Within the past couple of years I think I have become somewhat of a feminist. Or maybe not so much, but at any rate I have lately been noticing a lot of things that suck about the way we think about women and men. Here are two things that have recently annoyed me.
1. The notion that in order for a woman to be a singer she must have a good voice. There are plenty of men who sing who have very average or very bad voices. Yet a woman feels that her voise must be "pretty" in order for her to use it. I discussed this with Sarah and she suggested that part of this might come from the fact that when girls are in band, they often sing and do nothing else. So in that case it would make slightly more sense that we expect her to have a good voice, but is still not totally fair in my opinion. If a person wants to play music and sing, they should do it, and if it's socially acceptable for a man to get up there and belt out complete crap, it should be for a woman as well.
2. The notion that any book with a woman as the main character is necessarily a girl book. Or even that any book written by a woman must be a girl book. So not fair! Women read books about men ALL THE TIME. Yet a man can't pick up Jane Eyre without being gay. Just because a character is a woman, just because the story may have something to do with love or marriage, doesn't make it sappy or stupid or girly. Obviously what brought this to mind was all the thinking I've been doing about Jane Austen lately. Her novels are notoriously known as chick books, love stories, etc. But anyone who's actually read one of them knows that this is entirely not the case. Her novels are actually about the economics of marriage, marriage without love, marriage because it's your only choice. They are about choosing the lesser of two evils. They are about the marginalized position that women of a certain time period and social class found themselves in, and the limited choices they had to make within those confines. There are no romantic love scenes, Darcy proposes to Elizabeth casually during a walk through the park, and Wentworth finally tells Anne of his true feelings throuhg a slightly anticlimactic letter. I could go on. But more importantly, they are well written, full of irony and double meanings and the subtle sarcasm that makes them so enjoyable. I think that Oscar Wilde said something like there is no such thing as a good book or a bad book, a book is either well written or badly written. And I think the same goes for this; there is no such thing as a girls book or a boys book. If it's a good book, everyone should be able to read it without some social stigma attached to it.
...
girl power!
Abonnieren
Kommentare zum Post (Atom)
14 Kommentare:
wow I never thought about the whole women-must-have-a-pretty-voice thing...so true.
but as for the girl/boy books, you're the one who tells me I read boy books and watch boy movies, so ...yeah.
that is so not true.
Dudes don't read books about love and crap like that. Now maybe if the girl in the book was kicking ass and taking names then guys would read those books.
J-Money
i love love love you!!! let's be lesbian feminists together and shave our heads and wear doc martins.
i think the girl/boy book thing exists less in college, though. at least in the literary community. i know three "jane austen scholars" who are all men. and it's not even a progressive thing... they're all like, in their 60's. i've read a couple really good books in the past few years written by men about women, namely pynchon's crying of lot 49 and more recently, the unbearable lightness of being (which actually has both male and female heroes). or even less modern, look at something like hawthorne's scarlet letter. if that isn't girl power, i don't know what is.
anyway, all i'm trying to say is that the boy/girl book thing only exists in people who know nothing about literature and are generally philistines.
that's true and you have made me feel better. but still, i think boys should read the sisterhood of the travleing pants! no but seriously, in the literary community sure, but everyday people, the people who writers really want to read their books (assuming they aren't total douches) are the ones that need an attitude adjustment when it comes to "girl" books. And men writing about women is good, but I kind of think that if a woman had written the scarlet letter or something like it from her own perspective, it would be considered to this day a girl book and though it may have been appreciated by many, it might not have been quite what it is today.
dude, i think about the aspect of writers only writing for the literary community a lot, and it makes me really sad. but like, ungh. i feel sometimes like that's just the way it is.
i wonder about scarlet letter, too. it's hard to say, obviously, because it's the past. but a lot of things from that era have survived. i mean... mary rowlandson? but i guess that's an entirely different sort of thing. hmmmm.
in other news, i am having two conversations with you at once right now.
I do agree with your observations for the most part, especially with current writers. (How many books does Danielle Steele need to write anyway?) But I can think of exceptions. What about Gone With the Wind? That is the Civil War told from Scarlett's point of view. Is it considered a girl book? Maybe a better example is The Good Earth. That is the ultimate woman power book in my opinion, and my favorite book in high school. Pearl S. Buck created this amazing character, an oppressed Chinese wife in an arranged marriage that literally gave birth out in the field and then continued her work - AND was the reason her husband became rich and successful enough to take a concubine into their home. Only after her death did he truly see and appreciate her for what she was, but at least he did acknowledge it. Both of these books are considered classics, both written by women and both have strong female lead characters. By the way, if you haven't read any Pearl S. Buck, I would strongly recommend it. She is awesome.
-Sheri
I dunno, I don't think I have ever met a male who has read Gone With the Wind. But they should, cause it's nice and violent and has a tragic ending.
also, I like how you signed your comment "Sheri."
mandy, isn't sheri your mom? BUSTED! hi sheri!
Hi Sarah! Hi Mandy! I was told by Matt that if I posted on his blog again I was to use my name, not Mom, so I thought you felt the same. Since you don't seem bothered by that I will sign off now as:
Mommy
Well, I haven't read GWTW (yet, may still one day), but it's to my credit that I read Time Traveller's Wife at Amy's request, and really enjoyed the extensive female perspective therein. Science fiction has traditionally been a guys' world, but in recent years has started to be invaded by women authors and women's perspectives. Anne McCaffrey's Dragon Riders of Pern series broke new ground in having both male and female heroic characters - even the dragon's society is matriarchal.
Oh, and while Linda Ronstadt's voice is positively angelic, no one could say that Bonnie Raitt's voice is "pretty". Courney Love is no favorite of mine, but she's sure made a mark on the music world in her time, and far from pretty - to hear or to see!
I agree with whatever Big Steve said. He is always right in my books.
-J-Money
I agree that Jane Austen deserves a chance to be read by what Sarah calls "progressive" readers. The issue here, or what it seems like to me, is about disregarding a particular author/artist/ object of interest because of a preconceived notion about it. I guess all of that is ok when it comes to personal choices, but when it starts extending over larger groups and is classified into terms like "girly" (which btw, mean NOTHING), its hard for those trying to promote the author or artist to fight the stereotype.
Kommentar veröffentlichen