 |
| Heroine Natalie is "no women's libber" |
Just how deeply do these romances embrace feminism? I sometimes find myself frustrated after picking up a children's or YA book that a reviewer or expert has touted as featuring positive female role models, only to discover after reading that its feminism is no more than surface-deep, or that my definition of feminism seems quite different from that of the recommender. Often I find such books explicitly declare their alliance with feminist principles but then proceed to undermine said principles on the level of implicit, rather than explicit, ideology. I'm eager to take a look at some of the books Vivanco discusses, to see whether they are wholehearted in their embrace of feminism, or whether they present conflicting attitudes toward feminism. (I know that Laura Vivanco is a frequent reader of RNFF, and hope she will chime in here on this issue).
Until I can round up and read a few of these books, though, I thought I'd share another issue Vivanco's article raised for me: the issue of women's relationship to money. Vivanco notes that many of the heroines in the Modern line "struggle not to be seen as 'gold-diggers,'" a struggle she suggests "may be read as attempting to redefine the institution of marriage so that it is no longer a sexual/financial transaction but a relationship built around emotional trust and intimacy" (1070). This struck me as an surprising argument, as I'm guessing few unmarried young people today regard marriage as a financial transaction at all, never mind feel a need to "redefine" it as something distinct from financial matters. Why then should "emotional trust and intimacy" be placed in opposition to money?
The quotes Vivanco includes to support her argument, and the language in which she couches them, made me wonder if these books weren't just attempting to redefine marriage as no longer a financial transaction, but also, simultaneously, setting up a binary opposition between money and love. In this binary, love in placed in the superior position, money in the inferior, the opposite message most Western men are socialized to believe. Such a binary construction unconsciously suggests to women that money is not, and should not, be important, at least not to them.
"I left everything because there was nothing I needed." She met his gaze full on, the message clear in her eyes. I was never interested in your money and I can't believe you don't know that. (1070)
Vivanco later suggests that Stasia
thinks of her work as something which benefits others and gives her more than merely financial rewards: "Life isn't always about money.... There are other things that matter, like independence and self-belief. I like my work. I need to know that I'm good at something. Making a contribution that matters." (1072)
While a belief that money is the end-all and be-all of life is one most feminists would find troubling, the completely opposite view—that money is "merely" a "reward" given for acting in ways that "benefit others," rather than something women earn so they can support themselves —seems equally problematic. Life isn't always about money, but it is often about money, especially life in a marriage. As myriad studies, including this 2012 study from the American Institute of CPAs, have shown, the most common reason married or co-habitating couples fight is over finances. If romances function to persuade women that money should not be of much concern to them, then how will they be able to function as equal partners in a relationship in which many, many decisions about money occur?
I could not think of a single one. Am I just being forgetful? Or do some come to your mind?
* Vivanco, Laura. "Feminism and Early Twenty-First Century Harlequin Mills & Boon Romances." The Journal of Popular Culture 45.5 (2012): 1060-1089.
Photo/Illustration credits:
Women Minimum wage: Center for American Progress
Next time on RNFF:
BDSM & feminist romance
"If we extrapolate from Vivanco's sample"
ReplyDeleteI didn't include a statistical analysis in my essay because (a) I don't know much about statistics and (b) I was nonetheless fairly sure that the ways in which I'd acquired the books meant my sample wouldn't be deemed entirely representative. I know I asked for, and received, recommendations. It's a long time since I did the research for that article so I can't remember if I also used Google Books to find romances that used key words such as "feminism."
Often I find such books explicitly declare their alliance with feminist principles but then proceed to undermine said principles on the level of implicit, rather than explicit, ideology. I'm eager to take a look at some of the books Vivanco discusses, to see whether they are wholehearted in their embrace of feminism, or whether they present conflicting attitudes toward feminism. (I know that Laura Vivanco is a frequent reader of RNFF, and hope she will chime in here on this issue).
For what it's worth, I don't remember finding them contradictory but there are so many different ways to define "feminism" that what seems to one person like a less-than-wholehearted embrace of feminism may seem extremely wholehearted to another. After all, some feminists think that romance novels reinforce patriarchal domination of women because of their support for marriage, their heteronormativity and their belief in life-long monogamous romantic love.
The quotes Vivanco includes to support her argument, and the language in which she couches them, made me wonder if these books weren't just attempting to redefine marriage as no longer a financial transaction, but also, simultaneously, setting up a binary opposition between money and love. In this binary, love in placed in the superior position, money in the inferior, the opposite message most Western men are socialized to believe.
If one looks at history of marriage as a secular institution (i.e. not taking into account its sacramental nature or whether it's useful in preventing sin), it's often been used to build alliances between families (in most cases headed by men), acquire property, create heirs who would inherit that property, etc. In the Middle Ages, even those who valued romantic love believed that it was not possible for it to exist within marriage, due to the husband's power over the wife.
The change which made romantic love the main (and in the West the only truly acceptable admissible) basis for marriage is really very, very recent. Of course, money is still important, and given that these romances often feature millionaire/billionaire heroes paired with much poorer heroines, I don't think it's really possible to say that romances don't value money. Jan Cohn has argued that "popular romance tells the story of how the heroine gains access to money — to power — in patriarchal society” (3).
That said, people who marry for money aren't usually seen in a positive light so when a heroine gains financially from marriage, romances can't depict her in a way which makes her look as though her primary motivation is the acquisition is the acquisition of the hero's money. Same goes for heroes too, actually, though rich heroines paired with poor heroes are not so common.
--------
Cohn, Jan. Romance and the Erotics of Property: Mass-Market Fiction for Women. Durham: Duke UP, 1988.
Hi, Laura, and thanks for adding your thoughts. Yes, looking at the span of history, the development of marriage as a secular institution is a new thing. But I'm not sure that most readers have the same sense of the scope of history that scholars do. I'm guessing that many take it for granted that today you marry for love, not out of any financial consideration, without considering that such a view is not "natural" but something that has changed over time.
ReplyDeleteAh, I've not read the Jan Cohn book. Thanks for the reference.
The issue that I'm mulling over in this post isn't that ROMANCES don't value money. It's that romance HEROINES aren't supposed to value money. To me, that's a vestige of patriarchal discourse, a discourse that tells women that they only way they can get access to money is by aligning themselves with a man who has it. So yes, Cohn's point does explain the alpha-focused Modern line quite well.
But is contemporary society still so patriarchal? Might category romances' ideology about money make it appear more patriarchal than it is, thus suggesting to women that their best, or perhaps only, access to money is through a man? And doesn't such an idea unconsciously discourage women from taking responsibility for/charge of their own financial well-being?
I'm not sure that most readers have the same sense of the scope of history that scholars do.
DeleteMaybe, but maybe not. The heroes in the HM&B Modern/Presents line are often aristocrats (e.g. Sicilian Dukes, sheikhs of imaginary kingdoms, princes of equally imaginary kingdoms) so in that context, where reference is often made to how "medieval"/ "traditional" they are in their thinking and/or there's an expectation that they will marry well (i.e. find a suitably aristocratic bride) the reader is probably quite aware of the older view of marriage as a pragmatic, rather than a romantic, institution.
Ah, I've not read the Jan Cohn book. Thanks for the reference.
I'd recommend it.
The issue that I'm mulling over in this post isn't that ROMANCES don't value money. It's that romance HEROINES aren't supposed to value money. To me, that's a vestige of patriarchal discourse, a discourse that tells women that they only way they can get access to money is by aligning themselves with a man who has it.
Romance heroines can value and even marry for money but generally only for specific reasons e.g. she may marry for money if it is to ensure that her sick parent/siblings will receive urgent and expensive medical treatment, or that her family will not lose their home. As Kyra Kramer and I noted in our analysis of the power dynamics expressed through the bodies of romance heroes and heroines, when a heroine gains increased access to money through marriage this is usually presented as offering her "opportunities for displaying the nurturing aspects" of her personality.
But is contemporary society still so patriarchal? Might category romances' ideology about money make it appear more patriarchal than it is, thus suggesting to women that their best, or perhaps only, access to money is through a man?
First of all, I wouldn't distinguish between category romances and single titles. I don't see a lack of wealthy Dukes or rich vampires in single titles.
Also, as I was trying to show in my article, not all category romances are the same and the issues highlighted in the "Modern" romances are often different from those on which the novels in the "Romance" focused.
As for patriarchal values and wider society's message about getting money via marriage to a rich man, in 2010 Kira Cochrane wrote in the Guardian that,
in recent years, marrying a footballer has become highly aspirational for some young women. Surveys confirm it is seen as a career option by a minority; and that many girls can name more wives and girlfriends of footballers than female politicians. [...]
But the living, breathing proof is the women in bars and clubs who try to pay bouncers to point out all the players. A member of staff at Newz, a Liverpool bar that's popular with many of the city's highly paid footballers, says that "even when a reserve team player arrives, the girls go completely wild: they're all over him. It's ridiculous. You really have to see it to believe it."
----
Cochrane, Kira. "Why do Women Want to be WAGs?" The Guardian. 16 Feb. 2010.
Vivanco, Laura, and Kyra Kramer. “There Are Six Bodies in This Relationship: An Anthropological Approach to the Romance Genre.” Journal of Popular Romance Studies 1.1 (2010).
Laura:
DeleteThanks so much for sharing all these thoughts. It's so great to be able to engage in a conversation with you about these issues!
Re: readers' understanding of changing marriage customs over time. I see your point, that the novels themselves teach readers about the marriage customs of the past. But for actual readers, having to make a marriage for reasons of political or financial alliance isn't something likely to happen to them in their real, everyday lives, right? The patriarchal view of marriage as political/financial alliance is part of the fantasy of the romance, reading about a world (aristocrats and royals) that is not theirs. So, if the feminism in the book is focused on fighting a patriarchal battle that isn't really relevant to their own lives, one that exists in the fantasy world only, then I wonder what that tells a reader about feminism. Not sure I'm articulating this in a way that makes any sense...
The message that money is only ok if you use it to help/nurture others is a bit limiting to women, too, don't you think? Are men prodded to seek high-earning jobs so that they can nurture others (in real life, not so much; in romance?)
Ah, another Vivanco article to read... thanks for the reference!
And your pointer to the article about girls' desires to be a WAG--I think this proves rather than undercuts my point. It's not that opportunities for women to earn their own money don't exist, but that women are too often encouraged (and often buy into) the idea that allowing a man to foot the bills is the wisest way to go. Hence the idea of marrying a rich guy as a potential career move, an idea this article suggests does not often work out the way the potential WAG imagines...
"if the feminism in the book is focused on fighting a patriarchal battle that isn't really relevant to their own lives, one that exists in the fantasy world only, then I wonder what that tells a reader about feminism. Not sure I'm articulating this in a way that makes any sense..."
DeleteIt makes sense. I think what these romances do is intensify issues/situations which often exist in less intense form in real life. That's true of a lot of romances and I'd relate it to the mimetic mode in which they're written. The Presents/Modern line is full of "high mimetic" romances (sorry, I'll take a short-cut and refer to my book. The relevant section is available online here). So no, most women will not have to deal with a billionaire tycoon who wants them to be a kept woman, but the intense way in which high mimetic characters work through issues relating to money, job satisfaction, dependence on a male earner etc may well be exaggerated/more intense case-studies which enable the reader to think about these same issues as they affect her own life. And if, for example, the novel shows a heroine staying strong and insisting that she won't be controlled, that she wants to be an equal partner in the relationship, then I think this does tell the reader something about feminism.
"The message that money is only ok if you use it to help/nurture others is a bit limiting to women, too, don't you think?"
Yes. But in that article Kyra and I weren't looking at feminist romances. We were trying to describe and analyse a gendered pattern of behaviour and characterisation which exists in a lot of romances. We also looked at a few exceptions to that pattern, and one of those involves a heroine who earns much more than her hero, so he gives up his job to be a stay-at-home father.
Having made all these comments, I think maybe I should mention that, in assessing the novels' feminism, I'm possibly influenced by the fact that I'm a stay-at-home parent and I don't earn a wage, so I'm financially dependent on my husband. I don't think that being in my situation makes me unfeminist. If some romance heroines decide to be stay-at-home parents, that alone isn't going to make me think that the novel is unfeminist. Different people have different talents, work that women have traditionally done is unfairly undervalued, there are a lot of factors which constrain one's choices, and people have to do the best they can.
Laura:
DeleteThanks for the note about the concept of high-mimetic mode and how it functions in romance. This makes a lot of sense to me.
And hey, I'm a non-wage-earner right now, too, although I spent most of my adult life employed or in graduate school. Shifting to working at home, writing without a paycheck, and the difficulties that transition entailed (and continues to entail) is part of the reason why these issues around money resonate for me...
A stay-at-home mom in a romance book does not necessarily = antifeminist to me. It is HOW and WHY the decision is made to do so that matters. "Women are naturally better caretakers" is not going to win an author any feminist points in my book, nor is an author who sends ALL of her heroines back home once they marry and have kids.
Wendy wrote:
ReplyDeleteManhunting, by Jennifer Crusie, comes to mind. I'm not sure it fits exactly, but Kate is just not giving up her business career, even though she adapts her career to a small town instead of the big city.
But for some reason it is not showing up on the blog. So I've added it here. Thanks, Wendy, for the rec.
Such a binary construction unconsciously suggests to women that money is not, and should not, be important, at least not to them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this is a message solely directed at women, though. Romantic love has been idealised in a way which suggests that it should focus solely on the person of the beloved not his/her wealth and
The Cinderella myth is potent precisely because it articulates aspects of marriage that are suppressed in the myth of 'true love'. As magazines like Home Chat and Woman's Weekly were fond of reiterating 'true riches can't be bought' and 'love in a cottage is better than all the riches in the world'. (Giles 247)
----
The lines from Morgan's novel made me begin to wonder—have I ever read a romance, either category or single-title, in which a woman is proud of the money she earns? In which earning money through work is seen as a positive, empowering act for a heroine?
I was arguing that that's how Morgan depicts her heroine here: the money the heroine earns gives her "independence and self-belief." In another of her novels, Bought: The Greek's Innocent Virgin, the title is vastly misleading because Chantal in fact consistently, strenuously and successfully resists being "bought." In the end the hero works out a way for her to make a lot of money from her talent for dress-making because
I want us to be together, and since you won't agree to that unless you're financially independent [...] the obvious solution is to make you financially independent. Read the business plan [...] You already have at least twenty desperate customers waiting for you to dress them for various important occasions(179)
Does the fact that it's the hero who comes up with the business plan makes this unfeminist? I don't think so, but I imagine opinions might differ on that.
-----
Giles, Judy. "'Playing Hard to Get': Working-Class Women, Sexuality and Respectability in Britain, 1918-40." Women's History Review 1.2 (1992): 239-255.
Morgan, Sarah. Bought: The Greek's Innocent Virgin. Richmond, Surrey: Harlequin Mills & Boon, 2008.
In romances, yes, the message that love should come before money is definitely directed at both sexes. I'm not familiar enough with genres primarily associated with male readers to say, but I wonder if that message is at all present in such genres? Or if the message is opposite?
DeleteMorgan's books sound intriguing. In BOUGHT, why do you think she chose to have the hero, rather than the heroine, be the one who comes up with the solution to their financial impasse? Is it because it is part of the Presents/Modern alpha-hero line? And what effect does it have on the reader in terms of her views about Chantal's feminist needs? The line "the obvious solution is to make you financially independent" makes it sound as if the hero is grudgingly giving in to a silly demand of the heroine's, rather than truly understanding her reasons for needing that financial independence, but perhaps in context he comes off better than that.
I think it's more common in contemporaries these days for the heroines to have careers and love their jobs, although I don't think it's typically expressed in terms of money. Most of Julie James's heroines are lawyers and they often talk about how much they love the law, but I don't think they ever express it in terms of money. But I think that's the case for most romance characters - male and female. There are a lot of Romance Billionaires but even they tend to be characterized as great at their work, not just rich. (For example, Roarke in the In Death books.)
ReplyDeleteThe one book I could think of that talked about money was Born in Fire by Nora Roberts. The heroine is a glass artist, and at the beginning she is selling her work for very little money. During the course of the book she learns to value her work more highly and sell it for higher prices. She is paired with another one of those romance billionaires, although surprisingly he's the one who changes his career plans to fit with the heroine and her work. (In the end they both compromise to some extent, but the heroine's work is considered equal to the hero's.)
Thanks, toberead2, for stopping by and sharing a few book titles. I remember that in Julie James' first book, money (and the heroine's discomfort with the fact that as a lawyer, she now has a lot of it, when as a child her single mom wasn't that well off) being an interesting thread in the book. Because money is also connected to issues of social class, as well as to gender, isn't it? Untangling the different threads can be really difficult when multiple ideologies become entwined.
DeleteHaven't read the Nora Roberts book -- will have to take a look.
Courtney Milan's wonderful novella The Governess Affair features a governess heroine on the brink of poverty, who has long dreamed of moving to the country and buying a lavender farm to make fancy soaps and earn her keep. The hero, a former boxer, is set on building a financial empire to spite his abusive coal miner father. They're both trying to get money out of a pusillanimous, debt-ridden duke -- but eventually the hero chooses the heroine's financial dreams over his own. He gives up the empire idea and moves to the lavender farm he helped the heroine purchase.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pretty strongly feminist book, in my opinion, and I'm writing up a more lengthy analysis on the blog at present. But I was particularly struck by the ending, because like you point out that the heroines are the ones who more often make career and financial compromises in romance novels. Seeing the reverse was a refreshing change of pace.
Oh, yes, I had forgotten that aspect of "The Governess Affair" (which I included on my "best of 2012" list). Lots of other feminist threads in that novella, and in most of Milan's work.
Delete"Often I find such books explicitly declare their alliance with feminist principles but then proceed to undermine said principles on the level of implicit, rather than explicit, ideology."
ReplyDeleteI read the perfect example of that today, The Sheikh's Last Gamble by Trish Morey.
Willaful:
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think the "have your cake and eat it too" dynamic occurs? Do readers want to tell themselves that they (and the heroines they read) are empowered, even when they really aren't?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI've just finished teaching "Natural Born Charmer," by Susan Elizabeth Phillips, might make for an interesting counter-example. The heroine's relationship with the hero gets her painting again, and SEP makes sure to tell us, in the novel's epilogue, that her paintings are selling incredibly well, making her wealthy in her own right. "Making money through work" is seen as an unalloyed positive in the novel, for both male and female characters, and the book ends with a long description of one of Blue's paintings, not with their wedding, which really underscores their centrality (and thus the centrality of her work) to the narrative.
ReplyDeleteI'm only up to MATCH ME IF YOU CAN in SEP's Chicago Stars series -- will have to request both it and NATURAL BORN CHARMER from the library soon...
ReplyDelete