Keeper or Kick-Her-to-the-Curb?
In July, AAR introduced the new series “Dreamboat or Douchebag” in which our staffers weigh in on the merits and demerits of famous literary heroes. These pieces have been some of our most popular and have generated a set of robust comment streams. They’ve also been a hell of a lot of fun to write.
Thus, we’ve decided to begin a similar series about heroines. Over the next year, we will set our critical sights on some of literature’s most contested heroines and pass judgement upon them. (We may even add in a movie heroine or two–wouldn’t it be fun to assess Vivian from Pretty Woman or evaluate Princess Leia?)
There are two things we are considering as we begin. The first is what makes a good heroine? There is, unsurprisingly, no consensus on that. Maggie likes a heroine who’s “well written and can make me sympathetic to her point of view.” Melanie prefers a woman who is “human – she has her flaws, but they aren’t the focus of the book” and who “feels real.” Shannon’s favorites are “self-reliant, but not afraid to ask for help when needed.” Caroline prizes “a sense of ethics,” “a spine,” and “self-awareness.” Lynn goes for “a smart, confident heroine who knows her limitations.” Lee wants a woman who stands up for herself. For me, a good heroine is one who deserves her happy ending–a criteria so vague it can be summed up as “I know it when I see it.”
The second–and likely to be far more contentious–is what to call this column. There are those readers who acutely dislike “Dreamboat or Douchebag” and others who love it. We are sure no matter what we call our heroine column, the same situation will prevail.
I asked the staff to come up with suggestions for the column–serious and not–and their list was quite inventive. Suggested were:
First Class or Trailer Trash?Sister or Skank?Keeper or Kick-Her-to-the-Curb?Bangable or Brown Bag?Darling or Diva?Wonderwoman or Witch?Honey or Harridan?Sweetheart or Shrew?Captivating or Contemptible?Special or Spoiled?Treasure or Terror?Catch or C**t?Babe or Beyotch?Hall of Fame or Walk of Shame?andBabe or Bint?
I’m not sure what we will pick or even if this is our final list. I give the staff points for wit.
We hope you will enjoy our new series and we welcome suggestions for heroines you’d like to see us consider. As always, we love to hear from you.
Dabney Grinnan
Is this supposed to be humor, because it really isn’t. I can’t believe this site is still relevant.
I, like the majority of responders, have read this site every day for years. Today is the first time my head came up, eyes popped out and mouth dropped open. The worst part of it is you won’t just say, “”Sorry. This was a mistake.”” You’re tap dancing around it. You’re looking foolish. You were just plain wrongheaded so admit it, apologize and we can move on.
Another vote for Captivating or Contemptible here, and another female who was surprised at the suggestion that included the c-word. I once read in a dictionary of American slang that it was “”the most taboo word in the English language,”” although obviously that’s not true any more.
However, I have to wonder why I’ve never seen an outcry over the use of “”douchebag”” when describing heroes (or anyone else). It’s a slur because it refers to a device used to clean a woman’s vagina. What could be dirtier or more disgusting than the vagina, right? Not vomit, not feces, not rotting garbage or corpses, but a part of the female anatomy. I bet some of the people who object to descriptors in the above list throw douchebag around regularly and think nothing of it.
Ellen – I had a lengthy debate on the Rhett Butler blog about the horrible use of the word “”douchebag”” and how offensive I find it. The AAR staff took the same position there that they are taking here. In any case go back a few weeks and check it out! Also, in the most recent Jamie Fraser blog, a number of people, including myself, stated concerns about the word “”douchebag,”” but yet here we are today with another list of ugly words to dehumanize.
In all the forums I’ve read, I’ve seen many posters throwing douchebag around as an insult and never seen an objection, but obviously I miss the best posts. :-) I did read the Rhett Butler blog but maybe never went back and saw all the comments. I didn’t read the Jamie Fraser blog because I’m in the tiny minority of romance readers who doesn’t understand the appeal of Outlander and DNF’d it.
I understand where being too ultra-cautious about terms could turn the world blandly uninteresting. Being judgmental about characters is no problem for me. In fact I rather think people who decry being judgmental are themselves being judgmental of those they decry for being judgmental – if you follow that circle. Even so the fact the ultimate insults refer to female parts kind of hits you in the eye now and then.
My take on douchebag is that it’s something that actually hurts the vagina, therefore using it as an insult can be feminist. It happens to be one of my favorite non-gendered insults, ymmv.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/12/douchebag-is-a-feminist-insult/
And here we have yet another dismissive reply from AAR not addressing in a serious way any of the concerns or opinions expressed above — added at literally the eleventh hour after having previously stating, “”I don’t think there’s anything I have to add to this conversation.”” The handling of this entire issue has been graceless and inept to say the least.
Wow. Just wow. The people who thought this was okay to post are clearly never going to understand why this is wrong. What you perceive as “”wit”” is what I perceive as “”misogyny.”” And maybe you disagree on that, but surely the amount of criticism must make you rethink your views.The reason why Romance is my favorite genre is because it respects and admires women. This post is in complete contradiction to that. Some of these negative titles have to do with the heroine’s sex life (skank or walk of shame). Are we now judging women by their sex life? Because I don’t remember getting that memo. Honestly, I’m surprised that you didn’t have the nerve to put “”ho”” instead of “”harridan.”” It certainly would’ve fit with the theme.
I wholeheartedly agree with all you said Divya!!
To Lisa: Yes, I misspelled a word, and thank you for pointing it out. But I think my message was loud and clear, regardless of the typo.
No, your point isn’t clear. I still don’t see anything homophobic or racist here, and you have declined to explain it to me.
The examples AAR have used are of white women (picture) the movie examples are of white women. Now pick a book that features a PoC, a Native American, or a Jewess, or GLBT character and apply those despicable names. Not racist?? Not homophobic? For if AAR is going ahead with this series then they had best be all inclusive, and not selective as to what character the blog features.
Dabney-AAR– take your words, “”I give the staff points for wit”” and now apply all those awful words to a female character who is a PoC, a Jew, a Native American. Still think it is witty? Funny?
But I challenge AAR to pick/discuss a book that portrays a non-white/non-Christian female character and use the same derogatory terms AAR has suggested for this series.
Sue,
I don’t think there’s anything I have to add to this conversation. I appreciate your conviction and am thinking about what you’ve said.
Dabney, AAR, does chanting “”Hands up, don’t shoot.”” Or “”I can’t breath”” get your attention?
If you are going down this rotten road of shaming a hero/heroine then AAR best include/discuss novels that feature a h/h that is not white.
I don’t think this series would last long if you did shame a PoC or another ethnic group. And Dabney/AAR, this just isn’t my “”conviction”” I bet there is more people out there that feel the same as I do, but they just are not posting, for whatever reasons.
This series is just wrong, on so may levels.
It’s definitely troubling in the way this particular blog is set up for us, as many have already articulated. I fear though that if it’s not handled in a more artful way going forward, the entire series will become a referendum on AAR, which defeats the purpose of having good discussions about books, which is why most of us are even here. I actually love the idea of debating controversial female protagonists, but that could quickly be lost in discussion if objectionable language defines debates.
I agree with you. I would like to see AAR continue the discussion without the objectionable labels.
I’m hoping the title is Captivating or Contemptible.
I like Darling or Diva….and the Captivating or Cringeworthy suggestion. Looking forward to the discussion.
What about…. Captivating or Cringeworthy?
AAR has erred, big-time, with series, imo. And when I told my 21 yr. old about this she said, “”No wonder, Mum, that men still think it acceptable to call women these names, with blogs like AAR and its ilk advocating as much. A sad day indeed, and a huge leap backward for womankind. For I am sure men also read AAR. So, if women are calling other women these names, even in fiction, the men think it acceptable to do so in real life, and so the cycle of abuse continues.””
I will also add that a poster said on the male version of this series, that she will never read another Jo Beverley novel, because the hero back-handed the heroine. Well, I can tell you, I have read far more novels (both historical & contemp) in which the heroine has slapped, kicked or punched the hero. So, AAR will not lack material in which to disparage women, if it continues with this series. So keep it coming AAR ladies, slap that bitch! Kick her to the curb. She’s nothing but a cunt!
Some of my favorite heroines in romances I’ve read recently are whores (like literally prostitutes. These are horribly misogynist.
“”Trailer trash””! Someone has been reading too many regencies lately. Class or the lack of money shouldn’t be on par with someone’s worth. Poverty shaming is disgusting. “”First class”” people probably think they are better than people with no money. Anyway since when do romances value women for their agency or money. Isn’t that the hero’s problem? Aren’t women valued for youth, beauty, and working uterus? (Sarcasm)
I find the c word despicable even when it’s not written out. Shame on you!
Treasure seems more of an object word than a person word.
Wonderwoman vs witch. Have you ever heard of Harry Potter? Witch can be a good thing.
I like Captivating or Contemptible. Most of the rest of these are offensive.
May as well add, “”goddess or whore”” as it’s just recycling the same old dichotomies, just under different names.
Some of the titles, that they should have even been suggested is troubling, but to actually broadcast them, is even more so. And if the excuse is that it’s just “”click-bait”” then it’s not only naïve, but terribly misguided.
Too bad that this site has decided to go this route. AAR was an excellent advocate for the value of romance novels, and many reviews were quick to call out authors and novels that perpetuated very stereotypes that this blog purports to discuss. The quality of this site has really begun to suffer, and this latest blog series is symptomatic of a larger problem that ails the site.
I suggest Sugar Beth from SEP’s Ain’t She Sweet.
My first thought was Badass or Bitch – so you can tell where I fall in the spectrum of whether this offends me or not.
I like the catchy title idea for the blog posts and think that if people actually read your discussion they will see there’s nuanced discussion going on about what makes for complicated characters. Having a “”click bait”” blog title makes sense. If you call it “”A Deep Discussion about Disparate Dames”” you’re going to get less people reading.
So go for it. And if you do go with one from the list, I do think Captivating or Contemptible gives you the broadest range of heroines to pick from.
Jane, I have read this column, and phrases like “”catch or cunt”” and in AAR’s own words “”will [set our critical sights on some of literature’s most contested heroines and] pass judgement upon them,”” disturbs me, to say the least, especially coming from the educated women who run this blog.
Is it not bad enough that real victims of crime are judged and called these awful, hateful, spiteful names and AAR/readers of this post are gunning for it, find it fun?
If you are doing this with fiction or as one poster said she all for political incorrectness, then I can only imagine that you actually do and say it in real life. And tis no wonder misogyny/hate/racism still exists. So do not cry foul next time a derogatory post appears about women. This series only reinforces archaic attitudes about women (as does the male version of this series.)
I find this whole series troublesome, especially with the disgusting names suggested by AAR staff. For what is next? A discussion about Mammy from GwtW? Maureen O’Hara in the QUITE MAN? Or how about AAR discuss Jacqueline Woodson’s BROWN GIRL DREAMING in the same light, and whether or not her character is a catch or cunt? AAR’s phrase, not mine.
Bitch is not offensive to me anymore, it’s probably due to SBTB where women throw the term around like candy. It has lost it’s power as an insult, though if one of my sons called me a “”bitch”” I’d probably turn into a “”badass”” and thump him!
Jane – Having a catchy title is appealing. Defining catchy titles in sexist terms is not so appealing. There are many ways to create catchy titles without resorting to grabbing someone’s attention using the lowest-common denominator out there. Of course, if a blog is entitled “”slut”” or “”skank”” people will look, just as people stop and gawk at road accidents.
As far as the nuanced conversations in the blogs, I’ve read them all and I think there is, despite the reductive parameters, some good thinking and writing occurring. But that all takes place in spite of the parameters AAR is setting up and it’s a bit of an uphill battle. It will be challenging, for instance, to recuperate a woman other women have already defined as a skank or cunt for instance. In the end, there are better ways to create provocative blogs and nuanced discussions.
Here, here, Blackjack! Even seven hours later, I am still shaking with outrage that AAR staff are defending this position and pretending its a nuance discussion. IMO, it’s nothing but hate-filled drivel.
I’d say I’m shocked, but this is exactly the sort of regressive internalized misogyny I expect from AAR. Good job living down to my low expectations yet again.
Thank you for reminding me of how my own expectations for this site have been diminishing, and this blog seals the deal.
I will add that I do look forward to hearing from some people who post on the message boards and that there are maybe two reviewers I still read, but otherwise the site has continued to tank.
And right on time, there’s Ridley saying why she doesn’t read this site anymore. Didn’t you drive by Dear Author some time ago to tell the same thing? This still isn’t the way to market your own blog.
Wow! I woke this morning to check reviews on AAR ( a site I trusted and respected) as I have done so for the past 10 years. And my jaw dropped. “”Kick-her-to the curb.”” is what jumped off the page this morning! You are not only slut-shaming, but victim blaming and promoting violence against women. So, I agree with ClaudiaGC and Yulie, some things are just best left unseen.
But I was most appalled by AAR’s response that title suggestions were “”…Merely in fun…”” Apply that logic to the racial issue in the U.S. By AAR’s own words then, if someone makes a derogatory comment/racial slur, one can use “”it’s was merely in fun”” for a defence.
Now, consider if a similar blog was written by men. I believe a lot of women would be up in arms, if not taking up arms.
This series is not for me, but after today I have lost all respect for AAR.
You made excellent points and I agree with all that you said.
I second the vote for Captivating and Contemptible.
My vote is for Captivating or Contemptible
There are valid points on both sides, but I am very concerned about the continued misogyny in romance. It’s not funny and it’s disappointing to have it perpetuated here at AAR.
Catch or Cunt! Are you kidding me! You didn’t even have the guts to write it out. You are not being provocative, just offensive.
LANGUAGE SHAPES CONSCIENTIOUSNESS!
I must of hit reply maggie b, but the above was not a reply to your vote. Though it is the best of the lot:)
I agree. Language does shape conscientiousness. But language is contextual and often specific. My sense of what the word cunt or skank or shrew may not be that of another’s. I believe that we give words the power we choose. I choose not to empower cunt by being afraid to say it aloud. To me it means vagina, another word I’m not afraid to say. We don’t have to have cunt or bitch or slut be words that may not be named. I’d argue that claiming them as ours is a valid feminist choice.
Then why are you using them as the negative part of the comparison? That’s not claiming loaded terms, it’s using them in the same derogatory way that misogynists do.
Exactly!
First of all, I highly doubt we will settle on any of the inflammatory titles as the one we choose for our column. What you see here were serious and silly and, yes, stupid ideas we tossed around.
Secondly, there are those who would rather be a shrew than a sweetheart or a bitch than a babe. If you read the hero columns you will see that behaviors that some consider “”Dreamboat”” others of us consider “”Douchebag.””
Thirdly, despite allegations of my or the site’s deeply internalized misogyny, I’d have to wonder how carefully what we write has been read. There’s no hegemony of viewpoint here at AAR and I’ve not met a group of women who think more carefully about what they are trying to say.
Lastly, let me say that I personally am enriched–really–by reading this comment thread because I want to hear the views of others even when I don’t agree with them. I’m grateful that so many of you do read the site and care enough to tell us when you think we’ve erred.
Happy holidays to all who read AAR and all who don’t.
Then I’d say you have your feminist head screwed on backwards. Re-read the column—AAR says they are PASSING JUDGMENT on characters and having fun doing it. No empowerment there. Nope, none whatsoever.
I’m assuming you meant “”homophobic,”” since I don’t find homophones to be particularly offensive. If so, can you please direct me to the homophobic title jokes here? Or the racist ones?
Dabney – Since you’ve agreed that context matters, note that you have already put these terms in the negative in a clear dichotomy of good versus bad, i.e. “”Sister or Skank.”” Based on what I saw in the “”douchebag”” series, I’m not seeing much thoughtful analysis or careful validation in these blogs. Instead what I am seeing are denigrating, dehumanizing terms used freely and loosely to reduce characters to one-dimensions and to denigrate them. “”Heroine”” alone is a complex term in fictional studies and is slippery enough to avoid consensus. Bitch, Cunt, Skank – not so much. This looks to be an even more troubling series and I do wish AAR would reconsider or perhaps have a blog where everyone debates characterization of the heroine in the book without reducing her to one word, especially if that word is used historically to subjugate an entire group of people. Sorry to those who want humor here and reject PC but history matters as does self-esteem and respect for readers and writers.
There is a tone deafness to these conversations when I keep reading the words “”we can’t please everyone.””
“”Based on what I saw in the “douchebag” series, I’m not seeing much thoughtful analysis or careful validation in these blogs. Instead what I am seeing are denigrating, dehumanizing terms used freely and loosely to reduce characters to one-dimensions and to denigrate them.””
Exactly. On the nose.
There is a tone deafness to these conversations when I keep reading the words ‘we can’t please everyone.'””
This one too.
Ok then Dabney, replace the phrase “”Catch or cunt”” with “”catch or vagina?”” Still ring true to claiming it as out own.
I’d say your feminist head is screwed on backwards.
“”Language does shape conscientiousness. But language is contextual and often specific. My sense of what the word cunt or skank or shrew may not be that of another’s””
This is a specious argument. If I said “”blue”” but really meant “”red”” no one would know what the heck I was talking about. Yes, there is context to consider but words have common meanings and it’s unrealistic to believe people won’t “”hear”” the most common meaning of a word, no matter how you use it.
I think simplistically judging men or women characters, thumbs up or thumbs down, with whatever terms you use–even though they’re fictional–evokes the image of a gaggle of junior or senior high school girls giggling and gossiping in hallways together about others. If that’s fun for you, okay, fine. I still find it juvenile and would hate to hear what those critics who already denigrate the romance genre in general would make of this kind of exercise.
The series itself could be fun (I vote for Jessica Trent), but I think you should avoid titles use slut-shaming language or otherwise words that are usually used in a derogatory way against women. I’m fine with reclaiming certain loaded terms, but it has to be done with care.