Mir's Reviews > Tangled

Interesting to read your reaction to this book, and remarks about sexism in contemporary romance fiction. I have GR friends who read a lot of romance novels, and their male characters are almost always either alpha males who dominate the heroine or damaged men who need to be "rescued" or saved (usually from themselves) by the main female protagonist. These books are written by women - but are they're written for women? Are these two types of men are the only ones which appeal to women who read romance? If so, then the whole generation of women who read them is screwed, as they'll discover that in the real world people don't conform to these two simple character patterns. I think it's an interesting topic for discussion.

Sounds terrible. But he's got such great abs on the cover!

Sean wrote: "Sounds terrible. But he's got such great abs on the cover!"

Yes, and I wonder why. He doesn't seem to work out much. Nor does Kate, the object of his infatuation, and she is also supposed to be gorgeous, perfect body, perfectly groomed pubic hair, etc. Well, given the character as she wrote him it would be even less plausible if he fell for someone not beautiful.

Maciek wrote: "Are these two types of men are the only ones which appeal to women who read romance? If so, then the whole generation of women who read them is screwed, as they'll discover that in the real world people don't conform to these two simple character patterns. I think it's an interesting topic for discussion. "

It is an interesting topic! These two types of men seem to have dominated romance novels for decades. Self-perpetuating? I suppose authors write what sells, although I don't know if there's evidence that other sorts of heroes wouldn't sell. Personally, I am always happy to see/read a relationship with more maturity, respect, kindness, and people actually conversing before falling in love. But I rarely encounter those in the romance genre.

" -- but I sincerely hope men aren't all as awful as she imagines them."

There's a chance that we're not, but there's a chance that we're even worse!

Probably both are true! One of the things that annoyed me about this was the continual assertions that all men were the same -- all men think about sex constantly, men never turn down offered sex with an attractive woman even if they love someone else -- although to be fair, the whole book is from the male asshole narrator's point of view and so not necessarily the author's belief about men. Certainly I have met men who expressed these attitudes (whether they genuinely believed them I obviously can't know).

Miriam wrote: "It is an interesting topic! These two types of men seem to have dominated romance novels for decades. Self-perpetuating? I suppose authors write what sells, although I don't know if there's evidence that other sorts of heroes wouldn't sell. Personally, I am always happy to see/read a relationship with more maturity, respect, kindness, and people actually conversing before falling in love. But I rarely encounter those in the romance genre. "

I've been wondering about it for a while. Why do women readers (who compose the majority of the audience for romance fiction) put up with such blatant sexist stereotyping of male characters in these books? (to be fair the female protagonists are also a bit on the sketchy side). I agree with you that it must be what sells books - since time and again the same kind of heroes are written by (mostly female) authors, who get awfully rich in the process - just remember Stephenie Meyer or that 50 Shades of Grey woman.

I don't want to diss all of romance fiction, but these same things pop up time and again in the books that my GR friends are reading. I've read several criticisms of such characters here, but mostly the audience response seems to be largely positive. On GR it's easy to find reviews criticizing (mostly male) authors for sexists and racists depictions of characters in their books, so I wonder why the same standard is not applied to this kind of literature. Does the audience genuinely not care? Or is it what they want?

I've been feeling the same way about guys in contemps lately --- "We're horrible human beings who use and destroy women until we find THE ONE who then we'll just be nice to her.

I know! Seems implausible behavior to me. And, honestly, I didn't think he was ever very nice even to The One -- the things he did were calculated to get what he wanted. We only really have his avowed intention to be nice to her in the future, and how many people keep those promises...?

Perfectly groomed pubic hair??

Does it actually say that?? O.o

This is why I stopped reading books like this...the tropes:
1. Women like "bad boys" (ie selfish/abusive users and players)
2. Women want to be dominated
3. Or, women want to rescue little boys who never grew up.

What ever happened to intelligent women who want an intelligent man they can communicate with??

Oh yeah, I forgot--we're out here living real lives, contributing to society, not writing fantasies worthy of afternoon TV.

Orinoco Womble (tidy bag and all) wrote: "Perfectly groomed pubic hair??"

I don't recall now if that's an exact quote but that was definitely the gist.

From the male perspective, the popularity of these romance novels seems to get us coming and going, as it were. On the one hand, the message we get from women's 'romance' fiction (prose, film, etc, even just conversation) is that we have to be arseholes because that's what women want. On the other hand, we're not actually allowed to express feeling pressured to be arseholes because that's what women seem to want, because saying that would sexist, and would bring the retort "no, what women really want is an intelligent man they can communicate with". [Really? Then maybe stop gushing about how much you love the latest 'men are all arseholes and it's sexy' product. Because as it is, that 'women want intelligent men to communicate with' message feels about as honest as a rich man who says that personality is all he cares about and that's why he's fallen in love with his eighth blonde lingerie-model wife and he'll love her forever unlike like the first seven all of whom he divorced when they turned 35.]
[And of course, if a guy actually were intelligent and tried communicating openly, a lot of women would accuse him of being 'a "nice" guy', where apparently 'nice' is assumed to equate to "actually still an arsehole but even more of an arsehole because he's not honest about it".]

Of course I'm aware that many women don't buy these romances, and even some who do are perfectly able to distinguish their fantasies from what they want in reality (just as not all men who consume a certain type of porn are necessarily looking for life-partners who will act like the women in those fantasies). But as a man, seeing the sort of fantasies of men that seem to be most popular among women, it's rather uncomfortable. And it's no surprise that as a result guys who (professionally, or just to their friends) preach that men need to learn how to be total arseholes in order to have more romantic and/or sexual success are able to find so many disciples. If you sold a training course based on teaching people to act like the "heroes" of modern romances, you'd be the most obnoxious pick-up artist in the world...

Based on a gif survey, I think what women want is smouldering and buff abs. But those are hard to come by, whereas assholes abound.



Seriously, I have no idea why the domineering if not actually abusive asshole is such a popular love interest in these books. None.

I can speak a little to a couple of your other questions, if not in a very satisfactory way. First, I don't think romances are generally intended as guides as to how to have a relationship; they're especially not intended as advice to men on how to get women, as I don't think they're written with male readers in mind, although obviously some men do read them. There is a "romance" (I use the term loosely, as I found the book repellant) called Bad Boy about a woman teaching her guy friend to be an asshole so he can get girls. (view spoiler)[Once he is a jerk and sleeps around she herself falls for him, of course. (hide spoiler)]

Re: "what women really want is an intelligent man they can communicate with" I'm not sure how many women add "intelligent" as qualifier; perhaps you converse mainly with intelligent women? I think most studies show that couples who last tend to be quite close in IQ so presumably women of average intelligence prefer men of average intelligence and the same with dumb ones. Also, having dated a sampling of intelligent men I can say with confidence that they are just as likely to be assholes as their less intelligent counterparts.

And of course, if a guy actually were intelligent and tried communicating openly, a lot of women would accuse him of being 'a "nice" guy', where apparently 'nice' is assumed to equate to "actually still an arsehole but even more of an arsehole because he's not honest about it".

There is a specific type of "nice" guy who listens to women friend's problems and keeps them company when they've had a break-up etc and then expects that she will date/sleep with him after because he earned it by being "nice". Unfortunately a lot of guys try that on so women become suspicious of niceness as well. Possibly after a certain age most genuinely nice people are either not single or prefer to remain single.

I think it's unfortunate generally that people strategize insincere approaches to to sex and romance, since relationships are difficult enough without adding additional layers of mistrust and dishonesty.

The 'intelligent man to communicate with' bit was just quoted from Orinocowomble above.

And yeah, I wasn't suggesting that romance novels were written in order to give men unhelpful messages. Just that they do, even if it's usually second-hand.

EDIT: to be fair to the romance writers, my experience of "buff" guys does tend to bear out the idea that they're almost all arseholes. So maybe these novels are just being realistic!
Standards of beauty for women tend to require the right genes, and then mostly just restraint and good habits. Standards of beauty for men tend to require absolute 100% daily dedication to vanity. Some women are able to be naturally slim, curvy and pretty, so beautiful women can be nice people as well - but any man who spends that much time and (agonising) effort and money making themselves super-buff for no reason other than their own vanity and/or to sleep with superficial women is almost guarenteed to be an arse.

Obviously, this is excluding people who are actually lumberjacks, pirates, athletes, etc, who have a legitimate reason other than vanity for being super-buff. But there are fewer and fewer 'legitimately buff' professions around, so I guess the arsehole-to-pleasant quotient of attractive men is probably falling markedly.

(I must confess I've never actually understood what 'smouldering' entails exactly, or how to spot it in non-fictional situations, so I've not incorporated that into my statistical analysis of arseishness)

Wastrel wrote: "The 'intelligent man to communicate with' bit was just quoted from Orinocowomble above."

Oh, yes -- I think the goodreads subdemographic is probably atypical. It's easy to forget here that many people seldom read, or think.

I do like to think of myself as reasonably intelligent, yes.

I remember being told by someone (in a study group!) "Your problem is you think too much. I hardly think at all." We hold this truth to be self-evident.

I once tried to join a real-life bookclub and found that even people who join bookclubs don't read.

Miriam wrote: "I once tried to join a real-life bookclub and found that even people who join bookclubs don't read."

I'm not surprised. The book clubs I ran into never read the kind of books I liked. Wanted to read literary fiction and women's fiction and stuff.

Blech - not my cup of tea.

The book club I joined seemed to assign arbitrary books, not read them, and then spend the time drinking.

Miriam wrote: "The book club I joined seemed to assign arbitrary books, not read them, and then spend the time drinking."

Ah! The old "tell the husbands we're at our book club when we're really just hanging out drinking" book club. LOL

I could go for that if the people were all friends already, but they weren't, so it was weird. I got invited by a coworker.

Miriam wrote: "I could go for that if the people were all friends already, but they weren't, so it was weird. I got invited by a coworker."

Yeah, that is weird. What's the point then of calling it a book club? Why not just have a ladies night out, or whatever.

Yeah, waste of money buying some book about Prohibition I didn't even want to read, grumblegrumble.

Book clubs and arbitrary "Read this" lists are made expressly for people who wouldn't read otherwise, they need something to force them to "read this by the 17th because we're going to discuss it" or something. They also tend to choose books they want to be seen reading, you know what I mean? "Oooh look, they're reading The Famished Road" or whatever.

I get feeds from a quilting website and she's always posting about the books she is told to read, like these (part of her actual list):
A book by a female author
A nonfiction book
A memoir
A book you can finish in a day
A book with a color in the title
A book that made you cry
A book by an author you’ve never read before
A book based on or turned into a TV show

The point seems to be, being able to check them off.

Me, I read what interests me, because it interests me. The title may make me wonder, or it just sounds fun, or whatever. But then real readers just find books on their own, don't we? I started serious reading at about age 4, by age 6 I was at 6th grade level, and by 10 or so I was allowed to check out books from the adult stacks at the local library. I was lucky enough to attend the only local elementary school with its own library (and a good one), where the librarian quickly waived the "two books only" rule for me.

I was hoping to meet some real-life bibliophiles as a supplement to the online ones.

Readers do find books on their own, but I think it can be helpfully (especially in the pre-social media era) to know other readers so that you hear of new things you otherwise might not. There are heaps of things I would have liked as a child that I was never exposed to because they weren't in the local library (we couldn't afford new books, nor could most people in my neighborhood).

*applause* =D

Yes! To all your points.

Maciek wrote: "I've been wondering about it for a while. Why do women readers (who compose the majority of the audience for romance fiction) put up with such blatant sexist stereotyping of male characters in these books? (to be fair the female protagonists are also a bit on the sketchy side). I agree with you that it must be what sells books - since time and again the same kind of heroes are written by (mostly female) authors, who get awfully rich in the process - just remember Stephenie Meyer or that 50 Shades of Grey woman.

I don't want to diss all of romance fiction, but these same things pop up time and again in the books that my GR friends are reading. I've read several criticisms of such characters here, but mostly the audience response seems to be largely positive. On GR it's easy to find reviews criticizing (mostly male) authors for sexists and racists depictions of characters in their books, so I wonder why the same standard is not applied to this kind of literature. Does the audience genuinely not care? Or is it what they want? "

I'm a guy and I write romance. I don't get it either, especially how fans who comb through works written by male authors for the purposes of calling out even extremely subtle (and sometimes debatable) examples of sexism and misogyny will turn right around and ignore blatant examples of the same in romance. A male author describes a female character in a slightly sexual fashion? Oh, he must have written that with only one hand on the keyboard. Female author writes a story where the male lead straight-out stalks and rapes the heroine, yet the two walk off into the sunset at the end? Nope, nothing wrong with that at all.

Worse, that crowd can get incredibly defensive about it when other people point out such problems in romance. Especially if the pointer-outer is male.

Now that's not to say all romance is terrible, or that all criticisms of it are legit (my first question to people who want to bash on it is "have you read any" and the answer is often "no")...but, well, there's a lot of bad in it. And as other people have remarked here, where are the decent men? Where's the guy who'll cook her breakfast in the morning? Hell, where's the guy whose idea of seduction is conversation and dates, instead of the intimidation/emotional blackmail masquerading as "consent" that we so often see? I recognize that much of romance is written as escapist fantasy...but if you're gonna fantasize, why not have it all?

It makes very little sense. I've put the question to a lot of romance fans and I've never gotten an answer which satisfies my curiosity.

Eric, you're absolutely right. I was just re-watching "You've Got Mail" and it struck me again: Tom Hanks' character is totally manipulative. He knows who she is, but she has no real idea until the end that he is who he is. It's not like after they get together she is going to get her beloved shop back. Is she going to work for him? (Oh, no. Of course she will stay home and cook his meals and take his expensive suits to the cleaners for him.) Like father, like son, I guess.

Eric wrote: "And as other people have remarked here, where are the decent men? Where's the guy who'll cook her breakfast in the morning? Hell, where's the guy whose idea of seduction is conversation and dates, instead of the intimidation/emotional blackmail masquerading as "consent" that we so often see? I recognize that much of romance is written as escapist fantasy...but if you're gonna fantasize, why not have it all?"

Right?! I would so much rather have consideration, conversation, and some help around the house than a hot rapist. Which put that way sounds self-evident, no?

I won't be reading it, but even friends who liked this jackass said they hated the "hero" of her newest book.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Orinoco Womble (tidy bag and all) wrote: "Eric, you're absolutely right. I was just re-watching "You've Got Mail" and it struck me again: Tom Hanks' character is totally manipulative. He knows who she is, but she has no real idea until the..."

I've managed to still never see that film.