abusive relationship, married a wonderful (Alpha) man, do whatever the hell I want to - basically I was born on third base and think I hit a triple).
You’re only 15-20 years older than me, but it’s a crucial 15—20 year period, you know? Women of your generation, from what I’ve seen, tend to look at everything - including social issues and personal relationships - through a political lens that I, and women younger than me, don’t.
All of which is to say, badly, that the BDSM currently popular in romantic and erotic fiction doesn’t bother me because I don’t remember a time when women weren’t allowed to control their sexuality on their own terms.
As to furry porn, as I like to think of it - I’m partial to werewolves meself (I’m writing one, AAMOF) - no. I’ve read no shapeshifting romances in which protagonists do it while one partner is in animal form. The sex, however, kinky, is always performed while human. I have read books where the bad guys shape shift during sex and kill their partners, but that’s always presented as something horrifying, not sexy. I could have missed something tho - Lord knows I don’t get to read as much as I want to.
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 11:25 PM • [link]
But that’s not necessarily true. Look at medieval texts—who’s the aggressor in a lot of pornographic medieval and early modern work? The woman, because women were seen as sexually voracious devourers of men. The shift didn’t come until the end of the eighteenth century (if you listen to Foucault) or even a little later (I’d put it post-Napoleonic wars in England, but that’s just me).
EVERY generation is dishonest about sexuality. I’ve heard women who came of age in the 1960s talk about free love with real regret, because there were different systems of pressure there—ie, if love is free, you’ll have sex with me. If you don’t want to, that means you’re not liberated. (Even if the person in question just didn’t want to have sex with THAT dude.) And let’s not even get started on the “closet.”
I also think it’s a misconception to call Victorian England an authoritarian regime. Sure, it was problematic, and Victoria was very much a Hanoverian (no matter what her last name was), but at the same time, it was a fascinating time in terms of strides made for women’s rights, as well as backsliding.
But AgTigress is right in re: women’s rights. However, one of the real reasons I think we’re struggling right now is the rise of conservativism all over since the late ‘90s and, in the US in particular, since 9/11. War brings out conservative ideologies.
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 11:28 PM • [link]
Holly, I’m sixteen years younger than you and very much consider myself a feminist.
I’ve had things handed to me—it’s been easy for me. I’m white, middle-class, and educated. But I also know that there are real risks for me as a woman, and I see my rights being chipped away day after day. I put up with harassment from my male students, and see my friends be treated with disdain by male faculty for their life choices.
It’s a mistake to assume that younger women won’t be feminists, and I personally believe it’s a mistake for any one, but especially any woman, to believe that feminism has nothing to offer her.
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 11:33 PM • [link]
You really don’t remember?
Ever met someone who was raped? She didn’t get to control her sexuality on her own terms. Neither does the child who is a victim of sexual abuse. Or the woman brainwashed by her church/parents/friends into believing that if she had sex she was a slut, but if she didn’t, she was a frigid prude. (That one’s still real popular.)
Look AROUND! Look at the messages put out by the media! Who’s the focus of anti-teen pregnancy campaigns? Girls. Because girls are still seen as the gatekeepers, the ones who are supposed to keep their legs closed. Modesty campaigns focus on women—why? Because we mustn’t “tempt” men or cause them to “stumble.”
You go to college, and you’re bombarded with messages about having sex. You’re *supposed* to have sex in college. And if you don’t, well, what’s wrong with you? Why didn’t you? Why aren’t you spending your 20s bed-hopping, if you’re single?
Yeah, we can control our sexuality in the sense that, generally speaking, we’re able to say that we want to have sex and have it. But don’t ever for one second think that the entire world isn’t invested in keeping you “chaste” or making you sexually available.
Ahem. Climbing off of the soapbox now.
Lori said on 07.01.08 at 11:45 PM • [link]
I have. It wasn’t presented as a rape thing. The sex started as human to human but if it was really the were sort of lost control of the change. It was only mentioned in passing, but the but it that was definitely the deal.
In terms of BDSM in erotica, I’m certainly that there are books that are good/accurate available. It’s just that there are many that aren’t and they can create a really skewed perspective on the scene for those who don’t have any other exposure.
As for the idea that BDSM=fascist sex I have to say that makes me very uncomfortable. It’s one thing to be uninterested in a particular set of sexual practices. It’s a whole other thing to tell people that their kink is fascist. That implies that women who engage in BDSM just don’t realize how awful it all is & how they’re being oppressed ot harming feminism or whatever. I think it’s a thin line between that as the misogynists saying that a woman needs a man because she can’t be trusted with her own decisions.
BDSM isn’t my personal thing, but the people that I know who are into it assure me that a good D/S relationship is very egalitarian. Both people have equal power, the power is just expressed in very different ways. None of them are weak-minded or lacking in self awareness, so I tend to believe them.
AgTigress said on 07.01.08 at 11:49 PM • [link]
Oh yes, but that is viewpoint influenced by certain aspects of Christianity. I am not familiar with medieval pornography, but I am certainly very familiar with post-med (18th/19thC) examples of the genre. I wasn’t talking about that, but about pagan Classical antiquity. One of the reasons that homosexuality was not a major issue in Classical Greece or in Republican and Imperial Rome was because it was not the sex of the done-to partner that was important, but his or her status.
Don’t forget that we are speaking not only from different chronological viewpoints, but from different cultures, too.
Lori said on 07.01.08 at 11:50 PM • [link]
This thing seriously needs an edit function for those of us who can’t type worth darn.
snarkhunter said on 07.01.08 at 11:57 PM • [link]
Okay, I see what you’re getting at, AgTigress, and I agree entirely re: Classical antiquity. I’m not as familiar with it as I’d like to be, but I am familiar with the general gist of gender relations (what a lot of ‘g’s) then. I just think that it’s important never to overlook that rapacious-female aspect of misogyny, because there is still a strain of it left alive, and it can contribute to unequal sexual relationships.
Catherine said on 07.01.08 at 11:59 PM • [link]
You know, as someone in her twenties I have a much different view of feminism. Every female of my acquaintance wouldn’t hesitate to say she supports equality between the sexes, but few would ever call themselves feminists.
In my experience feminists push so far beyond what they consider “the mold” as to be unpleasant. (keep in mind I speak only from personal experience, not in terms of every person) It seems impossible to have a conversation with them because they will not consider another view point. I do not appreciate being talked down to and told I don’t know what’s good for me just because I don’t agree with whatever they say.
I can be a REAL woman while still loving and appreciating the support a man can give me. I can wear make up and sexy clothes without needing to be lectured on how girls like me are responsible for men still objectifying us.
I don’t mind discussing a topic, but if that person just talks over me and won’t even listen to the point I’m trying to make I’ll ignore her. I’m not speaking of a single incident either. This has happened again and again with self-labeled feminists. That in-your-face-you-need-to-support-what-I-support attitude turns me off just as much as any woman hating man does.
I’m not saying that this is what feminism was meant to mean (or once meant), but I am firm in my opinion that in my experience this is the bastardized version it has become. It is very unpleasant.
Catherine said on 07.02.08 at 12:08 AM • [link]
This isn’t singular for women only. Guys go through the same pressure too.
—-This next comment isn’t directed at you snarkhunter, I’m just using your words as a jumping off point—-
Everytime I see women talk about how much pressure is on them and only them I seriously want to shake them. Men have pressure too. My husband didn’t have sex until he was 21 for his own personal reasons. Do you know how bad that is considered for a man? I understand that girls have conflicting pressure but so do guys. If a guy doesn’t have sex at an early age there must be something wrong with him. Female vigins are still very much so more accepted than any male. Women still have to fight for people (not just men: men AND other women) to see them as equal and not a madonna or whore, but we are not the only ones with issues, ya know?
Holly said on 07.02.08 at 12:11 AM • [link]
Snark: you’re right re: control of sexuality. And I almost mentioned that but figured I was too long and rambling already. Certainly - even today, women are not as free to control their own sexuality as society pretends - I was thinking, very specifically, of the 70s and 80s versus the 60s and earlier - i.e., of the time it became acceptable - broadly and generally speaking - for a woman to have sexual relations outside of marriage. Now, even today there’s a double standard - even today, with the pressure women in college feel to have sex and hook up (do not get me started on the culture of “hooking up” and the way it has objectified women all over again), women who have a lot of sexual partners are still judged for it. It depends, a lot (and doesn’t everything) on specific culture and socio-economic position, but it’s still there.
And you’re right, that the woman who is raped has no control over her sexuality but that, unfortunately, has always been and will probably always be a fact in human society - as is violence. At least today, as opposed to 30 or even 20 years ago, it is far less common to see society, the media or the justice system questioning a woman’s decisions or lifestyle when she has been raped. (altho i do recall some douchebag judge doing just that a few years ago. I don’t recall where it was, but it was an appalling example of the “well, why was she dressed that way in that place” school of thought that we like to think died out in 1978.)
I think that today’s message to young girls that they HAVE to have sex is just as damaging as the former message that they must NOT have sex. In both cases, the girl is not supposed to just do whatever the hell she wants to do. And in both cases, the guy suffers no repercussions at all.
As to younger women calling themselves feminist - I know that many do. but many who actually are feminists wouldn’t dream of using the word in part, I’m afraid, because of in the past 15 years or so a lot of embarrassingly stupid shit has been written, said and done in the name of feminism. I realize that’s a whole nother thread. but I think AgTigress’ post, and Kalen’s reaction to it (a reaction I share) is a very good example of why many young people today think “feminist” has bad connotations. Facist sex? Really?
Oh - and very good point about the very prevalent view, throughout history, of woman as the voracious maneater. That’s why women were controlled so long in Western society, why they are still so tightly controlled in many Eastern and Islamic cultures - the woman is a sexual predator and a man is powerless against her, so you have to keep her locked up and covered up. Again - woman is the gatekeeper, man is just her helpless victim.
Although I don’t understand - and I’ll bet you do - where the victorians came up with the idea that the “good woman” has no sexual urges and her husband is actually doing her a favor by inflicting his needs on the not-good woman. It seems to fly in the face of previous centuries’ views on women (like the middle ages, or the renaissance, where it was assumed a woman would take all the lovin she could get if you turned her loose for a second.)
AgTigress said on 07.02.08 at 12:16 AM • [link]
Well, I thought I would get people going there, and I did. :-D Funny how people are so frightened of the word ‘fascist’. Why so sensitive?
One thing that must always be remembered about sex is the fantasy element, and this bears both on rape fantasies and on far more minor sexual fantasies, like the ‘sex-in-a-public-place’ or ‘sex-with-a-stranger’ ones, both of which are a major turn-ons for some women, because the emobody the concept of sexual desire so strong that it overrides convention and propriety, and in so doing, liberates. There are many reasons for this, and the fact that something works as a fantasy most emphatically does not mean that it would work for that particular fantasist in reality. On the contrary. I doubt whether any of the women who enjoyed books in which some thug masquerading as the hero forced himself on the hapless heroine would have felt any different from any of us about real rape.
I suppose the same is true of shape-shifting, but I don’t see much point if the were-whatever is in human form while he actually screws our swooning heroine. If you fancy a wolf, surely it is a wolf you fancy, not a man. You are all aware, I suppose, that sex shows in many times and places have involved women genuinely having sex with males of other species? Men having sex with females of other species is, of course, ordinary bucolic perversion, and too common to require comment.
Authoritarian regimes? Of COURSE Victorian Britain was authoritarian!! The rise of the middle classes, developing industry and technology, and the growth of empire altered many long-established balances within society, and increased the complexity of social hierarchies, but the overall effect by the mid-19th century was undoubtedly more repressive and stifling for most women than the situation in the reign of George III. I don’t think I said that Victoria was a bad monarch; that isn’t the issue at all. As always, extremes breed the opposite extremes, and so it was then, leading to major improvements for women by the last quarter of the 19thC. There are parallels between European countries, including Britain, in the 19thC, and the USA at this moment. I will not spell them out.
Lori said on 07.02.08 at 12:18 AM • [link]
This is so true. My ex didn’t loose his virginity until fairly late for a bunch of personal reasons. His father asked more than once if he as gay.
One theory that really resonates with me is that in our society women still tend to be the “no sex class”—-a good girl doesn’t really like sex for its own sake. The flip side is that men are the “obligate sex class”. They want it all the time from pretty much every woman they meet. Anyone stepping too far outside those boundaries obviously has something really wrong with her/him.
I honestly think that misogyny isn’t really a good deal for most men any more than it is for women and than equality benefits all but the tiny number of men sitting on the very top of the current order. There are a lot of societal and religious factors that make the idea a really tough sell though.
snarkhunter said on 07.02.08 at 12:43 AM • [link]
Which is why men should be feminists! Or at least should recognize the fact that patriarchal structures are bad for EVERYONE.
::sigh:: You have no idea, Catherine, how bloody sick I am of hearing this. It makes me so, so tired.
May I make a few assumptions? First, you heard a lot of this from girls in college. They were probably women’s studies majors, and you found them very off-putting. They said you were catering to the patriarchy because you like to shave your legs. Some of them were lesbians; some of them clearly had issues with men, to point where they, themselves, were pretty sexist.
Am I close?
None of those things have one. single. goddamn. thing. to do with feminism. No, really. They don’t. I’m a feminist. I shave my legs every day, never leave the house without makeup, prefer skirts to pants, and if I ever find a guy I want to sleep with and marry, will probably do both. Men make me nervous, but I don’t hate or fear them as a body any more than I hate and fear women as a body. I want to have kids and I don’t get up in arms if someone opens a door for me. I smile and say “thank you,” and sometimes I hold a door open for other people, including men.
Still a feminist.
I understand that people have had bad experiences with feminists. You know what? So have I. I have also had bad experiences with other women about what it means to be a woman—does that mean I no longer call myself a woman? I run into more wackjob Christians than I care to count. Does that mean I no longer call myself a Christian? Let’s see, do I have the sexual parts that make me a woman? Yup. In my mind, am I female? Yup. Okay, so despite the fact that I’ve met some horrible women in my time, I’m still a woman. Now, do I believe that Jesus was the son of God and died for my sins? Yup. Hm. Still a Christian, then. Doesn’t mean I want to convert anyone, or that I think gays are going to hell. I don’t believe either. And yet I still own the word.
It’s exactly the same thing. No, really, it is.
I think it is fundamentally dishonest of people to espouse feminist beliefs without owning the word or at least acknowledging the real, hard work that feminists do, and that is CONSTANTLY devalued by radical misrepresentation and deliberate lies on the part of anti-feminists.
Yes, You Are. Sars is a goddess, and says it far better than I ever could.
snarkhunter said on 07.02.08 at 12:49 AM • [link]
I suspect we have different definitions of “authoritarian.” I was thinking of it more in terms of governments headed by a single, strong, overpowering figure who refused to relinquish any kind of control, while clamping down any kind of advance in human rights. There are authoritarian elements to Victoria’s reign, but on the whole, I would not characterize it as such.
Victorian Britain was extremely repressive to women, and yeah, the US is living in the neo-Victorian period (blech), but the popular image of Victorian Britain is wrong. I know you’re a historian and you probably know some of this, but one needs only to look at the literature to see how prevalent sex, for example, is in the discourse, and how women writers worked through, with, and around that discourse.
Holly said on 07.02.08 at 12:51 AM • [link]
I don’t find “fascist” a scary word at all. I find it a tragically devalued word, a word that has almost lost all meaning in modern usage. “Fascist” is so often used as shorthand for “something or someone I really really detest and think you should detest as well.” that I confess I am DEsensitive to the word these days.
I think there are probably many good reasons why some women find the idea of a man (or a woman) who can turn into an animal exciting and interesting while having no desire to have sex with him or her while in that form.
I think it is so blindingly obvious that women who enjoy reading romance-novel rape would not find real-life rape enjoyable, and that many people would not really want to do what they fantasize about doing, that it’s kind of irrelevant to the discussion. If, as we agree, people don’t really want to do what they fantasize about doing, and women who read rape romances don’t really want to be raped - then why should you, or anyone, find it sad or objectionable or scary or offensive if they choose to read about that stuff?
The fact that you see no point in a shapeshifting romance that does not feature interspecies coitus is likewise kind of irrelevant. People like what people like.
And while men screwing livestock is probably as old as men screwing men and men screwing women, I really don’t know of any society in which it was ever considered ordinary or bucolic. And I hale from an area heavy on livestock,
I mean that, right there - the tone, the language, the humorlessness, the prissiness, the judgment, the schoolmarm outrage, the….that’s what Catherine was talking about.
snarkhunter said on 07.02.08 at 12:58 AM • [link]
I sort of thought AgTigress was trying to be funny in that last quote…
snarkhunter said on 07.02.08 at 01:02 AM • [link]
Enumclaw?
(Ahem. Bad joke based on the existence of an animal-sex farm in Enumclaw, WA; the legality of beastiality in Washington State for a time; and the fact that I used to be from around that area, and let’s just say I wasn’t surprised when the story broke.)
Holly said on 07.02.08 at 01:20 AM • [link]
I read Larry McMurty’s “The Last Picture Show” when I was 10. The opening chapter (if I remember correctly some thirty-four years later and alas, I think I do) featured a boy and his heiffer.
I can’t tell you how badly, and for how long, I was thoroughly squicked out by that. Mind you, I hadn’t even read that many romance novels - rape or no rape - at that point. The whole mechanics of sex thing was still deeply disturbing to me. The Last Picture Show didn’t help.
I’ve wondered since then if I’ve conflated that book and something from another book, but I’m pretty sure I haven’t. Thalia, Texas. The Last Picture Show. I’ve never gone back to read it and see if I have the details right. Altho I also remember the scene where the coach’s wife is enduring sex with her husband and she imagines that his huge gut pressing down on her is a mound of cans of cling peaches, which she’s been feeding to him all these years. A really powerful scene and even at that age I got the pathos of it. The man can write.
I’m from Texas. For years afterward I thought all farm boys everywhere did their livestock.
i don’t think the canid coitus graph was a joke. The rest of the post was deadly earnest.
AgTigress said on 07.02.08 at 01:23 AM • [link]
My goodness, we really are not communicating very well at all, Holly. I was just interested. Language: don’t forget that I probably don’t speak yours. British English, especially standard BE used by people over the age of about 50, often sounds unduly ‘formal’ to younger speakers (maybe that is where the schoolmarm accusation fits in? I have never been accused of that before!) especially AE speakers. ;-) Would you be more comfortable if I had written ‘while fucking’ instead of ‘during coitus’ or ‘dogs, wolves and other dog-related species’ rather than ‘canids’?
I did not label bondage and related activities ‘fascist’ simply because I, personally, find the idea so very unattractive, and certainly not because I use the word as an undefined, generic pejoratice adjective. I don’t. I used the word because it is specifically in societies that are essentially rigid, nationalistic, authoritarian and usually right-wing that such sexual proclivities tend to flourish best, and I gave a couple of examples.
(Inter-species copulation - or sex, if you prefer):
I meant ‘ordinary’ in the sense of unsurprising rather than acceptable. Men sexually assaulting animals such as sheep and pigs has never been really uncommon, though it has always been disapproved of, and ‘bucolic’ is an appropriate adjective; low population density and the availability of animals are important factors. In urban areas, there are fewer medium-sized domestic animals, and usually more chances to buy no-strings-attached sex with women. In past centuries, the unfortunate ewes, nanny-goats and sows who had been sexually assaulted by some man were sometimes punished along with the human attacker if the offence was discovered.
AgTigress said on 07.02.08 at 01:26 AM • [link]
Sigh. For pejoratice, read pejorative, above.
Oh, and I wasn’t joking. I was seeking information, because I have never read any were-something books, so I don’t know what happens.
snarkhunter said on 07.02.08 at 01:27 AM • [link]
Because the evil sluts tempted him!
Lori said on 07.02.08 at 01:34 AM • [link]
There was a right wing lawmaker a couple of years ago who claimed that this was basically true, and he included himself in that farm boy group. The gist was that of course he had done it in his youth but he grew out of it. He said this while criticizing homosexuality as being a society destroying perversion, which made the whole thing extra special.
Rebecca said on 07.02.08 at 01:45 AM • [link]
I find it interesting that women are asked if they are feminists, but men never are. Because men can’t believe in equal rights for women?
So many people seem to confuse equal rights with being the same. Feminism isn’t saying that men and women are the same, but that they should have the same opportunitites.
As someone who works with statistics I find it annoying when people say that men are “stronger”, blah, blah, so they are the only ones who can go to war or operate the TV remote. Comparing the “average” man and women ignores the fact that we all deviate from the average.
Thanks for the opportunity to vent.
AgTigress said on 07.02.08 at 01:48 AM • [link]
I am just going to say one more thing about power dynamics before retreating to bed.
The concept of women as sexually voracious, and even the extreme masculine nightmare fantasy of the vagina dentata actually depend on men being more powerful in most areas of life. Power carries responsibilities and expectations. People do not wish to appear to ‘fail’ in front of those whom they regard as subordinate or inferior, or indeed before loved individuals whom they see as being under their protection. (Parents do not like to be embarrassed or humiliated in front of their children, because it robs them of some of their status). ‘Performance anxiety’ is a slick psychological term, but it is very deep-rooted. Dangerous female genitalia express all sorts of atavistic masculine fears
The myth of the irresistible seductress also relieves a man of moral responsibility. ‘The woman tempted me’. For a man to ‘give in’, to be conquered, by someone weaker than himself would never do, so she has to have been stronger in that particular context. This is all predicated on the male seeing himself as normally being in the more powerful, decision-making role.
Inequality, both social and sexual, is always fraught with difficulty for both the powerful and the powerless. It can never be wholly removed: indeed, social hierarchies are hard-wired into social organisation just as they are in so many other gregarious species, but striving for equality in personal relationships is at least is a good goal.
AgTigress said on 07.02.08 at 01:49 AM • [link]
Snarkhunter, you pre-empted me, writing that as I was writing the post above! Exactly!
;-)
Holly said on 07.02.08 at 01:59 AM • [link]
Ok, fair point. As a younger speaker of American English I can see that I may have misinterpreted your tone - it was not the words themselves. (And of course I won’t assume that you assume that as an American I’m unfamiliar with “coitus” or “canid.”)
It was the tone of High Academic Dudgeon that struck me, I suppose.
Phrases like archetypal fascist sex - perhaps it’s not schoolmarmish. It’s donish. Is it donish? or donnish? As in Don-like. Although over here we don’t have Dons. We have MAs in Gender Studies.
I still don’t see why the popularity of BDSM literature among Americans - and is it not popular among British readers? I’m asking, I don’t know - might augur anything negative, or why it might augur anything at all. It’s a fad. It will pass.
I’m afraid I can’t do anything about my desensitization to the word “fascist.” I just stop listening once the word is used.
I always figured the sexual vibe in Weimar Germany had more to do with boots and riding crops and pointy helmets and the Germans’ inordinate love (at that time) of all things military, none of which was peculiar to the Nazis, right? Hypermasculine, hypermilitary societies like that frequently feature that kind of thing.
Holly said on 07.02.08 at 02:08 AM • [link]
My mother thinks she’s against gay marriage - she’s not, she just thinks she is - and I asked her one night, what can a gay couple possibly do to harm the institution of marriage that Henry VIII, Elizabeth Taylor, Britney Spears, and the Kennedys have not already done?
Lori said on 07.02.08 at 02:19 AM • [link]
Someone has suggested that in order to preserve anti gay sentiment as a political tool opponents of marriage equality are essentially treating “marriage=1 man + 1 woman” the way a corporation treats a trademark issue. You have to defend your trademark everywhere all the time or you loose control of it, even if a particular infringement is actually trivial. In other words, the objection has nothing to do with what does or doesn’t damage marriages & families and everything to do with control.
So many people have a visceral squick about homosexuality that I think the stated objections just don’t get examined closely at all.
snarkhunter said on 07.02.08 at 02:54 AM • [link]
Uh…Weimar preceded Nazi Germany. It went Empire, Weimar, Nazis.
I never got much of a sexual vibe off of Nazi Germany. I was always distracted by the OMG DYINGOPPRESSIONMURDERGENOCIDE thing they had going on.
Catherine said on 07.02.08 at 04:22 AM • [link]
I have heard that before but… no. I didn’t do the in class full-time student thing. I did mine through distance learning, online classes, and on post classes.
Actually, the biggest place I encountered this? The military. Lord, I cannot count the number of times some older female sergeant such and such gave me this same speal.
Holly said on 07.02.08 at 04:53 AM • [link]
Snark: Yes, I know that. I was thinking of the German general who died en route to one of the fronts in WWI - he was on one of the Kaiser’s personal trains - had a heart attack at dinner. It took them hours to get him out of the pink tights and tutu and back into his uniform before they could call in the doctor. I have to go look it up - I’m certain this time, at least, that I’m remembering correctly what I read. I could be wrong about the color of the tights.
I was going off what Ag said about fascist sex under right wing governments. I don’t recall Wiemar being fascist.
Diana Peterfreund said on 07.02.08 at 04:55 AM • [link]
Mildly afraid of wading into this discussion, but I found the “feminism” stuff to be quite interesting. I consider myself a feminist. My husband considers himself a feminist. But if I ever make comments to that effect at appearances discussing the feminist themes of my books, I get one of two reactions:
1) “Wow, who would have thought a pink book/book with a girl with a bikini on the cover would be one of those manhating feminist things?”
2) “Your book CANNOT be feminist. It’s chick lit and the cover is pink/has a girl with a bikini on the cover.”
You really can’t win. Either they think of feminism as a pejorative term or they think of your book in pejorative terms and therefore not feminist.
Interestingly enough, though male readers of my books (enlightened souls, to dare to pick up pink bikini covers!) are more likely to tell me that the situation I describe does not exist, I’ve gotten lots of fan mail from female readers talking about how their job etc. features exactly the same sort of sexism the book talks about.
snarkhunter said on 07.02.08 at 05:40 AM • [link]
That is AWESOME. I was confused by your comment, so sorry if I came off as condescending. :) I see what you were saying now.
Catherine, I admit I’m surprised to hear that. The military is about the LAST place I’d look for radical feminist thought…especially given what I’ve been hearing about the sexual assault rates in Iraq lately. ::sigh:: Well, I apologize, but that is where I personally confronted the annoying more feminist-than-thou girls, and where a lot of women I know have also had to deal with that.
My point is, though, that they don’t represent all of feminism any more than Fred Phelps or Pat Robertson represent all of Christianity for me. Or any more than the bastards who rape their fellow soldiers represent the rest of the military.
I’m so depressed when I hear this. :( I really am. I feel like Sisyphus sometimes. It makes me feel like we’ve lost the battle and we’ll lost the war, too.
(However, I am going to go hunt up one of your books! Feminist themes AND pink covers? Sign me up!)
Holly said on 07.02.08 at 05:54 AM • [link]
Yes, it is awesome indeed, and I’m discomfited by the fact that I can’t get anywhere near it on Google - but that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. I will be crushed if I find out that I have been carrying an awesome, but fictitious, historical anecdote in my head. Cause I hate when that happens.
spamword=ever37. Because the validation code I have to enter to post this is ever47 and I’m thinking no way, baby. I’m ever 37. I was 37 when I was 26, and i’ll be 37 when I turn 45.
Catherine said on 07.02.08 at 06:22 AM • [link]
No, I understand what you mean. However, what I meant was that in my generation (from my point of view) feminism has been bastardized more often than not into that crazed agree-with-me-or-not-be-a-real-woman version. Quite frankly, I don’t want to be associated with that at all. I know feminism was meant to mean something better, but I don’t think it does anymore.
In regards to the military: Well, that is just a confusing situation. Not just for the people looking from the outside, but even from the people involved in it. *Be aware I speak only from my own experience and not in regards to every woman who has been in the military*
It seems like half of the female population of the military flat out hate men and are very, VERY extreme in their feminism. The other half seem to want their equality and get their special treatment too. Then there is the small population that seems to just want to do their job and not be associated with any of those other types.
The man hating ones: They seem to be bitter about their role in life to the extreme. Every time they didn’t get a promotion or an award it was because all the men are against them. If they get stuck on a detail it’s only because the men didn’t want to work on the weekend. They sneer at all the new ‘parade pretty” female soldiers and are especially harsh on their female soldiers because they want them to be better than all the men. They do not want equality, they want total historic role reversal. All the women should be in charge and the men should feel the degradation and suppression that they have. Women should be able to run around calling them ‘sugar’, slapping their ass and telling them to get them coffee.
The equality with special treatment: They want to be equal to men and get the same pay and benefits as them, but they really don’t want to have to do all the grunt work that is involved with it. You want them to PMCS a truck, help install equipment, move a heavy object? They really don’t want to do it and are more than willing to sweet talk some guy into doing it for them. These are the ones that abuse the system and make male PLT SGT’s flat out say that they don’t want any girls in their shop. Not because they hate girls, but because they hate that a task that was assigned to one person is now taking two or more people to do it and taking those guys away from what they were doing.
One of the saddest things I saw in the military was the sheer amount of sex that went on. The guys were getting it everywhere because girls seem to have some thing with guys in uniform. There are so many less girls than guys in a unit that the male soldiers all cluster around them and compete for attention. This seems to make the girls feel powerful. They stop associating their value with them as a person and start valuing themselves because so many people want them. Not every one, but most of them, seem to sleep with a staggering amount of men every year. It really upset me to see my friends view themselves this way and enjoy it. They got stuff for free, they didn’t have to do the crappy work, they always had people who wanted to hang out with them… what’s not to like? Ugh, very sad.
snarkhunter said on 07.02.08 at 03:07 PM • [link]
Catherine, that is sad. That makes me really sad, actually. Particularly the second one, b/c those are the women who make other women in the military look bad.
AgTigress said on 07.02.08 at 06:55 PM • [link]
:-(
That is simply the usual way I write when I am trying to make a serious point. A highly colloquial, conversational register does not come naturally to me when writing, and in any case, the regional/chronological gap between AE and BE is a lot wider in informal speech than in formal English, so if I were to make an effort to write in a chatty style, you would probably still misunderstand my tone and perhaps even my meaning.
We are all adults here, so naturally I assume that you all do know perfectly ordinary words like coitus and canid! If I honestly thought that anyone here didn’t know them, I wouldn’t use them. Would you prefer me to make the outrageously rude and condescending assumption that such words are ‘too hard’ for contributors here? Simplified vocabulary and syntax may be required when writing for children and for non-native English speakers, but not for a group of English-speaking adults - and moreover, a group that, by definition, consists of enthusiastic readers.
Suze said on 07.02.08 at 09:42 PM • [link]
Wow, take a day off for a national holiday, and all kinds of things open up!
I haven’t caught up with the comments yet, but this caught my attention, and I apologize if it’s already covered:
One of the backlashes against feminism in the mid-to-late 90’s (according to my increasingly faulty memory—about the time that Bly published Iron John) was definitely caused by how a lot of feminists represented themselves.
It wasn’t enough for a woman to be a feminist, you had to be a militant, vegan, lesbian, pagan, eco-warrior, anarchist feminist. You couldn’t be Christian and a feminist, you couldn’t work for a major corporation and be a feminist, you couldn’t like men and be a feminist. Like high heels and makeup? You’re a sell-out, honey. You eat MEAT?!
There was a real sense that you not only had to agree with my political platform, but you had to agree with ALL my political platform, and you had to agree with it for the same reasons that I did.
The skreed got really uncomfortable, and anyone who wasn’t cutting-edge, militant, radical, and extremely non-conformist was not willing to accept a label that smeared them with all the extras.
Man, you bitches have interesting conversations.
after86: yep, it was definitely MUCH later than that.
Robinjn said on 07.02.08 at 10:00 PM • [link]
Did we pass through the same 90s? Because honestly, I never encountered that. I was born in 1960 and all of us who are my age or older remember the pervasive culture of that time. Women were definitely second class citizens. Remember the Charlie perfume commercial where the woman sang “I can bring home the bacon, and fry it up in a pan…”? That commercial was HUGELY controversial because it showed that a woman could be successful in business and in the home.
I remember when sexual harrassment was totally unknown as a phrase. If you had a male boss and you were young and cute, you WOULD be the subject of comments gestures and more. Once my (then) boss gave one of my girlfriends a ride home in his car and opened his pants and stuck her hand in. It didn’t occur to either of us to report it. Report it to who? It was just something you put up with. Anita Hill was the first woman to ever step forward publicly to say that treatment was NOT okay, and look what happened to her. And until she stepped forward, I had no clue you could stop it happening or even that behavior like that wasn’t normal or expected, just the lot you had to bear.
Any woman who ever took a car in for repair then knows what that was like. Jokes about your driving. Jokes that you didn’t know anything about a car and had imagined the problem you were having. When we bought cars, the salesman would refuse to discuss things like engine size or power, and instead would say, “what color you want, honey”. That is, if they spoke to you at all. If you were with a man, you were completely ignored as unworthy of conversation. Even if you said something, the salesman would reply to your male companion.
I am a feminist. I am proud to call myself so. I know what it was like just those few years ago. Yet I and my friends who were and are strong women who have managed to beat the system of that time while wearing makeup and sexy clothes. Okay. We didn’t wear bras. Heck, we were young. We didn’t need to and it was the style. Watch any 80s movie. (boy howdy I wouldn’t be caught dead in public without a bra now.)
Anyway, just wondering where this feminist backlash comes from since I never saw any feminists that match that whole radical, hating, birkenstock wearing, no shaving, no makeup stereotype.
AgTigress said on 07.02.08 at 10:34 PM • [link]
Nor have I. I would say that all my female colleagues throughout my 40+ year working life considered themselves feminists (regardless of their personal lifestyle or political ideologies), including those older than myself (I was born in 1941). I know a great many vegetarians and count several life-long lesbians amongst my closest friends, but the stereotype you describe, the rather aggressive suite of characteristics, is genuinely completely unfamiliar to me. Maybe this was mainly an American phenomenon?
I am aware of some rather silly pseudo-academic work done in the name of feminism (the whole idiot ‘herstory’ thing), but it is a tiny amount compared with the wider benign influence of feminist perspectives in many different academic disciplines, including my own. I experienced that change of perspective as it happened, with its implications for the representation of subjectivity and objectivity in archaeological analysis. The earliest published papers I wrote in 1962-5 had to adhere to the old standards: the author had to be invisible (‘I’ was a verboten word in academic discourse); opinions had to be expressed as objective facts, and no alternatives could be offered, e.g.
‘the evidence indicates that this rebuilding phase took place in the Neronian or early Flavian period’.
Now, we are allowed to admit that there may be several possible interpretations of the evidence, and it is okay to say that the one we favour may be a personal choice, and that future discoveries may either confirm or disprove it. We can say:
‘On the present evidence, I would date this rebuilding phase to the Neronian/early Flavian period’.
This is a major advance in scholarly honesty and integrity, and it is very, very closely tied up with feminism, at least in my own discipline. Of course, it has benefited scholars of both sexes. Feminism does ultimately benefit both sexes. We may still have to fight every inch of the way on matters such as promotion and salaries, but the feminist movements of the last 40 years have made a permanent difference to scholarly endeavour, just as the feminism of the late 19thC began to reform legal statutes for the better.
Laura Vivanco said on 07.02.08 at 10:41 PM • [link]
I wonder if the cumulative effect of comments like these is to give the impression that all hairy-legged, Birkenstock-and-jeans-wearing feminists who eschew make-up are considered un-sexy manhaters. I’m not sure if anyone meant to imply that, but it’s the impression I’ve begun to get from reading this thread.
I never understood what was so sexy about the pair of bright pink high heels discussed on an earlier thread, though. Are there very fixed conventions in the US about beauty ideals and the sexual (or anti-sexual) meanings of certain kinds of clothing/accessories?
Robinjn said on 07.02.08 at 10:43 PM • [link]
I dunno. I’m as American as it gets, born and raised in Kentucky and have lived smack in the middle of the country (Missouri) for the past 20+ years…
Maybe it’s a big-city or Northeastern thing. Because I sure haven’t seen it here.
Lori said on 07.02.08 at 11:11 PM • [link]
When I was in college I took a few women’s studies classes and encountered some of the types of behavior that people are talking about. In my experience it had almost nothing to do with feminism and a lot to do with being young and exposed to new ideas and “consciousness raising”. For many of my classmates college was the first time they really saw how badly women & minorities & the planet were really being treated. They were pissed about it and they were young enough to be very certain that they had found the one true way to fix things. I’ve never known anyone over the age of 30 who talked or acted like that.
That’s not to knock or make fun of the young in any way. That kind of energy & determination can be fabulous. But it often lacks nuance and empathy.
Robinjn said on 07.02.08 at 11:28 PM • [link]
I sure don’t know about manhaters. But I’ll be very honest and say that for me personally, the whole hairy armpit/birkenstock look…no. Not sexy. Sorry. Obviously someone must find it sexy, I do not.
However, I’m not the one who equated feminists with this unflattering stereotype. I was merely stating that I hadn’t encountered that stereotype even though I grew up when feminism really took off in the 1960s.
Catherine said on 07.02.08 at 11:34 PM • [link]
I’m from the North West for what it’s worth.
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that if that’s what you thought. All I was doing was speaking from my own personal experience.
Huh, I’ve only ever really experienced those views from people older than that age. It was a prevelant condescending attitude that just because I was young I didn’t really understand a woman’s struggle. I guess different experiences for different people.
SusannaG said on 07.03.08 at 12:04 AM • [link]
Holly - I think the event occurred a little earlier (before World War I) - but is even better!
The officer in question was the CHIEF of the German General Staff, and he was dancing in the tutu and feathered hat for the KAISER! when his heart failed and he died.
(I wonder if the hat belonged to the Empress Augusta? Wilhelm II gave her 12 every year on her birthday, and she was always seen wearing one.)
No idea if the tutu was pink or not, though!
Suze said on 07.03.08 at 12:16 AM • [link]
I was born in 1967, and I’m from Western Canada (the boonies of Alberta, specifically). I gained my impression from what I was reading in the 90’s, a lot of which was new-age and holistic health stuff, as well as goddess-centred re-visioning of history. Prehistory, really. Much of which has apparently come under fire since I drifted away from actively following it.
Anyway.
There was definitely an angry reaction against (for example) Naomi Wolfe’s The Beauty Myth as being anti-feminist, and I definitely bought and read a book of essays that were feminists’ angry or uncomfortable reactions to the Iron John men’s movement.
And I definitely read many very angry essays and articles loudly declaiming what wasn’t feminist, and a handful of essays from women explaining why they didn’t embrace the title of feminist.
It’s possible that my impression was mangled by my admittedly skewed information intake filter, but that’s the impression I got back then, and it holds true for me now.
Holly said on 07.03.08 at 12:52 AM • [link]
Susanna - thank you, thank you! I so wanted that anecdote to be true, you know?
I’ve run into - and away from - the angry type of feminists that Catherine is describing, and they’ve usually been a little older than me - Baby Boomers.
And I used to think it was a feminist thing, and then I realized that it was an aging thing - and I’m trying very hard not to do it myself. The whole “young people today….” skreed that you swear you’ll never do? I see lots of folks not much older than me doing it. Right now it’s the Gen Y’s who are getting it - they’re selfish, they’re lazy, they want everything handed to them, they don’t appreciate teamwork, yada yada. I hear this from older women in the workplace more than anyone else. Don’t know why it is. Some people get bitter and crochety and scared in thier old age, and their old age starts way sooner than it should.
I read two very interesting blog posts on the topic of feminism today and thought of this place. One was over at Megan McArdle’s Atlantic blog and her views about perfectly mirrored mine. But in much better prose, of course.
snarkhunter said on 07.03.08 at 12:55 AM • [link]
My comment could very much have been construed that way, and I didn’t mean that at all, but I can definitely see where the way I constructed my comment leads to that interpretation.
Generally, I have a fairly laissez-faire attitude towards clothing—although not towards hygiene. I don’t care if you shave or what you wear, really, but you’d better bathe as often as it takes to make sure you’re not gross if you want to stay in my good graces.
I get really frustrated by the battle of the stereotypes. Person A (and this isn’t meant to target Catherine at ALL) says, “Feminists are/do XYZ, and I don’t want to be associated with that.” Person B says, “I’m a feminist and I don’t do XY or Z. I prefer ABC.” Person C says, “So are feminists who do XY and Z also D or F?” And the stereotypes continue.
It’s why I linked to the Sars essay in the first place. She says it better than I do. A feminist is simply a person who supports (in some way or another) equality of the sexes. That’s it. It has nothing to do with sexuality or dress or attitude towards others. I didn’t mean to convey that the Birkenstock-wearing vegetarian feminist who rarely wears makeup is a man-hater, any more than I would say the man-hating feminist (there are a few, I imagine) is automatically a vegetarian.
One thing I like about being a feminist in this day and age, however, is that I feel like I can wear what I want, think what I want, have kids, whatever, and still be a feminist. I look at the women around me—the women who belong to the pioneering generation and are now full professors, and nearly all dress in very mannish clothing, eschew make-up, and wear their hair short. If that’s what they like, great. But there is a decided push among that crowd to similarly androgynize my generation of women when we go out into the job market, and most of us refuse to allow it.
Anaquana said on 07.03.08 at 01:28 AM • [link]
I’ve run into that here in Western Massachusetts. From what I hear, it is also prevalent in the San Francisco/Bay area of California.
Around here they are derisively called “Femi-Nazi’s” because they really are “Join me or die” types of people. I’ve run into people online who claim that any male initiated sex is rape because of the power differential between men and women. *mind boggles*
Unfortunately, these people are perpetuating the myth that women are helpless and less than men because that is all that they seem to want to focus on.
Spamword - Yet23. No thanks, I wouldn’t want to be 23 again. I’m happy where I’m at.
snarkhunter said on 07.03.08 at 02:07 AM • [link]
Oh my God. I HATE those people! I want to be like, “Honey, it’s really not all that empowering to say that I can never have any kind of power.”
Catherine said on 07.03.08 at 02:17 AM • [link]
Holy crap! I hadn’t heard that one before. I’ll be sure to pass that on to my husband. I’m sure he’ll see their point. *snort*
Holly said on 07.03.08 at 02:27 AM • [link]
That was Andrea Dworkin’s big thing, IIRC - that all heterosexual sex is rape. It really does invert the whole thing, and turn women into helpless, perpetual victims who aren’t even in a position to give their consent to get laid. Like the Womens’ Studies professors who won’t allow men to take their courses because the presence of men might inhibit female students from expressing themselves.
There was a awesome blog post at some feminist network site not too long ago, wherein she raged against Joss Whedon’s Firefly - I think she had just seen the movie Serenity, and she said she’d never watch the series, because Whedon was basically a woman-hating terrorist, and she went on this long tangent and had a lot of commenters going all You Go Girl on her. There were spirited discussions at other blogs trying to decide if the whole thing was some brilliant (and it would have been brilliant parody but alas, I think it was completely sincere.
BTW - Joss Whedon’s females Kick Ass Quite Righteously.
snarkhunter said on 07.03.08 at 02:49 AM • [link]
YES! I was thinking of her when I saw that comment. God, that was stupid. She was arguing that Joss is a rapist because he may have once asked his wife to have sex, and that Zoe was totally degraded b/c she calls Mal “sir.” Nevermind that they’re both ex-military and he was her commanding officer. Nope. It’s aaaaaall about the degradation.
To be fair, Dworkin NEVER actually said that all hetero sex is rape. It’s a common misconception. She made a much more nuanced argument that suggested in some situations apparently consensual penetrative sex could be coercive, or something like that. She was a radical, no doubt, but I’ve learned that she has gotten a much nastier rap than she deserved.
snarkhunter said on 07.03.08 at 02:50 AM • [link]
Also, I don’t think that was on a feminist blog. It was on Livejournal.
Kimberly Anne said on 07.03.08 at 02:55 AM • [link]
They call feminists “Femi-Nazis” here, too. The truth is, except for the internet, I don’t hear people doing anything BUT degrading feminists for being hairy-legged lesbians who want to castrate all the men in the world. Even among the women I know. “I’m not a feminist, but…” is a constant refrain.
I think part of the problem is that we live in a world that doesn’t want to admit the extent to which women are still not treated equally. The misogyny is so deep-rooted and so common that most people don’t even see it. Which makes women who speak out look like they’re overreacting.
Also, we are a culture that feeds on sound bites. And who’s a better sound bite - an intelligent, well-spoken woman or a man-hating harpy? As long as the feminists we see in the media are the most radical and militant element of the movement, people will still think that, “I’m not a feminist, but…” is a valid statement.
Pai said on 07.03.08 at 03:27 AM • [link]
Andrea Dworkin never said that ‘All heterosexual sex is rape’... it’s a quote taken out of context, used to discredit her and feminism in general.
sandra said on 07.03.08 at 04:11 AM • [link]
If I might digress back to the subject of beastiality: In 16th Century France, a man was caught in the act of having sex with a she-ass. As was the custom at the time, he was condemned to death, and so was she. However, the villagers all signed ( or more likely made their mark on) a petition asking for clemency - for the she-ass! They said that she was a honest creature who would never willingly take part in an unnatural sex act, and should not be blamed for having been raped. The result was that she was parolled to the custody of her owner; he was hanged. The incident featured in a movie a saw a few years ago, of which I cannot remember the title, but it really did happen. It’s ironic that the she-ass got more sympathy than a raped woman would have, but then, SHE was valuable! Spamword is Live11. Mayve the she-ass lived to be 11.
Anaquana said on 07.03.08 at 04:16 AM • [link]
I saw that blog as well! I couldn’t stop laughing at how completely ridiculous that woman was. And, it was both on LJ and an outside blog that she set up because she was picked on so much on LJ.
It actually made me want to watch Firefly and Serenity. And I’m glad I did because it is now one of my favorite fandoms.
Kimberly Ann, I’m sorry if my comment made it sound like all feminists are Femi-Nazis. I was referring to just the ones that spout the “Join me or die” drivel.
I don’t call myself a feminist because I hate having to have so many labels applied to myself. I simply go about my life with the knowledge that, no matter what anybody else says, I am worth as much if not more than any man.
Maybe I’ve been lucky because I live in one of the most liberal states in the country, but I can’t think of a single person I know outside of the internet who has faced discrimination because they were a woman. I have faced more discrimination based on my religious beliefs and the fact that I look younger than I really am than I have because of my gender.
Lori said on 07.03.08 at 04:44 AM • [link]
This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad and screwed up & wrong. That woman needs a little thump with the clue stick. I have a bit of a rant about some things that happened at the end of Buffy that I felt undercut the feminist vibe of the show, but that doesn’t change the fact that Whendon very consciously writes women who are anything but weak & subjugated. And he very proudly calls himself a feminist.
As for terms & labels, the one I won’t use ever is actually FemiNazi. I don’t care how obnoxious a person is, I just can’t bring myself to use a term coined by Rush Limbaugh to denigrate any woman with the temerity to disagree with his crap. I just can’t use his frame as any part of how I look at the world.
Jessica said on 07.03.08 at 05:14 AM • [link]
My first experience with anyone talking about feminism was actually a very conservative fundy. christian girl in my high school calling me a feminist (in the tone normal people would use for racist or pedophile) because I suggested the women in Things Fall Apart might like Christianity because it gave them some basic rights/a bit of a voice. Am so glad I live in a big liberal city now, and go to a grad school where “I’m not a feminist” would probably not be a socially wise statement.
I completely agree that one of the (sadly many) problems with the general view of feminists/feminism is who gets airtime/notice. If it isn’t the extremists, who make us look kinda crazy, it tends to be women from an older generation. I completely respect and look up to Steinem and the movement she was part of, and understand all the important things their work means for so many aspects of my life. But making gender the single most important thing in any dialogue, rather than looking at the intersections of race, class, sexuality, gender, etc, is causing huge problems for the newer generation of feminists (I’m 23). Sadly, it’s getting to the point where saying “I’m a feminist” is problematic in some places not for the same reasons it is in more conservative areas but because it’s becoming tied to a sort of white, middle-class privileged outlook that suggests I don’t appreciate the various other, equally important disenfranchising problems.
Laura Vivanco said on 07.03.08 at 10:39 AM • [link]
Maybe I’ve been lucky because I live in one of the most liberal states in the country, but I can’t think of a single person I know outside of the internet who has faced discrimination because they were a woman.
That kind of discrimination can be difficult to prove on an individual basis, though. Decisions could be affected by very subtle things, like the sound of women’s voices (the pitch can automatically make people feel that the woman is less experienced/authoritative). However, in the article by Kira Cochrane that others linked to, she wrote that in the UK woman are “still paid 17% less than men for full-time work, 36% less for part-time work.” That’s one indication that there’s a systemic problem which disadvantages women.
And I know men sometimes get groped, sexually assaulted and raped, but how common is it for this to happen to men versus how commonplace it is for women? Karen Scott recently asked her readers to give their personal stories, and it’s no surprise to me that a lot of people reported having been flashed at, groped, had sexual nuisance phone-calls. Clearly, even without even taking into account the number of women who are seriously assaulted or raped, there’s a lot of sexual harassment of women going on. I don’t think men experience that in the same way or at anything like the same frequency, and what might seem like low-level sexual harassment does have an effect on women:
Laura Vivanco said on 07.03.08 at 10:43 AM • [link]
Sorry, I seem to have messed up my links a bit.
Diana Peterfreund said on 07.03.08 at 02:53 PM • [link]
Can someone link to the Whedon blog topic—I’d love to try and see what her argument could be!
I blame Marti Noxon for the end direction of Buffy which undercut many of the previous values. If you trace MN’s involvement in the series, you can see that it’s her choice every time female sexuality is punished.
snarkhunter said on 07.03.08 at 03:01 PM • [link]
Exactly, Laura! I mean, how many of us *expect* to be groped when we go out dancing/clubbing/to a bar. We will probably try to stop it or move away, but I am aware that it’s a distinct possibility every time I go out. (I’ve only been groped once, fortunately, and the guy got an elbow to his ribs for his trouble, but still.)
We expect to be cat-called, told to “smile” by random strangers, and have our chests instead of our faces spoken to.
But, you know, that’s not discriminatory! That’s just *life*. Men can’t control themselves! /sarcasm.
snarkhunter said on 07.03.08 at 03:19 PM • [link]
Here you go, Diana: A Rapist’s View of the World (I think that’s the title).
“Enjoy” reading it. It’s ... special.
Also, I have one last thing to say. For those who think that feminism is unnecessary, or that women aren’t discriminated against, what do you say to the spread of pharmacists and doctors unwilling to give unmarried women contraception? Or even, sometimes, married women? What do you say when women’s health needs are ignored because of things like abortion or a community’s fear of reprisals from anti-choicers? You don’t have to be pro-choice to recognize the importance of low-cost health care for women, which Planned Parenthood provides.
Lori said on 07.03.08 at 04:15 PM • [link]
The discrimination that I’ve seen/experienced in the corporate world is of the subtle & hard to prove variety and it can be overcome, but it definitely exists. For example, if I woman puts forward a new idea she’s expected to have all sort of facts & figures to back her up. A man offering the same sort of idea will be assumed to know what he’s talking about. It’s not so much that the expectations for women are unreasonable. I think you should be able to back up your ideas. The problem is that men can often skate on assumption of authority or the chummy old boy thing.
I doubt that I know more than a handful of women who haven’t experienced that kind of thing.
Kimberly Anne said on 07.03.08 at 04:17 PM • [link]
Anaquana, I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to imply that you were calling all feminists “Femi-Nazis”. I was just saying that in my area, that’s what I always hear feminists called, be they militant or moderate. And though I object to using that label for any feminist, I certainly can understand the reasoning behind it.
IMHO, the militant “Join me or die” bunch do behave unreasonably, but the moment you use the word “Nazi” - or “fascist” as happened earlier in this thread - people stop listening. The terms are thrown around so much that they’ve lost meaning, and only serve to degrade the conversation to an “am not/are too” dynamic.
So, to my mind, using the term “Femi-Nazi” - even when you’re referring to a specific subsection of the movement - brings down the discourse for all of feminism. Even if only because, as an admitted feminist, I am always forced to add, “but not one of THOSE feminists.”
Robinjn said on 07.03.08 at 04:25 PM • [link]
Discrimination is still very pervasive in this and other ways. The fact is, old white guys still hugely dominate the upper tiers in almost all companies. Women are still paid only 77 cents for each dollar a man makes. And I see it all the time in academia. I’ve known female PhDs who have done world-renown research who are being paid a fraction of what their male counterparts *and* are expected to take on tasks their male counterparts are not. In my field of graphic design women are also discriminated against. I was once an editor at a large University department where I had direct supervision of 2 full time and one part time employee plus did design work and editing/mangerial duties. I was paid $20k less a year than a male in the exact same title who had been in his profession 10 years less (and in his job 7 years less) than I had…and he had responsibility for a single annual magazine.
Don’t ever think it’s over. Discrimination has gone underground and it’s lessened some, but it’s still very much there.
AgTigress said on 07.03.08 at 05:01 PM • [link]
This is certainly still true in many male-dominated workplaces.
On a similar tack, I am reminded of one of my favourite old Punch cartoons (date unknown).
Five men and one woman sit round a table at a meeting: the woman has obviously just contributed to the discussion, and the chairman, smiling cheerfully, responds.
‘That’s an excellent suggestion, Miss Triggs. Perhaps one of the men would like to make it’.
From the comments on this thread, it seems to me that the situation is different in many ways in the USA from the UK and Europe, but at the risk of repeating myself, I want to emphasise again that social stratification is, of its nature, changeable - and indeed, we are fortunate that this is so. All sorts of factors combine to influence our role and position in society, some of them fair and reasonable, others irrational, prejudiced and completely obnoxious. Even if we think that our position (whether as women, or as representatives of any other group) is secure and respected, it is not. It never is. We always have to work to keep our standing.
I do have the impression that some younger women, possibly more in the USA than here, think that feminism is no longer relevant, that it is an outdated social concern typical of the mid, or even the late, 20thC. Quite apart from the fact that the whole movement is a good 200 years older than that, and that knowing its history prior to the 1950s helps one to see the broader picture, the attitude is intrinsically dangerous, because it facilitates the efforts of those who would like to put women back ‘where they belong’ - out of the workplace, and permanently into the home, whether or not that is where their talents and interests lie.
Robinjn said on 07.03.08 at 05:10 PM • [link]
AgTigress, you are so correct. We must continue to fight this. And the current war on women is insidious and subtle.
I’ll say the following from the context of being raised a Christian in the Southern U.S., but Presbyterian, which of a whole is a very moderate faith. But I feel some of the most alarming things are both depriving women of choice and also some of the truly fanatical right-wing religions who quote the bible in saying that women should be under men (in all ways) and should submit to men.
And of course we only have to look so far as the Taliban to know what women suffer there. Or the Sudan, where women are still routinely castrated and have their vaginas stitched almost completely shut to both ensure they have no sexual pleasure but that the man gets the most possible sensation.
I see the routine denigration of Romance novels as just another way to diminish women and tell them that their likes and tastes are not just unimportant, but unworthy.
Suze said on 07.03.08 at 05:56 PM • [link]
Heh. I used to work with a woman who, like me, was overgenerously endowed on top. We were working on a project with a guy who CONSTANTLY spoke to our chests. We were complaining about it, and another guy who worked on the project with us walked by. “Don’t worry about,” he said, “he does that to men too. He just can’t look people in the eye when he talks.”
I mostly don’t say anything to this because it makes me inarticulate with rage. I turn red in the face, and choke and splutter, and say a bunch of curse words, but if I want to communicate anything that is comprehensible, I have to write it down, and edit it a great deal.
What I especially don’t like is fundie evangelical churches sending volunteers to Canada during election campaigns to harass voters into supporting the conservative running, purely on their religious grounds. Get out of my country! We have enough of our own fundie whack-jobs, we don’t need your exports.
On a positive note, though, Dr. Henry Morgentaler has just been awarded with the Order of Canada by the Governer General. (Morgentaler is the premier abortion-rights activist in Canada, he was pretty much the driving force that made access to safe abortion legal.) And, of course, our conservative PM has distanced himself from this in his usual petulant way.
(The GG is the Queen’s representative, and her actions are not necessarily directed by the sitting government.)
choice99 !
AgTigress said on 07.03.08 at 11:39 PM • [link]
You have used exactly the right word. The procedure, the removal of the entire clitoris, is generally called ‘female circumcision’, which downplays the extreme and vicious nature of the mutilation.
Western women do not at present need to fear such extreme socially-approved violence, but we deceive ourselves if we imagine that the social equality which is our natural moral right has been achieved, and no further action is required on our part. It hasn’t, and it behoves us to remain vigilant.
Suburbanbushbabe said on 07.04.08 at 03:50 AM • [link]
Kinsale’s Midsummer Moon is almost my keeper di tutti keepers because of how intractable Ransom is about his phobia and how his transformation is so much in character. Regarding conjugal enemies, Coulter et al. were okay for me to read as a teen and a young woman. I think they catered to a certain acceptance of sexual powerlessness in some women in much the same way today’s Harlequin “Greek billionaires pregnant mistress” titles and the like cater to something similar today.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments