Re: Male violence towards womenaikateriniSeptember 19 2014, 17:34:48 UTC
/What's even worse is when they treat the attack like a joke, as in Hermione siccing canaries on Ron./
Oh, yes. I’m sure that there are some people who would argue that such a trope is only sexist towards men because violence towards men is viewed positively, but I would argue that it’s also sexist towards women because it’s patronizing. The fact that you laugh when a woman attacks a man shows that you don’t take her seriously. Yes, Harry got off with a slap on the wrist when he almost killed Draco in HBP, but at least that scene was never treated as a *joke.*
/I started reading the first book about 20 years ago, but I quit because I was so offended by a couple of the scenes./
When I heard the premise of this book, I knew that it wasn’t for me because adultery/cheating is a major turn-off for me when it comes to romance. The idea of a woman leaving her loving husband to cheat on him with another guy didn’t appeal to me at all.
But then when I heard about a certain incident that happens in this book, it cemented my decision to never read it. It’s the scene where Jamie ‘punishes’ Claire. You don’t know how many people I’ve seen defend that scene. “Oh, Jamie is a product of his times,” “Oh, it was legal back then,” “Oh, she eventually got better.”
I wonder if they would say the same if Jamie was a pre-Civil War American slaveowner who beat and raped his slaves. I wonder how many of them would excuse him by saying, “Oh, slavery was legal back then and a lot of people did that sort of thing.”
/How about nobody assaults anybody?/
I agree. But in the situations where it’s inevitable (i.e. in superhero comics, action movies, etc.), I would like to see both portrayed on equal footing. He shouldn't pussyfoot around her and she shouldn't be easily walloped by him (especially not in sexualized ways) just because she’s female.
In fact, one example of possibly doing it right would be the climax of “Monster,” a South Korean thriller. The heroine, played by Kim Go-Eun, faces off against the sociopathic killer, played by Lee Min-Ki. Not only is she shorter than him, she’s mentally challenged (i.e. she has the mental state and personality of a child). And yet it works. Why?
1) She may not be as tall as him, but she’s a big girl. Even though she may be mentally challenged, she’s fast, strong, and physically capable. Also, by the time of their fight, she’s already stabbed him in the side with a knife and he’s also had his head repeatedly bashed by his brother’s goons (it’s a long story).
2) She doesn’t have the body of a supermodel nor does she wear skimpy clothes. In no way is she portrayed as a sexual object.
3) There is absolutely no sexual tension between her and Lee. Oh, there’s probably someone out there who ships them (since the Internet has taught me that it’s possible to ship anything). But their fight isn’t framed as a “slap-slap-kiss-kiss” scene disguised by violence. No, both of them are clearly fighting to kill.
4) The nature of the fight itself. It’s messy and brutal and bloody. Lee and Kim don’t trade witty banter; in fact, they don’t speak to each other during the fight. They both come off as animalistic, clawing and screaming at each other.
Re: Male violence towards womenoneandthetruthSeptember 28 2014, 00:04:41 UTC
When I heard the premise of this book, I knew that it wasn’t for me because adultery/cheating is a major turn-off for me when it comes to romance. The idea of a woman leaving her loving husband to cheat on him with another guy didn’t appeal to me at all.
Well, in fairness, she doesn't leave him. She goes to some standing stones at Halloween and is transported from 1945 to 1743. One could argue it's not adultery because her husband hasn't been born yet. She also obsesses over getting back to the stones so she can get back to her husband. And she marries Jamie because it's the only way the Scots can protect her from a sadistic redcoat who also happens to be her 20th century husband's direct ancestor (and who looks just like him, which is very weird). She also feels guilty about being an adulteress and bigamist (in her eyes). I'm basing this on the TV show, since it's been decades since I tried to read the book. However, the show is apparently close to the book. Having looked at the wiki page, I see that Claire does decide to stay with Jamie rather than Frank, so you're at least partially correct.
And may I say how refreshing it is to see somebody condemn adultery and cheating as turn-offs! I totally agree.
But then when I heard about a certain incident that happens in this book, it cemented my decision to never read it. It’s the scene where Jamie ‘punishes’ Claire. You don’t know how many people I’ve seen defend that scene. “Oh, Jamie is a product of his times,” “Oh, it was legal back then,” “Oh, she eventually got better.”
I didn't read that far. However, I found a description of it in an Amazon review (1 star). What I found really disgusting about it was that Jamie got turned on by beating Claire. Later, he rapes her, and she enjoys it! Frankly, I think you have to be a serious sicko to consider abuse of any kind evidence of "true love."
After reading several reviews that describe repeated beatings and rapes in the rest of the book, including of Jamie himself, I think I'll quit watching after the mid-season finale tonight. It sounds like it's definitely going downhill from here.
I thought you might enjoy this description of Jamie by a reviewer: "He seems like a big, dirty, lice-infested, boorish cad to me and the thought of him anywhere near me gives me the heebie jeebies and makes me want to take a shower."
Re: Male violence towards womenaikateriniSeptember 28 2014, 01:22:28 UTC
/She goes to some standing stones at Halloween and is transported from 1945 to 1743/
Well, sure, Claire doesn’t intentionally leave Frank, but the whole reason that the time travel’s there is so that she can dump her husband for a “better” man. Claire could have very easily have been single and still time-traveled to 1743 where she met her “true love,” but then the reader wouldn’t get to hear about how much better Jamie is than ‘dull, ordinary’ Frank.
/And may I say how refreshing it is to see somebody condemn adultery and cheating as turn-offs!/
Oh, really? Have you come across many romance novel fans who like or tolerate adultery plotlines in romance stories? Because most reviewers that I’ve seen tend to cite cheating as a no-no when it comes to romance novels.
/Later, he rapes her, and she enjoys it!/
Which I can’t stand. Look, authors, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t have the hero rape the heroine (because naturally good girls never initiate sex and the only way that they should have sex is if their boyfriend forces it on them so that nobody thinks they’re anything but pure and innocent), but excuse it by having the heroine act as if it was consensual when it clearly wasn’t, because a heroine having PTSD isn’t sexy. There’s a difference between rough sex and rape. You want the heroine to be the distressed damsel who is ravished by the domineering brute of a hero because you like that fantasy? Then have them role-play, for heaven’s sake.
/"He seems like a big, dirty, lice-infested, boorish cad to me and the thought of him anywhere near me gives me the heebie jeebies and makes me want to take a shower."/
Re: Male violence towards womenoneandthetruthSeptember 28 2014, 01:01:41 UTC
I wonder if they would say the same if Jamie was a pre-Civil War American slaveowner who beat and raped his slaves. I wonder how many of them would excuse him by saying, “Oh, slavery was legal back then and a lot of people did that sort of thing.”
I think the movie 12 Years a Slave answered that. You can portray those things, but they'd better be shown as violent, disgusting, and degrading to all parties, NOT sexy and romantic. Granted, that movie is based on fact, but I think it would happen with fiction, too. Even Gone with the Wind, one of the most egregious examples of whitewashing (pun intended) slavery, doesn't show anything more violent than a slap between mistress and slave--and it was made 75 years ago.
As for the cop-out, "Everybody did it then," as mothers like to say, "If everybody were jumping off a cliff, would you do that, too?" Besides, it's not true. The story takes place in 1743, not 1243. I've never heard of wife-beating being acceptable in 18th century Germany/Austria (in reading about Beethoven) or America (in reading about the Revolution). The Founding Fathers have been criticized many times for allowing slavery into the Constitution; I've never heard of them condoning wife-beating.
In addition, one of the things that makes people and characters heroic is that they stand up against bad-but-acceptable contemporary behavior norms. For example, in late 19th century Britain, it was legal for a man to rape his wife, even if he had an STD (which were then incurable) and knew it, because his rights over her body trumped her right to continued good health. But in the Sherlock Holmes Canon, Holmes repeatedly makes it clear (with Watson's backing) that men who abuse women in any way deserve a flogging at best (for playing a cruel trick in A Case of Identity) or death at worst (for beating or killing a woman in The Abbey Grange and The Devil's Foot). There are many other examples besides the ones I cite here. That's why it really pisses me off when people call Holmes a misogynist.
This incontrovertible Canonical evidence is a major reason I find those Mary Russell atrocities so abominable: At the end of the second book, a character, who is named Sherlock Holmes for marketing purposes (but who clearly is not) knocks Mary unconscious(just like Ray Rice), calls his attack chivalrous, and treats it like a goddamned joke! It gets sicker: We're supposed to believe Mary is a feminist because she slaps him and makes a token protest. Then he kisses her, and the kiss's force is compared with that of the blow on the head. We are obviously supposed to find this arousing. Then she marries him, even though he never swears not to hit her again, and she never asks him for such an oath. Not that it would be worth anything, anyway.
On top of that, the author and her fans all insist Mary is a feminist, badass, and role model, and that they are feminists, too! I have not seen one fan of this series object to this violent attack. Not one! If anything, they find it funny, and think the kiss is a turn-on.
Re: Male violence towards womenaikateriniSeptember 28 2014, 01:31:53 UTC
/That's why it really pisses me off when people call Holmes a misogynist./
I think that that idea may originate from (funnily enough) “A Scandal in Bohemia.” The idea that Holmes refers to Irene Adler as “The Woman,” because he was surprised that a woman beat him. In other words, the experience with Irene Adler didn’t teach Holmes that women could be just as intelligent as him, it was just that this one woman was special enough to achieve his respect, this implying that he’s a sexist.
/a character, who is named Sherlock Holmes for marketing purposes (but who clearly is not)/
Hee, I suppose that we could also call him SHINO (Sherlock Holmes In Name Only). :)
/knocks Mary unconscious(just like Ray Rice), calls his attack chivalrous/
Chivalrous? Why, was he trying to stop her from running off to her death or doing something dumb? Was that his excuse?
/We're supposed to believe Mary is a feminist because she slaps him and makes a token protest. Then he kisses her/
Oh, of course. A literal version of the “slap-slap-kiss” trope. Yes, Mary hit him, but it’s okay, because he cared so little about it that he kissed her in order to shut her up. *sighs*
Holmes buff butting in... (will comment on the rest if I can find the time)vermouth1991September 28 2014, 12:06:57 UTC
//That's why it really pisses me off when people call Holmes a misogynist.//
/I think that that idea may originate from (funnily enough) “A Scandal in Bohemia.” The idea that Holmes refers to Irene Adler as “The Woman,” because he was surprised that a woman beat him. In other words, the experience with Irene Adler didn’t teach Holmes that women could be just as intelligent as him, it was just that this one woman was special enough to achieve his respect, this implying that he’s a sexist./
From the end of that novella:
“And that was how a great scandal threatened to affect the kingdom of Bohemia, and how the best plans of Mr. Sherlock Holmes were beaten by a woman’s wit. He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late. And when he speaks of Irene Adler, or when he refers to her photograph, it is always under the honourable title of the woman.”
My takeaway is this: Irene Adler has become a shining example of how clever women can be (even under that kind of restrictive social mores), and that shook his old view. Holmes is a man who's open to new possibilities when they present themselves, and although his ego might make it hard for him to accept being outsmarted by anyone period, I suppose it's more than open to him that there might be other clever women out there. He just hadn't met them yet.
Re: Sherlock being pro-feminist
Don't forget the resolution to "The Case of Cherles Augustus Milverton": Holmes and Watson broke in to steal/destroy the letter that was being used to blackmail their latest client, but ended up witnessing a particularly feisty (and heartbroken) victim of Milverton's shooting him into swiss cheese. They then wasted precious getaway time to burn ALL of the papers in M's safe in the fireplace, and Watson nearly got caught by the leg as they scrambled over the wall. The story ends with Holmes recognising the lady from the Noblewomen Portrait Gallery, and deciding to keep mum about it (Lestrade had already been misled that the two male intruders were the killers).
Re: Male violence towards womenseductivedarkSeptember 28 2014, 15:40:59 UTC
But in the Sherlock Holmes Canon, Holmes repeatedly makes it clear (with Watson's backing) that men who abuse women in any way deserve a flogging at best...
Even well into the twentieth century, and in real life, men looked down on other men who beat their wives or girlfriends, or were violent toward women. My dad (b. 1902) used to mention that the other men in a town or neighborhood would take the miscreant out for a "talk" about their behavior.
Being a junior feminist of those times, which meant, to me, insisting that there is no difference between men and women (at the time, there was a push to see men and women as completely equal, ignoring the obvious physical differences, extending to things like men standing when a woman enters the room or opening doors for her - what is she, armless? etc., and I embraced it wholeheartedly) I figured that, if a woman was trying to beat the daylights out of a man, he had the right to defend himself. My dad allowed that, but not excessive force, just enough to stop her. Once she stopped, he should back away, hands off. But, that was a huge concession for those times.
An odd dichotomy - men were not supposed to hurt women, but women were supposed to either die or get their legs broken to defend against being raped. If she was raped, it was because she succumbed and allowed it - never mind that most women don't want to become the victims of a murder on top of an attempted or realized rape. This was also the age of a woman 'asking for it' in the way she dresses. Men were seen as weak where sex (I know, rape is more about power, but it uses sex to express that) is concerned, unable to resist, and it was up to the woman to 'put the brakes on.'
Oh, yes. I’m sure that there are some people who would argue that such a trope is only sexist towards men because violence towards men is viewed positively, but I would argue that it’s also sexist towards women because it’s patronizing. The fact that you laugh when a woman attacks a man shows that you don’t take her seriously. Yes, Harry got off with a slap on the wrist when he almost killed Draco in HBP, but at least that scene was never treated as a *joke.*
/I started reading the first book about 20 years ago, but I quit because I was so offended by a couple of the scenes./
When I heard the premise of this book, I knew that it wasn’t for me because adultery/cheating is a major turn-off for me when it comes to romance. The idea of a woman leaving her loving husband to cheat on him with another guy didn’t appeal to me at all.
But then when I heard about a certain incident that happens in this book, it cemented my decision to never read it. It’s the scene where Jamie ‘punishes’ Claire. You don’t know how many people I’ve seen defend that scene. “Oh, Jamie is a product of his times,” “Oh, it was legal back then,” “Oh, she eventually got better.”
I wonder if they would say the same if Jamie was a pre-Civil War American slaveowner who beat and raped his slaves. I wonder how many of them would excuse him by saying, “Oh, slavery was legal back then and a lot of people did that sort of thing.”
/How about nobody assaults anybody?/
I agree. But in the situations where it’s inevitable (i.e. in superhero comics, action movies, etc.), I would like to see both portrayed on equal footing. He shouldn't pussyfoot around her and she shouldn't be easily walloped by him (especially not in sexualized ways) just because she’s female.
In fact, one example of possibly doing it right would be the climax of “Monster,” a South Korean thriller. The heroine, played by Kim Go-Eun, faces off against the sociopathic killer, played by Lee Min-Ki. Not only is she shorter than him, she’s mentally challenged (i.e. she has the mental state and personality of a child). And yet it works. Why?
1) She may not be as tall as him, but she’s a big girl. Even though she may be mentally challenged, she’s fast, strong, and physically capable. Also, by the time of their fight, she’s already stabbed him in the side with a knife and he’s also had his head repeatedly bashed by his brother’s goons (it’s a long story).
2) She doesn’t have the body of a supermodel nor does she wear skimpy clothes. In no way is she portrayed as a sexual object.
3) There is absolutely no sexual tension between her and Lee. Oh, there’s probably someone out there who ships them (since the Internet has taught me that it’s possible to ship anything). But their fight isn’t framed as a “slap-slap-kiss-kiss” scene disguised by violence. No, both of them are clearly fighting to kill.
4) The nature of the fight itself. It’s messy and brutal and bloody. Lee and Kim don’t trade witty banter; in fact, they don’t speak to each other during the fight. They both come off as animalistic, clawing and screaming at each other.
Reply
Well, in fairness, she doesn't leave him. She goes to some standing stones at Halloween and is transported from 1945 to 1743. One could argue it's not adultery because her husband hasn't been born yet. She also obsesses over getting back to the stones so she can get back to her husband. And she marries Jamie because it's the only way the Scots can protect her from a sadistic redcoat who also happens to be her 20th century husband's direct ancestor (and who looks just like him, which is very weird). She also feels guilty about being an adulteress and bigamist (in her eyes). I'm basing this on the TV show, since it's been decades since I tried to read the book. However, the show is apparently close to the book. Having looked at the wiki page, I see that Claire does decide to stay with Jamie rather than Frank, so you're at least partially correct.
And may I say how refreshing it is to see somebody condemn adultery and cheating as turn-offs! I totally agree.
But then when I heard about a certain incident that happens in this book, it cemented my decision to never read it. It’s the scene where Jamie ‘punishes’ Claire. You don’t know how many people I’ve seen defend that scene. “Oh, Jamie is a product of his times,” “Oh, it was legal back then,” “Oh, she eventually got better.”
I didn't read that far. However, I found a description of it in an Amazon review (1 star). What I found really disgusting about it was that Jamie got turned on by beating Claire. Later, he rapes her, and she enjoys it! Frankly, I think you have to be a serious sicko to consider abuse of any kind evidence of "true love."
After reading several reviews that describe repeated beatings and rapes in the rest of the book, including of Jamie himself, I think I'll quit watching after the mid-season finale tonight. It sounds like it's definitely going downhill from here.
I thought you might enjoy this description of Jamie by a reviewer: "He seems like a big, dirty, lice-infested, boorish cad to me and the thought of him anywhere near me gives me the heebie jeebies and makes me want to take a shower."
Reply
Well, sure, Claire doesn’t intentionally leave Frank, but the whole reason that the time travel’s there is so that she can dump her husband for a “better” man. Claire could have very easily have been single and still time-traveled to 1743 where she met her “true love,” but then the reader wouldn’t get to hear about how much better Jamie is than ‘dull, ordinary’ Frank.
/And may I say how refreshing it is to see somebody condemn adultery and cheating as turn-offs!/
Oh, really? Have you come across many romance novel fans who like or tolerate adultery plotlines in romance stories? Because most reviewers that I’ve seen tend to cite cheating as a no-no when it comes to romance novels.
/Later, he rapes her, and she enjoys it!/
Which I can’t stand. Look, authors, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t have the hero rape the heroine (because naturally good girls never initiate sex and the only way that they should have sex is if their boyfriend forces it on them so that nobody thinks they’re anything but pure and innocent), but excuse it by having the heroine act as if it was consensual when it clearly wasn’t, because a heroine having PTSD isn’t sexy. There’s a difference between rough sex and rape. You want the heroine to be the distressed damsel who is ravished by the domineering brute of a hero because you like that fantasy? Then have them role-play, for heaven’s sake.
/"He seems like a big, dirty, lice-infested, boorish cad to me and the thought of him anywhere near me gives me the heebie jeebies and makes me want to take a shower."/
*snorts*
Reply
I think the movie 12 Years a Slave answered that. You can portray those things, but they'd better be shown as violent, disgusting, and degrading to all parties, NOT sexy and romantic. Granted, that movie is based on fact, but I think it would happen with fiction, too. Even Gone with the Wind, one of the most egregious examples of whitewashing (pun intended) slavery, doesn't show anything more violent than a slap between mistress and slave--and it was made 75 years ago.
As for the cop-out, "Everybody did it then," as mothers like to say, "If everybody were jumping off a cliff, would you do that, too?" Besides, it's not true. The story takes place in 1743, not 1243. I've never heard of wife-beating being acceptable in 18th century Germany/Austria (in reading about Beethoven) or America (in reading about the Revolution). The Founding Fathers have been criticized many times for allowing slavery into the Constitution; I've never heard of them condoning wife-beating.
In addition, one of the things that makes people and characters heroic is that they stand up against bad-but-acceptable contemporary behavior norms. For example, in late 19th century Britain, it was legal for a man to rape his wife, even if he had an STD (which were then incurable) and knew it, because his rights over her body trumped her right to continued good health. But in the Sherlock Holmes Canon, Holmes repeatedly makes it clear (with Watson's backing) that men who abuse women in any way deserve a flogging at best (for playing a cruel trick in A Case of Identity) or death at worst (for beating or killing a woman in The Abbey Grange and The Devil's Foot). There are many other examples besides the ones I cite here. That's why it really pisses me off when people call Holmes a misogynist.
This incontrovertible Canonical evidence is a major reason I find those Mary Russell atrocities so abominable: At the end of the second book, a character, who is named Sherlock Holmes for marketing purposes (but who clearly is not) knocks Mary unconscious(just like Ray Rice), calls his attack chivalrous, and treats it like a goddamned joke! It gets sicker: We're supposed to believe Mary is a feminist because she slaps him and makes a token protest. Then he kisses her, and the kiss's force is compared with that of the blow on the head. We are obviously supposed to find this arousing. Then she marries him, even though he never swears not to hit her again, and she never asks him for such an oath. Not that it would be worth anything, anyway.
On top of that, the author and her fans all insist Mary is a feminist, badass, and role model, and that they are feminists, too! I have not seen one fan of this series object to this violent attack. Not one! If anything, they find it funny, and think the kiss is a turn-on.
I'll go vomit now.
Reply
I think that that idea may originate from (funnily enough) “A Scandal in Bohemia.” The idea that Holmes refers to Irene Adler as “The Woman,” because he was surprised that a woman beat him. In other words, the experience with Irene Adler didn’t teach Holmes that women could be just as intelligent as him, it was just that this one woman was special enough to achieve his respect, this implying that he’s a sexist.
/a character, who is named Sherlock Holmes for marketing purposes (but who clearly is not)/
Hee, I suppose that we could also call him SHINO (Sherlock Holmes In Name Only). :)
/knocks Mary unconscious(just like Ray Rice), calls his attack chivalrous/
Chivalrous? Why, was he trying to stop her from running off to her death or doing something dumb? Was that his excuse?
/We're supposed to believe Mary is a feminist because she slaps him and makes a token protest. Then he kisses her/
Oh, of course. A literal version of the “slap-slap-kiss” trope. Yes, Mary hit him, but it’s okay, because he cared so little about it that he kissed her in order to shut her up. *sighs*
Reply
/I think that that idea may originate from (funnily enough) “A Scandal in Bohemia.” The idea that Holmes refers to Irene Adler as “The Woman,” because he was surprised that a woman beat him. In other words, the experience with Irene Adler didn’t teach Holmes that women could be just as intelligent as him, it was just that this one woman was special enough to achieve his respect, this implying that he’s a sexist./
From the end of that novella:
“And that was how a great scandal threatened to affect the kingdom of Bohemia, and how the best plans of Mr. Sherlock Holmes were beaten by a woman’s wit. He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late. And when he speaks of Irene Adler, or when he refers to her photograph, it is always under the honourable title of the woman.”
My takeaway is this: Irene Adler has become a shining example of how clever women can be (even under that kind of restrictive social mores), and that shook his old view. Holmes is a man who's open to new possibilities when they present themselves, and although his ego might make it hard for him to accept being outsmarted by anyone period, I suppose it's more than open to him that there might be other clever women out there. He just hadn't met them yet.
Re: Sherlock being pro-feminist
Don't forget the resolution to "The Case of Cherles Augustus Milverton": Holmes and Watson broke in to steal/destroy the letter that was being used to blackmail their latest client, but ended up witnessing a particularly feisty (and heartbroken) victim of Milverton's shooting him into swiss cheese. They then wasted precious getaway time to burn ALL of the papers in M's safe in the fireplace, and Watson nearly got caught by the leg as they scrambled over the wall. The story ends with Holmes recognising the lady from the Noblewomen Portrait Gallery, and deciding to keep mum about it (Lestrade had already been misled that the two male intruders were the killers).
Reply
Even well into the twentieth century, and in real life, men looked down on other men who beat their wives or girlfriends, or were violent toward women. My dad (b. 1902) used to mention that the other men in a town or neighborhood would take the miscreant out for a "talk" about their behavior.
Being a junior feminist of those times, which meant, to me, insisting that there is no difference between men and women (at the time, there was a push to see men and women as completely equal, ignoring the obvious physical differences, extending to things like men standing when a woman enters the room or opening doors for her - what is she, armless? etc., and I embraced it wholeheartedly) I figured that, if a woman was trying to beat the daylights out of a man, he had the right to defend himself. My dad allowed that, but not excessive force, just enough to stop her. Once she stopped, he should back away, hands off. But, that was a huge concession for those times.
An odd dichotomy - men were not supposed to hurt women, but women were supposed to either die or get their legs broken to defend against being raped. If she was raped, it was because she succumbed and allowed it - never mind that most women don't want to become the victims of a murder on top of an attempted or realized rape. This was also the age of a woman 'asking for it' in the way she dresses. Men were seen as weak where sex (I know, rape is more about power, but it uses sex to express that) is concerned, unable to resist, and it was up to the woman to 'put the brakes on.'
Reply
Leave a comment