Being as up-to-date with things as I am, I recently watched the final season of Downton Abbey (the last episode aired in December, but homegirl had homework to do and toast to eat ya feel). I spent the usual amount of time swooning over the clothes and the cinematography and dialogue and music because I'm only human and we can all agree that Downton Abbey is exceptionally well done.
And then I got annoyed.
In a small part, I was mad because I was watching the show in my bed, in sweats, while gazing on beautiful people who were snacking on scones and delivering ruthless one-liners.
BUT that's self-explanatory, and I can hardly write paragraphs about Scone Envy with my dignity intact.
Mostly, I was angry because of certain ways women were displayed in relationships, and the fact that the archetypes upheld a century ago haven't changed as much as they should.
[SPOILER ALERT? I don't know guys, I'm new to the world of fandom. Just keep the pitchforks away from my door, ok? That's all I ask.]
So here's what got my panties in a twist:
Near the end of the season, there's a Dreamboat™️ that's all about sweeping Mary off her feet, and everyone is just basically falling over themselves telling her what a dreamboat he is and that they'll have gorgeous dreamboat babies and ride off into the sunset together.
And Mary's response to all of this, in a nutshell:
Nope.
And this caused a lot of hullabaloo about how she was wrong and they were perfect together and the dreamboat basically professed that he would keep trying and make it very difficult for her to refuse.
They live happily ever after- that is, after she overcomes her female frigidity and accepts his proposal.
We're all supposed to swoon over this bullshit.
There are a lot of love stories that progress in precisely the same way: female rejection, male persistance, acceptance, happy ending. In movies, this is exemplified by "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days," "Breakfast at Tiffany's," "When Harry Met Sally," "The Notebook," "Pretty Woman," and countless others.
The problem with this is that female rejection is seen as a plateau to overcome—not a final answer. In contrast, male rejection is the final word.
Thus, women are put in an exceptionally odd place- we have to play hard to get to elude a presentation of desperation, which means that saying 'no' doesn't mean that much. This is perhaps best shown by examining the (mythical) phenomenon of the 'friend zone', which implicitly states that male attraction is more important than female attraction. Thus, if a man is rejected, he might still have a chance- thus, he believes he's delegated to an in-between space and holds the same romantic/sexual feelings towards the girl in question until his feelings are reciprocated.
In this light, a female "No" is often processed as 'Not now."
While women certainly experience the same emotions and experiences, the female 'friend zone' doesn't exist socially.
What does all of this say?
It implies that women define the sexual parameters of a relationship, while men define the emotional boundaries.
In addition, it implies that women cannot accurately gauge their own opinions and emotions, and that men, in all cases, know what they want.
As you can imagine, that leads to a lot of undesirable social traits- men persist long after what women are comfortable with (which is certainly the most dangerous), but they also do not feel as if they have the agency to pursue men the way most men feel the freedom to pursue women.
But yet these relationships are idealized—they're the way we're supposed to love- everyone wants a rom-com romance, right?
The truth is that these romances are idealized sexism that, if practiced, will only cement men and women in the roles they're 'predestined' to have. These roles must be fought against—they damage men, they damage women, and, perhaps most importantly, they leave no space for those who can't be defined by either category.
Give us a chance to know our minds. Give us a chance to reject you. I beg of you.
