Choose the "Bad" Guy: Feminist Analysis of Love Triangles in TV/Movies [Part I]

[Disclaimer: Howdy; it's come to my attention that I need to start this way to avoid people getting the wrong idea: I'm writing about LITERARY patterns, LITERARY characters, and the places where THEY live and act. Their worlds, their circumstances. This is not a direct "Hey, go out with your life and do x" post. Literary characters are not you, and you are not them. I'm writing about how agency is portrayed and how audience is "supposed" to feel in regards to female agency/freedom/expression. Enjoy the post!]

Ever since I was a young fry of a mermaid, a particular aspect of the typical love triangle has angered me to the tips of my fins. It’s a trope we see a lot in modern fiction, but also in older stories. It is this, in a love triangle containing one female and two males, one male will be a “Bad Guy”, and the other will be a “Nice Guy”, and, almost without exception, the “Girl” will choose the “nice” guy at the end, and this is shown as the only real logical choice for her to make.

For the purposes of today’s post, I’m going to focus on the following triangles.

• Phantom of the Opera: Christine/Phantom/Raoul (movie version!)
• Avatar the Last Airbender: Katara/Zuko/Aang
• The Vampire Diaries: Caroline/Klaus/Stefan  (and pre-Delena, Elena/Damon/Stefan)

[Other examples that I won’t talk specifically about but you can connect to if you’re familiar-- Scarlett O’Hara/Rhett/Ashley, Bella/Jacob/Edward, Sookie/Eric/Bill, Katniss/Gale/Peeta, Brienne/Jaime/No one, Sansa/Sandor/Knight-in-Shining-Armor, and doubtless many more]

Dealing with Misconceptions

So, if Nice Guy is the only “real” choice, of course we should ask: Why should Girl get with him?

When it comes to arguing for the Girl/Nice Guy pairing, the strongest/most common argument are something along the lines of:

Nice Guy is “Better” for Girl

• “well, Bad Guy doesn’t deserve her. Nice Guy is waaaay better; therefore, he should be the romantic interest.”
• Another angle on this same argument is, “Bad Guy should be punished; he shouldn’t be redeemed/rewarded with love.”

Nice Guy is “Safer” than Bad Guy

• “Bad Guy hurt/insulted/treated badly Girl, unlike Nice Guy!”.

Nice Guy “Cares” About Girl More

• “Nice Guy is more selfless; he obviously cares much more!”

Now, of course, there’s a lot of overlap with these arguments; I’ll try to break them into manageable chunks, but we’ll see!

Now for the Segment Explaining Why These Arguments are Bullshit

“Nice Guy Is Better for Girl!”

Okay, revisit those arguments for a moment. The most used ones…..who is the subject of the sentence? Well, the guys are typically the focus of the arguments. Nice Guy is Nice=Love! Bad Guy is bad=No Love! There’s little analysis on what each relationship actually means for the female in question. So that’s what we’re going to do.

Christine

Phantom--nurtures Christine’s singing and singing career. Is literally willing to kill to make sure she gets the limelight she deserves.

Raoul--.....???? Well, he wants to marry Christine. When it comes to her singing, Raoul is not particularly interested. He congratulates her, sure, but he’s also present in “Sing, Prima Donna, Once More”, supporting the career of Christine’s corrupt rival. [I made a mistake in my original posting, saying Raoul wanted to keep the relationship a secret. That was my bad, and I was corrected by a passionate POTO fan. So, to fix that, it's Christine who wants it to be a secret, and Raoul goes along with it.]

Katara

Zuko--Zuko wants Katara to get what she wants. He offers to help her get revenge on her mother’s killer but is totally fine with it when she decides not to go through with it. He encourages/appreciates her water-bending for her sake. He respects her emotions, and when they fight/argue, he meets her on a level playing field.

Aang--wants Katara to improve her water-bending in order to learn from her. Once he gets better, he rubs it in her face. When it comes to Katara making her own choices (like with her mother’s killer), Aang doesn’t support Katara; he wants her to follow his limited worldview and talks down to her when she disagrees.

Caroline

Klaus--wants to watch Caroline grow; says she should explore the world and see what’s out there, that she’ll love it. He says he intends to be her last love, but he doesn’t mind what she does until that point in the distant future.

Stefan--wants Caroline to stay the way she was. He’s uncomfortable with her vampire nature (even though she’s way better at it than him!) and tries to repress it. He wants to keep her in one place--doesn’t encourage her to expand her talents or interests.

Elena

Damon--wants to be a part of her life and be someone she cares about. He doesn’t mind when she changes and usually devotes himself to smoothing her way, whatever she chooses. When she’s human, he fights her enemies to keep her safe. When she’s a vampire, he teaches her all the tricks of the trade and how to safely enjoy herself.

Stefan--only wants Elena when she’s her human self. After she’s a vampire, he keeps pushing her to go back to her more human-ish ways. He can’t stand it when Elena makes calculated decisions as a result of her new reality, ie: “vampires exist”. They break up largely because Stefan can’t get behind Elena’s vampire self.

Now the question portion for ya:

• Which relationship offers the Girl the most agency/independence/freedom?
• Which relationship nurtures the Girl’s personality, letting her learn and grow?
• Which relationship offers to develop the Girl’s skills/knowledge/experience the most?
• Who actually encourages Girl to “better” herself?

Well, dear reader, for every relationship, the answer is, “The relationship with the Bad Guy.” Bad Guy tends to be interested in Girl for, well, herself.

Nice Guy, on the other hand, is usually interested in Girl for his own sake. Everything he wants for her reflects back on him.

“I need to redeem myself. I need my honor back.” (Emphasis mine)

Nice Guy is “Safer” than Bad Guy

This is a very common argument against Bad Guy getting with Girl. Normally, Bad Guy has a dark past, and he usually has hurt people or even killed them. This also comes from the oh-so common kidnapping trope. In these stories, Bad Guy always kidnaps Girl. Always. Sometimes more than once. When arguing for Nice Guy, the kidnapping is usually equated to/connected to sexual assault [‘Cause all bad guys are rapists, right?]. So, the idea is, if Girl chooses Bad Guy, he will...kidnap her more! Rape her! Kill or hurt her, like he’s killed and hurt people in the past!

Kidnapping and Boundaries

It’s just a fact; Bad Guy in a love triangle will kidnap/keep against her will Girl at one point or another…

You Could say It’s a Thing….

But, a very important distinction to make is this: Yes, Bad Guy usually kidnaps girl, but he doesn’t hurt/assault her during the kidnap. Scare? Yes, certainly. Threaten? Sometimes. But actually harm? No.

The reasons for the kidnapping are typically two-fold; there is something Girl has that Bad Guy needs for something else (information on an enemy, a skill he needs to solve a problem, etc), and the secondary, more secret, reason is to be in contact with Girl (he wants to talk to her, is interested in her, etc., but needs a way to make her hold still to do the talking). Despite being “bad”, Bad Guy has boundaries, and his goal is not to hurt Girl. In fact, after the kidnap, Bad Guy usually establishes rather clear boundaries for himself/Girl, often physically separating himself from her, especially at first.

Seduction vs. Assault

Now, the boundaries set is not to say Bad Guy doesn’t push Girl’s boundaries. He does. Always. Look at the kidnapping pictures; all of them involve physical intimacy--closeness, touching. Bad Guy makes his interest in Girl very clear, but then he backs off. Bad Guy does not rape girl; he does not grope girl. Though he touches her, it’s usually her face, arms, hands (sometimes waist if a dance/song is involved). It’s not assault; it’s an invitation. It’s an expression of interest. This is because Bad Guy respects Girl. He just isn’t socially calibrated about making his wants known in a non-scary way. When Girl says, “No”, Bad Guy usually listens/takes pains to help Girl feel less afraid. (This usually takes the form of a confession of some sort; Bad Guy reveals he is not-so-Bad™ after all. More on this later!)

“My own dad burnt my face. And you’re the only person I’ve ever (or will ever) let touch my scar”

....basically a quote

The Seduction and Role of Sexual Agency

Now, a point. The relationship between Girl and Bad Guy always has a sexual undertone. It’s in the body language--the intense eye-contact, the passionate reactions, the touching. It’s because Bad Guy’s whole goal is to get Girl to come to him. He wants her to choose him. This is sometimes played up to make Bad Guy seem more threatening; he’s a corrupting force! I used the pictures from Phantom of the Opera here because it’s really the focus of this story. Raoul and Christine share a cute, innocent love anchored in their childhood friendship. The Phantom and Christine share passion. This is portrayed as very negative, and the audience buys it. “The Point of No Return” (just go watch it. It’s awesome) is supposed to be Christine’s declaration of sexual agency and choice for the phantom--ignoring that Raoul forced her to be there to sing it in the first place, thereby negating the choice she was supposed to have…..But, what if she had the freedom to make the choice, and made it? This song is the definition of “yes means yes”. Christine’s lines leave nothing to the imagination; she wants it.

But, she doesn’t make that choice. She’s forced into it because of Raoul, and she eventually chooses Raoul. Raoul is the safe, sexless, romantic option. The same goes for most of the Nice Guy characters. They’re portrayed as less sexually present; if their attraction rates screentime, it’s in a hidden way. It’s sort of a, “he doesn’t want it, so he should be the one to get it, right?” idea, and then Girl just sort of “naturally” falls into it. Especially in modern stories, Nice Guy and Girl will have sex, but the point is not the passion, it’s the “supposed-to-be”.

…..Pardon me, ladies and germs, but this is bullshit. Why is the heroine “supposed” to choose the passionless option?? Why is this the “natural” choice for a woman to make? It all goes back to old-fashioned patriarchy and the idea that a woman’s sexuality is threatening. Women aren’t supposed to want things. They’re not supposed to burn, ache, or pine. If a male shows up offering to make her feel those things, it should be a No-thank-you-Mister from her. This is “right”. This is “natural”. Passion is dark and animalistic, and it’s only supposed to be the realm of guys, especially the Bad ones. She should receive the man’s sexuality, not instigate it. And Bad Guy is dangerous because that’s exactly what he wants her to do--instigate.

That’s why it’s incorrect to equate Bad Guy’s boundary pushing with sexual assault. His ultimate goal is for Girl to choose him, and if he forced it, that would negate the whole point. This is also why, when Girl chooses Nice Guy, it works; Bad Guy doesn’t fight it because he’s all about Girl’s decisions.

Okay, That’s Great, but What About the Safety of Nice Guy?

Okay, Nice Guys very seldom kidnap their love interest. This is a fact. However, Nice Guys do something worse, in my opinion. Nice Guys push and lie.

• When Christine has her first big night singing, Raoul shows up out of the blue, tells Christine she’s coming out with him, and when she says she has something important to do (singing with the Phantom), he ignores her and walks away.
• For the first couple seasons of Avatar, Aang has an unrequited crush on Katara. He forces kisses and attention on her that she doesn’t want and rebuffs, but then he guilts her for not liking him.
• Stefan hides his vampire nature and the fact he’s a damn serial killer from everyone for as long as he can, and when it’s discovered, he drama queens about it, then minimizes it while try to make other people look bad, “Yeah, I’ve killed hundreds of people via dismemberment, but he’s the murderer!”

Nice

Nice Guy uses false pretenses to get close to Girl; Bad Guy is very up-front about getting close.

So Who is “Safer”?

Well, when you look at the side effects of the actions of Bad Guy and Nice Guy, it’s the Nice Guy who typically puts Girl in more danger.

• Raoul doesn’t listen to Christine’s concerns about the Phantom until it’s too late, even though Raoul thinks the Phantom will hurt Christine.
• Aang is constantly wearing away at Katara, trying to force her to like him while simultaneously dismissing things she considers extremely important.
• Stefan hides the fact he’s a vampire from Elena even though he might, you know, eat her, and then, when she knows, he hides the fact that he’s a dangerous serial killer. He also minimizes this to Caroline who still doesn’t understand the depths of his violent past. He is a risky person to be around, and he has enemies, and he somehow thinks this is not important to tell the women in his life.

When Girl is with Bad Guy, it’s usually the safest she’ll be in the story. Bad Guy is not going to hurt her, and if anyone tries to hurt her on his watch, Bad Guy will kill them. Girl is scared, but she is also safe.

When Girl is with Nice Guy, she is not safe. She is in danger from Nice Guy himself, who may try to press his attentions on her. She is in danger of Nice Guy’s hidden agenda/self. She is in danger of Nice Guy’s enemies who he hasn’t deigned to tell her about. This dynamic is demonstrated most strongly when Bad Guy takes Girl from Nice Guy. It shows Nice Guy sucks as a protector, and that if Bad Guy was really bad, literally any and every terrible thing would happen to Girl as a direct result of Nice Guy’s suckage. Sometimes, Girl is kidnapped by an actual villain, rather than Bad Guy, and then, she usually does get hurt. Thanks, Nice Guy.

Nice Guy “Cares” About Girl More

One thing people usually assume about Nice Guy is that, as a “better” or “good” person, he automatically cares about Girl more. Let’s revisit the ground we’ve already covered on this:

• Despite being Nice™, Nice Guy is motivated by his own selfish desires and typically is actively against Girl getting any sort of agency in her life.
• Nice Guy, to preserve his image, is willing to let Girl be put into risky situations and left there until he’s forced to come clean.

How, exactly, is this “caring more” about Girl? Who benefits from the actions of Nice Guy? He does.

• Bad Guy is motivated by a desire to be close to Girl, but his actions empower Girl to do what she wants and to be able to do what she wants.
• Bad Guy tells Girl what’s up, even when her knowing the truth is detrimental to him.

Who benefits from Bad Guy’s actions? Not him. Her.

Conclusion

The typical arguments that support Girl and Nice Guy getting together don’t have much merit. When looking at the actual effect of Nice Guy’s choices, Girl is the one most negatively affected. Nice Guy is so concerned with “keeping Girl safe” that he A) completely ignores her wants/needs B) lies to her. A lot. C) fails to protect her. These all have their roots in Nice Guy not trusting Girl to be able to “handle it”, whatever “it” is. Bad Guy, on the other hand, positively affects Girl. With him, she becomes more skilled and more sure of herself. He doesn’t lie or hide things from her, allowing her to make informed choices and to be active in protecting herself. When focusing on Girl, it’s obvious which relationship offers her more and is healthier for her. See you in Part II with “Dealing Out Truths”! Thanks for reading! Like and share!

Sexism for Sale

[General disclaimer: this post will contain ideologically sensitive material and explicit language]

Will nobody think of the children?

This past week, I had the opportunity/luck/happy occurrence to be able to travel to Galveston, TX, for eight days on a work-related trip. I was travelling with one of my coworkers (a mentor and role model) and six lovely young ladies. On the agenda were many diverting activities, including beach days, visiting the Moody Gardens, and shopping/walking around in the Historic District. During our shopping, a particular (and unpleasant) thing stuck out to me.
     We were in one of the many tourist-trap shops along the Strand, the kind that sells flip flops, printed mugs, henna tattoos, and t-shirts (all for rather-inflated prices). I'd forgotten to bring my shopping money with me that day, so I was wandering around the shop, amusing myself by looking at the (many many many) t-shirts they had hanging on the walls. Now, if you've ever been to a shop like this, or a gun-show, or a concert, or a tourist-targeted shopping area in another country, (etc etc etc), I'm sure you won't be surprised by what I saw.

     Some were not so bad. I know the picture quality isn't the greatest, so I'll write what they say. Top pink shirt: "REAL WOMEN LOVE POLICE OFFICERS. The rest marry firefighters". Bottom pink shirt: "REAL WOMEN LOVE FIREFIGHTERS. The rest marry cops." While the blue shirt says, "REAL MEN FIGHT FIRES. The rest write parking tickets." Ooh, haha, I see! It's a joke, about the rivalry of police officers and firefighters. Well, the male ones, anyway. I guess having two X chromosomes means a person simply cannnot be a firefighter or a police officer; a person with two X chromosomes can only hope to marry such a hero.
     Pardon me while I spit. Both of my parents were volunteer firefighters, and I've known many women who were involved in firefighting in one capacity or another. Granted, women are a minority in both firefighting and law-enforcing, but it's stupid to imply they don't exist. I also just love the implication that a woman's "true" womanhood comes from marrying a certain type of man. "Hey, honey, I know you've always doubted your femininity, but this shirt says it's all okay because I'm a cop!"
     It got worse.

Class embodied.

     Pictured, Marilyn Monroe, wearing a Confederate battle-flag-emblazoned hat and a camo bikini, with a tattoo of a deer hoof on her right breast, a deer in the background, and the caption, "Nice Rack GALVESTON ISLAND, TX".............there are so many questions raised by this shirt. Is it meant to be worn by a woman or a man? What does Marilyn Monroe have to do with the Confederacy, or deer-hunting for that matter? What connection does Marilyn have with Galveston, TX? Are the deer in the background and the camouflage bikini meant to imply that Marilyn is deer-hunting? If so, who wears a bikini to hunt? Why does she have a deer-hoof tattoo on her boob? 

     The thing is, she has nothing to do with Texas, or Galveston, or hunting, or the Confederacy. And it doesn't matter that she doesn't because that's not the point. The point is, "Hey, let's put some boobs on a t-shirt." and we're supposed to let it slide. Well, more than that, we're supposed to spend $20 on the stupid thing.

     Then, it got even worse.

"IT AIN'T GONNA LICK ITSELF"

"NOT MR. RIGHT BUT I'LL FUCK YOU UNTIL HE COMES ALONG"

.....................................................

     We have a joke about forcing a person (ie: "woman") to perform oral sex on a man (this is also known as "rape", ladies and gents) and an offensive shirt about women's expectations vs. the "reality" of men's desires/actions. 

     I continued to see shirts like this all day.

     These shirts were for sale in a "family" store that also sold flip flops for toddlers and cups that said "Best Mom" on them. There were no warnings about the language on the shirts or the pictures displayed. I could have taken more pictures, "I got da' NUTS and I'm ALL IN" "Liquor up front Poker in the rear"(with a picture of a woman in a thong on it), but I really didn't want to. The point I'm making is this, the store was an "everyone" store. The shirts are "everyone" shirts. They were not considered too offensive to be displayed where a child might see them. They are "normal". It is considered normal to minimalize women, sexually harass them, and to proposition them with explicit language. It's considered normal for children to walk into a store and to see these messages. 

     Let's take a moment to talk about capitalism. It works through supply and demand. Where there is a demand, money can be made by supplying. If there is no demand, there is no profit, and the supply cuts off. A demand for these shirts exists; therefore, they are sold. 

     Why is it considered "okay" to sell these shirts? Why were there no shirts that said, "BIG COCKS ONLY" or "REAL MEN MARRY FIREFIGHTERS the rest marry cops" in the women's section? 

     And it's not just the blatantly nasty shirts that are the problem. It's the ones sold in JC Penny's to teenage boys that show a pixelated smiling bride and frowning groom with the caption "game over"; it's all the shirts that end in some variation of "make me a sandwich". It's the baby onesies that say "training to be superman" on the blue ones "training to be superman's wife" on the pink ones.

     For now, I suppose we can say, "Well, at least you know which people to avoid" in regards to the question, "Who buys these?", but that doesn't change the utter bullshit it is that we live in a society where people would buy them. The other lesson is this; capitalism responds to consumers, so if this sort of thing bugs you, don't shop where sexism is for sale.

Can Strong Women Love? The Saga of Olga of Kiev

Wondering why her strength intimidates men (source)

  As a romantic at heart, I get a little salty when I hear people say "true love doesn't exist". As a feminist, I get a tad grumpy when people say, "strong women can't love", or "a real relationship needs a woman to be feminine" (usually implying that for romance to be in effect, a woman's real place is 'in the kitchen'/subservient to the man/sewing by the fire or some such nonsense). Feminists are "known" for being 'man-hating', 'feminazi', or 'butch'. True to form, many feminists of the past were messes when it came to their romantic lives, and they are often cited to prove that "strong" women just hate men/want to be men/are completely incapable of love.
     True enough to those points, there are few examples recorded in history detailing the romantic love of strong women. "Strong" women in history are usually not known for their romantic relationships. If they achieved something, it's usually because they devoted their whole lives to it, leaving no time for love, or, they got their way through skanky means. It creates a tidy narrative; strong women are either prudes who hate men or seductresses who use them, probably because they hate them.

It's time to clutch the pearls! (source)

Prudes

1. Joan of Arc: a religious warrior who fought and led for France. Burnt at the stake by the English. As far as history knows, she was never in a romantic relationship.
2. Florence Nightingale: basically invented modern nursing, opened and ran a hospital from self-imposed bed-rest. She died single at the age of 90.
3. Mother Theresa: helped the ill and poor in India, awarded with a Nobel Peace Prize. As she was a nun, she died single and chaste.

"The only good man is a naked /rich one" (source)

Skanks

1. Elizabeth I of England: never married, never had kids, but history is pretty sure she slept around. She spent her time being the queen of England, improving the economy, killing Catholics, and fighting the Spanish. She gave England one of its most prosperous reigns, but her life contains no epic love story.
2. Cleopatra, queen of Egypt: Member of the Ptolemaic royalty of Egypt. She married her brother (who later died) and slept with both Mark Antony and Julius Caesar. She was brilliant (rather than beautiful), and she used her political schemes to keep Egypt in power. She killed herself when things started to go wrong. 
3. Ching Shih, also known as Madame Ching: one of the most powerful pirates in history, commanding a fleet of over 300 ships. She was a prostitute who married a pirate king. When he died, she took over and expanded the fleet, coming into conflict with the British, Portuguese, and Qing Empires. She eventually retired from piracy and used her money to open gambling houses.

Breaking the Stereotype

     When I was a young girl, my parents spoiled me with great books about great women. I started to notice there weren't many stories about romance. It actually took me until early adulthood to come across a story where a strong woman was motivated by romantic love (rather than a desire to seduce and manipulate). The first woman who fit those criteria was Boudica. She was the wife of a Celtic chieftain. After her husband died, the Romans stole Boudica's land, raped her daughters, and beat her in front of her people. Her resulting revenge set the country on fire; she led a force of 100,000 in an uprising against the Romans, ending in the deaths of 70,000-80,000 people. She died on the battlefield, possibly of suicide when she was defeated. She is described thusly, "In stature she was very tall, in appearance most terrifying, in the glance of her eye most fierce, and her voice was harsh; a great mass of the tawniest hair fell to her hips; around her neck was a large golden necklace; and she wore a tunic of divers colours over which a thick mantle was fastened with a brooch. This was her invariable attire."

Badass (source)

    Cool as her story is, Boudica is not who we're here to talk about today. Sure, she was married, and she fought the Romans after her husband's death, but there was a lot more to be revenged; the rape of her daughters, her own humiliation, and the theft of her lands. Nah, we have someone better today. Someone I didn't learn about until I was in my 20s.

Princess Olga of Kiev
     Once upon a time, around the year 890AD, a girl was born, and she was named Olga. Rather than the singing of birds, her birth was accompanied by the sound of an enormous thunderclap and a spontaneous wildfire [not-a-fact].She became a princess when she wed Igor, the leader of the Kievan Rus (a people in W. Russia descended from Vikings). She married Igor quite young, when she was 12 or 13. Later on, Igor and Olga had a son, Svyatoslav.
     When Svyatoslav was three years old, tragedy struck. Igor, Olga's husband, while collecting tribute, was murdered by the neighboring Drevlian Kingdom.The Drevlians then sent Olga an offer; she could marry their ruler, Mal, and consolidate the powers of the two kingdoms. This is where the story really takes off.
   Prince Mal had sent a coterie of 20 men to make his offer of marriage. Olga met the procession, "She told her noble suitors that her people would carry them in their boats to the castle, so they wouldn't have to walk. And they did. But when they got to the castle's courtyard, the carriers dumped the suitors, boat and all, into a giant trench. Olga, smiling, had them all buried alive" (source). Buried alive.

"Quit playing; marriage or no?" (Source)

     Olga sent word to Mal that she accepted his proposal, but she was worried; her people would not support her marriage to Mal unless it was shown he respected her. She requested he send the most distinguished men from his kingdom to travel with her to the wedding. Mal eagerly acquiesced. When they arrived at her home, Olga offered them refreshment and access to the bathhouse to clean up. While these high-class men were bathing, she locked them in the bathhouse and set it on fire.

(source)

    Surely, after taking out the Drevlian's diplomatic and ruling people, she was done, right? NOPE. Still pretending her marriage to Mal was going to happen, Olga invited the Drevlians to a funeral for her husband.They agreed. She met the Drevlians at her husband's grave, where a feast was held in remembrance. When the Drevlians were drunk, Olga's soldiers killed 5,000 of them. Olga returned to Kiev, not to rest or pat herself on the back for a job well done, but to continue plotting the demise of all Drevlians. 

     She assembled an army and advanced towards the Drevlian survivors. After a siege, the Drevlians begged for mercy, offering to pay Olga off with honey and furs. Not wanting to "burden the peasantry", Olga said she'd allow them to live in exchange for three pigeons and three sparrows from each household. The surviving Drevlians thought this more than reasonable and sent Olga her birds. Then, in her pièce de résistance:

     "Olga gave to each soldier in her army a pigeon or a sparrow, and ordered them to attach by thread to each pigeon and sparrow a piece of sulfur bound with small pieces of cloth. When night fell, Olga bade her soldiers release the pigeons and the sparrows. So the birds flew to their nests, the pigeons to the cotes, and the sparrows under the eaves. The dove-cotes, the coops, the porches, and the haymows were set on fire. There was not a house that was not consumed, and it was impossible to extinguish the flames, because all the houses caught on fire at once. The people fled from the city, and Olga ordered her soldiers to catch them. Thus she took the city and burned it, and captured the elders of the city. Some of the other captives she killed, while some she gave to others as slaves to her followers. The remnant she left to pay tribute." (source)

Pictured: Princess Olga, doing as one does (source)

     That's right. Olga wiped out an entire kingdom to avenge her husband's death. After this, she ruled the Kievan Rus until her son came of age, avoiding marriage proposals from other kingdoms. When her son grew up, she retired from her position of regent, but that was not the end for her. She converted to Christianity when she was 50-60ish years of age, and she was made a saint after her death. Though she was not the regent, she continued to be an important figure until her death. The year before she died at age 80, Olga led the city of Kiev through a Siege while her son was away. When the siege was broken, she sent Svyatoslav a scolding letter about duty, after which he returned home straight away. Rumor even has it she sassed the Emperor of Byzantium when he proposed to her. She told him they could not marry because she was a pagan, and requested he baptise her. After it was done and he continued to press his suit, she told him it was impossible for them to marry, as the baptism had made them family. In response, Emperor Constantine VII said she'd outwitted him and gave her presents (source).

#BattleAxeforLIFE (source)

Was She Strong?

     Undoubtedly. She was savvy, and she was strong. She didn't use her body or seductiveness to get her way, but her force of personality, savagery, and cunning. Even after her son took the throne, she spent much of her time ruling the city when he left on military campaigns, because he knew she was to be trusted. She never gave up or gave in. Unlike other female rulers in history (*cough* Cleopatra *cough*), she didn't take the easy path. She earned the respect of her people through her integrity and loyalty.

Was She in Love?

     This question is harder to prove. We don't have fragments of love letters shared between Igor and Olga, but I think her actions speak for themselves. Back in the day, it was not expected for women to take care of themselves. After the deaths of their husbands, they were basically the flag in "capture the flag". They were supposed to obey their late husband's advisors and marry for the sake of their kingdom. It was common for a woman to be passed around like a hacky sack if her husband/s died. Olga did not allow this to happen to her, and unlike Cleopatra and Elizabeth, who stayed single but used their wiles to keep themselves in power, there is not record of Olga having a lover or relations with any rivaling rulers. It seems there was only one man for Olga. It makes sense. She married when she was very young, and she and Igor were married for more than 40 years. Looking at that fact; they were married for forty years, but when Igor died, their only son was too young to take the throne. That means Igor and Olga were childless for nearly 35 years. In many such cases, (the most well-known probably being Henry VIII), this infertility was grounds for divorce. It was very important for kings to have heirs. But Igor did not divorce Olga. There is no mention of him even attempting it. Why? Perhaps he loved her, and she loved him.

     In any case, Olga's actions after Igor's death show a unique ferocity. It would be extremely unusual for the widow of a king to take control the way Olga did after Igor's death. Even if she were the regent, this was usually a title in name only. Male advisers would be the true rulers until the prince came of age. But Olga seized a reigns of her kingdom, a rare move. Her revenge against the Drevlians goes above and beyond just "keeping the kingdom safe". There is a touch of the personal about her commands. It doesn't make sense in the context of Olga being your typical arranged-marriage wife. But in the context of a loving wife of forty years who just lost her husband, the burying and burning alive makes perfect sense. She was furious because the Drevlians took her husband away from her and dared propose marriage afterward. She didn't just kill them; she made them suffer.

     I would argue Olga loved Igor, and her actions after his death were primarily to punish his murderers. She stayed single, even once her role of regent was done with, because she loved Igor and was devoted to protecting their kingdom and their child. 

Can she be cute AND slay your enemies? (source)

Can Strong Women Love?

     Heck yes they can! And in cases like Olga's I would say they love better than a 'weak' woman. A weak woman in Olga's shoes would have married Mal without a whimper to protect her kingdom and avoid trouble. Her son would perhaps have been murdered before he reached adulthood, and she would have dutifully popped out more kids for her new husband (this type of scenario is frighteningly common in the ruling classes of yesteryear). Olga was strong in her love and in her self. So ask yourself: what is better--a woman who "knows her place" and meekly does everything she is told, or a strong, capable woman who steps up when she's needed and fights for herself and her family? I know my answer.

Positive Fatherhood and Strong Daughters

When it comes to kids growing up, each parent has their own unique role to play. In the case of girls and fathers, the relationship can be complicated, messy, inspiring, helpful, or ultimately harmful. Never let it be said fathers are not necessary for the growth of strong daughters.
     There's an interesting trend--in children's (ie: Disney) movies especially--of daughters growing up with single fathers and dealing with the issues that arise.

Dealing with independence and power struggles (source)

Conflicting goals and miscommunication (source)

Going on adventures (source)

Sharing hobbies and interests (source)

     And so on, and so on. It's a trend with roots in the Victorian Era; the phenomenon is called the "absent mother" and is seen in most Victorian literature. Some people take issue with it, but I really don't mind it, especially in the modern day. Why? Because there's already so much the media does to divide the sexes; it's nice to have some positive reinforcement for strong father-daughter bonds.
     The next time you watch a commercial with both a man and a woman, see if the two fall into the following couple "archetypes":

• Smart, patient woman/stupid, bumbling man
• Clueless man/seductive woman
• Decorative sexy woman/cool guy
• Sexy "confident" woman/decorative sexy man

     Outside of commercials, movies are often advertised (and written) as a battle of the sexes. "Watch these two sexy super-spies go toe-to-toe!" "See if this smart, career-driven woman will give in to this adorable slacker!" "Will the creepy loner guy get the girl?!"

(source)

     Of course, it's found in real life, too. "Boys night" "girl's night" "man cave" "woman talk". The eternal question, "can a man and a woman be just friends?" This is all fine and good for creating artificial tension, but when it comes to being a parent, these rules can't fly. At what point does a man learn to brush and braid hair? When is it 'okay' to watch a "girl" movie? In short, how does a dad bond with his daughter?
     I've seen it in many ways. The most harmful, in my humble opinion, is when the dad tries to turn his daughter into a boy. She'll have a name like "Jesse" or "Jo" or "Alex", and she'll be really into sports. She'll have an older sister, maybe, but no brothers. She spends her life desperate for her dad's approval and dates neglectful and demanding guys to fill her need for male attention. Why? Because this type of father never met her on her level. He made her feel like she was never good enough, that if she really wanted to be the ideal child, she'd be a boy. You see similar behavior in girls whose fathers left the family.
 

(Source)

     On the other, more positive, hand, we're starting to see a swing the other way in media. Commercials showing men and women acting as a team, commercials about fathers and daughters forming strong bonds-- lessons about the important role and responsibility fathers have. The stereotypical things fathers teach sons include "how to throw a ball", "how to tie a tie", and "how to drive". What dads teach their daughters is more mental, and ultimately, more impactful. "Self respect" "how to handle herself" "what a good man is". These lessons aren't so clearly defined as "come on, let me teach you how to throw." These lessons come piece by piece over time. They're taught in the small, easily-looked-over moments. They can be taught in almost any setting.

     In terms of a father-daughter relationship, I am lucky in that my relationship with my dad is and has been strong. A large part of my identity springs from my father. I love my long hair mostly because, when I was small, my dad cut it. It wasn't any big deal; he was better at cutting hair straight than my mom. He would always mention how lovely my long hair was and compliment me when I kept it brushed. One of my earliest memories is of being about three years old and my dad asking me if I wanted to have bangs or not when he was giving me a trim. I have strong self respect because my dad taught me to stand up for myself, that I was someone worth respecting. By watching how he treated my mom, I learned what to expect out a romantic partner. He told us a story about work when he came home one day. His coworkers had been having their accustomed "complain about my wife" time when one of them had mentioned that my father never joined in. "Why would I? She's my wife," he replied. Dad takes great pride in my mom's skills. "Your mom is so intelligent", "Your mom is hardworking", "Your mom is the best shot I know", "Your mom cooks the best food I've eaten." Dad is unrelenting when it comes to our success. When I was in high school, there were constant reinforcements and suggestions. "It's time to make your resumé. You'll need it when you're older." "You can earn an A in welding. Go talk to your teacher about practicing after school." I joined Cross Country partially because Dad had a rule; we had to be in at least one sport each year, "To show you're more than just a good student", and partially because I looked up to my dad, long-distance runner extraordinaire. Marathon-runner, 50-mile completer, two-time 100-mile contestant. When I was younger, he'd run 30 miles every Saturday morning. He'd be back in time for lunch, sweaty and happy. He still speaks fondly (and a tad ruefully) of the time he was using me to learn a martial arts technique. I wasn't hitting hard enough, so he said "really hit me". I got him in the spleen, causing a little damage and more than a year of twinges. Rather than angry, he was proud at how well the technique worked. In my family, my dad and I share our rounded heads, our left-handedness, our introversion, and our sternness in the face of chaos and noise. We are all a product of our upbringing, and mine was grand.

(Source)

Conclusion
Fathers are important in their daughter's lives. There are some lessons best taught by fathers, and some lessons require both a mother and a father to be complete. Some are active; some are passive. Father-daughter relationships are not just important to the daughter; they are one of the only male-female relationships a man can have that is not sexualized. It's a chance for a man to get to know a female, be a support system, encourage, teach, and enjoy the automatic love that accompanies family. In a world of rape, crimes against women, and rampant objectification of the female anatomy, it is a chance for a girl to be loved and supported unconditionally, just for being who she is. For women; if you have a good dad, take a moment to appreciate him. When you have kids, try to find a man who will be a good father--not just to your sons, but to your daughters. For men, as I'm sure fathers know, there is a lot of duty resting on your shoulders, but know that if you do it right, it will pay off.

"It's Disgusting": Rape or Armpit Hair?

This post comes about from a coalescing of two things I've seen in the last week. The first was a picture; the second was a video.

This picture (source)

This video

     Granted, the problem highlighted above probably has more to do with the "younger" generations. The boys, who in high school or middle school, squeal, "Groooooss" when anything to do with menstruation comes up. The same reaction is seen when female armpit hair is the subject of conversation.
     "I don't live in France, why would I have armpit hair?"
     "That's nasty."
     "Eeuw!"
     "I would never date a girl who didn't shave her armpits."
     "Women are supposed to be smooth."
     It's not a polarizing topic. Pretty much everyone agrees, "that's disgusting". People shout this opinion freely. It's a cultural opinion: "American women shave their armpits." Men and women, boys and girls, are pretty much united over this opinion: (Female) armpit hair is gross. They feel comfortable telling women to continue using a razor to scrape the hair off of their armpits, because that's how it's "supposed" to be.

Y'know. "Natural". (Source)

     Let's talk about similar conversations about rape. When rape is brought up, do people yell, "That's disgusting!" "That's just wrong!" "People aren't supposed to be rapists!"? ......No. No they don't. There's normally an uncomfortable silence, and then people start talking in polite language. "Well, in my opinion....", "I know some people might....", "It seems to me....", and those sorts of platitudes. Why? Because it's not a cultural norm for people to speak out against rape. It's not part of our cultural identity to hate rape and rapists and to think they are disgusting. It's accepted, but not really expected.
     We feel comfortable telling women they can't grow the hair their body naturally grows, but we don't feel comfortable saying rapists shouldn't exist. A 14 year old boy can tell a grown woman she shouldn't grow armpit hair, but we don't see the same freedom of expression when it comes to condemning rapists.

(Source)

     In a time when 15% of women in America have been raped, when 7% of 5th-8th grade girls and 12% of 9th-12th grade girls have been sexually assaulted (source), we feel more comfortable condemning armpit hair than rape and sexual violence. Fifteen percent of women. That's not including harassment and assault other than rape. That's just rape. In a 1986 study, thirty Goddamn percent of men in the study said they would commit rape if they knew there was no chance of being caught. When the phrase "rape" was swapped for "force a woman to have sex", more than 50% said they would (source).
     Now, that was 30 years ago. Times were different. I wasn't even alive. But my parents were, and yours probably were, too. Just thirty years ago, 50% of men said they would rape a woman if they could get away with it. The numbers today are not much better, with 1/3 of men still saying they would force a woman to have sex if they would get away with it (source). We don't have a cultural trait of hating rape. How could we? One sixth of us would commit rape, given the chance.
     We live in a country and a time where it's definitively not okay for a woman to not shave, but it's considered within the range of "normal" for people to hurt, abuse, and assault each other. We're supposed to speak out against female body hair, but it's not expected to speak out against rape.

(Source)     

"Imagine a world where people were more disgusted with rape than they are with female body hair."

What a beautiful world it would be.

Don't Call Me "Babe"

     America, it's time we sat down and had a little chat. Y'see, there's a problem in our culture. It's pervasive. It's insidious. It's gross.
     It's time we talked about "babe". Ever since I was a young Fem-Mermaid, I've had a problem with the use of "babe" (and "baby", for that matter) as a term of endearment. Why, you ask? Well.....

This. This is why. (Source)

Let's look at other (less icky, more mature) terms of endearment.

• Boo (from the more archaic "Beau")
• Cutey
• Dear
• Dearie
• Darling
• Honey
• Hon
• Honey-Bunch
• Love
• Lover
• Precious
• Sexy
• Sweetie
• Sweetie-Pie
• Sweetheart
• Sugar
• (And many, many more, including more personalized names)

     Notice what that list of names has in common. For one, there's a comparison to sweet foods or flavors. Love is sweet. Or, as the Bard ironically wrote, "Sweets to the sweet". Some terms show the level of attraction in the relationship "He's so sexy, I just call him Sexy!". Some are terms that define the relationship--"dear" can be a nickname, or it can describe how important something is. "That is dear to me." Either way, the above nicknames tell the nature of the relationship. Calling your significant other "Sweetheart" implies they have a sweet/kind heart. Awwww. Doesn't that just make you melt a bit?
     So, back to "babe" and "baby". What do those terms imply? .......that your loved one is....like....an.....infant. Let that sink in. If you are a "babe"-user, you might be tempted to argue, "What! No! "Babe" means a hot person! As in, "what a babe!"" This could be, but why in the realm of almighty God does "babe" mean a HOT person???? What is hot about babies??? (Hopefully you're thinking, "eeew. Nothing!" Good. You're not a pedophile.)

Hey, uh...baby. (Source)

     Answer: Nothing is hot about babies. Nothing is attractive about babies. Sure, they're cute. But not cute in the way adults are cute. They're chubby, helpless, and sleep and cry a lot. They also can't clean up after themselves or hold a conversation. If "babe" is used to imply level of caring, well, that's more than a little patronizing, isn't it? Not sexy. Not hot. [Though it's not nearly so common, "sexy girl" or "sexy boy" has the same squickyness to it. Boys and girls are not sexy. They're seven.]
     Throughout history, it's been popular to infantalize the opposite sex to make them "more" attractive. The remnants remaining today are things like using baby talk during times of intimacy and calling your partner "mommy" or, more commonly, "daddy". Sugar-daddies are a great example of this.

Lovely. (Source)

     The term Sugar-daddy plays on the creepy incestuous vibe such relationships give out. The age difference is such that he could be his lover's father. He tends to provide for the woman, much the way a father would provide for his child. The woman is completely powerless in the relationship except for the manipulation of her sex appeal. What a healthy relationship! (cough cough patriarchy cough) 

     Using the "babe" or "baby" implies a similar relationship. Where is the respect of "babe"? There's isn't any. People don't respect babies. They care for them. They tolerate their tantrums and under-developed communication skills. You wouldn't call your baby "Lover", so why would you call your lover "Baby"?

Have a relationship like this. (Source)

     Don't worry, if you are trapped in a Baby relationship, there is hope! If you are the Baby-caller, try the following--consider your loved one's appeal to you. Do you love them because they are sweet? Sassy? Sexy? Do they remind you of an animal you like? Create a tailor-made name for them to show you really care! Why use the generic, boring, and creepy "baby" when you can use "Sassy-Pants" or "Love-Panda"? Terms of endearment are allowed to be silly (just think, you've been comparing your loved one to an infant all this time), so feel free to go wild! Have some respect for your partner, their personality, and their accomplishments; They deserve better than "baby". 

Not this. (Source)

    If, on the other hand, you are the one assaulted with the term "baby" in your relationship, it's probably time to stand up for yourself. Why settle for "Baby"? Tell your partner to stop patronizing you and to try harder (After all, open and clear communication is very important in healthy relationships). "I'm not a baby" would be a fabulous starting line.

Why Women Go to the Bathroom Together

Hello all!

    In honor of this post of the Feminist Mermaid, I hope to explain an eternally confuddling question. "Why do women always go to the bathroom together?" It's joked about in movies, TV shows, and in real life by men and women alike. Common answers are "to gossip", "just because", "to check makeup", and so on. But here at the Feminist Mermaid, we don't believe in easy answers! 

(Source)

     Now, I'm not one of "those" women who always asks a female to accompany me to the bathroom. I'm quite happy to go by myself. However, I have been involved in many a group-potty trip in my day. It all started when I was a kid. I'm the second of three children; I have an older brother and a younger sister. As is usual with young children, when my brother and I were small (and before my sister existed), we would go to the bathroom with our mom when in public spaces. Once my brother was old enough to go the bathroom alone (ie: not pee on himself, get lost, or forget to wipe), he did. This was when he was about five or six years old, I think. My sister and I, however, were never really "allowed" to go the bathroom by ourselves. Even when my sister reached the age of competence in the bathroom, we were always told to go with each other. it didn't matter where we were--The mall, a restaurant, a barbecue of a family friend. Our parents probably stopped asking us to go with each other when I was 16ish, but by that time, it was ingrained. "Do not go the bathroom alone".

Like this. Only, ya' know, with a bathroom (Source)

     So, what's all that about? Is this a common experience for sisters? Bet you can't guess the answer. It's "rape culture". Hear me out. The reason my parents always told us to go together was to avoid us being kidnapped. As I was the older sister, I was always told, "Keep an eye out" and to make sure nothing happened to my sister. I was told this as an eight year old. As a nine year old. As a ten year old. It was a rather common-sense thing my parents did. They were teaching us a useful skill--to watch out for each other, always. 

    Now how is this indicative of rape culture? I bet none of you blinked when I revealed my parents made my sister and I walk to the bathroom together. I also bet none of you found it strange my brother didn't merit a body guard. Yes, he was the only boy, but if one of we sisters was unavailable, our mom would usually go with the bathroom-seeker. It was okay for my brother to go to the bathroom alone, but not for us. Because someone might mess with us. Someone might try to lure us away with candy. Because bad things can happen in bathroom stalls. And, indeed, once upon a bathroom trip, when I was maybe 11, a strange man did indeed try to lure us outside. He promised puppies to sell. Since my parents had prepared me, I knew the deal. I gave him a dirty look, held a strong grasp on my seven-year-old sister's hand and tugged us into the safety of the women's room. 

It's a real thing. (Source)

    On another occasion, I was 16, in the library with my sister. This was when the message was already ingrained; "don't leave each other". A man in a yellow rain slicker began following us around the shelves, trying to pretend he wasn't. Whenever we moved to a new section, he followed. When we headed towards the exit, he sped up, to not lose us. We went back into the main area of the library and waited for a woman to walk out. As we shadowed her, our "shadow" fell back. Once in the parking lot, we sprinted to our mom's car. This anecdote doesn't involve a bathroom, true, but the skills we learned in our early lives from the bathroom trips strongly applied.

    I was hanging out with my sister, and in a longer story about a friend of hers, she told me about a strange encounter she had at a party. She's at college, and she was having a party at her apartment. There was a girl she didn't know there who came up to her and said, "please, go to the bathroom with me." My sister escorted her to a bathroom where this girl revealed her "date" was actually a man bent on harassing her. She couldn't get him to leave her alone, and she didn't know anyone to ask for help. My sister left the bathroom and arranged a distraction for the "date" and then got the girl on her way home. The "date" never expected a thing, because girls always go to the bathroom together, right? Chick stuff, man. So obtuse.

So crazy (Source)

    Yes, women do gossip in the bathroom. We do touch up our hair and make up. We check our clothes in the mirror. But, I submit that's not what the whole thing is about. Women go the bathroom together, because when we are small, we are taught to be careful when we go the bathroom. "Safety in numbers". Because going to the bathroom isn't safe. Not even for little girls. 

    Take a moment: How messed up is that?  

    It can be a fun place to chat with friends, or it can be a refuge. It can be a place to plot an escape. If you've ever wondered, "why do we need feminism?" This is one of the answers. Because it's normal for us to teach our daughters to not go the bathroom alone. Because it's practical. Necessary, even. That's rape culture. As an eight year old, I was living life in a way to avoid getting kidnapped and assaulted. Because that's actually something that can happen in our country, and it's commonplace enough that we teach our daughters to live around it.

[Fun anecdote: today, I was leading a workshop to create a series of skits for the local elementary school about "stranger danger" in an informative, interesting, and non-threatening way, when one of the workshop-ees came to this same bathroom conclusion. We were talking about the do's of avoiding strangers, "Do always walk with a friend", and one of the young men yelled out, "Oh! That's why girls always go to the bathroom together!", while the others attendees confirmed, "especially in college." Can't make this stuff up.]