I've been noticing a trend in many romance books. I call it The Drill Sergeant Hero. This is the guy who not only knows everything, but orders the heroine to do as he wishes. Usually the Drill Sergeant Hero is ordering the heroine about to "protect" her or keep her away from danger, because she's just a woman and can't decipher danger for herself, you know. The Drill Sergeant Hero is usually some sort of expert, like a bodyguard or spy or something along those lines, so he knoweth from which he speaketh.
As an historian, I'm taking a guess that the tendency to "protect" women is a mostly Victorian myth, exacerbated by the Edwardian period (Did you know Jell-O salads and other salads were popular during this era because women were supposed to eat delicate, bird-like meals? I love salad, but...blech.). This idea to shelter women to such an extent that they become childlike and remain innocent until her marriage when she no longer counts as an individual because she becomes her husband's property.
Think I sound tough on the Victorians and Edwardians? Well, be my guest to check out the laws of that time, regarding women's rights to divorce, freedom from a domestic abusive partner, or even her children, which she could not have if she wanted to stop being beaten by her husband.
Anyway, the point is somewhere along the way, we contemporary people have confused the Victorian myths with the fact that women have been figuring out ways to protect themselves for eons. And they've had to protect themselves when they had very few rights to do so.
I think that's why I find the Drill Sergeant Hero so repulsive. I can't finish a book with this kind of hero. He makes me sad and mad. I'm never sure if I want to throw the book across the room or cry a little. Might be good to do both.
I like writing about men who are experts, but they're not going to degrade a woman to make a point. They aren't going to order a woman about because she's a fellow human being, and unless you're a real life drill sergeant that's not cool. Unless you have a particular drill-sergeant kink and request it, of course. :)
The issue goes back farther than Victorian times. Way back. I, too, am uncomfortable with heroes who are sure they know better than the heroine what she should do. Granted, a civilian in war territory trying to evade the enemy might need to be told what to do by a soldier to survive until they get to safety but if that spills over into how she should live her personal life, well, I find myself getting really angry. I'm old enough to remember when women couldn't do a lot of things we now take for granted. I have also had too many friends who found themselves in abusive situations with men who claimed to just want to take care of and protect them and tried to make them believe they weren't capable of taking care of themselves so I'm hyper alert to that kind of vibe in a story. This is NOT to say I don't get why some might be attracted to a story where someone else takes the burden off their shoulders and worries about things for a while. It's just a really fine line to walk and a story someone else might love could well have me wanting to throw the book against a wall.
ReplyDeleteYay, thanks for you comment, April! :) I agree the issue goes back farther than Victorian times, and I should have clarified. But I always worry I sound a little like I'm trying to lecture rather than just discuss. But I hope I sound more discussy than anything else. :) Okay, here goes: From the medieval times on, there have been laws regarding violence against women. (Terrible side note: no such laws were in place for children for hundreds of years until the twentieth century, and even then the laws were more vague than the ones pertaining to violence against a woman.) During the Enlightenment period, a man could be (and was) thrown into debtor's prison for the rest of his life for beating his wife. There was one case, where a woman was compensated by her husband after SHE stabbed him with a pitchfork. I kid you not. In colonial law, a preacher had found a husband guilty of beating his wife and had sentenced him to permanent banishment, a death sentence in Massachusetts during the late 1600s. The law, I'm sure, overlooked several cases of violence against women. But they were trying and there were laws and the penal system did its best to uphold the law.
DeleteBUT THEN the Victorian era happened, and laws, especially laws regarding violence against women were blurred and became vague. It's the most bizarre thing. Even during the Regency times, men were found guilty of beating their wives and had to pay one way or another. But as a queen ruled and had much influence over her prime ministers, the laws regarding protecting women from violence became hushed. The Victorians had a hard time showing table legs, so maybe they were too prude to show off their laws regarding protecting women? Doubtful, but that could be. There's something strange that happened during the Victorian age, something quite ironic, where a queen ruled yet women lost rights given to them through the sometimes brutal and bloody Enlightenment period. And the basic history of women changed. Catherine the Great became a nymphomaniac, unlike the brilliant strategist she was. Even beloved Elizabeth I was gossiped about in less than favorable lights. The surge of misogyny had women less protected than ever before (legally) and separated into "virtuous" women versus "unclean," which could mean that the woman merely had power and be found "unclean." Adding to that, during the Edwardian times, women had to be found even more "virtuous" by what she ate, which should be very little, and what she looked like. All along women were objectified for their looks, but at this time, maybe more than ever, women were given their worth for the way they looked.
I've often wondered if the Victorian age hadn't happened, if we somehow evolved from the Enlightenment era--when Catherine the Great had other women ruling the Russian sciences and philosophies, when French women had salons where everyone was welcomed to drink and talk, when English women were talking about equality--where would the world be now?
Anyway, I agree with you wholeheartedly! :)