The Double Standard
Posted by CM under Romancery on Sun 5 Aug 2007
t’s been hashed and rehashed so many times that I don’t want to directly discuss it. But you know what I mean. In romance novels, the hero can start out conniving and cruel. He can plot to seduce the heroine and ruin her. He can be the most cold-hearted selfish bastard on earth, and as long as he learns his lesson, we sigh happily at the end of the book. He can screw a different woman every night, but so long as he stops once he meets her, we sigh happily.
But let the heroine raise her voice once to her father and she’s a disrespectful bitch. Let her have so much as kissed another man, and she’s a slut.
It’s a double standard. I don’t want to get into the why and wherefore of it all. What I do want to do is mention something I learned a while back that seems to be connected. Several years ago, I was talking to a prosecutor. She wasn’t just a prosecutor; she specialized in prosecuting rapes. She was the one who would talk to the women and help them be able to accuse their rapist in a courtroom in front of at least a dozen other people.
As I’m sure you know, who those dozen people are mattered a great deal. Picking a jury is vitally important; when a crime comes down to he said-she said, as rapes very often do, the prosecutor wants to pick jurors who will most sympathize with the victims. Naively, I would have thought that would mean you’d pick jurors who were most like the victim–women. But she said that almost universally, women were the worst jurists in rape cases. They were least likely to believe the victims who testified, and most likely to think that she deserved or asked for the assault. The best jurists were usually men who had daughters or granddaughters about the victim’s age.
So what do you think about this? Do women act as our own worst enemies? And is the double standard in romance just more evidence of this fact?









August 5th, 2007 at 6:56 am
I’m not in a position to have done a lot of research on jurors, but I had heard it said that women make the worst jurists in rape cases because they don’t want to believe it could happen to them.
I should probably leave the comments on the double-standard in Romance novels to people who actually read ones that feature them.
August 5th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I’m with Estelle on this one. It has been a long, long time since I’ve gotten all the way through a novel like that. If a hero goes beyond a certain point of assholicity, there just aren’t enough pages in a 400-page single title romance to redeem him in my eyes. If, however, he starts out as an evil secondary character at the beginning of a series and evolves over the course of several books into a good guy…
But in answer to your question, yes, I think women are their own worst enemies. Women have been conditioned for millennia to act indirectly and even underhandedly or passive aggressively. This drives me nuts.
August 5th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Well, I’m exaggerating a little for effect. But certainly I’ve never read a historical that countenances a heroine who starts as bad as the worst of the men who run on the pages. I mean, look at “The Devil in Winter” or “Lady be Bad” or “Lady Beware.” The hero in Devil in Winter has abducted another woman and threatened to rape her; in Lady be Bad, he wagers he can seduce her; and in Lady Beware, he forces a courtship on the heroine as a means of getting revenge. All of these heroes are, I think, basically seen as delicious.
These men are almost NEVER trashed for their loose morals, but just read some of the reviews for, e.g., Bea in “A Wild Pursuit.” More than one reviewer claims that Bea is a tart–all because she wears make up and revealing clothes and has had more than one lover.
Compare those to reviews of “A Devil in Winter” on Amazon. Not one of the two or three star reviews says, “Dude, this guy was a jerk before he met Evie and couldn’t keep it in his pants. She was too good for him.” Not one. The people who complain about him say, “He wasn’t a big enough jerk in this novel, and I thought it would be more delicious than it was.”
There’s no question in my mind that men can be too much of an asshole for even a romance. But there are innumerable men out there who decide they’re going to seduce a woman just for the hell of it–a wager, her fortune, you name it–and add her as a notch on their bedpost. There are precious few women in romance novels who have bedposts with notches in them. You’d have to agree that the former outnumber the latter at least 10:1, if not greater. And that one will get much more of an outcry than the ten.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I certainly believe that women can be their own worst enemies, and I try to address this a bit in my manuscript. I don’t mean that they don’t support one another. I mean on a self level- not sure how to say that. So often, women are ready to shoulder the blame for anything that goes wrong. We are conditioned to take on responsibility. Which is both a good and a bad thing.
Double standards in romance novels make me BONKERS. Witness the meltdown I had over the comments for “The Reformed Rake”. A chapter I wrote on FanLit featuring a heroine who wanted to have an affair and a husband who had remained faithful.
One of the main reasons I haven’t written a Regency romance, is that I have a hard time embracing the standard Regency hero. I cringe at the thought of the “hero” sleeping with prostitutes and married women as a matter of routine. Yet this is what the genre calls for. Now some of you have made me fall for these heros anyway, by reforming them and by your brilliant prose. And then there’s Gareth. I heart Gareth!
August 5th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I didn’t know that about the jurors. And the rest… all I can say is I hope my heroine can find a home
August 5th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Hmm. I think these are two different issues.
My first reaction to the juror thing was what Estelle said. I think a woman listening to a rape victim is naturally going to think of all the “stupid” choices that woman made, the things she didn’t do to defend herself, all the ways that we would have behaved differently so that it wouldn’t have happened to us. It’s not that we can’t put ourselves in the victim’s shoes - it’s that it’s too easy to do so - and then we must make distinctions between ourselves and the victim to create a better imaginary outcome.
Now, with regards to the romance novels -
I’m not sure why it’s not okay for a woman to have had lovers, or to feel desire, or to want to attract men. But I do love an Alpha asshole from time to time - because the worse they start out, the more complete the reformation. The stronger the Alpha, the stronger the heroine must be to ‘tame’ him. It’s no great feat for a girl to coax promises and demand fidelity from the Regency equivalent of the 40-year-old virgin. (Although it still can make for a sweet, romantic, enjoyable story.) But if Lord Rake ‘em and Leave ‘em transforms into a doting husband - now that’s a triumph on the heroine’s part. It’s a fantasy, of course - but an enjoyable fantasy for a lot of women.
As for Regency guys and prostitutes - I don’t have a problem with the high-class courtesans. I don’t like guys who sleep around with married women - I made the choice that my hero in GOTH doesn’t. But then, there wasn’t divorce then for most people. I’ve lived in a culture where divorce is nearly impossible to obtain - and guess what? About fifty percent of marriages fail there, too. A lot of couples end up separating completely, sometimes seeking love or pleasure in a technically adulterous relationship, simply because they have no other option except a life of loneliness and celibacy. When those are the rules of society, married people sleeping around becomes - not exactly moral or great - but more understandable, IMO.
So, if you want your hero to have some sexual experience, and he’s a Lord - your choices are:
*Widows
*Married women
*Virginal debutantes
*High-class prostitutes (courtesans, actresses, etc.)
*Low-class prostitutes
*Women socially his inferior (domestic help, tenants)
Personally, I most dislike the bottom three - because the women in those situations have little choice. It makes the guy seem far more manipulative and immoral, to me, if he’s taking advantage of the chambermaid than if he’s having a consensual relationship with an unhappily married woman his social equal.
A habitual virgin-seducer isn’t especially attractive, either, because that means he’s ruining girls he has no intention of marrying.
I’ve already said I’m not too keen on writing the married woman scenario, although I don’t mind reading it once in a while.
That leaves widows and high-class prostitutes. And there are only so many widows. You can’t give your guy a widow fetish, LOL.
So that’s why my heroes shag prostitutes. Elite, clean, well-paid and pampered ones. Well, um, except Gray - who went through a period where he’d shag anything in a skirt. But I still love him. And when I’m through with that book, so will you! I promise!
My, that got to be a long post. What was the topic again? Sorry.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:21 am
This double-standard has always bothered me, too, and it’s why I generally write heroes who haven’t had a ton of sexual partners (or, if they have, have only done so because it’s been part of their job :>). And, though the heroine of my first book is relatively inexperienced, I deliberately made her less inexperienced than she’d originally been because it improved her internal conflict immensely to do so.
The heroine of Lady Libertine, though, is an unrepentant female rake. And that’s what I love about her. I wouldn’t change her “sluttiness” for any amount of money. And the good news is that she’s done well in the one contest I’ve entered that manuscript in (though I should know by the end of the week whether or not she’s done well in a second) and the feedback on her snarkiness and “rakeness” has been quite positive.
So I have hope that the market is changing on this score.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:08 am
In real life, it’s always bothered me. No doubt about it. In romance novel, not quite as much, but I definitely like to write my heroine’s first sexual experience a lot closer to the truth than fantasy.
When I read and write romances, I do have to suspend belief sometimes a little bit, sometimes a lot. Especially HISTORICALS. Though, unfortunately, that is exactly how women were treated.
August 8th, 2007 at 10:29 am
I wholeheartedly agree that women are much harder on other women.
August 9th, 2007 at 11:00 am
There is definitely a double standard, which irritates me endlessly. I am so tired of reading about virgins, and hate reading about 30 year old virgins in a contemporary.
August 9th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
My workplace for the last 15 years has been comprised of 95% women, and I’m with Ericka on this one; women are way harder on other women.
The double standard in historicals doesn’t phase me too much–I assume it’s just part of the mindset. But the jury assumption thing is depressing.