On the Inequality of Switching Gender Roles

Caveat: I'm not saying this is how EVERYONE thinks. There are wonderful, open-minded, and thoughtful writers and readers out there. These are simply my observations about the vast majority of many blogs and articles I've read.

You see a lot of applause given to female characters who defy the conventions of traditionally female roles. Example? Katniss Everdeen, the consummate hunter. The provider, breadwinner, protector. Practical. Aloof. A little emotionally constipated, which only seems to make her more endearing.

But why is it that, when a male character (particularly the main protagonist) falls too far from his traditional roles, it doesn't garner the same level of applause, if ANY? Make a male character sensitive and a bit clumsy and, suddenly, he's just not MANLY enough. Or *gasp* he's a WIMP. And he will only shed that stigma when he goes out and kills something with his hands! As if a man's character should be defined by his physical prowess and little else.

If the male character in question is a side character, then he's relegated to comic relief. B/c we all know male characters who exhibit traditionally female traits are SO FUN TO LAUGH AT, RIGHT? (note: sarcasm)

But what does this mean then? That traditionally female traits are undesirable in a protagonist? But that's both ridiculous and insulting. And not at all true considering the number of female protagonists who do not kick any butt at all. To stick with the Hunger Games characters, Prim was a stark contrast to Katniss in every way, but her strength, although quieter, was just as significant as her sister's.

Well then the next logical conclusion is that traditionally female traits are undesirable in a MALE protagonist. But... why? Why the double standard? Why are women applauded for not having perceived female traits, but men are considered emasculated for doing the same?

Is this a symptom of a larger issue? (Yes) Has the historical efforts of women to obtain equal rights with men given us the notion that only qualities found in men are what we should aspire to? INTELLECTUALLY, we know this isn't true. Then why is it socially acceptable for a girl to play with toy trucks, but so many parents throw a fit if their boy wants a doll?

(And by men having perceived female traits, I do NOT mean anything that women have been fighting for hundreds of years to overcome--the inequality, the diminished sense of being simply for having a different sex organ, the lack of civil rights, etc.)

I'd love to know what you guys think ♥

I say we just do away with the notion of gender roles :)

Have a great week, all!

On Subtlety and Romance

When it comes to romance, it's easy to get melodramatic. So what makes an effective romance without laying on the poetic monologues? For me, it's always been about subtlety.

No words necessary.

The characters don't need to exchange proclamations of love. It should be apparent by how they behave around each other. Simple things like his fingers at the small of her back. Her eyes following him across the room. Him noticing the way she rubs her knuckles when she's nervous. His smiles leaving her helplessly smiling in return.

Or, depending on the book, more dire things like her rushing into danger to save him, or him standing up to insurmountable odds to protect her. But these are things that should happen at the end, after the two have spent 300 pages or so getting to know each other.

There's more to character development than the progression of a romantic relationship.

One of the biggest mistakes I've seen writers make is introducing the love interest too early. For me at least, I have to care about the characters as individuals before I can care about them as a couple. If I'm introduced to character A, who then immediately decides s/he likes character B and sets out to make something of it, then I'm left wondering who these people are outside of their attraction to each other. When the romance is the only thing that defines the characters, then I find it very difficult to care or like either of them.

Now, of course, this isn't always the case. Love interests can sometimes be introduced in the first chapter and, in addition to being attracted to each other, they're still complete individuals with their own issues and character arcs.

Wait, what?!

And then there's the other side of the spectrum. The two are so subtle, barely ever thinking about each other outside of their own problems, that when the romance happens, the readers are left reeling and flipping back through the book to find some indication that they were meant to be attracted to each other.

(Not to be mistaken with the rivalship, in which the chemistry is still very much there, just on a competitive or unexpected level)
---
Some of my favorite YA romances:
• Anna and Étienne (Anna and the French Kiss)
• Kaye and Roiben (Tithe + Ironside)

♥ ♥

So what do you guys think? What makes an effective romance for you? What are some of your favorite romantic titles (YA or otherwise)?