I'm not sure the two are diametrically opposed. You would think so, wouldn't you? I've never had a spectacularly hard time reconciling myself to espousing hard-core feminist beliefs and reading romance novels; during the most formative years of my feminism, I wasn't reading romance at all. I was in a relationship with a woman at the time, and felt (rather rightly) that romance novels didn't speak to my sexuality. But I'm sort of lying here, because I snuck romance novels every once in a while. I remember once hiding a Julie Garwood novel (not a mystery, but a romance) behind the couch, so that my friends couldn't find it. I was embarrassed about it then, because it felt somehow wrong due to my sexuality, not my feminism.
But I loved them. LOVED them. It didn't really matter because I didn't have much time to read--besides the insane amount of reading I was doing for class. The truth is, I've read literature and probably all kinds of non-fictions; now I've read genres too. But the most entertaining books, to me, are still the romance novels. Right now, because of my reader's advisory class, I've been thinking a lot about my reading habits; why I read what I read and what I like about what I read. And also, how my personal beliefs mesh with my reading. And I've been trying to find a shred of feminist credibility to hold onto, when it comes to romance, and this is all I've got:
Romance sells a lot of books. A lot. More books than any other genre that exists. Men don't write romance novels. Women do. In fact, I've never read one by a man, and I don't think I ever will. (Unless it's a gay romance, which yes, exists, and yes, I'm dying to read it. I just think that I might really like them. I read Beth Ciotta's books because there is a gay best friend in them, who has his own storyline, complete with monogamous, rocky relationship. I LOVE IT!) The point is, romance is an industry by women, for women. Do I wish some of the storylines were slightly more empowering? Yes, maybe, probably. Can I find value in some romance novels? Yes, sometimes I can. There's a lot to like when women write stories for one another about love and sex.
I don't consider it porn. I don't read it to "get off" or get turned on. Romantica and erotica could provide that for me, if I so chose. And even if I did consider it porn, I don't consider porn to be anti-feminist. Especially when it's made for women, by women. I suppose the anti-feminist thing about romance is that women in romance novels, ultimately, in some way, need men. Which is a hideously anti-feminist idea, to me. But can we balance this out by pointing out that every single man in these books needs the woman, in some way? Yes, yes, I hate the fact that the women "teach" the men to be open to their feelings in some books. (Though I keep reading them, because damn if they can't be entertaining.) Does it chafe when a man is too domineering and the woman is a simpering neurotic idiot? Yeah; I like my women strong and self-confident. And thankfully, books with strong heroines exist.
Are there other, more empowering books out there? Of course. I'm sure I've read some. But I can't deny the power in supporting women by buying their books (and the only books I regularly buy are romance novels--regularly being the key word). It's enough, anyway. Besides, I just love them too damn much to stop.
For me, romance novels were how I learned about sex. My mother had a complete inability to say the word "period" to me, yet gave me very sexually explicit romance novels when I was 14. While some of the sex was of the icky, semi-coersive kind, the majority of it was with the woman wanting it as much as the man, and orgasms were a regular occurence. It made sex other than the standard missionary position normal to me, for which I am eternally grateful. :)
Aside from the sex, I learned a lot about history. I read mostly Bertrice Small's books, which were all very meticulously researched, and they were the first thing that sparked my interest in the Ottoman empire and the Tudors. I was the only person in my 9th grade history class who could name all of Henry VIII's wives in order, how they died, and which kids were whose, and the political implications of each marriage. I fully credit Small for that.
As I've become more outspoken in my feminism, I've felt a lot of pressure to renounce the romance novels. No one wants to hear that they have any redeeming value, that they're not just "porn for women" (honestly, I've long been skipping over the sex scenes. That may just be that now I'm over 30 and think that the euphemisms are ridiculous.). It feels like another example of denigrating something simply because it's "female", just like the backlash against enjoying doing anything domestic.
Posted by: Dana | June 21, 2005 at 07:49 AM
I just came across this post today, a good month after you wrote it. Firstly, I want to thank you for your kind words regarding my trilogy. Readers (primarily hetero-sexual females) constantly ask how I got in the mindset to write a secondary gay romance. Honestly, it wasn't all that hard. To me, true love knows no gender, race or religon. I have several gay friends, many are in a lasting relationship. Rudy and Jean-Pierre's story line came naturally and I very much enjoyed tagging along on their emotional journey. I found it uplifting that so many straight readers rooted just as strongly for this gay couple as they did for my primary straight couple. I'm also very glad that my stories have made their way into the hands of some gay readers, and that, they too, enjoyed my work.
Again, thank you for your kind words!
Posted by: Beth C | August 02, 2005 at 11:21 AM