Also think about: the comic used in this post is suppose to be funny, but what does it suggest about being a feminist? What does it suggest about being a feminist and the romance? Depending on what you say, do you agree with your own assertions? Why or why not? Ground your thinking by using past readings as well as the readings done for Wednesday.
Be specific in your response. Make sure you use the two readings to ground your thinking. Respond to your peers.
Should be 250-400 words.
Due: Wednesday, October 10, 2012.
Women in today’s society are faced with countless responsibilities and expectations – to be “housekeeper, caregiver, breadwinner, sex goddess” (Phillips 55). Additionally, as society progresses and evolves, it becomes increasingly common for women to juggle the “traditional” female responsibilities with the more modern responsibilities of a career woman. Amid all of these pressures, it becomes difficult for women to manage their lives, and they can often feel a lack of control.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Susan Elizabeth Phillips in her article “The Romance and the Empowerment of Women,” this loss of control is precisely the reason that women turn to Romance novels. Like many women in modern day society, Phillips prides herself on being a strong woman with a fulfilling career, a loving family, and a wonderful husband. However, all of these factors lead her life to be stressful and often uncontrollable. As such, Phillips asserts that romance novels allow readers to experience a world in which the woman is able to control her circumstances: “For me, there was nothing more satisfying than the illusion that I was in command of all the external forces that so frequently frazzled and threatened me in real life” (Phillips 55). What makes this control appealing is that it comes from the woman’s strength and intelligence – she is able to change and “tame” the gruff male lead, who is physically dominant over her. According to Phillips, this idea is what empowers women, because the heroine realizes that she is physically outmatched, but moves forward based on wit and mental strength anyway.
We have seen this theory brought to life in our class in the first vignette of the Nora Roberts novel. Laura, having just found out that her relationship with Royce was orchestrated by the MacGregor, shows up at Royce’s house in the middle of the night and demands that he take her to bed. In this situation, Laura uses her intelligence to coerce what she wants from Royce, despite the fact that he is physically dominant over her and could easily refuse. In this way, Roberts’ novel becomes an example of Phillips’ idea by containing a heroine who is mentally strong and uses that strength as power over the hero of the story.
Romance author Jayne Anne Krentz seems to agree with Phillips in stating that “men represent to women one of the greatest sources of risk they will ever encounter in their lives. Taking risks and winning out against all odds is one of the greatest pleasures of fantasy” (Krentz 112). With this, Krentz supports the idea that women gain pleasure and empowerment from witnessing heroines taming or “winning” over the dangerous heroes of romance novels.
I very much agree with this idea, and also feel that it directly connects to the empowerment that feminist women experience. After all, feminism is a movement all about empowering women, and allowing them to gain control over their lives (reproductive rights, level in the workplace, etc.) In this way, these two types of empowerment are very similar, and stem from a need to feel in control. The difference is that romance readers look for this in fantasy, while feminists look for this in everyday life, and strive to achieve it.
The comic strip used for this blog also describes the difference between feminists and romance readers. Romance readers are thrilled by the fantasy of taking a man who is “rough around the edges” and teaching him to be the sensitive, understanding man that they truly want. In contrast, the comic strip seems to say that feminists look for this type of man to begin with, and don’t need the fantasy of “taming” him. As I said before, this is because the empowerment that women experience because of feminism comes from their fight for control over their lives rather than the fantasy of control. Overall, both types of empowerment are important simply because they do just that – they empower women.
Men and women have different needs this is psychology, not feminism. Human behavior and biology make us different. Like Phillips mentions in her writing “the romance and the empowerment of women”. “Biologically we are the weaker sex” (Phillips 3). Just as we are different physically, we are different internally as well. We both have different needs, and we are both very complex. That is why we see Authors like John Gray; Men are from Mars girls are from Venus and Louann Brizendine; the female brain. It’s not because women don’t have rights, or are oppressed by men, it is because gentlemen and ladies are naturally different.
ReplyDeleteMen have certain presences that are different from women. As I read Phillip’s excerpt, I started to make a connection. It’s natural that girls are more in need of emotional attention, feeling nurtured and feeling cared for and it is natural for men to need more sexuality and physicality. Phillips is an example she was in need of emotional care, “Gradually, I began to realize that the romance novel was providing me with a fantasy of which I was very much in need” (Phillips 3). Phillips looked towards romance to fulfill those need, and empower her. As Radway mentions, “readings was a way of temporally refusing the demand associated with their social roles… women ...Felt an intense need of nurture” (Radway 9-10). We can see how this is true, women read romance to empower them because they are in need of emotional care in reality. I used to think it was bad to read romance to empower oneself, but hey men watch their pornography to empower their sexual needs so why can’t women read romance to empower their emotional needs?
Something that concerns me is how the romance message is being delivered. In Jane Krentz’s article “Dangerous men adventurous women” she mentions how the reader can distinguish and, “not expect the imaginative creation of romance to conform to real life” (Krentz 2). So basically romance reading is meant to be just a simple book, a simple reading that tells us “this is a fantasy, it is not reality”. This concerns me because in Krentz’s excerpt “trying to tame the romance” she tells us what a beautiful message romance books generally tell women, “Romance novels are tales of brave women taming dangerous men” (Krentz 7). Also Phillips tells us that, “in romance novels the domineering male becomes the crystal that makes the empowerment fantasy work…despite all the limitations she confronts him. She always wins” (Phillips 4). Phillips continues to mention how in romantic novels the heroine brings the man under her control, his “almost superhuman physical strength is now her command” (Phillips 6). Phillips and Krentz are basically saying that in romance stories women are empowered, because they can dominate the men and tame him. They also mention the story of Beauty and the Beast and how she was able to tame him. I agree how meg included Laura’s experience with Royce to the theory, in the book we can see how she tamed Royce.
Continued ....
The message that romantic novels are projecting is not bad, it’s telling women the truth; we have a power over men. On the other hand if we look back to Krentz’s excerpt of Dangerous men, we can see how romantic novels aren’t meant to be reality. So what is the message they are telling us? Is it that we aren’t capable of having power over men? That we don’t have that intelligence? That we will never win? If romantic reading is meant to be just a fantasy, far away from reality, is it really an empowerment to read about strong women that are far from reality? Is that supposed to make us feel capable?
ReplyDeletePhillips says how, “There was nothing more satisfying then the illusion that ‘she’ was in command of all the external force” (Phillips 3) and she was not the only women that felt that way. Looking at this from a feminist point of view how is this empowering woman? It’s basically telling them that their, “Command of all the external force”, will be only an illusion. I believe that the message that romantic novels project are supposed to be very empowering, but are being unpowered when we say it’s just an unrealistic fantasy.
Feminists in the first wave, had to concentrate on gaining their right to vote, they empowered themselves with reality. They went out and felt capable of achieving there goals. They continued to attempt to be delegates; they had petitions, and fought for what they wanted. The actions they took made them feel empowered. Now what are women doing? Reading a book that is told to be unrealistic to empower themselves?
I disarge with meg when she says “ The difference is that romance readers look for this in fantasy, while feminists look for this in everyday life, and strive to achieve it.” I think the romance feminist is more then a fantasize but analyzing why we read it, and how helpful it is to us or hurtful.
This way of empowering women is beginning to be a real issue to a lot of critics’ .Krentz mentioned how some people are attempting to look for authors to represent what, “respectable romance should be” (Krentz 1). Even comics have critics. Looking at a comic we can see how it’s both supporting romance and feminism. It supports her feminist side because she has the power to say ”no”, and supports the romance by making the guy is very understanding to her command. As I discussed I believe romance projects a good message and should not be oppressed as unrealistic.
The feminist reading of romance novels typically characterizes the male character as domineering and controlling and the female character as weak and submissive. Romance novelist Susan Elizabeth Phillips argues that romance novels promote empowerment rather than submission in “The Romance and the Empowerment of Women”. In fact, she says that she doesn’t read the novel for the love story, but instead for the characteristics and actions of the female lead. Phillips agrees that the male leads she enjoys are “arrogant domineering rogue[s]” (Phillipps 56). But the novels don’t inspire her to find a man like that. Instead, she is inspired and empowered by how the female character ends up dominating that harsh man who has every physical advantage. The female lead “confronts him – not with physical strength, but with intelligence and courage” (56). This strength, power and courage over men and life in general inspires readers to feel the same way in their lives. The heroine confronting the harsh male is symbolic of the reader confronting her own life.
ReplyDeleteThis theme of confrontation is similar in feminism. Feminism is all about confronting things in life that are difficult. Feminists are just like the heroines in these romance novels: intelligent and courageous women taking control of a situation even when it’s difficult. The only difference is that the heroine is a symbol in a fantasy novel, not a real woman. While Alexandra mentioned that Krentz’s statements that romance readers understand the novels aren’t representations of real-life, I don’t agree that this takes away from the message of empowerment in the novels. I think the fact that readers understand the novels are fantasies strengthens Phillips assertion that she doesn’t want to be with the hero. The story is a symbol, not of an ideal relationship, but of women taking control and not backing down.
I agree with Meg when it comes to the comic strip; I think it is a representation of feminists’ attempts to recreate the romance genre. Jayne Ann Krentz says modern romances “featuring sensitive, unaggressive heroes and sexually-experienced, right-thinking heroines” have been a “resounding failure” (Krentz 113). However, books like 50 Shades of Gray still exist, and are still massive hits with romance readers even though the men are sexually aggressive and must be tamed. Clearly feminists still disapprove of popular romance and don’t agree that it symbolizes female empowerment like the readers and writers of the genre believe.
Both Phillips and Krentz make it very clear in their pieces of writing that the many judgments and stereotypes that exist about romance, in novels in particular, are misguided and not necessarily accurate. They describe how the efforts meant to “improve” romance are unneeded because romance novels do not deserve the bad rap that they receive in this day and age. Many feminists and anti-romantics argue that romance novels must be made more socially acceptable and supportive of women’s equality, however, “The effort to make romance novels acceptable has been a resounding failure” (Krentz 113). This movement to change romance has failed because romance can be used as a form of empowerment, although not necessarily in the ways that everyone normally believes.
ReplyDeleteWomen are not empowered by fictional women because of the romantic fantasy that exists within these novels, but instead, “the fantasy…was one of command and control over the harum scarum events of my life—a fantasy of female empowerment” (Phillips 55). Women worry about everything that can go wrong in their lives, but in romance novels these things go right. As Lexie mentioned, despite what people may believe, the female characters in romance novels demonstrate strength, domination, and courage in their relationships with men. In the majority of the romance novels today, women put men in a vulnerable position, even though the men are physically stronger than the women. In romance novels the woman always wins despite her limitations that place her on a different level than a man (Phillips 57). The romance can empower women by showing strong female characters having successful lives while standing their ground despite the presence of dominating males.
This empowerment in romance novels does have similarities with the empowerment brought about by the feminist movement. I agree with Lexie when she relates feminists to the female characters in romance novels. Women in romance novels are assertive, confident, and powerful, which is what feminists try to be. Meg says that both feminists and female characters in romance novels desire the feeling of control in their lives. This is absolutely true. Laura McGregor is the perfect example of this. She is an independent and powerful woman who wants to control every aspect of her life, including her relationship with Royce. She puts Royce in a vulnerable position by demonstrating her strength as a woman. There is more in common between romance novels and feminist beliefs than people believe. The values are often quite similar. Phillip, a strong feminist herself even admits, “We saw no conflict between our feminist views and the content of the books we were reading” (Phillips 54). Feminists and romance characters both support the empowerment of women.
The comic strip displays the romance novels that feminists believe would be acceptable. It consists of a story where a man does everything the woman wants, which shows her power over him. Feminists desire a change in romance writing now, but as readers we are much more attracted to the idea of an exciting story with a man who is more rough-around-the-edges. The comic suggests that feminism would ruin what we see today as romance, and make the stories very boring and less appealing to readers. I think that most feminists do not recognize the parallels between their goals and the goals of the women in romance novels.
Romance is typically thought of as portraying women as weak individuals who succumb to male dominance, but in fact both Susan Elizabeth Phillips and Jane Ann Krentz see romance as almost the total empowerment of women. Within a romance novel women are put into positions where they have to be strong and defend themselves to keep the story interesting. For a novel to be appealing and keep its readers interested, “The heroine must put herself at risk with [the hero],” (Krentz 109). One of the main purposes for women today reading a romance novel is to be able to identify or at least have a role model in the main female character.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aly when she says that confrontation is a major theme in both romance novels and in feminism. Feminists have to suffer through much confrontation in order to accomplish anything; they have to fight for what they believe in. And when it comes to romance novels, when the heroine is the one to, “face [the hero’s] rage with courage and, while he will almost certainly retaliate…she continues to defy him,” (Phillips 57), women become more intrigued with this character and have an easier time finding the desire to become more like this character. Feminists are definitely concerned with how women are portrayed in romance novels, but in this day in age, although women fall for a man end up with the perfect love story, we see that women have more control of their own lives and the lives of the heron in the novel. In fact within the realm of the romance novel, it is becoming the norm to have a male character who is “strong and intensely physical, but possess[es] all the sensitive, nurturing qualities of the female” and female “who possesses all the softer qualities traditionally assigned to women but who has none of a woman’s physical limitations because his strength now belongs to her” (Phillips 58). The roles of men and women have not necessarily switched, but the control men used to possess is now in the hands of the women.
The comic used in this blog shows how a typical feminist would want to portray a romance novel, no distractions and the women having control in the first place. It suggests that feminism and romance really do not work well together, because romance is a long round-about way of finding the perfect man who will respect a women in whatever she chooses to do and a feminist would, as Meg said “look for this type of man to begin with.” So in essence feminists believe that if a romance novel has some aspects of feminism, it takes a long, unnecessary road to it.
As a feminist who loves reading romance novels, I completely agree with Phillips’ opinion that many women read romance novels to see other women win, against all odds, with the simple traits that many women posses. “All his muscle, wealth, and authority are useless against her courage, intelligence, generosity, loyalty, and kindness”(Pillips 5). We love to see a man surrender, not completely, but just enough so that he learns that men and women are equal. It pleases us to see men realize that while they might have the upper hand in strength, we have other tools at our disposal. As Lexi said, and I completely agree, “This strength, power and courage over men and life in general inspires readers to feel the same way in their lives. The heroine confronting the harsh male is symbolic of the reader confronting her own life.” How is that not female empowerment?
ReplyDeleteI also love the think that Krentz made between a child’s idea of taming a wild animal and women in romance novels taming wild men. “Those much-loves tales of brave young women taming and gentling magnificent, potentially dangerous beasts are the childhood version of adult romance novels”(Krentz 3). As one of those girls who would find a dog that everyone else considered wild and dangerous, and work with it until it connected to me and me alone, I understand the concept. But why is this a real-life possibility as a child and not as an adult? I agree with Alexandra’s statement when she says, “I believe that the message that romantic novels project are supposed to be very empowering, but are being unpowered when we say it’s just an unrealistic fantasy.” All books are based in some basic truth, no matter how unrealistic the plot or the character traits, so why can’t there be real life examples of similar things?
I believe that romance novels give women a type of emotional empowerment, where they realize deep inside themselves that they do have control over their own lives. I think that the feminist movement differs by supporting more outward empowerment. It is less about women realizing for themselves that they have power, and more about women showing the rest of the world that they have power. It is much more active and political, and a lot less subtle. The fact that some feminists only support one aspect of empowerment stupefies me.
As for the comic strip, I believe that it showcases empowerment by proving to the world that the woman can make her own choices and that everyone must respect her for that. This is very much the feminist view of outward empowerment. And while that is extremely important, inward empowerment, such as the kind that can be found in many romance novels, is also vital. When one rejects half of a movement, the movement will never succeed. It is only when they recognize that both halves are essential that women will make many more progressive strides.
I agree with Meg, in that today, many women are experiencing heavy pressures in society, having to manage their jobs, children, sex lives, homes, and marriages, all at the same. Many want each aspect of their lives to be perfect, when absolutely nothing is guaranteed. As Phillips explains, in romance novels, everything is (Phillips 56). “The Romance and the Empowerment of Women,” presented a new explanation behind the value and purpose of romance novels. Phillips stated that she already had, “a wonderful man, or a glamorous, fulfilling career,” (Phillips 55). She simply needed the time to relax and unwind with romance novels. Her and her friend weren’t reading romance to fulfill their missing needs in life, but to feel a sense of control over it and empowerment.
ReplyDeletePhillips is different in that she states she has everything she needs in life. In her reading, she finds an empowerment through the female, in how she is strong and independent toward the male. I liked Alexandra’s point, in that Phillips openly states that women are biologically weaken than men, in physical terms. I found this realistic point of view very refreshing. We’re not going to be completely the same. In fact, we are extremely different. But, we can still live harmoniously as one, while challenging one another. Because of men’s physical strength, the male is actually the villain, as he presents a challenge to the woman (Krentz 109). In romance, women are not passive and submissive, but active in taking control over men emotionally. The woman changes the man into a sensitive, caring, nurturing human being. Phillips states, “His superhuman physical strength is now hers to command” (Phillips 58). By the end of the novel, the man and woman are two empowered and integrated beings.
Romance surely “distorts reality” and is not realistic. Phillips says this is inevitable and women don’t need to be shameful of it. This isn’t a theme just in romance, but any fiction novel, especially mystery. She uses humor to be sensible and put down negative opinions toward romance novels. For example, she states, “Is the romance writer guilty of offering women a false view of their own power in world? Guilty as charged, and thank God (Phillips 58). In addition, I completely agree with Krentz and Phillips’ practical standpoints and casual interests in romance novels. Are romance novels not real life and not realistic? That’s okay.
When people think of romance, they typically don’t think about empowering women, as the romance is focused on the relationship between the male and female. But I feel like reading romance can have a way in which helps lead a woman to empowerment. According to Jayne Ann Krentz in the article “Trying to Tame the Romance”, one of the main areas in a romance novels is the alpha male. This is an interesting point as she mentions that the leading male character must play the role of the hero and the villain “or else he won’t be much of a challenge for a strong woman” (Krentz 108-109). To me this is the crossover between romance and feminism, romance being the novel and feminism being the female character’s qualities. In the end of the romance novels, it is the females who eventually tame the male character and it gives them a great sense of satisfaction and enjoyment. But in order to achieve those feelings, the woman must first “take a few risks” (Krentz 109). For the woman to be able to believe enough in herself to take those risks, to me, is feminist. It just so happens that those risks were related to a man and their relationship, but I don’t think this changes the way in which it empowers women, both to the actual character and the reader. This is also the case with virginity, that a girl is feminist, and therefore “smart enough to choose the right man… [to give] the gift of her love and her virginity… virginity is symbolic of the high stakes involved” (Krentz 111-112). I strongly agree with this and it makes me think back to one of the readings from Moran where she said that if a girl wanted to be in control of her vagina, then she is feminist because that is what she has control over.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Susan Elizabeth Phillips, author of “The Romance and the Empowerment of Women” where she argues that a modern day woman has so many issues to deal with ranging from the family to her job to herself. And as we have talked about in class, the concept of escapism is really significant, because it allows a woman to feel in control in some way, even if she is just reading. It lets her feel that everything will turn out all right in the end, which they do in romance novels. I completely agree with her relation to feminism, that “the domineering male becomes the catalyst that makes the empowerment fantasy work” (Phillips 56). It is because the males are more dominate in almost every aspect, the females still overcome that and learn how to fight against them. That is exactly how feminism is crossed over with the romance, that the female character, much like how Krentz described, is able to overcome risks and obstacles to achieve a loving relationship with the male. Both of these, I think are similar to the empowerment felt by feminist movement, because in both cases, the women are given a voice, a choice, and are in somewhat control to do what they believe in.
In terms of the comic, I think it suggests that when one is feminist, they cannot and will not be a romantic at the same time. That unlike the female characters in romance novels, they will not allow themselves seduced by the man, and it is also acknowledged by the man so he respects her wishes as he does in the comic. I’m conflicted with this because on one hand, I believe that men should be able to respect what a woman wants. Yet on another hand, I feel like many girls like to be swept off their feet and they secretly mean yes when they say no out loud sometimes. I agree with Lexie when she says that “The story is a symbol, not of an ideal relationship, but of women taking control and not backing down” and the emotional empowerment a woman feels when reading a romance novel mentioned by Mackenzie. I think this is a crucial distinction to make, that most of these fantasies are not what women actually look for, but rather they look for the hope and courage within these fantasies to do the same as those female characters to be in control.
I believe the act of reading romance novels can empower women but the want of romance can’t. I completely agree when Phillips explained, “The fantasies these novels offered me was one of command and control over the harum scarum events of my life- a fantasy of female empowerment” (55). As we have talked about multiple times in class, romance reading can provide a form of escapism. By reading this you can get away from life and enjoy some down time. It can empower women by seeing that they are not necessarily at the whim of a man and sometimes it is possible for the women to control the man. Like Mackenzie said, “We love to see a man surrender, not completely, but just enough so that he learns that men and women are equal.” If we wanted to be better than men we would be going backwards in feminism. By just acknowledging the equality is the goal of feminism. However, some women fight against romance because they do not want to be reliant on men. But the point of romance reading is to gain an escape from the hectic life. However, if a woman believes what occurs in romance novels can occur in real life and that is all they focus on this is hard to find empowerment in.
ReplyDeleteThe comic shown in this blog is very feministic. It plays a pun on the famous book fifty shades of grey. But instead of the main character falling for Christian and doing what he asks of her she just says no and the book is over. I agree with Mackenzie when she explains, “I believe that it showcases empowerment by proving to the world that the woman can make her own choices and that everyone must respect her for that.” Feminists believe that the act of not reading romance novels is feminist because women are not falling to the romance and not falling for wanting a man. But in a way it is feminist to read the novel because it’s a statement. It shows you are comfortable with your decisions and not afraid to say this is what I like. If you do this you are embracing who you are and are good with that. This is what feminists should be striving for.
Women, whether they are feminists, romantics, or a combination of both have high demands put on them. In the reading "The Romance and Empowerment of Women" by Susan Phillips she states, "They feel pressure to excel at their jobs, have perfect children, be perfect wives. Housekeeper, caregiver, breadwinner, sex goddess." (Phillips 55). Females put immense pressure on themselves. Both Sarah and Meg also discussed what females in roles in todays society has evolved into. It seems that it is expected that women should have to live with these high expectations.
ReplyDeleteIn my own life I thought about my mother. I have always viewed my mom as "super mom" because she seems to be able to do it all. She works a full-time administrative job while carrying for her kids, the house, and keeping up with her 20+ year long marriage. Apparently, my mothers lifestyle has become somewhat of a norm. When Phillips described her need to escape to a good romance novel I remembered how my mom would often claim a time of night as her time to sit and read or watch one of her television shows. Reading romance novels is an outlet that empowers women because it gives them the pleasure of fantasy and the ability to seize control.
Both feminists and romantics want to have control because everyone enjoys feeling empowered. It just happens that different women find that power from different things. In the article "Trying to Tame the Romance" written by Jayne Krentz there is discussion of a movement to make romance novels "politically correct". I feel that there is no use in trying to change romance novels because it empowers those who do seek to read them and those who won't read them can feel power from other areas. Feminists and romantics do not need to fight about their disagreements. Feminists must realize that women who read romance novels are not hurting our gender. It is a personal choice that they are entitled to make and enjoy.
I believe the cartoon above represents a common misconception about feminists. It seems to imply that for a woman to be a feminist she must be opposed to the thought of a male approaching her and feel satisfaction/empowerment from rejecting him. The same way that we must not label romantics as sappy women in need of help we cannot label feminists as loveless women empowered only by their independence from men.
Many feminists believe that in order to be truly considered a “feminist” a woman must be able to feel empowered without males. However, romance novels are considered to be empowering because throughout them the heroine “tames wild stallions” (Krentz 109). In this case “stallions” refer to men. “In the romance novel the domineering male becomes the catalyst that makes the empowerment fantasy work” (Phillips 56). If the male wasn’t rough around the edges the woman wouldn’t have the necessary challenge to overcome that is needed in every novel. This creates the impression in the novel in which the male is both the hero and the villain.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Makenzie’s statement that feminism “is less about women realizing for themselves that they have power, and more about women showing the rest of the world they have power”. I think that the realization aspect is more important because in order to achieve the second goal a woman must first accomplish the primary goal of inward empowerment. Romance novels can provide that inward empowerment that otherwise may not have occurred to the reader. The crossover between feminism and romance happens because both a feminist and a romantic decide to take control of their lives. They choose to not back down to men and show that they can in fact have power over them.
The comic used in this post showcases the opinion that feminists are not able to be romantics. It suggests that there can’t be a positive correlation between the two. I agree with Holly that most feminists do not recognize the parallels between their own goals and the goals of the women in romance novels. I believe that in order for women overall to truly attain success (equality), romantics and feminists must unite to form one solid women’s movement.
A common defense of romance novels is: “Its my way of escaping.” However, is the allure of escape really what draws us to the romance? If you ask me, my idea of a nice, relaxing ‘escape’ would include a long walk on the beach, a blissful nap in a hammock, and possibly a fruity drink. My escape would not include rounds of S&M sex that push me to the point of severe pain or risking my life to be with a bloodsucking creature of the night. That does not sound relaxing. Therefore, I do not think the appeal, and the empowering aspects, of romance novels is the promise of a clear escape; rather, it is the thrill that truly brings us to our knees.
ReplyDeleteBoth articles mentioned that the signature of a good romance novel is a strong, rough hero who is both the lover and the villain. The reasoning for this is simple: “You don’t get much of a challenge for [the heroine] from a neurotic wimp or good-natured gentleman saint who never reveals a core of steel” (Krentz 109). The heroines in a romance novel like a challenge; they have the uncanny power “to [confront] him- not with physical strength, but with intelligence and courage” (Phillips 56). In real life, most women would never give this dominant-male character the time of day; however, there is comfort, and pleasure, in reading romance novels because the relationship between the intelligent heroine and the arrogant man has a happy ending.
This happy ending serves a grander purpose than just being ‘unrealistic’- the happy ending proudly displays the strength of women. At the end of romance novels, the heroine has tamed the unruly man- she kicks ass! I believe that the often-criticized happy endings of romance novels are actually where feminism and the romance overlap. During the second wave of feminism, which we analyzed in previous readings, the bra-burning activists did not merely want to become equal with men- they wanted to completely dominate men in society, even condemning heterosexual relationships. They wanted women to gain power in society by taming their male counterparts, which is exactly how every romance novel ends.
The comic suggests that feminists must denounce all romance novels. I disagree with this partly. On one hand, I do think the Bellas and Annas of the world are not doing women any favors; they were weak, needy, and whiny characters that physically needed a man to maintain happiness and health. However, that is not how all romance heroines are. Many of them, such as Laura, can tame a dangerous man without losing all of their independence. Those characters should not be discarded as ‘romance mumbo jumbo’; they should be appreciated for their feminist characteristics. I agree with Lexi when she noted romance stories are examples “not of an ideal relationship, but of women taking control and not backing down.” I want to find a nice, caring man for myself some day, not a dominant aggressor. However, many romance novels should still receive feminist appreciation for their empowering happy endings.
I personally disagree with Phillips’reasoning for feminists who read romance novels. I think that romance novels are purely used for entertainment purposes. It definitely appeals to women more than men, mainly because it feeds on the biological needs and wants of women. Women and men naturally need to be together and need to find romance; however, women are a lot more interested in the romance novels because they are a little more emotional and wired differently from men. There is nothing wrong with the fact that women are wired differently because women can still be empowered feminists who enjoy reading romance novels. I also disagree with Meg’s statement of female empowerment as a result of romance reading, because I don’t believe that reading romance novels will enhance a women’s empowerment very much. It doesn’t necessarily take away a women’s empowerment or make her more submissive to the chauvinistic male culture, these books just entertain women and let them remove themselves from their every day worries, problems and responsibilities.
ReplyDeletePhillips argued by stating that reading romance novels about fragile and physically weak women who are able to stand up and confront the bad boy love interest are helping women empower themselves, because it shows what can’t always be done in reality. It shows that women can take control of any situation or volatile man and have everything work out smoothly.I personally think that being a feminist, rather than thinking that reading romance novels gives you control, actually does give you control. Feminists usually fight for social and political changes so that women can be treated as equals to men while romance novels just give women a fantasy world to escape to whenever they want to forget their troubles.
This comic suggests that a feminists isn’t capable of writing a enthralling romantic novel because she will always want the woman in the novel to be cast in a positive light and will not let her succumb to men. It also suggests that being a feminist and being a romantic are not possible, because their ideals contradict each other. Like I said above, I believe that a feminists is capable of being a feminist and reading a romance novel. Thus, I also think that a feminist I also able to write a feminist novel without it being completely about girl power and female empowerment. Romance novels are used as a doorway into a fantasy world where most things tend to work out near the end, which never really happens in reality. Reading romance novels will neither decrease or increase a women’s empowerment.
In the Phillips article, she talks about how many book critics categorize women as "submissive". Phillips says "In romance novels, the man is always domineering, strong, older. The woman, despite her limitations, confronts the man and always wins! This is a comforting fantasy for a frazzled overburdened, anxiety-ridden reader" (Phillips 57). I agree with her completely that women in romance novels have the brain where the man has the brawn, but in the end the brain always wins. The woman changes the man to be a sensitive, caring guy, which he wasn't before he met her. Many critics claim that men are stronger, but is this true? Don't women demonstrate that they are stronger by their altering of men's personalities?
ReplyDeleteAnother reason women are empowered by romance novels is due to escapism. "[Women] work nine to five jobs, keep house, raise children, and care for elderly parents." "It all gets to be too much, especially when no one can promise us that everything will turn out right in the end, in the romance novel, it does" (Phillips 56). Romance novels give a sense that women have control in their lives. If they can read about a strong woman, who has control of her life, that gives them confidence they can have control in their own life too.
I agree with Aly and Lauren when they talk about feminists and romantics both having to deal with confrontation. If you think about it, Laura, in the Nora Roberts novel we're currently reading, had to deal with a lot of confrontation before she finally got married. Royce would not quit trying to pursue Laura, and she would confront him and tell him she wasn't interested. Even though she ended up married him, she still asserted her independence, and even fought for it. On the other side, many feminist have had to deal with confrontation for years, fighting for their independence, and more importantly, their rights. This is one reason why both sides are similar, how both sides connect.