![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
modernwizardIn prep for my evisceration of Not Your Mother's Rules, I felt it essential to revisit the toilet paper classic, the original Rules, or The Rules: Time-tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right, a 1995 tree murderer publication by Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider. It is ostensibly a advice book for white, bourgeois, U.S., 1990s, het, cis, non-disabled, college-educated, professionally employed, [sub]urban, monogamous, single women who want to have lifelong, loving, satisfying marriages to white, bourgeois, U.S., 1990s, het, cis, non-disabled, college-educated, professionally employed, [sub]urban, monogamous, single men.
So apparently the target population is like 3 people.
Anyway, I will not be eviscerating The Rules in detail, merely making snide remarks on bits that catch my attention. My excerpts should easily give you an idea of the content and its retrograde ideological underpinnings.
Let's go!
Page 1: "No one seems to remember exactly how the Rules got started, but we think they began circa 1917 with Melanie's grandmother. ... Back then, they called it 'playing hard to get.'"
'Kay, I'm done. That's all I need to know. This book is going to tell its audience to sit on its collective asses and...wait for it...do nothing! [Why this requires a multi-book series, I'm not sure.]
The concept of courtship/dating/relationship formation with partners as that of a man aggressively chasing a desirable, passive woman goes much further back than 1917. The active man/passive woman binary appears nearly everywhere around the world as a standard feature of kyriarchy, but acknowledging that would require research and facts, two things that this book clearly can't be bothered with.
Page 2: "Deep inside, ... we really wanted to get married -- the romance, the gown, the flowers, the presents, the honeymoon -- the whole package."
Notice the complete absence of a marriage partner from this fantasy. Instead, the authors focus on the material trappings of the wedding industrial complex that they are culturally expected to want. I am not disparaging anyone's interest in these trappings. [I like presents!] I am merely pointing out that, already, this book is really, really, really hung up on achieving mainstream societal markers of successful femininity.
Wow, this is going to take forever. At this rate, I'll never get to Not Your Mother's Rules! :p
More later....
So apparently the target population is like 3 people.
Anyway, I will not be eviscerating The Rules in detail, merely making snide remarks on bits that catch my attention. My excerpts should easily give you an idea of the content and its retrograde ideological underpinnings.
Let's go!
Page 1: "No one seems to remember exactly how the Rules got started, but we think they began circa 1917 with Melanie's grandmother. ... Back then, they called it 'playing hard to get.'"
'Kay, I'm done. That's all I need to know. This book is going to tell its audience to sit on its collective asses and...wait for it...do nothing! [Why this requires a multi-book series, I'm not sure.]
The concept of courtship/dating/relationship formation with partners as that of a man aggressively chasing a desirable, passive woman goes much further back than 1917. The active man/passive woman binary appears nearly everywhere around the world as a standard feature of kyriarchy, but acknowledging that would require research and facts, two things that this book clearly can't be bothered with.
Page 2: "Deep inside, ... we really wanted to get married -- the romance, the gown, the flowers, the presents, the honeymoon -- the whole package."
Notice the complete absence of a marriage partner from this fantasy. Instead, the authors focus on the material trappings of the wedding industrial complex that they are culturally expected to want. I am not disparaging anyone's interest in these trappings. [I like presents!] I am merely pointing out that, already, this book is really, really, really hung up on achieving mainstream societal markers of successful femininity.
Wow, this is going to take forever. At this rate, I'll never get to Not Your Mother's Rules! :p
More later....
no subject
Date: Apr. 6th, 2013 04:26 pm (UTC)BAAAAHAHAHAHAHA yes!
Admittedly, I still have my own holdovers from these laughable ideas, in that I'd like to be courted/pursued a bit... partly a cultural thing, but mostly a personal Issues thing-- I had to have all the bravery in my previous relationships and be the one to point out that we obviously had something going on and were we gonna be grownups about it or what. And then of course I dated creepos who exacerbated my worth issues and made out like they were totally coolsville without me and everything was what would *I* do without *them* because they were so great and I stunk or whatever (then why are you dating me?).
But uh, being passive or hiding my feelings or playing stupid games about things is... middle school bullshit for immature babies. Basically, if/when dude is all "wanna get coffee?" I'm all "WHY YES I DO GOOD SIR" and then, if we wanna take it somewhere and get a little after-coffee glow going (heh), well guess what that is what we will do, AND SO THERE.
I am getting so much enjoyment from this series, you've no idea. XD
Then again, if The Rules wasn't such a persistent sort of thing and my mother didn't buy into that claptrap so much, I wonder if I would have ended up with dudes like that to begin with...