The Economist article, reporting on a study recently published in the journal International Organization (abstract here), demonstrates that the self-esteem conundrum is not just a problem that plagues girls, but one that continues on, far into adulthood, with real consequences for women's career and financial advancement. University of San Diego researcher Barbara Walter compared the number of times male political science scholars cited their own work in subsequent research, compared to the number of times female scholars did the same. Her findings—on average, male-authored articles were cited five more times than those by female-only authors—reflect the fact that not only do men tend to cite their own previous work more than women do, but also that men cite other men "more often than chance would suggest they should." Since Promotion and Tenure committees increasingly regard the number of times a scholar's work is cited by other scholars as a sign of said scholar's standing in the field, such a clear gender gap in citation might account in part for why full professors of the male persuasion still outnumber tenured females, typically by at least 4 to 1 in most disciplines.
How do women in romance novels fare in the self-esteem wars? Romances in general do tend to push heroines to develop higher self-esteem. But I can't begin to count the number of times I've read a romance in which the heroine is compared favorably to a "cocky" female rival, said rival embodying the "bad" confidence upon which society frowns. Why does society demand that women have some self-esteem, but not too much? Do romance novels teach women frame themselves in the narrow window of "acceptable" self-esteem? Would you admire a romance heroine who crowed about her own accomplishments or skills? More or less than you would a romance hero who did the same? What are your favorite romances that feature "cocky" women? And can we come up with a term less gender-biased than "cocky"?
Photo credits:
"Tell me...": Girls Inc.
IMO, Romance is in serious need of some "cockier", self-confident heroines. Even in this day and age, heroines are pretty passive, as if having too much ambition or confidence or openly displayed aggressiveness or sexual hunger renders them not likable, not demure enough, not worthy of love. It's ironic that historicals pride themselves on featuring the (somewhat anachronistic) rebellious women, while contemporaries are all about the small town girl or the wallflower waif. I do think heroines in urban fantasy, paranormal and maybe some romantic suspense are allowed to have more voracious and vocal personalities. I'd love to see more self-confident, ambitious, take-charge heroines in contemporary romance.
ReplyDeleteMe, too!
DeleteI think there are? Nora Roberts, to start. And I was just mentioning Tamara Morgan in the crossing class's post comments also in connection with this, but I really loved the relationship between the heroine and the hero in her Confidence Tricks. It's a very funny book, but with good heart to it, too, and very intelligent wit that goes beyond lighter humor. Jayne Ann Krentz is another big name. I don't know about cocky, though, in the sense that some heroes are (including my own, yes, although I'm sure they would prefer to define it as accurate self-assessment of their worth :) ), but confident certainly.
DeleteI read a lot of Nora back in the 90s but none of her romance heroines struck me as being particularly cocky/rebellious. (Granted she got too repetitive for me and I stopped reading her a while ago.) You could make a case for Eve Dallas, but she's a mystery heroine IMO (and urban fantasy too). The straight contemporaries don't seem to allow for heroines like that, which is a shame. And even just averagely confident ladies are in short supply these days. I'll have to check out Tamara M. I was just reading about her roller derby girl book yesterday, which sounds like a different breed of heroine. Thanks for the rec!
DeleteI wonder if this is related to the way sexually active girls and young women are said to have low self esteem?
ReplyDeleteVicky:
ReplyDeleteNot sure what "this" you're referring to?
Theodoris's post references a study that notes that girls with low self-esteem often have sex at an earlier age than their more confident peers, but I haven't read any research about women and sexuality and self-esteem, have you?
Sorry, I was unclear. Perhaps even enigmatic. I was referring to your point in the post that women have to walk a narrow line between "cockiness" and low self esteem. I wondered if it was related to an idea that many people in conservative circles have: That low self esteem explains why a woman would choose to have a lot of sex and/or a lot of partners. It can't be because she enjoys sex, it must be because of low self esteem, peer pressure, the media, etc.
DeleteI guess I'm trying to connect the concepts of self esteem and moral integrity; ie, the more self confidence you have, the easier it is to stick to your guns in a confrontation. And for women, morality is often associated with chastity. I think the question I'm trying to ask is this: Do we expect women to have just enough self esteem to resist men's sexual advances, but not enough to be a threat to patriarchal power structures? Is this the root of the narrow self esteem line that women are required to walk in our society? Am I just over-thinking this?
I think you have just explained the "madonna/whore complex" issue.
DeleteVicky:
DeleteI like the way you've phrased the issue; turn it from a question to a statement, and I think you're dead right: We expect women to have just enough self-esteem to resist men's sexual advances, but not enough to be a threat to patriarchal power structures. Challenging the assumptions that cap BOTH ends of this self-esteem construction are vital.
I love this post, especially because it talks about something that's been on my mind: both the problem within the academia and the lack of "cocky" heroines.
ReplyDeleteI say "lack" because I honestly can't remember one right now. Maybe later I will (hopefully).
To tell you the truth, I'm tired of the heroine who begins the books with low self-esteem. I want someone who right off the bat knows her own worth, has no problem acknowledging her own accomplishments, someone who is "cocky".
That's an interesting point about historical heroines having more confidence than those in contemporaries. I definitely think in some contemporaries the heroine is rewarded with love after being self-sacrificing and virtuous, rather than ambitious.
ReplyDeleteThe big offender in this category is romantic suspense. Yes, I know the trope is "woman in jeopardy," but I would love to read a romantic suspense romance with a "cocky" heroine.
I find Julie James's heroines the most confident in contemporaries and love them because of anti-doormat factor.
Other unapologetically confident heroines seem to be in paranormal: Captain Corsair in Meljean Brook's Heart of Steel, and Kate Daniels of Magic Bites, the harpies of Lords of the Underworld series, and many of the heroines in Kresley Cole's After Dark series.
First of all, I feel that "cocky" has negative connotations for me in describing either sex. It describes what I think of as "know it all" behavior, which automatically annoys me because "nobody can know it all" and so I want to start disproving them. And of course I find that behavior far more often in males. It also appears to me to be a sign of low self esteem, and is like bullying behavior.
ReplyDeleteSelf-esteem is highly desirable but the drawback seems to be that you have to earn it for yourself. You can't be given self-worth although it can be stolen bit by bit. I think that women can also lose their self-esteem if they give in to other people too much, i.e. don't stand up for themselves (or other people), because they want to smooth things over or keep the peace, or keep the guy. So there you are: a reason why heroines might start out with low self-esteem is that they are often caregivers first, or want to be loved/liked and have learned that caring for people can earn that love (or something perceived to be love). The double edge is in giving in for the "good" of the other person.
I've read all types of books with all types of heroines but need to think which ones might have been "cocky" in a good way, because if they are such know it alls that they won't take advice, or accept help, I probably didn't finish the book. Same goes for the heroes, by the way.
Just today, a female friend (retired teacher, Boy Scout leader, and long distance solo hiker) recommended this article, on Facebook: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-success/201101/the-trouble-bright-girls about why "For women, ability doesn't always lead to confidence."
ReplyDeleteThanks, Cynthia, for sharing this. The author's point is well-taken, but I didn't care for her assumption that the different ways that boys and girls are socialized to think about personal accomplishments/achievements is somehow unrelated to "external disadvantages" like inequality and chauvinism. Don't the messages stem from sexism, after all? Blaming women for being their "own worst enemy" because they've internalized sexist ideology makes me more than a little cranky...
DeleteThe quote in question:
"Even if every external disadvantage to a woman's rising to the top of an organization is removed--every inequality of opportunity, every chauvinistic stereotype, all the challenges we face balancing work and family--we would still have to deal with the fact that through our mistaken beliefs about our abilities, we may be our own worst enemy."
Reminds me a bit of a scene in Bound By Your Touch by Meredith Duran. The hero says something to the heroine about her being proud of her intellect and she replies something like "Of course I am. I am a woman - if I don't think highly of it, who will?" I think that book has an unapologetically confident and relatively ambitious heroine (she wants to do an anthropological study of Native Americans, if I remember correctly).
ReplyDeleteThe book is a historical, by the way.
DeleteI am reminded of a Stone Center Work in Progress paper (Wellesley University, Stone Center for Women) by Eleanor Saunders: Feeling Like a Fraud. She suggests that the tendency to underestimate ones accomplishments or attributes can be construed as low self-esteem on women's part and often this is a valid assumption. Dr. Saunders does draw our attention to the fact that Western androcentric society thrives on narcisstic 'chest banging' that is dystonic for many women who seek relational connection rather than relational competition. Granted, this hypothesis assumes that sociological norms are gender-determined but it is interesting to me that we are usually more concerned with low self-esteem in women. What about high self-esteem - when does that morph into narcissism and might we look at romance literature to identify 'cocky' heroes. (Perhaps not the greatest choice of adjective - or is it - given the esteem we give to the size of the penis in some romance novels.) Jane Lesley
ReplyDeleteYes, because men are always the "norm"; if women don't match up, then they're the one's who are the problem, who need to be fixed. I'm reminded of the piece in the NEW YORK TIMES about efforts at the Harvard Business School, to address the problem of gender imbalance/bias. Women students grades were markedly lower than men's, primarily because the men spoke up a lot more in class than women did. HBS gave classes how to raise your hand in seminar, but not classes on how to be a respectful listener and allow others to speak...
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-case-study-gender-equity.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0
I see confident women in paranormal romance and urban fantasy. Does that explain why I read them more? It may be part of the reason. I know I don't relate to the wilting heroines.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny that you say you see confident women in historical romance. I've always found them the most cringing. Even the "rebels." When they come up against the hero, they swoon and turn into puddles, sometimes lose themselves or discard their principles, etc. Aren't historicals the source of the abduction romance novel? So to me they can be shoddy examples. Although I will say I have found some strong protagonists in the works of Cecilia Grant, Sherry Thomas, Joanna Bourne, etc.
Yes, Old Skool romance primarily refers to historicals. But the new generation of authors such as those you mention are pushing free of those sexist roots to create confident female protagonists, ones who don't simply swoon and abandon their principles at the feet of a man.
DeleteI expected paranormals and urban fantasies to feature far more empowered heroines. Yet I find many of the same tropes -- dominating men, women who change themselves to find love, etc.-- in these genres, too, far more than I had imagined. Ilona Andrews and Meljean Brook are notable exceptions; what other authors in these genres would you single out for creating confident women who don't allow men to take over and lead the charge to save the world?
Some series that come to mind: Stormwalker (Allyson James), Chicagoland Vampires (Chloe Neill), Halfway to the Grave (Jeaniene Frost), Children of the Sea (Virginia Kantra), Ann Aguirre/Ava Gray's works...
DeleteAnn Aguirre's style's similar to Ilona Andrews' in some ways, so you'd probably like hers.
Thanks, anonymous, for the pointers. I'm looking forward to checking them out!
DeleteWhat are your favorite romances that feature "cocky" women? And can we come up with a term less gender-biased than "cocky"? - I was very happy to come across this article because I tend to actively search for romance novels with a strong and confident woman! I hate books that feature a leading lady who is a "victim" and saved by her cliche knight in shining armor. I want to read about someone who works for what they have and works for love! I just read a fantastic book entitled, "Come Fly with Me" by author Judith Whitmore (http://www.judithwhitmore.com/books/come-fly-with-me/). The main character Kate is a strong, fierce, intelligent woman who is stuck in a loveless, one-sided marriage. She throws herself into her work at an organization for at risk teens and flying! Kate is a talented aerobatic pilot. I really found myself rooting for her throughout. Kate's flight instructor, Rick, ends up being the man she falls for and the couple have to face an array of obstacles and twists & turns. BUT another reason why I love strong, confident Kate is that she is the hero at the end of the book! She does the rescuing! I won't give anything away but it's a must read for sure! HOORAY FOR ACCOMPLISHED, INTELLIGENT, STRONG WOMEN!
ReplyDeleteThanks, Karen, for the recommendation. Hooray, indeed!
DeleteI'll have to check that one out Karen! I love books with gender role reversals and where the heroines often have a traditionally masculine job. Thanks for recommending it.
Delete"And while women are heavy readers, we know they are heavy readers of the kind of fiction that is not likely to be reviewed in the pages of the TLS. ...The TLS is only interested in getting the best reviews of the most important books." Peter Stothard, editor of the Times Literary Supplement, 2010.
ReplyDeleteRomance is the opium of the breasted masses.