let's get the seven lines. (bookshop) wrote,
let's get the seven lines.
bookshop

Bad Romance (or, YA & Rape Culture)

Once in a while every girl has to do something she knows is bad for her, even though she knows it's stupid and she'll probably regret it later. Last night I started reading the bestselling YA fantasy Hush, Hush, which friends and the internet have repeatedly assured me that I would hate. I had no intention of reading it until I randomly picked it up and kept reading. To be honest, I kinda enjoyed it, the way I enjoy movies about super-intelligent sharks who want to take over the world, or episodes of Stargate: Atlantis. The way I enjoyed Twilight until I threw it across the room.

That said, let's face it, it sucks.

Hush, Hush is the story of a Bad Romance: quite literally, the heroine is caught in a bad romance with a stalker who shows up, will not leave her alone, refuses to leave her life, and tries to kill her. All of this is made acceptable by the fact that he's hot.

I. Actual list of stuff that happens in book, which will probably piss you off. (Warning: may be triggering to victims of sexual assault, harassment, or abuse.)

Hush, Hush is readable, even though it does twenty things a minute that are hallmarks of bad YA fiction, including but not limited to: telling us about the characters' magnetic personalities without actually having them do anything magnetic, or anything at all; hideous amounts of telling-not-showing in general, like when a character is introduced to us as "having a charming and outgoing personality" when he's literally only just shown up and uttered the charming, outgoing words, "hey, i'm elliot"; having the sluttily dressed head cheerleader be predictably slutty and awful; having the overweight best friend/sidekick be predictably dieting and predictably cheating on her diet. There's also a thrilling moment where a biology teacher tells his entire class that sexual attraction is all about producing children. Wow, really, thank you so much, Becca Fitzpatrick, for the lovely implications there. To pharaphrase Zanzando, GAY PEOPLE EXIST, THEY FUCKING EXIST, except not in your YA novel apparently.

Hush, Hush also feels so much like Twilight - events unfold not just in the same order as Twilight but with exactly the same pacing, and the events themselves are... exactly the same, you see where I'm going with this -- that it's impossible not to compare the two of them. And also, of course, impossible not to compare Hush, Hush's problematic issues with Twilight's problematic issues. Since the entire world has heard about how Twilight is a model of anti-feminist Fail, Hush, Hush has decided to hang a lampshade on its own Fail: since its plot involves a heavy amount of Twilight-level destiny-disguised-as-stalking, the author has decided to a) call herself out for stalking before anyone else does and b) turn the whole stalking thing into a recurring joke whereby characters repeatedly call out the guy who's stalking, whereupon everyone eyerolls at the notion that any actual stalking is occurring--aka Hipster sexism.

The problem with this is obviously that there is actual stalking occurring, and that the main character is terrified by it. Unlike Bella, who just sort of dreamily accepts that a guy in her class is breaking into her house at night to watch her sleep, Nora, the POV character in Hush, Hush, spends the first third of the book trying to get the fuck away from the dark brooding guy. She goes to her biology teacher, not once, but three times, to tell him explicitly, "I don't feel comfortable sitting beside this guy, he's harassing me, please let me move." He tells her each time that she's overreacting.

The biology teacher also allows the brooding guy to harass the girl openly, in class, in front of other students, in a scene where her mortification and embarrassment are used as examples of how to tell when a girl is turned on, which for some reason is part of the curriculum in Maine's public school system. Yes, you heard this right. There's a scene where a teacher allows a girl to be sexually harassed in public as part of her education.

After the harassing-in-class, Nora brings the teacher a copy of the school code and points out to him that he's ignoring her basic right not to be stalked in his class. His response? "Let's just give it a few more weeks. Oh, and I think you should spend more time with that guy who's stalking you, so why don't you tutor him? :D"

In desperation, she asks the guy who's stalking her if maybe he can use his powers of persuasion to get their teacher to stop seating them next to each other. His response is predictably, "but why would I want to do that?" at which point she all but gives up. Which brings me to my point.

(I'll pause to let you get a handle on your feminist rage. )


II. Hush, Hush & rape culture:

Hush, Hush repeatedly and systematically reinforces rape culture, not just blatantly through scenes like the one mentioned above, but through all the ways Nora behaves early on as she's dealing with the stalking. She is both a victim of rape culture and a perpetuation of it.

"Another post about rape" is the best outline I've ever read about how women are taught from childhood on to behave in ways that perpetuate rape culture. Since reading it I've become more aware of the ways in which, when a man is making me uncomfortable, I traditionally opt for polite silence instead of setting a clear and firm boundary (which I've also noticed the men around me have no problems setting with women who make *them* feel uncomfortable). How whenever I try to set clear and firm boundaries in social settings, I'm laughed off or dismissed, or my concerns are treated as joke fodder and added to a list of things I can be teased about. This is real; this is happening, to me and countless other women like me - when I mentioned the "biology teacher makes girl spend *more* time with the guy who's stalking her" thing last night on twitter, one of my friends responded sadly that she knew someone that exact situation had happened to in real life.

So no, not so much joking here.

Throughout Hush, Hush, Nora is a textbook case of the behavior Fugitivus describes:
If women are raised being told by parents, teachers, media, peers, and all surrounding social strata that:

* it is not okay to set solid and distinct boundaries and reinforce them immediately and dramatically when crossed (“mean bitch”)
* it is not okay to appear distraught or emotional (“crazy bitch”)
* it is not okay to make personal decisions that the adults or other peers in your life do not agree with, and it is not okay to refuse to explain those decisions to others (“stuck-up bitch”)
* it is not okay to refuse to agree with somebody, over and over and over again (“angry bitch”)
* it is not okay to have (or express) conflicted, fluid, or experimental feelings about yourself, your body, your sexuality, your desires, and your needs (“bitch got daddy issues”)
* it is not okay to use your physical strength (if you have it) to set physical boundaries (“dyke bitch”)
* it is not okay to raise your voice (“shrill bitch”)
* it is not okay to completely and utterly shut down somebody who obviously likes you (“mean dyke/frigid bitch”)

If we teach women that there are only certain ways they may acceptably behave, we should not be surprised when they behave in those ways. And we should not be surprised when they behave these ways during attempted or completed rapes.


Hush, Hush is a textbook reinforcement of nearly all of these messages. Early on there's a scene where Nora, who's been trying to avoid her stalker, sees him in the library. Her first instinct is to leave immediately, but she doesn't: "I realized that if we left now, we'd probably meet him at the exit doors. And then I would be expected to say something to him." In another scene, she deflects a guy's interest in her by lying about needing to leave, but, "in a remote way my rudeness bothered me, especially since (the guy) hadn't done anything to deserve it."

    And then, all of a sudden, when women are raped, all these natural and invisible social interactions become evidence that the woman wasn’t truly raped. Because she didn’t fight back, or yell loudly, or run, or kick, or punch. She let him into her room when it was obvious what he wanted. She flirted with him, she kissed him. She stopped saying no, after a while.

When Nora has to sit through another class next to her stalker, she thinks, "Maybe if I ignored him, he'd eventually give up initiating conversation." Which of course is exactly the opposite of what happens. Later on, when he asks her to go with him to a party, her initial shutdown of him ("if it's a party you're interested in, i wouldn't be") is made confusing by her attempts to be polite to him ("I don't mean to seem rude." "Sure you do"), until it becomes clear that this story's idea of "chemistry" between two characters translates to her stalker wearing down our heroine's resistance despite her repeatedly saying no.

Coupled with her passiveness is the complete lack of agency she has, with every guy around her directing her actions, from her stalker to the bio coach who enables his harassment, to the guy-who's-not-her-stalker: "besides, going out with Elliot seemed like a good way to escape my uncomfortable attraction to Patch." No, honey, no. READING A BOOK OR TAKING A BIKE RIDE OR GETTING INTO HARVARD OR FILING A RESTRAINING ORDER, THOSE ARE GOOD WAYS TO ESCAPE YOUR ATTRACTION TO THE GUY TRYING TO KILL YOU.

    The way men and women interact on a daily basis is the way they interact when rape occurs. The social dynamics we see at play between men and women are the same social dynamics that cause men to feel rape is okay, and women to feel they have no right to object. And if you accept those social interactions as normal and appropriate in your day to day life, there is absolutely no reason you should be shocked that rape occurs without screaming, without fighting, without bruising, without provocation, and without prosecution.

And this is exactly what happens to Nora: she continues to display passive non-resistance even when her life is actually in danger. She is attacked repeatedly by a man in a black ski mask, and even though someone is very obviously trying to kill her, after the first attack she tells no one. Even though she strongly suspects that her stalker might be behind the first attack, she continues to talk to him, to be polite, to be friendly to him.

"I don't like sitting beside you," she says at one point. "I don't like being your partner. I don't like your condescending smile. I don't like you."

"I'm glad Coach put us together," is his response.

III. You and me could write a bad romance.

Many, many, many reviewers have commented about the fact that they find the hero creepy, that they failed to see what redeeming characteristics he had to begin with, that the relationship between the main characters is "psychotic." But I have yet to see anyone point out that this is not necessarily a flaw of bad writing.

It's easy to single out Hush, Hush because it's one of the worst examples, and it's also a runaway bestseller, which makes it, like Twilight, an easy target for hate. But it's not alone. In another one of last year's bestsellers, Nina Malkin's Swoon, the only consequence for a boy who's repeatedly taken over and possessed the mind and body of a teenage girl without her knowledge for weeks is that when the possession is over and he's moved on to another host body, the girl he's just possessed decides he's hot and sleeps with him. Her cousin, our heroine, also has no problems with him mind-raping her cousin even though she watched it happen (and told no one), so she sleeps with him, too. The moral? Raping girls makes them want you more *and* gets you EXTRA sex!

In the first book of Claudia Gray's bestselling Evernight series, there's a scene where a girl has been attacked by a dangerous boy attending her boarding school. She is nearly killed and afterwards is clearly terrified. Since no one witnessed the attack, the boy goes unpunished, and the girl is immediately brought back to continue going to school with him (whereupon he continues to stalk, harass, terrify, and attempt to kill her). Our heroine, who witnessed the aftermath of the attack, ponders these events over lunch the next day, but decides that her friend is possibly confused or exaggerating the nature of the attack, and that her attacker is "probably not that bad." The moral? If at first you don't succeed in raping your victim, try, try again, because no one's going to stop you! eta: in the interest of fairness, here's a different take on this sequence and Evernight as a whole.

One thing I love about the bestselling Vampire Academy series is that Rose doesn't take shit from anyone. But repeatedly throughout the books she lets guys continue to show interest in her because she is too polite to let them down, and in some cases she appears to be playing coy with guys she's clearly disinterested in and distrustful of, or flirting with them in order to get them to do something for her. Each of these examples are all off the top of my head, but we all have read scores of books with heroines who do this -- keep the boy at arm's length while deflecting their potential interest with cool humor and disinterest. The disinterest, of course, can be feigned or real, but the expression is the same each and every time.

The complication is that so often, in Twilight, Swoon, Hush, Hush, Vampire Academy, and countless romances dating back to Pride & Prejuidice and Pamela, we're asked to accept that the outward facade of "I dislike you immensely" masks a subtle underlying attraction. Certainly Pamela has to go to extreme lengths to get her would-be rapist to accept that she does not want to be raped, no, really, no, please no. Darcy is so led astray by Lizzie's attempts to be polite to him in all of their mutual social interactions that he assumes she's welcoming his attentions, when really she would welcome a chance to serve him a restraining order on behalf of everyone she knows. And of course Pamela was an attempt to show the proper way for a young lady to maintain her respectability and the boundaries of politeness while still struggling to maintain her virtue (whereupon she's rewarded by getting to marry her rapist!); while Pride & Prejudice is the model for 200 years of love-hate relationships, and it's generally argued that Lizzy is attracted to Darcy the entire time.

The cumulative effect of all this is that girls grow up learning all about how to behave politely to unwanted suitors, just as the Fugitivus article points out. At the same time, girls also learn that girls' stories--by which i mean stories who have girls' development and growth as their center and focus-- usually go like this:
If a girl is politely distant to a guy (Lizzie Bennet), it means she wants to sleep with him.
If a girl resists a suitor who's trying to take her down a peg or two (Taming of the Shrew), it means she wants to sleep with him.
If the girl manifests a desire to be single (Emma), it means she wants to sleep with him.
If a girl demonstrates outright hatred of a boy by breaking a chalk slate over his head (oh, Anne <3333), it means she wants to sleep with him.

I would never in a million years want to rob the world of the love that is Anne/Gilbert or Lizzie/Darcy or Emma/Knightley. But my point is that when faced with all of the evidence that supports the idea of girls eventually submitting to guys, when faced with the fact that stories about girls typically end in girls falling in love with guys, then it's really hard not to read Hush, Hush as sitting at the extreme end of an ongoing societal fantasy in which women go through character arcs of various types that inevitably end in heteronormative sexual relationships. The end result? No always means yes. Yes always means yes. No, No, No, always means yes. (edit: I have talked a bit more about what I feel is essentially a heteronormative pressure exerted on the literary arc here.)

Hush, Hush is extremely self-aware; it knows that its hero is stalking and sexually harassing its heroine. Its heroine complains of harassment loudly and repeatedly, but the text expects us to assume that her repeated no means "yes" -- the text wants us not to take no for an answer. The author, Becca Fitzpatrick, as well as the society that produced Becca Fitzpatrick, both want the heroine of this book to have her "no" rejected over and over, until her resistance is worn down and she gives up and gives in and starts to love the thing that's attacking her and trying to kill her. The social arc of Nora's womanhood demands that she shut up and submit to her sexual subjugation. For god's sakes, the freaking title of the book is BE QUIET.

Nora is what happens when you drag Lady GaGa's character out of the bathtub and force her to forge a male-based identity, where everything she does is seen, even in her own mind, as a reaction to the men that are controlling her lives. Did I mention Nora's stalker can read her mind? The heroine has literally no way of maintaining control over her body because he's determined to invade it, mentally and sexually. In essence, one way or another, she's gonna get raped.

And that's okay, because in the world of Hush, Hush, rape equals love. It's the natural end result of a society that grooms women for a Bad Romance.


_____

eta: Sirayne at University of Fantasy has a great follow-up post with further examples of Hush, Hush's misogynistic violence. Again, warning for possible triggers in descriptions of predatory sexual behavior.

eta2: and a further follow up to both posts by Choco at in which a girl reads: Post 1: Why YA Needs to Change; and the Follow-up Post. Both are must-reads and excellent expansions of the discussion.

eta3: a post about the intersection of vampire culture with YA literature, and how that relates to creating progressive roles for women in fiction. interesting.

eta4: callmeonetrack discusses the arc of heteronormative romance throughout literary tropes in response to this post.

eta5: Sumayyah of The Raven Desk asks: "And writers. You're not obligated to write anything but what you want to write. But take a good, hard look at what you're writing. What is the message you're sending out? What are you telling both the girls and the boys that are reading your work? Are you helping reinforce the idea that it's okay for a girl to be silent and harassed and that it's okay for a guy to harass her? That yes means no? That love starts with malicious, dangerous, hurtful acts and that this is the foundation for a healthy, lasting relationship?"

eta6: Raych at Books I Done Read has an amazing, fully accurate, hysterical take-down/summary of Hush, Hush, here. And My Friend Amy has a great post about how books like Twilight and Hush, Hush reveal and reflect social conditions rather than teach them.

eta7, March 2011: ra_black has a powerful post about the pressure to be polite. and MelindaPendulum has a fabulous and smart response to the 'YA mafia' blogosphere debate that touches on the problematic nature of trying to censor criticism of books like Hush, Hush. "don't come and write crap for me and then tell me I should be nice about it."

Thanks to everyone who's been boosting the signal on this post. I really hope we can keep talking about this. If you do catch any more discussions like these above, please let me know! :)
Tags: books, meta, politics
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 265 comments
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →
I have read this entire post now and I am sitting here with a D: look on my face, just staring and D:ing. This is NOT OKAY. JFC.

Write something better. Write something different. Spread ideas of change. Use your voice. <333333
This post is amazing.

In reality, that initial 'no' rarely changes into a true 'yes'. That creepy guy who has been following you around--when you didn't want to kiss him, touch him, spend time with him last week, you probably don't want to this week either. Or the next week. But maybe he will keep following you, keep pestering you. Maybe your friends will say, 'You're being such a tease.' Maybe he'll catch you when you're alone and isolated. Maybe he scares you. Maybe that 'no' becomes an 'Oh, ok, fine,' when you don't want it to, because you're frightened and coerced and manipulated, and because you have been taught that this is what happens. And that's what the creepy guy is banking on, too--that the more he pushes, the more likely he is to wear you down, and the more manipulative and coercive he is (and the more he adds that extra touch of intimidation--drawing attention to how much more physically strong he is than you, for example)--the more likely he is to get you to say 'OK'. He knows you don't mean it, but he's got you, and that's all that matters. The fallacy that books like 'Hush, Hush' perpetuate is that somehow, that 'no' will become a willing 'yes'. I hazard that it does so only in a minority of cases :(

Your comment is reminding me of this article on freaking CNN that I read and was appalled by, haha, because the article is like "here's how to save someone from suicide" while glossing over the fact that this guy she just met 3 days ago was breaking into her house, what the actual fuck. And the fact that they struck up a romance afterward just seemed like an all-too convenient happy ending to disguise the skeeviness involved in his HELLO BREAKING INTO HER HOUSE - like, because he saved her life/she said yes/fell in love that makes his initial behavior okay, and i'm not at all sure that it does.

stasia

7 years ago

bookshop

7 years ago

stasia

7 years ago

Anonymous

7 years ago

Anonymous

5 years ago

Anonymous

3 years ago

Wow, that book sounds so disturbing that I need to read it :/
SEE, WAIT. THIS IS THE PROBLEM RIGHT HERE. I FEEL THE SAME WAY :/

_amalthea

7 years ago

bookshop

7 years ago

cofmanynames

7 years ago

I spent most of this post spluttering in rage.

And a question not having to do with the main source of rage here -- I'm not too familiar with YA; are there ANY decent books that deal with gay main characters or gay characters period that aren't problematic?


If you're not familiar with YA then definitely start with Alex Sanchez's Rainbow Boys, because it pretty much defined and introduced the queer subgenre of YA fiction. Also, Ash by Malinda Lo is fantastic, as is The Demon's Lexicon - both are great because they have queer main characters, but being queer is not the defining character trait that the book focuses on. I also love and would rec to anyone Sonya Sones' One of Those Hideous Books Where the Mother Dies.

ojuzu

7 years ago

bookshop

7 years ago

bougival

7 years ago

bookshop

7 years ago

lizzy_someone

7 years ago

ext_222740

7 years ago

bookshop

7 years ago

allifer

7 years ago

ojuzu

7 years ago

Have I mentioned that I absolutely love your essays? They force me to consider and think about things I've unconsciously pushed under the rug all my life. It's difficult and uncomfortable and I'm so, so glad.
Copy this post and send it to the author.

Honestly, since she's stated that "I set out to write a book about a really (really) bad boy. Not only that, but a really (really) bad boy who used to be...good. A boy who fell from grace to become someone sinister, sexy and dangerous," and that she "didn't push her comfort zone morally" and "just wrote what feels right," I think she'd probably just either completely miss the point of this post, or see this post as evidence of her success skl;sad.

She has an LJ, though, bec_fitzpatrick, so there's a chance that she could see this post via LJ-tracking or friendsfriends.

Re: raaaaaaaaage

fatomelette

7 years ago

Thank you for this.
This is one of my favorite posts of yours. I didn't read the descriptions of the text because I intend to pick it up and read it myself, but I'm looking forward to coming back to entry afterward.

You've reminded me of something very particular in my own life which is a childhood obsession with the Phantom in Andrew Lloyd Weber's Phantom of the Opera. At the end of the musical, a 10 year-old me could not understand for the life of her why Christine had chosen Raoul over the Phantom. My mother had to gently explain to me that the Phantom was a sociopath who reacted with immeasurable violence to Christine's refusal of him, not to mention the fact the he was manipulative stalker. Even so, I still felt he was the better, more mysterious choice, despite the now clear implications of the Phantom's actions.

That said, until we stop making "bad boys" look good (read: Edward, Mr. Rochester [!!!!], even Sherlock Holmes) rape culture sure as shit isn't going anywhere, and that's troubling.

bookshop

March 14 2010, 20:02:29 UTC 7 years ago Edited:  March 14 2010, 20:06:15 UTC


I am the product of a bad boy romance, which--let me tell you, it's always fun seeing your dad make the news because he's gotten arrested. And I then had to spend about ten years watching my mother involved with another bad boy who verbally and emotionally abused her and threatened physical violence against her as a way to keep her from leaving. And no, just no.

That said, I never was left in doubt that my father loved me as a child, and I owe a lot of my creativity and my rebellious streak to him (to put it mildly), and my mother's second husband was fucked up and over by the Vietnam war... absolutely I believe in complexity, that goodness and badness and redemption are in everyone, even the bad boys. And I also think there's a vast difference between writing 'broody and mysterious' characters and writing 'broody and mysterious characters who actively do bad things.' So I'd argue that Mr. Rochester is in the GIANT NO category because he locks his wife in the attic and lies to his new girlfriend, lol; Heathcliff is just a GIANT NO all around, as is Willoughby, for example; and Edward, just, oh, lol Edward....

...and then there's another category, I think, for bad boys like Jess from the Gilmore Girls and Sherlock Holmes, where they aren't actually *doing* anything to actively harm other people, so much as inadvertently harming other people as they harm themselves. (And don't get me started on the classist elements of Logan being the "right" boy for Rory when he gets her thrown in jail, while Jess is the "wrong" boy because he's from a broken home/has a sketchy past/can't completely commit to being her boyfriend until he's older/more mature - oh, wait, this isn't a rant against the WB/CNetwork, my bad.)

reserve

7 years ago

bookshop

7 years ago

geekturnedvamp

7 years ago

bookshop

7 years ago

geekturnedvamp

7 years ago

fatomelette

7 years ago

sistermagpie

March 14 2010, 19:56:24 UTC 7 years ago Edited:  March 14 2010, 19:58:35 UTC

So now I'm basically nauseous thinking about the things you described here. WTF? The teacher in particular makes the whole thing worse.

I hate to lump Anne into it though, tbh. She does reinforce the trope of a girl acting like she hates a boy on principle even after she's seeing some nicer things about him, but it's more about her temper and friendship, at least. Gilbert's behavior actually is appropriate, that I remember, and when Anne starts to think she's thrown something good away it's more because Gilbert would be a good friend rather than a boyfriend.

I don't know...I guess it gets me into that grey area that I always get worried about which is that one hand there's a clear rape culture that's reinforced everywhere. Otoh, it's unclear how people would behave if there wasn't that culture. Is it automatically troubling that Anne falls in love with the boy that she hated as a kid? I'm genuinely not sure. Because just by being a girl she opens herself up to this. It's like in the stories where the two characters hate each other--nobody questions the idea that Benedick also wants to sleep with Beatrice while he's ranting about her because men are allowed--no, they're basically supposed to want to fuck any woman if given a chance, particularly if she's being feisty.
Hey, I'm a long time reader but I think this is the first time I've commented. I wanted to let you know how much I love your essays. You're able to eloquently talk about things like this that I haven't been able to fully form coherent thoughts about yet. This really made me think and re-evaluate a lot of things. <3
Woah, amazing post. I love it.
I'm sorry that this is anonymous, but I'm not brave enough, I guess. Eight years on, and I still don't want my identity publicly linked with the abuse I suffered, because I want no opening for my abuser to contact me in any way (I know he knows I have a journal, and I'm sure he knows the name of it too). I want no dialogue with him now--and God knows we had no dialogue when we were together, because there was only one way: his way, which was always right; he made all the decisions; he took my money because he 'needed' it (to flush down slot machines and spend on his toy train sets) because he couldn't get work (when he was late to an interview, or wore the wrong stuff, or didn't have the expertise he had claimed, it was my fault of course); he removed me from family and friends until I had no-one; he controlled what I wore, how I did my hair, what I watched on TV, what books I read, what interests I had, who I saw (nobody, by the end); he mocked me, insulted me, belittled me, tried to blackmail me; he sexually assaulted me.

This all happened over a three year period. He was my boyfriend. I gave in to him. That's what girls do for their boyfriends, right? (Even the ones they don't like, the ones they didn't want to date in the first place, but were manipulated into dating by the guy and by people around them who should know better. Stuff like, 'You're so ugly that if you don't go out with him you will die alone,' or 'If you don't go out with him it shows how emotionally broken you are. You must not be capable of love.' Stuff that is, from a mother to her 15 year old daughter, pretty persuasive.)

THIS is what you get when you give in to that person who freaks you out and makes you uneasy. Who you aren't attracted to. Who says things that set off warning bells inside your head before you've even kissed.

This is why this post is important. I pray from the bottom of my heart that this someone who needs to read this post WILL read this post. Because if it helps one person to think, 'You know, I don't like him, and he frightens me--I don't care what anyone else says, I will have nothing more to do with him,' then it will have been worth it a million times over.

If I'm unsure about who's writing this, it's only because this comment could have come from multiple people on my friends list. *giant giant hugs*

I'm lucky that I've only been in 2 abusive relationships (including friendships) my whole life--the second of which basically ended when I broke the cycle of abuse, in essence. I'm also really fortunate in that, while I didn't really understand how much of a victim I was while I was in that first relationship, I *grew* from it, a lot--I have never let myself settle for something that destructive again, and I've grown to understand all the controlling and passive-aggressive behavior that my then-boyfriend showed, that I fell victim to at the time due to ignorance.

And yes, I agree completely about how we're taught to ignore the warning bells, how we're taught to settle for "any guy that we'll have us." How we vilify the spinster, the old maid, the woman who dares to live her life without placing a relationship at the center of it. I cannot tell you how much helpless frustration I feel that for years before I moved out here, my mother assumed that my only straight male friend was a potential romantic suitor for me. It didn't matter how many times I assured her that I didn't feel anything for him and that I felt like my friendship with him was settling for something beneath me because all we did was sit around and watch tv, and how much I hated myself when I did that; all she could see was "guy who likes you as a friend" and that translated to ROMANCE, no matter how damaging the friendship itself was, and how damaging an actual relationship was. When I moved out here, it was the same thing--the moment she found a guy who was my age who was eligible, she just seized upon the fact of him, regardless of any character flaws he might have, becuase, OH, HERE'S A GUY WHO MIGHT FALL FOR MY DAUGHTER, and i just wanted to die of frustration. Because that's not what I want, i've never wanted it, and it's absolutely not what I need.

And I *hate* that I see that side of the picture invalidated, oh, everywhere. This is one reason I loved, absolutely loved, both recent updates of Alice in Wonderland - the SyFy Alice and the Disney/Burton Alice. Because I just can't say how amazing it is to see a girl in a story who *doesn't need a guy*, a story that's not necessarily *about* a girl getting a guy, even though she's being pursued. MORE OF THIS, UNIVERSE, PLEASE. It just makes me so happy and I can't talk enough about how much I love and want more of those stories, and how important I think they are (even though the Disney/Burton Alice also has icky icky imperialism-disguised-as-feminism that I won't go into here, sighhhhh).

As to everything you've been through, I just want to say that you, and your survival, are also the reality, as much as everything this post (and the Fugitivus post, which I think is really the important one here) talk about. You are strong and real and smart, and you have overcome abuse. And that story is important. You exist, and you are surviving, and you are amazing.

♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥
The Dairy Queen trilogy by Catherine Murdock is a good example of a series with some minor characters who are well adjusted lesbians.
Wow. This was incredibly eye-opening. I've read a ton of reviews of Hush Hush running the gamut from positive to negative. I still have a copy that I purchased, and I do still intend on reading it and making up my mind for myself, but I will keep in mind this essay, because what you point out is problematic. I honestly don't care for the endorsement of rape culture, like I think it so messed up. I hate that these male characters are presented in such a positive light. I hate that gay people are made invisible, which was something I noticed with Twilight as well. I'm pretty sure no actual teacher, at least in my experience teaching, would make someone partners with a person they are clearly uncomfortable with, especially if they are being harassed by that person, well no good teacher, anyways.

I should probably go wipe the rage-froth off my mouth.
I used to be a very quiet, meek child who wouldn't stand up for herself pretty much no matter what (luckily, I have gotten bitchy in my old age haha). When I was in Grade 4, there was one kid in my class who kept picking on me. Nothing physical, as I recall, but I was always very intimidated and cowed and probably went home in tears a lot, because my Mum finally talked to the teacher to get her to do something about the situation.

Her solution? Take the kid who was tormenting me and move him from several seats away (where at least I had a respite while class was in session) and sit him right next to me. I think she even made us push our desks together (although that was many years ago so I don't remember for sure. Pretty sure, though. Like 96% sure).

As I recall, her reasoning was that by forcing us together, we'd be forced to sort out our differences and learn to get along. >< Of course, that went about as expected, it being a bully/victim situation, and not, I dunno, a couple of preteen girls squabbling about who should sit where or what.

As I recall, that situation didn't last long once Mum found out and I think the kid eventually got transferred to another class, so I only had to deal with him at recess and lunch; and I was able to avoid him then because I got special dispensation to spend them in the library when it was otherwise closed to students (because, you know, who wants kids hanging out in libraries reading when they could be out in the fresh air, I guess?). And the next year I was sent to a private school where bullying wasn't tolerated at all. Okay, they paddled you if you didn't do your homework too many times (frankly it didn't really bother me, although I thought a lot less of them for it), but there wasn't, you know, any bullying.

As a kid I had a real problem standing up for myself; I was timid to the point of cringing if someone walked too close to me. I hated being like that, but I had no idea how to change. And I hated when people would tell me, "Just stand up for yourself!" DUH!! Really? Just speak up and tell them to leave me the hell alone? That would help? What an idea! ><

The problem wasn't that I didn't think it would help; the problem was that I couldn't. I literally didn't know how, and I was so damned scared of everything that really, it's a surprise that I didn't end up snapping and pulling a Columbine or something. How the HELL is someone like that supposed to just up and do a complete 180?!

I was the kid who was always picked last because I was hopeless at sports. I was the original 98lb weakling. I was the target in Dodgeball. And funnily enough, you can only take so many basketballs, snowballs, spitballs, and bloody Dodgeballs hucked at your head before anything moving fast looks like a threat, and you start cringing when someone nearby lifts their hand too quickly to scratch an itch or adjust their hair. And then, of course, you're the "spaz".

Why don't you stand up for yourself, Spaz? Why don't you just tell them to leave you alone? Huh? Huh??

Yeah.

Luckily that was long ago. I apparently still have a lot of anger over it all, though. What a surprise. XD

Anonymous

7 years ago

Anonymous

7 years ago

Anonymous

4 years ago

I would not use Jane Austen's 19th century novels to defend your thesis because, frankly, a woman's lot in those days was rather bleak if she didn't marry. JA novels are much political and economic commentary as they are love stories. You want to make your points, then use contemporary YA novels as comparisons because in this day and age, if a woman doesn't marry, she's not beholden to depend on her male relatives to support her for the rest of her life. Or to marry just so she can have a place to live ala Charlotte Lucas.

Absolutely. My point is just that P&P was written to highlight the social lot of women who were forced to depend on many circumstances outside of their control for their permanent welfare and happiness. But it's become the ultimate love-hate romance for all time, which is *why* there are 15 million current retellings of it among contemporary fiction today. Haha, this is also why my icon for this post is referencing Kate Beaton's Jane Austen comic. :D

pir8fancier

7 years ago

sistermagpie

7 years ago

pir8fancier

7 years ago

soundczech

7 years ago

pir8fancier

7 years ago

soundczech

7 years ago

alto2

7 years ago

soundczech

7 years ago

alto2

7 years ago

Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →