Okay, a lot has happened the past few month (and weeks).
Last weekend, my friends and I went over to our friend's birthday party, to just have fun. It was that night that I realized how different we all were. I mean, everyone had different interests, and just different lives, in general. It seemed as if we just couldn't find a topic that we could all relate to.
For example, I really wanted to talk to my friends a lot about what's been happening at school, and how one of my favourite courses, Writer's Craft was going. But then, I realized that some people were out of school, and they may be sensitive about that particular subject. So then I just stayed quiet, thinking of a lot of things to say, but unable to say them.
It's our last year in high school, so everyone is just... branching off in different directions. People are leaving, some are staying behind, and some... I don't what's going to happen.
We're lucky that we've known each other for a long time, enough that our friendship may be able to survive the long gaps of time in between. It's just going to be difficult (more so for some than for others) to retain that bond we had since grade 9, what with everyone just... going away.
On another note, today's Valentine's Day. Also called SAD (Single's-Awareness Day).
I just don't understand the judgment that people do to single people. I mean, there's that old saying that, even if a person is rich and healthy, and has great friends, he/she is going to die lonely because he/she's single.
It just doesn't make sense.
The (let's go with female for now) girl's sexy, independant, has a great career and awesome friends, and people think she's going to be a miserable old lady. I prefer to think that my friends will always be there for me--that my friends will be my family, and that's enough for me. I really don't want children, or a husband. I know for a fact that I'd be a horrible, careless mother--and not wanting to die alone is not a good enough reason for me to suffer through having 2.5 children, and being a soccer mom. God, that is my worst nightmare.
The divorce rate in North America is so high because of the stigma associated to being single. It's as if the married people want everyone to be miserable too. Misery loves company.
It's a fact that single people are at least three times more wealthy than their married counterparts.
I mean, I don't want to never have a relationship. Of course I want to experience something like that. And maybe I'll meet someone who I can actually stand to live with.
But, I don't want to marry just because I'm getting too old, or just because I'm "lonely."
Anyway, maybe it's just the bitterness of the modern century that makes me feel this way. The fact that today's my birthday doesn't help, either. You'd think I'd grow up to be some sickeningly sweet romantic or some such.
Thank God I'm not.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Monday, 14 February 2011
Monday, 27 September 2010
Heroines
Another one of my rants that just wouldn't let go. This time it's about romance novel heroines.
I swear, everytime I read a historical romance novel, I always wonder at the stupidity of the heroine. Most romance novels have the character format of "Alpha hero" and "Upstart heroine," in which the heroine is this self-sufficient female that "doesn't need" a male in her life. What bullshit.
As the novel progresses, the heroine degenerates into more and more of a child, even sometimes crawling into the hero's lap and crying for comfort. It seems that she can't do anything without the hero there to point out her mistakes and "help" her along the way. Seriously? I mean, seriously? What the hell happened to the "proud, self-sufficient, doesn't-need-a-male" woman that was there in the beginning of the book?
What, she can't even go to a stupid ball without the hero there to hold her hand?? It's as if she's this little puppy that follows the male around and asks for scraps and leftovers.
And then, when the cynical hero "rejects"/"tries to protect" (I hate that phrase) her by not including her in important events, or not telling the truth, or even cheating on her, she comes back for more. What the hell happened to your pride, woman?
Oh, I've heard the argument: "He's very sensitive, he can't let go of his past, he can't help it, he needs me..." No, what he needs is a good kick in the face for even doing that in the first place.
These types of "heroines" are even in chicklits and contemporary romances. In chicklits, we have your classic clumsy, can't-seem-to-do-anything-right heroine. What's up with that? Why can't the heroine be a bitch, for once? Or even an independant, career-driven woman that is actually smart. And, strangely enough, this clumsy heroine manages to attract the attention of some successful businessman. Just how unrealistic do you want to get? Why don't you throw in a couple of vampires, just in case it isn't stupid enough? I mean, the guy is smart, successful, and NICE. Obviously he could do a LOT better than some Ordinary Jane. Successful people are attracted to successful people. Who'd want to go for anything lower?
I would actually like to read a chicklit in which the woman is a successful entrepreneur, and the guy is just some ordinary carpenter, or something. At least it would be original. Only with Nora Roberts have I found such a story. Perhaps that's why I like her work so much, despite her... lack of detail in certain scenes. But I digress.
Another thing that bothers me is that most of these heroines turn out to be virgins. God, how I hate that word. In historical romances, I can accept it, because that was how it was at the time. But contemporary? It's not even close to realistic. Why the hell would a woman wait until she was thirty to find "the one"? Why the hell would she even fall in love with her first? Doesn't she want to experiment, explore sexual freedom, and all that jazz? Oh, sure, the first would be memorable, but not for the reasons they state. It would be memorable because of how painful it would have been!
They say, "Oh, I'm saving myself for the one." Don't they realize that their first time is going to scar their experience with "the one"? I mean, considering how painful it is, I'm surprised they want to subject themselves to that pain by their beloved.
The hymen is an annoyance. Nothing more. It impedes a woman's progress in exploring all that life has to give her and even makes it painful when she wants to break out of her shell. I bet if it didn't exist, our human history would have drastically changed and women would have recieved equal rights even sooner.
And what the hell is up with Slut? It's just such a stupid and sexist word that it defies civilized nature, and I do not like it. If a woman wants to go with more than one man, it's her right. Or if she wants to wear short-shorts, it's her right. Who is anyone to judge? It's the same with a hijab. If a woman doesn't want to wear clothes that show skin, it's her right. Of course, some may argue that the right was taken away from her, but how do you know? If you don't, then don't judge.
The one thing that really bugs me is that all the people who write those romance novels are women. I always wonder what the hell is going on in their minds half the time. Why would they subject their main character to such humiliations, in which they need a male to survive? Real life doesn't work like that. You can only depend on yourself, and no one else, no matter how many people may delude themselves into thinking the opposite.
I mean, even male authors give their female characters more power than female authors. I recently read a book in which the heroine was more physically strong than the male, who was the main character, and it was written by a man. If men like women in power, why don't women?
The most obvious example to this rant is Twilight. I won't mention it again.
What saved female romance authors in my mind is the evolution of the urban fantasy genre. At least in those books there were actual smart and savvy heroines, who could completely fight for themselves, and didn't need a male's help, even though they accepted help sometimes. Anita Blake was a series I especially liked, since here was a smart, dangerous, and promiscuous woman who knew what she was talking about. Even though it devolved into full-blown erotica, I still remember the earlier books as being one of the best.
I just hope, as time progresses, so will romance authors and their heroines.
I swear, everytime I read a historical romance novel, I always wonder at the stupidity of the heroine. Most romance novels have the character format of "Alpha hero" and "Upstart heroine," in which the heroine is this self-sufficient female that "doesn't need" a male in her life. What bullshit.
As the novel progresses, the heroine degenerates into more and more of a child, even sometimes crawling into the hero's lap and crying for comfort. It seems that she can't do anything without the hero there to point out her mistakes and "help" her along the way. Seriously? I mean, seriously? What the hell happened to the "proud, self-sufficient, doesn't-need-a-male" woman that was there in the beginning of the book?
What, she can't even go to a stupid ball without the hero there to hold her hand?? It's as if she's this little puppy that follows the male around and asks for scraps and leftovers.
And then, when the cynical hero "rejects"/"tries to protect" (I hate that phrase) her by not including her in important events, or not telling the truth, or even cheating on her, she comes back for more. What the hell happened to your pride, woman?
Oh, I've heard the argument: "He's very sensitive, he can't let go of his past, he can't help it, he needs me..." No, what he needs is a good kick in the face for even doing that in the first place.
These types of "heroines" are even in chicklits and contemporary romances. In chicklits, we have your classic clumsy, can't-seem-to-do-anything-right heroine. What's up with that? Why can't the heroine be a bitch, for once? Or even an independant, career-driven woman that is actually smart. And, strangely enough, this clumsy heroine manages to attract the attention of some successful businessman. Just how unrealistic do you want to get? Why don't you throw in a couple of vampires, just in case it isn't stupid enough? I mean, the guy is smart, successful, and NICE. Obviously he could do a LOT better than some Ordinary Jane. Successful people are attracted to successful people. Who'd want to go for anything lower?
I would actually like to read a chicklit in which the woman is a successful entrepreneur, and the guy is just some ordinary carpenter, or something. At least it would be original. Only with Nora Roberts have I found such a story. Perhaps that's why I like her work so much, despite her... lack of detail in certain scenes. But I digress.
Another thing that bothers me is that most of these heroines turn out to be virgins. God, how I hate that word. In historical romances, I can accept it, because that was how it was at the time. But contemporary? It's not even close to realistic. Why the hell would a woman wait until she was thirty to find "the one"? Why the hell would she even fall in love with her first? Doesn't she want to experiment, explore sexual freedom, and all that jazz? Oh, sure, the first would be memorable, but not for the reasons they state. It would be memorable because of how painful it would have been!
They say, "Oh, I'm saving myself for the one." Don't they realize that their first time is going to scar their experience with "the one"? I mean, considering how painful it is, I'm surprised they want to subject themselves to that pain by their beloved.
The hymen is an annoyance. Nothing more. It impedes a woman's progress in exploring all that life has to give her and even makes it painful when she wants to break out of her shell. I bet if it didn't exist, our human history would have drastically changed and women would have recieved equal rights even sooner.
And what the hell is up with Slut? It's just such a stupid and sexist word that it defies civilized nature, and I do not like it. If a woman wants to go with more than one man, it's her right. Or if she wants to wear short-shorts, it's her right. Who is anyone to judge? It's the same with a hijab. If a woman doesn't want to wear clothes that show skin, it's her right. Of course, some may argue that the right was taken away from her, but how do you know? If you don't, then don't judge.
The one thing that really bugs me is that all the people who write those romance novels are women. I always wonder what the hell is going on in their minds half the time. Why would they subject their main character to such humiliations, in which they need a male to survive? Real life doesn't work like that. You can only depend on yourself, and no one else, no matter how many people may delude themselves into thinking the opposite.
I mean, even male authors give their female characters more power than female authors. I recently read a book in which the heroine was more physically strong than the male, who was the main character, and it was written by a man. If men like women in power, why don't women?
The most obvious example to this rant is Twilight. I won't mention it again.
What saved female romance authors in my mind is the evolution of the urban fantasy genre. At least in those books there were actual smart and savvy heroines, who could completely fight for themselves, and didn't need a male's help, even though they accepted help sometimes. Anita Blake was a series I especially liked, since here was a smart, dangerous, and promiscuous woman who knew what she was talking about. Even though it devolved into full-blown erotica, I still remember the earlier books as being one of the best.
I just hope, as time progresses, so will romance authors and their heroines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)