Romance is love, and feminism is strength. Yes! That is what I believe. The thing is that as much as I wish the world was white and black, it’s NOT! It’s actually filled with shades of gray. Seeing romance and feminism as black and white is a way of closing up to the beauty of our world!
First of all I discussed my feminist perspectives to my friends,
as I do every week, as my knowledge on this subject is enhanced I came to a
question Is God Sexist? Yes this topic has not even been covered in class, but
come on let’s think about it! Women have always been looked at as less; it is
not just a recent development. When I studied AP European History I read how
women were a possession a mere object for men. There were rare cases like Queen
Elizabeth that depicted a strong woman. Just like in those days it’s just very
rare to see strong women, at a men’s level. In medieval we had Queen Elizabeth,
and in recent times we had the almost successful Hilary Clinton. But why in the
world do women have to fight for a right that men are just naturally born with!
It got me thinking, could it possibly have been the bible that started all of
this? I mean it could have been an influence of setting roles, and power, but
who knows this could start another of the trillion feminist debates going on.
Radway, Krentz, Scanlon, Moran, and all those other writers
have different perspectives and some similar perspectives on feminism and
romance or on what w omen’s behavior should be. So if they all had their perspectives,
I figured why not make mine!!
Here it comes! Romance, In
Jane Krentz’s article Dangerous men adventurous women she
responds to the critiques that women “do not expect the imaginative creation of
romance to conform to real life” (Krentz 2).To her romance is a pass time, such
as reading other genres. On the other hand we have John Storey in Culture Theory
& Popular Culture telling us how the Coward’s perspective of
romantic reading is about women’s “early child relationships”(Storey 141). This
is his belief that it all had to do with the father figure. Then we
have Janice Radway who believes that romance reading is used as, “a way of
temporally refusing the demand associated with their social roles” (Radway
9-10). According to Radway, romance readings allow woman to get the level of
nurturing they need. Susan Phillips, an example of Radway’s theory, states,
“Romance novel was providing me with a fantasy of which I was very much in need
of” (Phillips 55). Phillips perspective of romance takes a different turn
though explaining the hero and heroine. Her ideas tie into the empowerment of
women. Then there are the younger editorials that Krentz mentions, the ones
trying to make, “romance reading respectable” (Krentz 107).
OK so we clearly can
see the dynamics and perspectives about romantic reading, and pop culture. This
is my theory; romance reading is fucking literature ok! SO why the hell, do we
care who reads it and who doesn’t. Pop culture empowers women in some media,
but makes them weak in others. This not only happens to women but men as well.
Examples of this come in the movies Twilight and The Hunger Games. One Movie
shows strong women while the other shows weak women. New Girl shows a very
sentimental guy, but Vampire Diaries shows strong men such as Damon. Romantic
literature is not empowering, nor weak, nor a waste of time, nor a good use of
time. Romance reading is what it is depending on each individual’s preferences.
Seriously, we need to stop focusing on “romance is good, romance is bad!” IT IS
WHAT EACH INDIVUAL WANTS IT TO BE!
To me romance reading
is a waste of time, but it doesn’t mean it’s not empowering to my neighbor. The
fact that we are putting so much attention to those little details is making us
less equal and so much less focused. (OH maybe this explains our progress and
why we are paid unequally). We don’t see men whining about why there
are romantic novels, or media that make them look weak. Why? BECAUSE THEY KNOW
WHO THEY ARE, they don’t need to see a movie with strong men to know they are
strong and capable. They just go do it. While we are here debating “romance is
bad, did you see how Bella was weak”, YES Bella is weak! SO WHAT! Is that going
to change us into weak women? NO we know who we are, why are we doubting ourselves!
So my theory is STOP putting all this focus into pop culture, romantic novels,
and media, we know who we are, and when we see a weak character we won’t follow
it, when we see a strong one that we personally like we will be empowered. So
why don’t we stop worrying about what our neighbors are empowered by and
focused on OUR PERSONAL reality, like men do!
Now I will talk about
feminism. Similar to romance there are millions of perspectives on what
feminism is. Well maybe not millions, but there are enough to have debates just
like the debate on romantic reading. Let’s cover two main types of feminists,
the second wave and the third wave. The second wave would be something like
this “OMG why are you wearing lip gloss”, “OMG is that a push up bra”, “Oh my
we have to be like men, dress like men, and act like them”. Then we got the
third wave feminist like Debbie Stoller who Jennifer Scanlon quotes in Sexy
from the Start,“ ‘We love our lipstick, have a passion for polish.’ Stoller
continues, explaining that feminism and beauty culture are not antithetical:
‘To us, it’s fun, it’s feminine, and in the particular way we flaunt it, it’s
definitely feminist’.”(Scanlon 132). Feminism is very broad now, it can be
anything you want it to be. It can be yes to romance, no to romance, yes to
fashion, no to fashion, yes to pop culture or no to pop culture. Yes in USA at
least feminism is anything you want it to be.
In How
to be a women Moran talk about women in heels and she
says, “WE CANNOT WALK IN THE DAM THINGS…. The very few who can walk elegantly
in them look amazing” (Moran 195). Feminism is the same way! WE CANNOT ALL WEAR
THE “I AM A FEMINIST” CARD!! Just because high heels are sexy doesn’t mean
everyone makes them look good, just because in the third wave anyone can say
they’re feminist doesn’t mean they look good playing that part, or that there
doing it accurately. Don’t be like those girls who Moran describes, that spend
more time buying the high heel then actually wearing them at the wedding. Don’t
say you’re a feminist and be dependent on men to do everything for you. WATCH
ROMANCE, DRESS FASHIONABLY DO AS YOU PLEASE, BUT ALSO HAVE THE STRENGTH AND
DEPENDENCE TO DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO.
What crown do men have
that women don’t? Ding ding, the answer is NONE. So
don’t let the fact of being a woman stop you from achieving what you want!
 |
| i am a women i say bad words i am a little crazy but.. so what ? If there is no prince charming why should i be a princess |
To my wonderful audience,
Love Women, we still
have a lot to learn, but we will develop stronger and better than before!
I completely agree with your individualistic view on romance reading. As Krentz in “Trying to Tame the Romance” suggests, the far-fetched themes and unrealistic characters roles found in romance can be found in any fictional novel (especially mystery novels). Surely, these plots are fake, what do we expect! They may put one women down, but empower the other. I think you’re right, in that if one does not enjoy reading novels, it doesn’t have to be stated “bad” for the rest of the women in the world. They are expressing just one reaction. Phillips and Radway explained that empowerment, control, escapism, and identification can be used for many others readers.
ReplyDeleteYou stated, “The fact that we are putting so much attention to those little details is making us less equal and so much less focused.” I completely believe this applies to many aspects of today’s feminism. Post-third wave feminists no longer only fight suppression of government, society, and men, but, in fact, OTHER women. As Moran states, we may now be “confusing feminism with anything that has to do with women,” (Moran 80). Moran further exemplifies this problem, with how women today think hiring another female maid to clean the house in an act of suppression, while if a male did the same, it’d be an act of business. We’re very focused on the little details, that it may detract from feminism’s actual message: The belief that women are equal to men.
Lastly, I agree with your stance on women being very sensitive and reactive to the characters they read in novels and see on screen. We should be able to watch a movie and not have to mold ourselves to what we’ve just seen. If a character is weak, like Bella in “Twilight”, that certainly doesn’t mean we have to be weakened by her. I love this discovery. But, I do wonder if the amount of “weaker” female characters in media is a set back for female progression. As we’ve discussed in class, there are limited strong, independent, women leads in film, especially those that don’t incorporate some male focus. Is this something to brush off because it’s just a movie? Or could this reflect something from our culture and society? When you repeatedly see females playing out certain gender roles, it becomes what is expected in society and a social norm. While watching one specific movie, may not directly impact our behavior, collectively, it may shape our gender.
Dear Alexandra,
ReplyDeleteI love your enthusiasm for feminism, and I do agree that women still have a lot of work to do. However, you also stated that men don’t whine because they know who they are and that they already are strong and capable.
I primarily disagree with this because it insinuates that women are weak because they don’t strive for total autonomy, like men. At the Wellesley College Stone Center for Development Studies and Services, scientists asserted that women gain maturity by forging relationships, not trying to escape them (Arnold 137). Therefore, women are psychologically different than men.
One major fault of second wave feminism is that is attempted to empower women by encouraging to be like men. They wanted women to dress like men, date women, and abandon the idea of having a family- they wanted to strip the female gender of their individuality (Scanlon). Thus, I don’t know if men deserve a lot of credit. Sure, they don’t need a woman to make it in this world, but wouldn’t it be sad to be monetarily successful and have no one to emotionally be with? I feel proud to be a woman that strives to create relationships rather than only focusing on furthering personal success. I like being emotionally vulnerable and having the power to try out relationships with people and with romantic relationships- I don’t agree that the men have it all together because they are missing out on a vital aspect of a happy life.
In addition, I don’t know if women should ‘have it all together’ already. Moran noted in the chapter, Role Models and What We Do With Them, women, who are the freed gender, “who’ve been psychologically crushed don’t immediately start doing glorious, confident, ostentatious things. Instead, they sit around for a while going ‘What the fuck was that?” (Moran 248). Women need some time to process thousands of years of oppression- and we need some guidance to do so!
Therefore, I disagree with you when you say we shouldn’t waste time evaluating the merit of female celebrity role models, romance novels, and romance films. The women depicted in pop culture have a massive effect on how women rehabilitate themselves. If we only have sexualized bimbos represented in the media, how do we gain the confidence to start moving on from years of oppression? I believe female representation in the media should be our first focus and concern; women need strong role models to feel empowered and start “doing”. These media outlets cannot be ignored.