WisCon - Feminist Romance panel

[oyceter]

Moderator: Jennifer Stevenson
Panelists: Emma Bull, Stephanie Burgis, Cynthia Gonsalves, Nina Kiriki Hoffman, Lyda A. Morehouse

I think the panel was entertaining, largely due to the presence of Lyda A. Morehouse. I went to buy her books later because she was so cool, though I didn't get her romance as Tate Hallaway, largely because I was running out of money and figured it was still in print.

Other than that, it felt a lot like the panel had set up a large number of strawmen involving romance and feminism. I heard many arguments, from the argument that all romance is feminist because the heroine always wins, to the standard argument that the hero grovels if he mistreats the heroine, that both hero and heroine must learn to be worthy of each other, that the heroine wins not just by getting the hero, but by turning her entire life around, that the heroine always gets to orgasm multiple times, and that female fantasies, particularly sexual ones, are empowering, etc. etc. etc.

Someone in the audience raised the question that if the happily-ever-after of a romance always includes a man (or two, or another woman or women, depending on what the romance is), if that's unfeminist. I don't particularly think that anyone on the panel had a good answer for that one, although several people mentioned that the books nowadays try to portray the heroine as not needing a man, but getting one anyway. But I think it is a valid question, because it places so much focus on the romantic relationship. And I wanted to know how the dynamic changed if it were a lesbian or gay romance, or a polyamorous one, in which the knowledge that the non-heteronormative (I like using fancy words) got their happily-ever-after, if that made it more feminist because traditionally, those love stories have ended so tragically in fiction.

One of the men in the audience asked something like, "What's the place of men in romance?" Not in a "Why are all you women talking about women things?" that is so common in feminist discussions, but really respectfully, so I was irritated when Stevenson snapped out a response that the focus was all on the woman. I have no problem with the focus being all on the woman, but as other panelists point out, the point of view of the hero is very important in romance and that the reader gets to head hop from the hero to the heroine and experience both sides of the courtship. I don't think anyone referenced Laura Kinsale's notion of the androgynous reader, though coffeeandink definitely mentioned it.

Emma Bull protested over the head hopping, saying that it was sloppy style and removed all suspense from the scene. In a later discussion, Mely mentioned that the main point of romance isn't suspense, and so the head hopping is perfectly fine in romance the way it wouldn't be in mystery or SF/fantasy, which so often does rely on reader ignorance.

Stevenson mentioned that romances often include the femininst values of the generation before, which I agree with -- no contemporary heroine can really be non-self-sufficient. Or if she is, then part of her struggle in the book will be self-sufficiency. I thought that was interesting, that romances perhaps are a little conservative for each generation but not the previous one.

Lyda Morehouse (besides being hilarious) also brought up the fact that a lot of the groundbreaking things are actually being done in category romances. She mentioned that there's the Spice line of Harlequin, which features BDSM lifestyles and possibly polyamorous ones, that there's a lot more straight erotica sans plot for women. Also, she said that she saw several gay clinch covers while leafing through the Romantic Times, which rocks and I want them. Clearly I should be reading more categories. She also mentioned that there were a lot more interracial and multiracial romances featuring multiracial characters, yay! I really wanted to know more about these things and stats and how they were selling and how the formula applied and etc.

And in the summation, Jennifer Stevenson made a remark that I think is the underlying problem of the panel, that romance shows women that "soccer mom values" of niceness and kindness can win. I mean, yes, this is true, but on the other hand, this is why romances (and much shoujo manga) irritates me. It says that women can win, yes, but that women can win only by conforming to specific ideals of femininity that are Tools of the Patriarchy and etc. I mean, I'm all for reclaiming traditionally feminine values and activities and raising them up as important and worthwhile, particularly when the entrance of a large group of women into a specific career tends to lower the overall pay, but on the other hand, I don't feel that that's what many romances do.

So that's my own spiel, because despite reading romances, I am still deeply ambivalent toward romance as a genre, largely because many times when I have seen interesting gender bending or gender role switches or etc., it seems as though the authors tend to get fairly argumentative feedback. And this makes me sad, because that's my favorite type of thing.

In conclusion, there should be a Tiptree award for romances. And for manga, for that matter, which should totally be called the Sapphire award for Ribon no kishi.

Comments

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Every time somebody says "soccer mom", I reach for my stiletto. It's one of the most dismissive things (non-sexual, anyway) you can say about another woman. "Soccer mom" is like "housewife" -- "all she cares about or knows about are her kids."

> It says that women can win, yes, but that women can win only by conforming to specific ideals of femininity that are Tools of the Patriarchy and etc.

I have big issues with this generalization.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

Every time somebody says "soccer mom", I reach for my stiletto. It's one of the most dismissive things (non-sexual, anyway) you can say about another woman.

That's not how Stevenson was using it; she was attempting to reclaim the description.

I have big issues with this generalization.

I have equally big issues with the statement that all romances are feminist, which is how Stevenson ended the panel, and what Oyce is responding to.

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I think I need to stop being so grumpy.

Anybody who thinks all romances are feminist has never read any Susan Elizabeth Phillips, in which pregnancy is the solution to all problems.

[buymeaclue.livejournal.com]

My flashpoint was Stevenson's remark about there being a difference between being raped by a regimental soldier and having Brad Pitt have his way with you "against your will".

I left shortly after that (mostly because I wasn't doing a very good job of sitting still), but as far as I'm concerned, the second you invoke the phrase 'against your will'...

It troubled/s me, anyway.

[oyceter]

I have big issues with this generalization.

Understandable. The panel mostly grated on my nerves because some of the panelists were arguing that all romances are feminist. Ditto with the raising of the issue that winning via "soccer mom" virtues is automatically feminist (like Mely notes below, Stevenson was trying to use the term to take it back). I think it can be feminist, but I think other times it can be extremely problematic, and I've read romances in which both are the case.

[riemannia.livejournal.com]

Interesting post, thanks. I love hearing about panels about romance.

I'm not sure what Lyda Morehouse is calling category romances though. I assume she's talking about the series books put out by Harlequin/Silhouette. Now, they are doing some kind of AA line, I believe, though I don't think any books have yet been released. However, Spice is not category but trade paperback, and may not even be romance. And to my knowledge only e-publishers and Warner have put out any gay romances.

Though yay to gay clinch covers!

[heresluck]

Well, Naiad's been putting out lesbian romances for decades, and now there's also Broad Strokes and Bella Books (if it's still around). m/m romances are also available, though they're not usually marketed as such.

[riemannia.livejournal.com]

Yes, sorry, of course, there are other publishers who pub gay romance. I was thinking in the context of the Romantic Times, where I mostly see ads for epubs or big NY pubs.

Boys

[desayunoencama.livejournal.com]

Romentics only publishes m/m romances. Warner bought one of the Scott & Scott's novels to try and cash in on their success.

Kensington specializes in m/m romances (and the occasional f/f one, too).

Seventh Window's first book is a regency or Victorian m/m romance (and they also do more romantica stuff like my ownTWO BOYS IN LOVE)

[oyceter]

I'm pretty sure she was talking about the Harlequin/Silhouette series, especially since she mentioned that she was particularly surprised that the gay clinch covers showed up in Romantic Times, which is a reader-oriented, not-quite-so-industry magazine.

Thanks for the info on Spice, it sounded interesting!

[jinian.livejournal.com]

I can certainly see why you didn't want to get any of Stevenson's work, after the annoying parts of that. Not having been to the panel, I bought Trash Sex Magic, read it on the way home, and am still enjoying the afterglow. No idea about her other stuff, but that one was very good.

[oyceter]

I do keep meaning to pick it up, because rachelmanija was pimping it for ages, but now I'm a little put off =(. I hate it when I end up disagreeing with authors' personalities.

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

Not me, I've never read anything by her.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

I've really liked some of her short fiction, but I think Trash Sex Magic is an interesting failure as a book. A success as a feminist romance, though. I'm still looking forward to her series from Del Rey.

[canandagirl.livejournal.com]

Interesting. Actually, I love reading the man's point of view in a romance. I find it much more entertaining than the female's, even if she is headstrong, independent, blab, blab, blab.

[oyceter]

The POV depends for me, but I really wish romance would have more interesting heroines, or at least ones with different issues.

Too much information

[daedala.livejournal.com]

The exchange you weren't remembering was:

Audience [male] -- Why do you assume the viewpoint character is a woman?
Mod -- Because the readers are women. Next question.

I wrote it down specifically because I was so outraged. I may be slightly off in exact phrasing.

Re: Too much information

[lydamorehouse]

That put me off, and I was ON the panel.

I will dig up the most recent RT and write down some of the titles I mentioned.

Re: Too much information

[oyceter]

Ah, thank you!

Yes, I was irritated because... well, the viewpoint character isn't always a woman.

Re: Too much information

[firecat]

Aahz (my outlaw husband) said that. I pointed him at this this thread and he wrote some thoughts here:

http://rule6.info/essays/

Not "soccer mom" values...

[lydamorehouse]

First of all, thanks for the compliments... and that you decided to buy my books on the strength of my personality. I will say, if you liked the funny, the romance (TALL, DARK & DEAD) is where I really let my personality embue the page.

But, back to the conversation at hand. The cover I was thinking about is actually an e-book, which is something we never got to talking about on the panel.... in other words, how e-books are making room for a lot of different kinds of romance/romantic tastes.

Here it is: SHIFTER'S STATION 1: PILOT'S BARGAIN by Silvia Violet. I am currently staring at the cover and I'm fairly certain these are two dudes. It _could_ be a topless woman, but the blurb clearly implies that there are men together in this book, it reads: "Larissa, a freighter pilot for an intersteller delivery company, is arrested for transporting faulty weapons. The captain and comander of the station where she's being held refuse to let her go. The two men want her into their bed, and they are willing to bend the rules of justice to get here there." I suppose I could go to the site they list to see a better picture -- http://violet.chaosnet.org -- okay, I just found the review in RT. These are two guys together -- even if the cover isn't what I think it is.

Re: Not "soccer mom" values...

[oyceter]

Oh cool, thank you!

I feel the clinch cover has failed a little if you can't tell it's two muscular, pretty men. ;)

Re: Not "soccer mom" values...

[daedala.livejournal.com]

Here's the Changeling Press pic. (http://www.changelingpress.com/product.php?&upt=book&ubid=278)

They look like generated video game characters. :)

[cynthia1960.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the summary of the panel; I do appreciate it.

[oyceter]

I'm glad it was useful!