(no subject)

[owlectomy]

child_lit is having a discussion of the Twilight books, which prompted me to think about them in more depth. I hated the second book, and couldn't even finish the third, but what I noticed about my review, looking back at it, is how ambivalent it is. The gender politics may be awful, but is the book really any worse than, say, Fushigi Yuugi from that perspective? And why did FY feel so new, and so fantastic to me, given that I've considered myself a feminist (albeit not necessarily one with a lot of perspective) since I was seven?

I wrote:



I would argue that one of the big messages that pop culture is sending - once you get past the Disney Princess romance fantasies - is that you can expect very little from a boyfriend. The relationship that gets portrayed on the majority of domestic sitcoms seems to be, the husband is an incompetent, emotionally stunted, irresponsible hedonist, while the wife has to love and accept him unconditionally and forgive his awful decisions. Yes, the wife gets to be competent - but she also has to be the responsible one, the stick-in-the-mud, the one who doesn't get to have any fun.

Once you get outside sitcoms, it's not that bad - but it seems like, in general, there's that kind of almost Victorian 'angel of the house' rhetoric where the woman has to be virtuous because men can't be. Actually, several weeks ago I was paging through a Christian teen dating advice book which said, in almost as many words, guys are horndogs, guys can't be trusted, so it's the woman's responsibility to ensure that the couple doesn't have sex. And this is a 2007 book!

So I think the real attractiveness of the Twilight series is this message of, you deserve better than that, you deserve a boyfriend who adores you and would do anything for you, you don't have to settle for "lovable but incompetent" or worse. (And Edward certainly is competent, if nothing else).

And at one level that's a wish-fulfilment kind of message, and Twilight certainly takes it to unrealistic extremes (while overromanticizing certain things that shouldn't be romanticized). I think it's unfortunate that the book substitutes passionate angst and pretty words for actions that are genuinely rooted in non-dysfunctional love.

But when I was a teenager, and reading a lot of trashy manga, I think one of the best things I took from them was the idea that I deserved a really good relationship with a really good guy, and if that wasn't in the cards I would happily remain single.

Mind you, I still don't like the Twilight books or their gender politics...

Comments

THANK YOU!

[dianamcqueen.livejournal.com]

Wow, now that you mention that, I didn't see that at all. I mean every other word it was "Oh swoon, Edward! I am helpless in your vampiric embrace!" Every independent thought she had seemed to end once she fell in love. I found that to be jarringly incorrect and stopped reading several chapters later. Yes, he was adoring and protecting her, but he was also belitting her and asserting his dominace every second. That I also couldn't stand. A man being superior and arrogant but then it's "made up for" with the possessiveness and protectiveness, both of which coming from someone who can kill you accidentally without thought is more than creepy.

I read FY too, and Tamahome was more competent and dependable and allowed breathing room than any other character I've read before, and it wasn't even my favorite, in high school.

I completely agree with you this (mainly christian/sitcom) theme of the woman being the smart strong one, but just having to marry and love the dolt or the screw up is a male fantasy that is repeated en mass in our media. It takes all the responsibility of upholding any kind of socital role completely off the man, and place it solely on the woman. And heaven forbid she screw up, or not want to carry society's burden because, well, who else is going to do it.

If men would realize that this message also makes them not just lazy, but terrible people, maybe things would change.

...This might be a good time to tell the world that No one loved Raymond, or his terrible digusting family, and his wife is a pathetic example of what women can make of there lives.

...Oh, and that joke about "women don't have sex drives"...so wrong, and SO TIRED. I also hate family guy and robot chicken, but that's a rant for another day...

Re: THANK YOU!

[meaghanchan.livejournal.com]

And the strange thing is that the MRAs (Men's Rights Activists, though I'm sure you know that) all think the 'woman is competent-and-whatever else, husband is lazy, incompetent dolt' meme is evidence of some kind of feminist agenda on the part of the media.

Re: THANK YOU!

[dianamcqueen.livejournal.com]

I'm sure...Because we all want to have our own worthless moron to have children with and practically raise on our own...People are dumb. lol

There's many men in the world who get it, and are wonderful human beings.

So unlike a wonderful example of a man I ran into online the other day that told me all women who played video games were "fat ugly lesbians"...(which really only told me he was gay and angry or really bitter about striking out with gamer chicks) I'm not gonna say that all men who think when women get rights they deserve, men lose rights are all beer guzzling ugly fat guys. Although, I'm tempted in my mind everyday. :)

Re: THANK YOU!

[takumashii.livejournal.com]

That drives me up the wall. Because if you look at what women ACTUALLY WATCH, and read, and listen to, it's, well--romantic comedies, and shoujo manga, and romances, which may be pretty awful from a feminist perspective, and too many of them have titles like "Millionaire Doctor" (actual title!) or "The Spanish Billionaire's Mistress" (actual title!). But it's clear that women want guys to be portrayed in a positive light, and have the right to expect better from guys, and Dumb-Guy sitcoms are more about letting dumb guys off the hook than about promoting any kind of "feminist agenda."

It's a pretty lame agenda if it would make me work overtime on the housework, emotional work, and common-sense stuff that my guy is too lazy and incompetent for.

Re: THANK YOU!

[takumashii.livejournal.com]

Oh, and you know what's lame? When both Dumb-Guy sitcoms AND romance novels are held up as evil and pernicious examples of the feminist agenda. Because having high expectations for men is bad, and having no expectations for men is also bad!

(Admittedly, like I just said above, a lot of romances promote a certain image of masculinity that is overly aggressive, overly materialistic, and generally doesn't have a lot of relationship to being a decent guy. I just find it a bit of a catch-22.)

Re: THANK YOU!

[dianamcqueen.livejournal.com]

There's not a lot of fantasy material out there that presents a normal healthy relationship. And even one with a touch of drama, they could still show a decently "manly" guy who's still loving and respectful.

I think maybe I found inspiration for a new young adult novel.
Girls should always have high expectations for their guys, but not for materialistic things, which a lot of stories show them. "He's gotta be a doctor so you don't have to work!" Part of being equal is work, and being proud of who one is independent of a relationship!

Positive male characteristics are also demonized as being
"unmanly" and therefore you have to be an abusive, materialistic cheat to be a "Real man" and that disturbs me. It's really Male aimed ads that are the problem. It's like no one considers what Men or boys except as givens. :/

Re: THANK YOU!

[takumashii.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think that a lot of authors have a problem imagining (a) what a normal healthy relationship looks like, and (b) how do you show affection, devotion, infatuation, love, without resorting to the usual cliches. I wonder if that's why some of my favorite romantic young adult books are the ones with gay characters? (Annie on my Mind and Boy Meets Boy)

Boy, I sure am one to talk about imagining what a normal healthy relationship looks like, though. ;)

Re: THANK YOU!

[dianamcqueen.livejournal.com]

well, also there's also the fact that if you know what a healthy relationship, or are in one, there's a greatly lessened chance that you'd be driven enough to write a book about relationships. Most of my writing and comics books was analyzing things I didn't understand or desired greatly, and now that my dreams/desires are changing and I've met so many more people than i did when I was writing those stories, it's like those urges to emotionally explore relationships on paper isn't there anymore.

I'm also not a writer, so the desire to have a narrative solely for having a narrative was never mine. :)

I'm always on the look out for new and weird, and realistic pairings anf explorations. Ones that I'd never think of. That's exciting to me :)

I think you know more about healthy relationships than most women our age!

Re: THANK YOU!

[dianamcqueen.livejournal.com]

There's a ton of catch-22s! you're so right.
I think that's why the whole world is crazy, because of our idealized expectation, and standards that we hold ourselves to, while they're all impossible!

When I hear guys saying "you have to be mean to women or they won't like you."
I get sick to my stomach.

Re: THANK YOU!

[takumashii.livejournal.com]

I am really, really, really done with guys being possessive and controlling and jealous. That's just not something I want any part of.

But that goes triple if the guy in question is a VAMPIRE. I mean, really. Not romantic, it's just scary.

Re: THANK YOU!

[dianamcqueen.livejournal.com]

lol, completely agree. There's something not right, and there's absolutely no trust when a guy behaves like that.

I'm not sure if my high school self would've been all "swoon he's a vampire," but all the stories I wrote were of self depreciating, devoted defenders, were not really threatening in anyway.

I think she was going for the "realism" that vampires are strong, powerful and monsters, but they're still hot, and it doesn't work in an adult mind. :)