![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Here's something that has always puzzled me about our culture, and it appears to be world-wide not just Western Culture or in the US.
Why is a woman who has had various lovers or lots of sex called a slut or whore or tramp, but a man is not? Men are either called womanizer or playboy or bachelor. While women are called spinisters, tramps, sluts or whores.
Along with this question rise various others...
* Why does it matter whether or not you are a virgin? (I mean I can see why it might if you carry a STD or have AIDS, but other than that?)
* Why is a woman who has cheated on her husband a tramp but the man she cheats on him with - not one? Yet when a man cheats on his wife - the other woman is the tramp, not the husband?
2. Making my way through McNaught's Whitney, My Love - which is okay, but slow. I like the heroine, but the hero is a bit of an ass. It's revised edition - so some of the controversial bits have been changed or lessened. McNaught is a bit less risque than Rosemary Rodgers and Kathleen Woodliss - although in comparison to Maya Banks and Sylvia Day's contemporary boddice rippers, these ladies are rather tame in comparison.
I've noticed the modern romance writers aren't as careful in their writing and plotting as the writers in the 80s, nor do they appear to have editors or copy-editors.
I have however figured out why I'm suddenly fascinated by this genre - it's two reasons really:
1) The problems are solved through forgiveness, discussion, love and remorse. Not violence. Actually violence is depicted to be the problem not a solution. Or it makes things worse.
Rape = the guy loses everything. Etc. Revenge never goes well. No - healing can only take place by being kind and compromise.
2) The focus is on female relationships. How women relate to other women, to men, to children, and to their world - particularly when they have no power, or everything is predicated on physical power, so they are constantly fighting for their rights.
These two things I've noticed tend to be more prevalent in the historical romances than the contemporary romances. In contemporary romances - the writer has to go out of her way to make the female character weaker than the male or less powerful. Often does it with physical means - he's physically bigger and stronger than she is or has more money or wealth. Often both. This is interesting. In some romances, she's more powerful than he is and he's the one who is the weaker party. These are the contemporary romances. Often they are equals in power, neither more powerful than the other.
The difference between the two gives me hope.
There is also the weird ass Stockholm syndrome trope - which I don't understand the appeal of. And have not read - just reviews of, on Amazon and Good Reads. These novels have a misunderstood guy kidnap a young, lovely female, and well have his way with her - torture her, etc, until she manages to escape. But somehow, some way, she fell for him. And he can't stop thinking about her, so they reunite, she forgives him, and they fall in love.
It's an odd trope. I admittedly do not understand the appeal - I don't deal with torture well in stories, regardless of the genre or medium. So, I'm not sure what to make of this trope frankly. While my initial reaction is to judge the heck out of it, because I find it unsettling - I'm thinking there's a reason it's out there and like all things is most likely a reaction to something that is going on, or a means of dealing with a difficult trauma. Then again...it could also just be a somewhat naive and sick fantasy...and I'm over-thinking this. But I over-think everything, so this is hardly surprising.
3. Finished watching the mid-season finales of Nashville and Scandal. Yes, they are actually calling them "mid-season" or "winter-season" finals. First off it is NOT winter yet - it's still fall. The first day of Winter, I believe is in late December sometime around Christmas. Second...Mid-Season? It's been three and half months, maybe less.
But not to worry - there will be replacement mini-series in the time slot - that you can watch until they pop up again. Yes, just what we all need - more tv shows.
* Nashville was more enjoyable than expected. Is it wrong to wish that Avery would just ditch Scarlett and run off with Juliet - who inappropriately knocked on his door to tell him that she was in love with him? He'd probably be happier with Scarlett, who is admittedly growing on me, but I prefer Avery and Juliet. I love both characters, they are actually my favorite characters. (Although I admittedly like all the characters except for well the one they killed off...and a few supporting ones that hardly matter.)
Rayna's storyline has gotten markedly better since she broke things off with Deacon and split from her husband. Right now they are focusing on her starting a business with her sister. And the fling she had with Luke Wheeler - who is a realistic representation of the head-liner male country rock singers a la Garth Brooks and Tim McGraw (actually he reminds me a lot of Tim McGraw - although the actor was the guy who played Joe Dimaggio on SMASH) appears to be thankfully over. I preferred Liam, he was more interesting and more attractive. Luke's an ass.
Deacon's storyline has also gotten more interesting since he split from Juliett and Rayna and is now starting up his own career with help from Gunner. Gunner too has a better storyline now that he's hooked up with Zoe (one of the better additions), befriended Avery, and is no longer involved with Scarlett. Scarlett weirdly is a character who seems to suck the life out of any other character she is paired with. Her songs and style remind me a great deal of Jewel.
The Mayor on the other hand...is another story. I'm hoping that killing off his unlikable wife may liven things up a bit. Actually The Mayor and Rayna's father were always the weak links in the tale.
I do adore what they've done with Avery - his arc is amongst the best to date. And Jonathan Jackson carries it off well - he finally has a decent role to sink his teeth into, plus he gets to show off his considerable musical talent.
No good or memorable songs this week. And I think Will may have just committed suicide.
Which may come back and hit Layla in the butt. Layla is in for a big downfall - particularly when it comes out that she leaked Juliett's affair with Wentworth. I can't stand Layla - was sort of hoping she'd get killed. But I knew that it would be Teddy's new wife - although I found that odd, considering they went through the whole miscarriage/pregnancy lie storyline first - with no real pay-off. That's the thing about Nashville - it builds up the soap suds but doesn't really go in the direction that soaps normally do in this regard. Normally we'd have the annoying story about the wife's lie regarding her miscarriage/pregnancy and when it occurred come out - lots of angst, and then her death. But this round - he doesn't find out about the lie and she dies.
Scandal - now that was a well-written finale, they wrapped some things up, yet built up others - without leaving it completely on a cliff-hanger. My only quibble - Shonda Rhimes, honey, please stop putting musical scores over dialogue, it's distracting. Particularly loud ones. It's actually worse on Grey's Anatomy - where we got a musical score, dialogue, and a voice over. Television sound editing isn't good enough to handle that sort of hat-trick.
OMG moments? Include POSTUS and Jake managing to get the better of Roen - Olivia Pope's devilish father - culminating in fantastic scene between Joe Morton's Roen and Tony Goldwyn's POSTUS (FITZ). Morton's ranting monologue to POSTUS - is the black man's rant against the entitled privileged white male power trip. "You're a boy. I'm the man. You've had everything given to you. Wealth. Power. All of it. And you've not even made good use of it. You take it for granted. Because you've never really had to work for any of it. You don't know what it is like to earn anything or work for anything - so as a result you don't appreciate it. I've had to earn, work for, and obtain everything I've gotten. I'm the first man in my family to have a college degree, and my daughter was sent to boarding schools with the children of Kings!" In SCANDAL - Rhimes basically shoots a satiric torpedo at the white male power structure, underlining all the cracks in the foundation.
I love this series for how it cleverly plays with racial and feminist themes, underlying the racial and gender divisions in our country, along with sexual orientation. Cyrus Been, Mellie, James, Abby, Quinn, Olivia, Rowen, and Olivia's mother - are people who have struggled against the power structure, lying outside it, scrambling for a foothold - while people like Fitz, Jake, Huck, Charlie...all have that ready foothold. Scandal reminds me a great deal of Game of Thrones in how it plays with power, and shows people that we assume do not have power - have quite a bit, and can become powerful. And those who have been handed it, don't know what to do with it and often squander it - or take it for granted. And the abuses on both sides.
Also it questions our assumptions about race and gender - showing that people are just people. Gender and race is not the defining characteristic, we often make it out to be.
Rhimes does color and gender blind better than most.
Why is a woman who has had various lovers or lots of sex called a slut or whore or tramp, but a man is not? Men are either called womanizer or playboy or bachelor. While women are called spinisters, tramps, sluts or whores.
Along with this question rise various others...
* Why does it matter whether or not you are a virgin? (I mean I can see why it might if you carry a STD or have AIDS, but other than that?)
* Why is a woman who has cheated on her husband a tramp but the man she cheats on him with - not one? Yet when a man cheats on his wife - the other woman is the tramp, not the husband?
2. Making my way through McNaught's Whitney, My Love - which is okay, but slow. I like the heroine, but the hero is a bit of an ass. It's revised edition - so some of the controversial bits have been changed or lessened. McNaught is a bit less risque than Rosemary Rodgers and Kathleen Woodliss - although in comparison to Maya Banks and Sylvia Day's contemporary boddice rippers, these ladies are rather tame in comparison.
I've noticed the modern romance writers aren't as careful in their writing and plotting as the writers in the 80s, nor do they appear to have editors or copy-editors.
I have however figured out why I'm suddenly fascinated by this genre - it's two reasons really:
1) The problems are solved through forgiveness, discussion, love and remorse. Not violence. Actually violence is depicted to be the problem not a solution. Or it makes things worse.
Rape = the guy loses everything. Etc. Revenge never goes well. No - healing can only take place by being kind and compromise.
2) The focus is on female relationships. How women relate to other women, to men, to children, and to their world - particularly when they have no power, or everything is predicated on physical power, so they are constantly fighting for their rights.
These two things I've noticed tend to be more prevalent in the historical romances than the contemporary romances. In contemporary romances - the writer has to go out of her way to make the female character weaker than the male or less powerful. Often does it with physical means - he's physically bigger and stronger than she is or has more money or wealth. Often both. This is interesting. In some romances, she's more powerful than he is and he's the one who is the weaker party. These are the contemporary romances. Often they are equals in power, neither more powerful than the other.
The difference between the two gives me hope.
There is also the weird ass Stockholm syndrome trope - which I don't understand the appeal of. And have not read - just reviews of, on Amazon and Good Reads. These novels have a misunderstood guy kidnap a young, lovely female, and well have his way with her - torture her, etc, until she manages to escape. But somehow, some way, she fell for him. And he can't stop thinking about her, so they reunite, she forgives him, and they fall in love.
It's an odd trope. I admittedly do not understand the appeal - I don't deal with torture well in stories, regardless of the genre or medium. So, I'm not sure what to make of this trope frankly. While my initial reaction is to judge the heck out of it, because I find it unsettling - I'm thinking there's a reason it's out there and like all things is most likely a reaction to something that is going on, or a means of dealing with a difficult trauma. Then again...it could also just be a somewhat naive and sick fantasy...and I'm over-thinking this. But I over-think everything, so this is hardly surprising.
3. Finished watching the mid-season finales of Nashville and Scandal. Yes, they are actually calling them "mid-season" or "winter-season" finals. First off it is NOT winter yet - it's still fall. The first day of Winter, I believe is in late December sometime around Christmas. Second...Mid-Season? It's been three and half months, maybe less.
But not to worry - there will be replacement mini-series in the time slot - that you can watch until they pop up again. Yes, just what we all need - more tv shows.
* Nashville was more enjoyable than expected. Is it wrong to wish that Avery would just ditch Scarlett and run off with Juliet - who inappropriately knocked on his door to tell him that she was in love with him? He'd probably be happier with Scarlett, who is admittedly growing on me, but I prefer Avery and Juliet. I love both characters, they are actually my favorite characters. (Although I admittedly like all the characters except for well the one they killed off...and a few supporting ones that hardly matter.)
Rayna's storyline has gotten markedly better since she broke things off with Deacon and split from her husband. Right now they are focusing on her starting a business with her sister. And the fling she had with Luke Wheeler - who is a realistic representation of the head-liner male country rock singers a la Garth Brooks and Tim McGraw (actually he reminds me a lot of Tim McGraw - although the actor was the guy who played Joe Dimaggio on SMASH) appears to be thankfully over. I preferred Liam, he was more interesting and more attractive. Luke's an ass.
Deacon's storyline has also gotten more interesting since he split from Juliett and Rayna and is now starting up his own career with help from Gunner. Gunner too has a better storyline now that he's hooked up with Zoe (one of the better additions), befriended Avery, and is no longer involved with Scarlett. Scarlett weirdly is a character who seems to suck the life out of any other character she is paired with. Her songs and style remind me a great deal of Jewel.
The Mayor on the other hand...is another story. I'm hoping that killing off his unlikable wife may liven things up a bit. Actually The Mayor and Rayna's father were always the weak links in the tale.
I do adore what they've done with Avery - his arc is amongst the best to date. And Jonathan Jackson carries it off well - he finally has a decent role to sink his teeth into, plus he gets to show off his considerable musical talent.
No good or memorable songs this week. And I think Will may have just committed suicide.
Which may come back and hit Layla in the butt. Layla is in for a big downfall - particularly when it comes out that she leaked Juliett's affair with Wentworth. I can't stand Layla - was sort of hoping she'd get killed. But I knew that it would be Teddy's new wife - although I found that odd, considering they went through the whole miscarriage/pregnancy lie storyline first - with no real pay-off. That's the thing about Nashville - it builds up the soap suds but doesn't really go in the direction that soaps normally do in this regard. Normally we'd have the annoying story about the wife's lie regarding her miscarriage/pregnancy and when it occurred come out - lots of angst, and then her death. But this round - he doesn't find out about the lie and she dies.
Scandal - now that was a well-written finale, they wrapped some things up, yet built up others - without leaving it completely on a cliff-hanger. My only quibble - Shonda Rhimes, honey, please stop putting musical scores over dialogue, it's distracting. Particularly loud ones. It's actually worse on Grey's Anatomy - where we got a musical score, dialogue, and a voice over. Television sound editing isn't good enough to handle that sort of hat-trick.
OMG moments? Include POSTUS and Jake managing to get the better of Roen - Olivia Pope's devilish father - culminating in fantastic scene between Joe Morton's Roen and Tony Goldwyn's POSTUS (FITZ). Morton's ranting monologue to POSTUS - is the black man's rant against the entitled privileged white male power trip. "You're a boy. I'm the man. You've had everything given to you. Wealth. Power. All of it. And you've not even made good use of it. You take it for granted. Because you've never really had to work for any of it. You don't know what it is like to earn anything or work for anything - so as a result you don't appreciate it. I've had to earn, work for, and obtain everything I've gotten. I'm the first man in my family to have a college degree, and my daughter was sent to boarding schools with the children of Kings!" In SCANDAL - Rhimes basically shoots a satiric torpedo at the white male power structure, underlining all the cracks in the foundation.
I love this series for how it cleverly plays with racial and feminist themes, underlying the racial and gender divisions in our country, along with sexual orientation. Cyrus Been, Mellie, James, Abby, Quinn, Olivia, Rowen, and Olivia's mother - are people who have struggled against the power structure, lying outside it, scrambling for a foothold - while people like Fitz, Jake, Huck, Charlie...all have that ready foothold. Scandal reminds me a great deal of Game of Thrones in how it plays with power, and shows people that we assume do not have power - have quite a bit, and can become powerful. And those who have been handed it, don't know what to do with it and often squander it - or take it for granted. And the abuses on both sides.
Also it questions our assumptions about race and gender - showing that people are just people. Gender and race is not the defining characteristic, we often make it out to be.
Rhimes does color and gender blind better than most.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-12-14 07:58 am (UTC)Is that a serious question?
(Forgive me and stop reading if it's not.)
The simple answer is that controlling male sexuality is difficult and ineffective while controlling female sexuality is practical and has positive effects for society.
Even if you can prevent 99.9% of men from catting around, the remaining 0.1% can impregnate all the women with unsupported children. No matter how well you control men, the tiny fraction that escape can cause so much trouble you might as well not have bothered.
Before reliable birth control became cheap and set off the Roaring 20's, every single woman who was restrained until marriage meant one more family that could be protected and supported in civilized society and wholesome matrimony. The benefit of controlling women's sexuality is directly proportional to number of women you can control.
Therefore, if marriage and monogamy and patriarchy are your goals, it pays to invest all your resources in bonuses for virgin girls and shame for sexually active girls and to ignore the boys.
And societies that invest in monogamy and patriarchy are the ones that survive and prosper. (By patriarchy I mean not the bogeyman patriarchy, but the literal kind where fathers and not just mothers get credit and responsibility for their children and fathers are secure in the paternity of their offspring.) Men without reliable monogamy and paternal certainty and responsibility for their children won't band together and risk their lives for each other on battle lines. Heck, they might prefer to kill each other in hopes of stealing someone's women. Therefore they get conquered by men who will band together. So surviving societies have similar strong preferences for controlling sexuality.
Things have changed since the advent of cheap, reliable birth control and society is adjusting. It's now possible for people to connect after adolescence and start being monogamous. Lots of us observe that romantic choices made as adults are wiser and more durable. Still, it's a big change and the older stricter control still appeals to many people.
Much more here:
http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm
By the way,
"Why is a woman who has had various lovers or lots of sex called a slut or whore or tramp"
I've never heard a woman who has lots of sex or loves to have sex called a slut. As a term of shame and control, I hear it used strictly against women who have several partners. Lots of sex with one partner still makes a woman a "good girl" in every socially conservative subculture I'm familiar with.
-------
"There is also the weird ass Stockholm syndrome trope"
Ewww. Rapists are not good catches.
-------
"The first day of Winter, I believe is in late December sometime around Christmas"
December 21, the winter solstice, is the day with the shortest daylight in the northern hemisphere and the first day of winter. The actual coldest day is usually around February 1st for reasons that I had to solve a couple differential equations to explain. The short explanation is that in December the heat left over in the air and oceans from autumn has more influence than the lack of sunlight.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-14 03:04 pm (UTC)[ETA: And well, there's the small fact that historically men considered women their property. It's actually still in some law books believe it or not. Women weren't human or people - they were possessions or property or made from men - this is in quite a few books and myths written and or interpreted by men. We tend to interpret things in a way that benefits us or supports our power and agenda - which is what happened, the group in power pushed and marketed/promoted what they wanted everyone to believe.]
But in recent times...not so much. The power balance is shifting. (Thank God for the Condom. Although there was a movement a while back for a female condom and the view it would be more effective - thankfully that idea was killed right out of the box.) And of course people don't like that - so the words remain.
However...it has gotten better - we now call men who do it, himbo's or
man-sluts.
Clarification - ""Why is a woman who has had various lovers or lots of sex called a slut or whore or tramp"
I do mean someone who has had sex with more than one person in a short period of time. Not someone who has only had sex with their boyfriend, girlfriend or husband.
Note - we don't appear to have a word for men who tend to do this. And historically it was acceptable ...for well the justifications you provide. But now? That's bogus. Although the male power structure is attempting to change that - so far they haven't succeeded because whoops they aren't in the majority any longer.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 02:15 am (UTC)As for the madonna/whore complex - that is mainly Victorian. In earlier times the importance of virginity was mostly a factor of how much land she would have as a dower and where it was. Peasants didn't have that issue. In fact, life was damn bawdy back then.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-15 04:43 am (UTC)And they spread that repression across the globe, bloody British Victorians. (Not a fan of the Victorians.)
Agree on the property issue. There's something about the masculain side of the human that is obsessed with possessing things or owning them. Never been clear on why. Noticed that patriarchial religions have similar themes regarding ownership. While the feminine religions are less interested in owning and more in giving up or sharing or letting go.
In regards to children - it may well be that the child is a part of the woman and the man...less so. He doesn't give birth, all he does is fertilize, and that may or may not have caused the emotional desire to obtain control in some outward format.
I've noticed in romance novels - who is the father of a child or who has ownership is a heavy theme. It's very important to the "hero" that he be the biological father. That the child be proven to be "HIS".
And I think it may be about control - who controls, as well as legacy - who carries it on. When you give birth to a kid - that connection is more tangible, when you don't less so...and that may be why? I don't know, haven't had either experience.