****WARNING: Contains spoilers for Fringe.****
The
FOX TV show Fringe recently returned
from a month-long hiatus with the episode “A Short Story about Love”. Without
going into too much depth about the details of the story, suffice it to say
that the episode ends with a certain oft-troubled couple (she got kidnapped and
replaced with a doppelganger from another universe, he was erased from
existence, you know, the usual relationship issues) embracing in the middle of
the street, finally sharing a moment of unadulterated happiness, though how
long this will last is another question.
It was a moment that sent many fans,
including me, into a momentary state of heady euphoria. Yet, even as shippers
eagerly uploaded gifs and screenshots to Tumblr, this delight was quickly
offset by another equally vocal group of fans who bemoaned the development,
complaining that it reduces Olivia Dunham to a yet another weak, Bella
Swan-esque female character who is willing to throw her entire life away for
the sake of a man.
In addition to prompting a mental
rant about how ridiculous and wrong that comparison is, this got me thinking
about how people treat women when it comes to fictional romances and whether or
not choosing love over her career/family/whatever inherently undermines the
strength or feminist values of any female character put in that position.
But seriously? Just no.
I think it’s safe to say that, from
a feminist’s point of view, marriage – or even just total commitment to a
romantic relationship with a man – is often regarded as a weakness, a regression
toward old-fashioned values and a sign that a woman is willing to submit to the
Prince Charming fantasies cultivated by a paternalistic society. Strangely
enough, this attitude seems to be less prevalent when it comes to real life,
probably because it’s rarely an either/or situation nowadays, than it is for fictional
stories, particularly romantic comedies, which are frequently derided for
portraying women as either lovelorn weaklings or uptight shrews who only need a
man to come along and sweep them off their feet, thereby fixing all the
problems in their lives and giving them the happy ending they’ve wanted all
along. On the other hand, women who ultimately reject the advances of their
male suitors and choose instead to pursue their own goals, usually
career-related, are praised as progressive and strong (see: Broadcast News, for example).
Now, just to make things clear, I’m
all pro-feminism, and girl, you sure as hell shouldn’t need a guy and a ring on
your finger to feel good about yourself or your life. That’s the thing, though,
you shouldn’t need any of that, but
that doesn’t mean it’s necessarily wrong to want it either, or to embrace that
kind of love if it comes around. Certainly, a romantic relationship demands
some compromise and loss of independence, but so do all relationships and major
commitments, and it’s not like it’s any different for whoever the significant
other is. My point is that people shouldn’t treat love life as the be-all-and-end-all
gauge of a female character’s internal strength. Even in romantic comedies,
there are plenty of dynamic, nuanced and self-sufficient women who end up
proclaiming true love or tying the knot, like Meg Ryan’s Sally in When Harry Met Sally or Dorothy Parker
(Renee Zellweger) in Jerry Maguire.
Furthermore, this attitude that
women who self-sacrifice in the name of love are undermining their own strength
screams double-standard. If a guy decides to drop everything, run to the
airport (literally or figuratively speaking) and reveal his affections for the
girl of his dreams and how much he needs her, etcetera, it’s romantic. We
swoon, marveling at his dedication and soul-baring honesty.
Ryan Gosling loved Rachel McAdams so much he even
grew this goddamn beard.
Now, that’s sacrifice.
But when a girl gets all “I love you
and I need you in my life” or “I’m just a girl standing in front of a guy…”
(you know the rest), she’s a needy, superficial lovebird who spent too much
time growing up watching Disney movies. Apparently, she can complete him, but
not the other way around.
That doesn’t mean all the criticisms
about the way women are treated in romances and romantic comedies are
misguided, but the fault usually lies in the writing and the general
characterization of the heroine, not because of the inherent nature of the act
itself. Bella Swan is a weak character not because she falls in love, but she
is wholly defined by her romantic desperation and Stephanie Meyers never allows
her to develop any other personality traits. On the other hand, Olivia has long
since been established as an intelligent, independent woman who cares deeply
about other people but has no qualms about kicking ass when necessary. Her
decision to stick with Peter, even if it came at a significant personal cost,
was well-thought-out, and she was aware of the consequences. It was a conscious
choice, and I respect her for it.
Also, this says everything.
It was a moment of happiness
well-earned by both the characters and the writers and actors. I, for one, was
just glad to sit back and enjoy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment