(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

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.