From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 07:12:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.193554.22344@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <Bx8EA6.CpM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jchason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Julie Chason) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <Bx5wy1.GxE@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jchason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Julie Chason) writes:
JC>>Another response to this issue--I have heard several times that romance 
JC>>novels are often written by men.
RP>>I am under the impression that the majority (perhaps the overwhelming
RP>>majority) are written by women.
JC>>                                I know that hearsay is not good evidence of 
JC>>authorship, but neither is the cover of a book necessarily.  And I'm not
JC>>saying that male authorship is evidence of some sort of oppresive conspiracy
JC>>of men against women.
RP>>It would be politically correct to do so, even if they were all written by
RP>>women (which I am not asserting, for the hard of reading). :^}
JC>I think you and I have a different definition of politically correct. I'm not 
JC>hostile to PC and I don't beleive in gender stereotyping of males or females.

RP>But is PC hostile to -only- white-hetero-males? At any rate, you need not
RP>look far for gender stereotypes, there have been a lot posted in this
RP>netgroup lately.

PC is correctly hostile only towards bigots.

JC>>                        You just cant imply that romance novels provide some 
JC>>window into the minds of women.
RP>>If their readership is exclusively female (or almost so), how can you say
RP>>that it does not provide such a window? I am not sure what kind of window,
RP>>but there is something here.
RP>>I would like to point out the many claims made of Playboy and porn. Or should
RP>>we make a parallel claim and say that women are being brainwashed by the
RP>>romance novels? This would seem as valid as the other brainwashing claims.
JC>Or maybe they simply reinforce prevailing cultural values?

RP>If you do not like them, I suspect that you will be unwilling to buy them
RP>and read them, regardless of whether or not they reinforce prevailing cultural 
RP>values. 

The concern is not over any individual being brainwashed, though it is a
concern, but rather that a whole sizable chunk of society is being brainwashed
by society.  Please clarify that last paragraph's first sentence.  Who does not
like to read what?

JC>                                                             In which case 
JC>they would provide a gauge of the fantasies of women who read them and buy 
JC>their notions without criticism.  It's blanket characterizations I object to.
JC>Some of us grew out of the habit at about the age of 17; I presume others 
JC>never acquired the habit.
JC>Look, lots of men go to football games and act like idiots.  Should I say on 
JC>this basis that men are idiots? 

RP>It's been done. If you want to try an experiment, bring this up when talking
RP>with women where you work. If most agree or disagree, this would say
RP>something about prevailing gender stereotypes. My guess is that most women
RP>would uncritically accept the above, and some would even extend it. BTW, I
RP>do not think that I could perform this experiment, although I might try
RP>a similar experiment with some female stereotypes.

You are taking the suggestion too seriously.  The point of making a point like
that is to knock down the notion of making stereotypes at all by putting the
shoe on the other foot.

I take issue with your claim that "most women would uncritically accept the
above."  Most women have moments when they would accept the above and perhaps
even uncritically.  Nonetheless most women most of the time would not accept
such a stereotype uncritically.  Can we stop hurling stereotypes back and
forth at one another?  Stereotypes are as demeaning as porn and perhaps more
common.

JC>>                               And even if all such novels were written by
JC>>women, and a majority of women read these articles, then this does not mean
JC>>that whatever is contained in these novels reflects the True and Natural 
JC>>Contents of the minds of women.
RP>>No, of course not. But it is still a valid question to ask exactly what
RP>>it does mean. These novels must be fullfilling some need of the women
RP>> who read them.              [JC]  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
JC>>Julie
JC>Ok, now we're getting somewhere. I took your original post to mean that 
JC>because women read books in which the hero rapes the heroine, women want to 
JC>be raped.  Now it sounds like your open to a different interpretation.

RP>My original post made no mention of rape, nor has any subsequent post.
RP>Roberts Shaeffer's post made this connection, I have not addressed it.

Albeit.

JC>I think most of the people who followed-up were right on the mark.

RP>I belive that I originally mentioned this topic, in response to the
RP>porno-imbalance thread, and in a rape-free context. It was dropped
RP>from the thread without a single comment.

The porno-imbalance thread is directly related to the rape thread.  Porn
objectifies women and rape is the worst form of female objectification.  Thus,
while you may not have intended this as a rape thread, the porno-imbalance
leads straight into the rape thread.

RP>Now I am incorrectly given ownership of the rape thread, and the 
RP>follow-up posters get credit for the topic I introduced, as I introduced
RP>it. Thanx.

Don't mention it. (:

JC>The rape scenario has to do with avoiding responsibility for sex rather than 
JC>wanting to be dragged into the bushes and forced.
JC>The sub-genre I used to read (quite a while ago) was the historical romance
JC>novel.  From what I remember, there seems to be two basic rape scenarios.
JC>One I'll call 'raped by a rake.'  The rake isn't really a bad guy; he's just 
JC>misunderstood, maybe tormented, something of a Beverly Hills 90210 Luke, only
JC>probably more muscular.  Maybe he's a Viking, or a rebel baron.  Sooner or 
JC>later he'll cry, beg forgiveness, and will marry his victim.
JC>How many women whose husbands abuse them say he is always sorry afterward?

RP>This has a strong resemblance to one of those blanket characterizations.

How so?  The question implied a considerable portion of wife-batterers
apologized to their wives after them.  This seems to me to be an extremely
tame and uncontentious statement.  A friend of mine who works for a legal
firm that defends parents who have their children taken away by the state
mentioned a trend among abusive parents to tell their kids, "This hurts me
more than it hurts you." after beating their kids.  This is a lot due to the
fact that their parents beat them when they were kids, and can thus put
themselves in the child's place.  I see no reason why the abusive dynamic
involved in wife-battering is all that dissimilar from child abuse.  Rich, you
must explain how Julie's comments resemble a blanket characterization.

Pardon me.  Perhaps you were talking about the romance hero character
characterization.  Luke is tortured like an abuser being abused himself.  There
is a commonality to abusers.  I believe that is the point Julie was trying to
make, and that the romance heroes are these powerful abuser types with a heart
of gold.  (Like Luke.)

JC>The other scenario reads something like this:  "He crushed her against him,
JC>bruising her velvet skin.  She could feel his throbbing manhood pressing
JC>against her, and a surging warmth flooded through her body in response. 
JC>'Oh, Silverena, how I have dreamed of this moment,' he panted, his breath
JC>hot against her cheek.  She knew she could deny him no longer.....'
JC>This scene isn't really rape, because she does want it.  Its a rough, forceful
JC>seduction in which the heroine's final resistances to the inevitable will 
JC>crumble under the force of his passion.  She is fairly passive until passion 
JC>catches up to her.
JC>She's not "really" responsible for sex happening, she's 
JC>giving the man she loves what he wants.  She wants it too, but he had to 
JC>initiate  and break down her resistance.  And God won't really mind she
JC>had premarital sex because she was a virgin before she met him and she will
JC>ALWAYS marry this guy.
JC>That's another feature of these novels.  He always marries her.  He also always
JC>rescues her from whatever threatens here.  And he will always find her, even
JC>if he has to chase across three continents to do so.

RP>I tried to read a romance novel years ago, but I could not finish it. I do
RP>not really recall why. But the above seems to be a validation of the notion
RP>of romantic love.

The above may be a validation of romantic love, but it is also glorification of
rape -- unconsentual sex.  It confuses women who upon being sexually coerced
feel mixed feelings because they are at once programmed to romanticize lack of
control and helplessness before a man's sexual aggression and at the same time
feel the reality of lack of control and the resulting feelings of helplessness
and insecurity.

JC>"Some day my prince will come...."
JC>                Snow White.
JC>Julie
JC>(thats not a .sig up there) 

Julie, thou art divine.  Your initials are, that is.

RP>>Rich
RP>>payner@netcom.com
RP>rich again

now, dave too

Newsgroups: alt.feminism