Myths and discourses: talking about love in a feminist classroom, part one

In my women's studies class, we've been talking about myths and discourses.  Yesterday, working off of one of my favorite texts, Lynn Phillips' Flirting with Danger, we talked about the omnipresent tension between the "Love Hurts" and the "Love Conquers All" discourses.

According to Phillips, professor of psychology and gender studies at the New School, the "love hurts" discourse -- spread by popular culture, by parents, and by peers,

lets young women know that they should not expect too much from men in their relationships... By casting women's disappointment and mistreatment as inevitable in hetero-relations, this discourse simultaneously normalizes men's misbehaviors.  Inherent in this discourse is the expectation that women must compromise themselves and their needs in order to compensate for men's apathy, neediness, or misconduct.

The "love hurts" discourse remains omnipresent in our culture; it is a rare young woman who hasn't been warned of the pains and perils of love (and of male betrayal) by the time she enters adolescence.   The key thing about the discourse that I find so troubling is that it reinforces the "myth of male weakness" -- the notion that men will inevitably disappoint, betray, and hurt the women who love them because "all men are dogs" and can't help themselves.  The "love hurts" discourse reminds women, over and over again, that "after all, he's just a man", and the pain that  loving him causes is inevitable. 

My students typically respond to discussions of this discourse with a mix of recognition and cynicism.  Most admit that they were raised to believe that loving men would be painful and disappointing; most were told by older sisters or mothers about the perils and pitfalls of love and the inevitability of male betrayal. But so many of my students, perhaps particularly those from traditional backgrounds, don't see the discourse as a cultural construct -- they see it as an accurate description of hetero-relations.  They don't believe male weakness is a myth; in their guts and in their hearts, they do believe that men are weaker, less trustworthy, and almost inevitably certain to hurt the women in their lives.

Of course, the cynicism surrounding the "love hurts" discourse is opposed by the equally prevalent "love conquers all" discourse.    Love conquers all suggests that in the end, the greatest source of joy and fulfillment in a woman's life will come in relationship with a man:

Posing hetero-relationships (and ultimately marriage) as central to women's well-being, this discourse suggests that every woman needs a man in order to find true fulfillment.

Mothers and sisters, fashion magazines and pop songs all spread this second competing discourse.  Virtually all of my students were raised with this one.  Even if their parents urged them "to get a good education so you won't have to rely on a man", they received the constant message that it was in romantic relationship, rather than career or spiritual work, that one would find the secret to enduring happiness. 

While the "love hurts" discourse creates a fear of men and an expectation of hurt, the "love conquers all" discourse insists that regardless of the risks, young women must open themselves up to the chance for love and relationship if they are to have lasting joy.   The "love hurts" discourse reminds young women that "most men are dogs", but the "love conquers all" discourse calls upon young women to always hold out hope that they will meet the exception to the rule, however unlikely that may be.  The two discourses, taken together, aren't really so much contradictory as awkwardly complementary: the first is not so much a recommendation to avoid love altogether, just a reminder that it is a woman's lot to suffer in love.  The second promises that all of that suffering, all of that waiting, all of that disappointment, will someday be worth it.  "Someday, my prince will come..."

From a feminist standpoint, it's absolutely vital that we explore the deeply entrenched beliefs about love and relationships with which so many young women are raised.  Whether we like it or not, fantasizing about and worrying about relationships with boys and men absorbs an extraordinary amount of time in the lives of high school and college aged women.  We can issue standard bromides about "focusing on yourself" until we're blue in the face, but these will have little effect in the face of the overwhelming power of these discourses. If we are concerned about the well-being of young (and not so young women), we need to incorporate discussions of our cultural beliefs about love and romance, pain and male weakness, in to our broader feminist work.   

When we don't have these discussions, too many young aspiring feminists end up feeling bad about themselves because of the amount of time and energy thoughts of love and romance take up in their heads.  Too often, I hear from students: "I'm not a really good feminist because I worry too much about my relationship with my boyfriend."   When feminists urge young women to de-prioritize love and relationship (something we often urge for good reason), we frequently end up making the very young women we are trying to help feel guilty, inadequate, and weak!  Rather, we would do well to do as Lynn Phillips does -- and as I try and do in my classes -- and devote time and energy in a feminist space to exploring our powerful, persistent, and ultimately deeply damaging myths and discourses about love, sexuality, and relationships with men.

I'll have a further post on this topic up soon.

Comments

[Anna]

I am not sure if you are using "love hurts" and "love conquers all" as shorthands to refer to a set of messages that girls/women in specific are exposed to; or are you assuming that men are not told that love hurts?
We can accept the cliche that young women are more into love and young men are more into sex, but even so, the "love hurts" discourse is not exhausted by the "it hurts because men are pigs" spin. Love can hurt for so many reasons, even if all parties involved behave with decency and respect, and my impression is that men too give this message to men. Any number of popular love songs confirms this - "Love Hurts" by Nazareth is playing in my head right now...
And about the 'men are dogs' part - again, my impression was that men are also increasingly expecting women to be promiscuous, selfish and hurtful as well. Not that this is any great thing, and may stem in part from general expectations for 'emancipated' women to adopt what are considered traditionally masculine behaviour traits, also no great thing. Nevertheless, I think it would be going too far to say that women are therefore pressured into promiscuity - that smells too much of the covert sexism of the "women are pure creatures..." discourse.

Hope this was not too much beside the point!

[Hugo]

There's no question that young men grow up with their own aspect of the "love hurts" discourse -- but it is often rooted in a generic "love is painful" notion rather than a more specific "you can't trust men" message. While we raise both sexes to be mistrustful of the other, there seems little question that the culture is more suspicious of/cynical about men, their intentions, and their ability to honor their commitments.

[Emily H.]

Hm.

I have no idea whether it's a function of my upbringing or what, but my "love hurts" discourse is definitely a more generic "love is painful" thing, rather than anything specifically to do with men. Perhaps this is one of the ways in which feminism is good for men! I've heard enough "she done me wrong" stories from male friends; I've been witness to enough breakups where one can't place the blame on masculinity, but on individuals of both sexes who were troubled or weak or scared or just...incompatible. Ideally, feminism doesn't reinforce the war between the sexes--as you note, traditional cultures may reinforce it more--but, by allowing men and women to function within the same spheres, lets us see each other as human, and not especially good or bad by definition based on sex.

[Anthony]

Hugo, this is great stuff. I don't really remember what messages I got about "love hurts" and "love conquers all" as a teen, but I am aware that a lot of the message of "love hurts" aimed at teen girls *is* about boys behaving badly. Unfortunately, that's a reasonable expectation, because boys *are* generally immature, at least emotionally (as are girls), and likely to do stupidly hurtful things in relationships. Unfortunately, though most boys grow up into men who aren't so immature, the message persists, and so women continue to believe it, and boys have less incentive to actually grow up and become emotionally mature.

Reinforcing that is a trend among young men to value variety in partners for variety's sake, which is a biological urge which doesn't need social reinforcement. But the guy (under 25) who gets a new girlfriend every three or four months is "cooler" than the guy who's had the same girlfriend for four years, even though the latter guy is "visibly" getting more sex.

"Love conquers all" creates its own issues, as it creates a belief that if there are unconquered problems, then it's not really "true love", and thus it's better to bail out of a relationship which has difficulties rather than trying to fix those difficulties.

[Allison]

Woo-hoo, where to start?

(Well, besides realizing that I really *should* have gotten my undergrad in Sociology rather than the "useful" discipline--cough, hack--of marketing.)

I agree with Anthony that this is great stuff. So much of it rings true from my experience.

For frame of reference, I'll be 35 this summer, and I spent my high school years in Southeast Louisiana, followed by college and early career in Houston. While my parents are both college-educated, Dad held the "breadwinning" job of Engineer and Mom (who didn't work until I was 13) was a teacher.

It's only been in the past few years that I've found myself able to let go of the subconcious notion that someday "my prince would come." Even though I was a smart (valedictorian in HS, magna cum laude in college), I always just assumed that somwhere down the road, the right guy would take over...boy, that seems silly...and embarassing in retrospect.

Anthony wrote: "Love conquers all" creates its own issues, as it creates a belief that if there are unconquered problems, then it's not really "true love", and thus it's better to bail out of a relationship which has difficulties rather than trying to fix those difficulties.

Hey, I know that relationship! In my mid-twenties, I met a guy who just *had* to be "the one." For 2-1/2 months, we spoke daily, and saw each other every chance we could. One Sunday morning, we argued -- no, we didn't even argue...we just had different priorities for a Sunday morning. Two weeks later, after no contact, we touched base to break up. BOTH of us were caught in the "it has to be perfect" trap, and walked away rather than trying to fix something that wasn't perfect.

Now that I've made a conscious choice to not date, I'm more relaxed, but I wonder how much of that is really just avoiding disappointment?

[Stentor]

The perfectionism that Anthony and Allison describe is real, but "love conquers all" can cut the other way, too -- once you've decided your current partner is "the one," you go to huge lengths to excuse or ignore any problems, rather than seeing that it's a bad relationship and looking for something else. This is the tricky thing about discourses -- depending on how they're interpreted and used, they can have quite opposite effects.

[Allison]

Good point, Stentor. I've done that one too, and was the person who finally pushed the issue that "this just doesn't work." 4-1/2 years after I broke that engagement, I think he finally believes me -- we're still friends, but he's finally moving on instead of checking back to see if I've changed my mind.

Where, oh where, is the happy medium? Moderation is such a good thing.

[beth]

Interestingly, some of the best encouragement I've heard on this topic has been from really well-adjusted lesbians, who seem not to have the same assumptions about other women. I remember once in college when a straight friend was complaining that boys were pigs, and a lesbian friend said "no, no, they're wonderful. Big boys, with big penises, they're very wonderful." It was admittedly a little graphic, but it was such a wonderful affirmation to hear from a woman who didn't have the same investment in what men were like in love relationships.

[Dr E]

It sounds like from reading this Hugo that the assumption is that the default cause of breakups of young adolescents is male betrayal. That has certainly not been my experience. I have noticed that neither young men or young women have a corner on the market of relationship busting and seem to split the duties down the middle. The assumption that it is largely due to male betrayal seems overtly sexist to me.

This is just more of the same ol stuff of portraying women as victims of men and without responsibility for their predicaments.

[The Gonzman]

The - ah - so called "Myth of Male waekness" is hardly a handy excuse for men, Hugo; I've found it often is used to justify the stereotypical assumption of the worst in men by women. Same thing with the "love conquers all" thing - also used to justify the most aggravating of things, the "If you loved me you'd *know* without being told..."

Here's an aggravating one to address in your later post - "One of these days you'll find a good woman who will set your straight" which implies both that men are (a) broken without a woman, and (b) need a female keeper to civilize them.

[Vacula]

Wow, Gonz, I take it you're not a fan of Harvey Mansfield's Manliness? :-P

[Hugo]

Gonz, you and I are in complete agreement on the "men need women to civilize them" myth... a topic for another day.

[alexander]

most were told by older ...sisters or mothers about the perils and pitfalls of love and the inevitability of male betrayal.

But you wonder how much of this is self-fulfilling prophecy. You go into a relationship expecting to be hurt and, surprise, you are hurt!

I have seen too many women with unrealistic expectations. For example, when I have dated numerous women in their late 20s/early 30s, and the main topics of their conversation are:

1) I (the woman I was dating) was waiting for Mr Right.

2) Mr Right never showed up to sweep me away.

3) It's all men's fault!

But if a woman is going to have an idealized vision of what men are supposed to be, then she is going to be hurt by the less than ideal reality.

Perhaps men are more practical in this regards.

[Sara]

Around the time I got married, I got a similar version of the "love hurts" narrative you speak of Hugo, but it was more like "Men cheat and women are silly for thinking that a faithful marriage is possible." Maybe it's just the kind of liberal, cynical social circle I run in, but I got endless jokes from my friends about how I was just trapping my husband into marriage so I could make him have a baby with me and smother him just enough that he might not cheat on my rapidly less attractive self. It drove me insane. In a crowd that doesn't think of marriage as exactly necessary, people kept treating me like I was getting married because I'm a brainwashed woman wanting to manipulate someone else into my poor excuse for a fantasy world. Before the m-word came up, no one treated me this way. What is it about romance that makes people forget the normal rules of interpersonal interaction?

Forget sex objects, some guys who would give me roses and chocolates and treat me like "a lady" made me feel like a romance object.

[David Harmon]

Both patterns are archetypical, and as such they represent *parts* of the human experience. As given, you're holding up two absolute extremes of experience, it should not be surprising that neither is particularly realistic!

On the one hand: To love is to make yourself vulnerable. Given that none of us is perfect, every relationship will have some pain in it, and we need to be able to cope with that -- it's not even that *love* is painful, so much that life in general contains pain -- and love is one of the most intense parts of life.

On the other: Love represents a personal commitment. If two (or more) people are really *trying* to make things work, should be be amazed that they succeed? And too, problems often look bigger "up close" -- it's easy to feel overwhelmed by a problem that really can be overcome.

Neither represents the whole story, but each has some truth to it -- that's how archetypes work....

[David Harmon]

Oh yes, and I suspect your "myth of male weakness" may represent a partial view of another archetype, the view of love as an irresistible force that brings chaos into "ordered" society. (Think of Krishna and his flute, or just poke through a pile of romantic comedies, tragedies, and/or adventures. Then there's the medieval romances....)

[The Hermes Birkin]

He is a good friend that speaks well of us behind our backs.