 |
| I've always said the human race is broadly divided into |
| angels & trolls. Believe me, the angels don't always get |
| the best of it; when beautiful people fall in love with |
| each other, they'd better be sure it's not because |
| they're beautiful people. When my wife and I |
| fell in love in 1953, we were both pretty ugly |
| customers. That's how we knew it was real. |
Over the years, I've had so many women say this to me about other women, I've had to conclude that it belongs in the category of single-envy.
That is, over time, I've realized that the women who voice this assumption (to me, a plain single woman) don't realize they are being insulting. Although the corollary is And obviously you are not married because you are plain, these critical women honestly aren't thinking that far ahead. It isn't that plain women can't get married--it is that pretty women should be married.
In other words, goes the thinking, in the world of competition over supposedly limited resources, a pretty woman has such an advantage, squandering that advantage is downright selfish and bizarre.
I understand that there are men who feel this way about pretty women, but I tend to avoid associating with those types of men--at least the ones who are vocal about the collective supposed failings of women. I don't see how the above assumption about women is any different than assuming that a man with a good job/money ought to be married. (Jane Austen's vocalizing of this assumption is purely ironic.) Frankly, people are more complicated than that.
Unfortunately, if I avoided the number of women who embrace the above assumption (and the accompanying assumption about men), I'd be avoiding too many women to be able to function in society. (I've never understood why some feminists think that a matriarchal culture wouldn't bring with it as many problems as a patriarchal one. People are people.)
And it makes me feel sorry for pretty women--honestly. And it brings to mind the awesome quote by the wonderful Trevor Peacock in Jonathan Creek (see above).
 |
| Clare London's books deliver |
| idiosyncratic heroes, often in |
| humorous situations. |
That is, M/M literature is full of references to different types of bodies and appearances. Some male protagonists are hot. Some are ordinary looking with good bodies. Some are ordinary as in ordinary. Some are nerdy. Some are "bears." Some are very masculine. Some are delicate beauties. Husky. Tall. Short. Beards. No-beards. Preference is a real and human thing.
In traditional romance (M/F), the issue of prettiness v. non-prettiness must be addressed, even when the writer disagrees with it. Story realism comes up against story idealism--one possible reason that F/F literature discusses this assumption as much, if not more, than M/F literature. Why isn't the pretty woman married!?
Some writers will make the Look, anyone can do whatever anyone wants as long as it is harmless and legal! argument, which is much appreciated. Unfortunately, some writers will resort to the Oh, it must be because she's soooo damaged argument, usually as fodder for plot points.
I much prefer to read novels where "damage" is not so tightly connected to appearance. (Actually, I prefer to read novels where the damage isn't so deep.) Because, in reality, there are many reasons for a person to be unhappy. And neither plainness nor prettiness is a guarantee of anything.
Things are never as simple as the assumption.
