Often, traditional romance seems based on the old trope of aggressive males pursuing passive females. However in many cases this indirectly romanticizes rape, since the women don’t actively express their own desires, or at least rarely act upon them. Rather it is up to the men to chase the women, follow them to their homes, and block them from leaving because he just can’t live without you! For example, in the first “Twilight” book the guy sneaks into the girls bedroom to watch her sleep. He is technically breaking and entering yet it is considered highly romantic.
There are also problems for men. If the guy if expected to constantly chase after the girl, that represents a huge investment of time, money, energy, and emotion. Meanwhile he may or may not really find that he likes the other person after a few dates. Also men tend to be rated on the quality of the dates they provide rather than their actual characteristics. Also, in some cases it can lead to true heartbreak. On the website girlsaskguys.com a women asked “Why don’t men chase women anymore?” In addition to the many answers citing changing cultural attitudes, one male answerer talked about girls who break up with their boyfriends when they don’t really want to. The original question asker countered that it could be romantic if the guy stopped her from leaving him. However it is still incredibly heart breaking for the guy, who effectively is having his emotions toyed with.
Often the two parties in a heteonormative relationship can have wildly different goals for their relationship. This is sometimes jokingly referred to as the “Battle of the Sexes”. Of course the stereotypes about what men and women want in a relationship are not necessarily true, but they do represent certain ideals that get pounded into people’s heads. Men want to be the guy with the hot girlfriend. Women want to be the girl with the great boyfriend. However these two are often mutually exclusive. Often relationships are ruined when men and women refuse to abandon their gender specific ideals
Personally I prefer a relationship based simply on a mutual appreciation of the other person and desire to be together. I.e. you like them as a person, so you want to be with them. Then romance is defined simply as anything that confirms and/or nurtures the love in that relationship. While I understand that feminists are typically critical of such traditional forms of romance, I doubt that they have anything against romance in of itself, despite the stereotype.
So then how does one get past these old romantic ideas?
How does one form a romantic relationship of equals?
What sort of feminist literature exists on the subject of love and romance? What does feminist romance look like?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Feminist Romance.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15544
My answer to your first two questions is that you talk. You talk with your partner, you lay out what you want and what they want, you negotiate boundaries. Part of the way the old romantic notions sustain themselves is by idealizing the unspoken as romantic.
I'd sort of agree with this. However, the concept of sitting down and hashing out boundaries and all that is neither simple nor always the right way to go. You do need to express what you want, but if things are moving along smoothly and you decide it's necessary to have this kind of talk, that itself could throw a wrench in things.
Sometimes the best way is waiting to speak up until friction occurs, and then being fully open about what you're thinking at that time. You really have to have your shit together and the ability to be honest and lucid on the spot, but being able to take problems as they come gives the relationship a much better flow. And it can still lead to a sit-down about what you both want and expect, but if it does, then you know it's necessary and unlikely to feel forced on one or the other.
"You do need to express what you want, but if things are moving along smoothly and you decide it's necessary to have this kind of talk, that itself could throw a wrench in things."
I'm going to respectfully disagree. People need to talk about their relationships even if things aren't going wrong. Why wait for it to go wrong? There is no reason why you can't say "Hey, things are going great. Can we figure out why so we can keep doing that?" There is no such thing as "too much communication" in a relationship.
Besides, let's say things are going great and you want to start a conversation about what's going on in your relationship, and then your partner balks... Wouldn't that tell you early on that something might be wrong? Any healthy, lasting relationship needs constant adjustment and conversations about what's happening. Why not get that started early on?
Yes, setting boundaries is hard, and you have to be completely honest and willing to bare your heart to someone. Of course that's hard. But that doesn't mean it's not worth doing early and often in a relationship.
I was surprised - or maybe just unlucky - but I have gone out on dates with several different women who were all upset when I suggested that we split the bill on the first date. As in, one way or the other, it came out that they wanted me to pay.
One of these women was a graduate student in communications who had a significant gender studies component in her work. She told me (after we saw each other a few times) that the way her old boyfriend showed her that he cared about her was to pay for stuff, so that is one of the things she expected from me. After I pointed out that this wasn't a good basis for a relationship, she said that to her, the inequalities in gender roles were what made things romantic for her, and that she separated this from the feminist studies she was pursuing.
Needless to say, these kinds of encounters significantly dampened my idealism about applying feminism to my personal life.
To be completely honest I think that women who date men cannot expect a totally equal relationship dynamic if they expect the man to pay, because the practice is inherently giving the control to men. To date as a feminist and using feminist principles, you have to rid yourself of gender-role asusmptions and that includes the man invariably paying. I feel for you, as it's rare to find a romantic partner who is truly committed to ignoring social gender expectations.
I hate it when the guy insists on paying. It makes me feel so awkward. I feel most comfortable with either splitting or paying every other time.
I've always thought that splitting the bill is a bit of a catch-22, damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation from the guy's perspective. On the one hand, when I've talked about it with some of my female friends, they say that while they're fine with paying and everything, they've noticed that guys who are too quick to go dutch end up being unwilling to exert effort in other aspects of the relationship, and that guys who reach for the bill make more effort and are more polite. While I don't totally buy this, we have to admit that guys with a traditional upbringing are taught that "polite guys pay," and even those if with feminist sensibilities might end up on a date with a guy who was raised with the chivalry philosophy.
I try to make this simple on the guy by insisting on paying on the first date, and not making too big a deal out of his initial reaction to it. If he insists on still paying on the first date, I assume he's being polite and usually let him. It's on subsequent dates, where he still won't let me pay, where I start to question the relationship, especially if he shows other "traditional" (re: chivalrous, controlling) dating behavior.
Oh, and I make it really clear from the get-go I'm a feminist and I hate Twilight. Just so he knows "Dominating boyfriends need not apply" right off the bat. I guess you can still get the guys who think "You're a challenge," but I've never had a persistent problem with those.
I suppose my comment is a bit confusing - I personally prefer to pay my own way, or at least have whomever did the asking-out do the paying. However, so many girls get the idea that not paying = not serious, so I can see why even feminist guys would feel obligated to pay. And likewise, feminist women will have to deal also with the expectations of guys raised in a more traditional household, who believe they're impolite if they let the women pick up the tab, even if she wants to.
Let's not forget that the whole idea of men = pursuer, women = pursued promotes the belief among many men that women never REALLY want to pay, and they're just being coy to test you.
Hence, why I think it's better to gauge this idea after a few dates rather than the first. I don't give a guy crap if he insists on picking up the tab on the first date, but by the third date he should have a good idea of my feminist sensibilities and if he still insists on paying, that he knows better than I do, that's not so good a sign.
I'd love to know too. My last girlfriend was a fan of "if I run off dramatically, you should chase me." I'm more along the lines of, "if you're upset to the point where you run off, perhaps one or both of us should cool down and we can talk about it when we're calm." Needless to say, this ended poorly. My attempts to bring feminism into the mix only made it worse. Oh well...
[New policy: Mention feminism on the first or second date, gauge reaction, act accordingly.]
Yea, I'm gonna have to start weeding people out by doing that right away. My ex always said he loved that I was a "strong, independent woman" until he decided that he didn't like some of the stuff I wanted to do as this type of woman - travel on my own, NOT fall into the traditional wife/mother role where I would be spending my time pleasing and taking care of others instead of myself (not that all wives/mothers do this, but this is the vibe I got about what the ex wanted in a partner in the end).
Absolutely. I did this with my current partner. Your pool of people feels like it dwindles but on the other hand the quality of the relationship, once you find someone, will be infinitely better--at least in my experience.
With my current partner, I was very upfront early on about a whole range of life values and practices. It helped that we sort of started out as 'friend with benefits' (totally not romantic, I know!) so neither of us felt like we were on probation, lol!
It also helps to have a like minded circle of friends with whom you can vent from time to time and who share your values and won't steer you astray--as in, "girl, he did what?---Uh uh, Oh no he didn't" type stuff about things that really don't matter ;)
"How does one form a romantic relationship of equals?"
Find an equal.
In no way am I saying it this way to make it sound easy. It's not. I know otherwise perfectly reasonable, intelligent women who are completely in the bag for being chased. The vast majority of open mutual attractions I've had with women have been with those that are already involved, simply because they're in a relationship and don't feel the need to hide a simple, sure-I-might-date-you-if-I-was-single interest. (It helps that they know I'm not someone who tries to mess with another person's relationship, but still.) When they're single... it might not be that hard to discern basic attraction, but when I try to show a level of interest, they often go into a shell. Sometimes it's because I read them wrong, but in other cases I've discovered in retrospect that I was right and they just wanted me to try harder.
Do I blame them? Not at all. Caution is a key factor for many. I can't even say that I wouldn't make use of the same tactics, were I in their position (I don't mean if I were female, either- just if I had the ability to hide what I felt because I could expect someone might try harder, it's possible I would find reason to do so in some cases).
But that brings me to the main point- in a general sense, you're not going to get past the old concepts of romance that include requiring a guy to act in ways many would now consider rude or even abusive to gain a woman's favor. People either hold these ideas or they don't. They may choose to change their minds over time, but it would be extremely difficult to actively convince them that you're right and they're not- these sorts of beliefs are usually chalked up to, "That's just what I like."
You can only work on finding this kind of relationship for yourself. If you (general) want that, you just have to find somebody who isn't into the nonsense; men need to find women who don't require a significant period of time spent by the guy just proving his interest is legit (I find relationships with women like this also lack many other "normal" problems), and women need to find men who act with sincerity and not the same old game- and be able to tell the difference (this is not always easy).
Basically, no one has to be perfect; we just have to be honest. Support honesty in the people around you and you'll do more to effect the specific changes you want here.
As for books with feminist romance, I recommend one of may favorites from childhood, the second in the Enchanted Forest Chronicles: Searching for Dragons. Yes, it is a kid's book. But it features an independent princess (who ran away from home to avoid a marriage and to become a dragon's princess and saved the day in the first book) who has to go on a quest with a king to save a friend. On the course of the quest, the king and the princess fall in love in a realistic manner- no love-at-first sight gimmicks. It is a great feminist series. They go on in the third and fourth book to have a egalitarian marriage and life full of adventure. It is a positive look at love and marriage.
Joan
I remember those books! They were so awesome. Makes me feel really nostalgic.
I also remember a novel called Spindle's End, which was about Sleeping Beauty, or rather a modern telling of it, in which its the princess who saves the day, don't wanna ruin it though but it also puts a bit of a spin on who she falls in love with.
I don't know any adult romance novels that would be considered feminist, I wish I did, I have to admit I do like reading smut every now and then, but the story lines in romance novels drive me insane.
If you want a FEMINIST, adult take on fairy tales, you absolutely have to read Angela Carter's The Bloody Chamber. It is absolutely incredible.
Oh thanks, someone recommended that to me before but I couldn't remember the name for the life of me XD I will check it out!
I don't know if you're interested in supernatural/romance novels. But if you are, one author I have found that writes strong women with a good amount of romance/smut/sex, is Kelley Armstrong. She writes the Women of the Otherworld series. She's a Canadian author, and she is fabulous. She has a large series, and quite a following. The first in the series is called Bitten. But hey in general, totally agree. I actually was tempted to write a really nasty letter to an author I read because one of her sex scenes was a glorified rape. It was awful. I think author's ideas of what romantic is, really need to be revamped.
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind! I've heard about her but wasn't sure whether to bother because I was afraid it was going to be sexist. You have me reassured ^_^
I think Garth Nix's Abhorsen books are that way, too...
"There are also problems for men. If the guy if expected to constantly chase after the girl, that represents a huge investment of time, money, energy, and emotion. Meanwhile he may or may not really find that he likes the other person after a few dates. Also men tend to be rated on the quality of the dates they provide rather than their actual characteristics."
You are right on the money about that, Quantum Inc - I couldn't have said it better myself!
I gave up on dating in large part because of all that sexist "guy chases woman" bullshit - and all of the emotional and financial costs of always having to be the pursuer! It's a whole hell of a lot easier being single than having to live up all of that!
I had a discussion on pursuer vs pursued with a couple of my friends, who were feeling the pressure of not knowing how to "pursue" a woman.
I think that the issue lies with the implication that being "pursued" is a passive role. It implies that women don't have to do anything to be sexually or romantically interesting, and men have to do a whole lot.
My advice to those men, and my advice to anyone else, is to be "the pursued", but redefine what it means. Act on being "the pursued". Subvert it. What it means is that you're going to be focussed on making yourself FEEL intellectually, physically, emotionally and "romantically" attractive, and you're going to do things that you find attractive in others to attract others. So talk about feminism, about politics, about religion, all the taboos, if you think it's something you'd like in a partner.
It worked for me - but I'm queer and my partner is the same gender as me, so we were brought up with the same expectations. Maybe sometimes looking at how feminist queer people behave could help some straight people to see how gender can be a non-factor?
This is actually how I first became interested in my husband. I've always been notoriously hard for guys to "pursue", as I was never attracted to men who appeared, to me, to be ceding me all the control and putting the ball in my court.
My husband, on the other hand, appeared to be interested in me as nothing more than a intellectual conversation partner. We would discuss social issues, politics, religion, and so forth, but I never got the impression that he was trying to woo me.
I doubt it was a calculated move on his part - he's confided that he didn't act interested in me because he thought I was "out of [his] league" - but it sure worked. It had the result of magnifying my attraction to him, and setting him up in my mind as a desirable equal (rather than, say, a faithful hound I had somehow acquired and couldn't quite shake).
Even within one society, there are still different strokes for different folks.
However in many cases this indirectly romanticizes rape, since the women don’t actively express their own desires, or at least rarely act upon them.
I disagree. The same old trope of man pursues, woman is pursued also includes representations of "man is rejected".
So, I don't really see a rape connection here.
If the guy if expected to constantly chase after the girl, that represents a huge investment of time, money, energy, and emotion. Meanwhile he may or may not really find that he likes the other person after a few dates. Also men tend to be rated on the quality of the dates they provide rather than their actual characteristics.
Thoroughly agreed. The waste of time, money, energy is one of the main reasons I don't waste any of those on "romance".
Often the two parties in a heteonormative relationship can have wildly different goals for their relationship.
Heterosexual, please. "Heteronormative" is offensive.
So then how does one get past these old romantic ideas?
How does one form a romantic relationship of equals?
What sort of feminist literature exists on the subject of love and romance? What does feminist romance look like?
Honestly, I don't think there's any such thing.
If one has a "feminist relationship", that means ones relationship is woman-centered, and woman-prioritized, which is therefore unequal.
Do you know what feminism means? It means equality. Therefore a feminist relationship would be an egalitarian relationship.
Do you know what feminism means? It means equality. Therefore a feminist relationship would be an egalitarian relationship.
Not as such. Fem, prefix, meaning "woman/female".
For something to be feminist, it is to be woman-centered and giving priority to women. Equality wouldn't be called something unequal.
A feminist relationship, by the standard meaning of the word, would mean a woman-centered one. Not an equal one. Not one I'd ever get into.
Oh dear lord. At least try to be original and intellectually honest. Argue against what's actually being said, not fake definitions you create in your mind.
If you think you're actually going to come across a feminist on this webpage who wants to elevate women on a pedestal, then you're simply obtuse, because you've spewed enough nonsense here to have been reading the site for some length of time.
Argue against what's actually being said, not fake definitions you create in your mind.
How is it a fake definition?
Is the "fem" not from Female/feminine/etc?
Has this site (and others) not often said that to be feminist is to put the interests of women first?
If you think you're actually going to come across a feminist on this webpage who wants to elevate women on a pedestal, then you're simply obtuse, because you've spewed enough nonsense here to have been reading the site for some length of time.
Watch your tongue. Your silencing tactics don't work. Sorry.
You're doing just what I said, right here. You're attempting to invalidate my words because they don't come from a woman.
I should add: If feminism meant simply "equality" like you want it to, and not woman-centered like it does in practice...
Men that try to improve and equalize conditions for men, would be lauded by your movement, instead of lambasted, insulted, degraded, dismissed and called "MRAz" and "teh menz".
Multipass has often tries to derail conversations by trying to rile up posters with inaccurate definitions of feminism, or inflammatory language. Move along, nothing to see here.
Oh, I "often" have "inaccurate" definitions of feminism, or "inflammatory" language?
I wasn't aware having my own opinion was "inflammatory".
You might want to turn the attempts at thought control down a little.
I'm sorry, I'm defining it based on exactly what I see people here showing it to be. If you don't like that, tell them, not me.
I'm not real certain what I do that's "inflammatory", though. I'm sure you'd rather I just fall in line, and dronishly agree with whatever you tell me to.
"I wasn't aware having my own opinion was "inflammatory"."
It isn't.
However, using your opinion to pick fights with people whom you disagree with is quite rude, and to some, inflammatory.
Nobody's contesting your right to your opinion, but the confrontational manner with which you tout it.
"I'm sure you'd rather I just fall in line, and dronishly agree with whatever you tell me to."
If by that, you mean we'd prefer you to shut the fuck up and leave everyone else to have a productive, troll-free discussion, then please do. And have a wonderful day. ^.^
It's not up to you to classify me as a "troll" simply because we do not agree.
It's also not up to you to tell me you don't like how I present my opinion.
Those are silencing tactics.
They are unacceptable.
Shorter Multipass: Stop being intolerant of my intolerance, it's not very tolerant of you!
Disagreement is not "intolerance".
Be careful how you use your language, lest it be used against you.
I could easily then say that YOUR disagreement with ME is YOU being intolerant.
My experiences, thoughts, and opinions are no less valid than yours.
Attempting to classify them as such is nothing more than a silencing tactic.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-feminism-and-not-just-humanism-or-equalism-isnt-saying-youre-a-feminist-exclusionary/
That backs my point up, by saying one can be feminist AND equalist.
It means "feminist" does not necessarily mean "equalist".
So, yeah.
fem·i·nism (f?m'?-n?z'?m)
n.
1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
2. The movement organized around this belief.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Pay no mind to that pesky dictionary definition. Feminism is only about raising up women. Totally not about equality between the sexes or anything.
It is more about how feminists actually define equality.
Like a feminist on this site said before:
-The word feminism could be seen as valuing women above men. In fact it is not. It is, however, valuing the improvement of women's position in society above improvement of men's positions. This is necessary because women are, at present, more lowly treated.
So if we look at what feminists are actually doing and if we look at what topics feminists do priorize, there is nothing equal about that. It is justified by the belief that "women are, at present, more lowly treated" [than men].
And this is where we disagree.
Great description of the MRA refusal to even try to understand feminism. They don't believe that women are oppressed.
Great showing us you have no reading apprehension skills.
I do believe both are oppressed in different kind of ways. And I certainly do not believe that women are treated worse than men.
Now tell me how you try to understand the MRA position.
Thanks for the pointless insult. No response to you!
It's really annoying that we have to do this, and feed the trolls (yes, Multipass, you are a troll - you are trying to center all the discussion around yourself).
I shouldn't have to "define" my oppression to someone who isn't oppressed.
Multipass-
Linguistically, you are correct. The "fem" in feminism comes from the Latin for woman or female. In that regard, this -ism, or philosophy, concerns women. You're right again.
But to make this semantic leap:
"For something to be feminist, it is to be woman-centered and giving priority to women. Equality wouldn't be called something unequal"
means that you're denying the inequality between the sexes. I would argue that it's not about giving priority to women but about erasing the inequality (financial, social,political, educational, ad infinitum) that currently exists between the sexes. The priority is erasing inequality. What's wrong with that?
As for the word feminism itself, I prefer "autonomy" for a working definition. In order for women to have autonomy, they have to be able to live their lives without any of the choice-limiting institutions from the above paragraph getting in their way.
Women still make 70-80 cents for every dollar that a man earns. So to say that prioritizing women(in this case closing the earning gap) means inequality is just plain ignoring the facts.
To read more about the pay gap:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2007-04-23-pay-gender_N.htm
To read more about the f-word:
http://greathistory.com/the-straight-talk-express-about-a-rather-taboo-subject.htm
What's wrong with giving women more choices about the way they wish to live their lives.
I disagree. The same old trope of man pursues, woman is pursued also includes representations of "man is rejected".
So, I don't really see a rape connection here.
After which the man pursues more. It's usually portrayed as a required series of rejections and continued pursuit until the woman finally realizes how great the guy is and accepts (in the happy story anyway). The first rejections are apparently not valid, so the man ignores them or uses them to fuel his continued passion. His desire for her overrules her rejection of him. That would be the rape connection.
Heterosexual, please. "Heteronormative" is offensive.
I believe the OP was referring to a heteronormative relationship - one where two opposite sexes conform to their socially ascribed gender roles in the relationship. So not all heterosexual relationships are necessarily heteronormative and substituting heterosexual wouldn't make any sense in the context.
For a literature recommendation, I would try "All About Love" by bell hooks. She speaks a lot about the traps people get themselves into when conforming to roles laid out by society. In some cases, it is more comfortable to play a role, and I wouldn't necessarily advocate against it if that's what makes you or your partner happy. But I think most folks today who espouse part or all of a feminist philosophy are trying to get away from traditional gender norms, as it seems you are, per your post. Best of luck...no relationship is easy, but I have found that my relationships have been much more satisfying for both me and my partners when respect and communication have been the key words.
Also, in response to earlier comments, I would disagree that feminism is 'woman-centered'. It is a fight for equality. Several years ago, I would have amended that to say it is a fight for equality "between the sexes". Now, I think that most third-wave feminists work to end oppression against all people, and it's a shame that the new definition of feminism is not more widespread.
Currently, women are denied more rights than men, and since they are the largest oppressed group in the world, the feminist focus still tends to be on them regarding legal and societal battles. That doesn't mean the philosophy itself is women-centered.
It sucks that semantics and years of the word "feminist" being associated with terrible stereotypes would make someone refuse to label an egalitarian relationship a feminist relationship, too. It's not a question of either/or, but rather both/and. A relationship is both feminist and egalitarian by default, since a feminist relationship is egalitarian. Since it's repetitive, it works to use one or the other. If you're more comfortable with the word, egalitarian, I say use it, but please don't confuse a feminist relationship with a relationship that centers on the woman. In its true form, a feminist relationship would focus on mutual respect, not more respect or focus on one partner or the other.
I think one of the best ways to try to construct a feminist romance is for both (or all) partners to make a concerted effort to avoid pushing one another into any gender roles - and also to not judge one another if they do. I think this goes for heterosexual relationships especially, because the roles we are expected to assume are more clearly defined and socially ingrained in such relationships.
In my current relationship, my boyfriend appreciates it if I decide I want to treat him to dinner and is fine with me taking the lead in most things, but doesn't blink an eyelid if I choose to wear makeup or act cutesy to get something I want. On my end, I never expect him to buy me flowers or take me out on a date, don't tease him about any of his stereotypically feminine characteristics, and also don't mind if he wants to play some stupid video game. I think this sort of environment lets us both feel more free to express our gender in all sorts of ways.
I also think it's important to talk about feminist issues with your partner(s), on both a broad level (political issues, that latest ad on the tv that made you so angry), and a personal level ('is x thing we've started doing problematic?' or, 'it was really disrespectful of you to do y...')
Of course, finding partners who agree with all this is always difficult, but in my mind, this sort of free exploration of gender expression coupled with dialogue about gender issues makes for my ideal feminist relationship.
Good question. Great question, actually.
I'm kind of a shy person, so I tend to prefer it if the other persosn is bolder, which is kind of stereotypical for a girl I guess.
But recently, a friend got drunk and told me he was in love with me (well, he said a lot of other stuff too, so it wasn't just your typical generic drunk blathering I thought).
Later I brought it up when we were sober, and he didn't deny he liked me. Then he said maybe he shouldn't have said anything. And I told him no, it was brave. Because I didn't think it was his job to do that as a guy. I thought it was brave, for anyone, and also because I know my friend is shy.
I think we get along well because most of our fundamental assumptions/life outlooks are pretty gender-equal, but we also don't actively try to rebel against or deny the way we were raised that sticks with us. We were both raised in somewhat conservative environments and we sort of understand that about each other. We're both very gender-bending as far as the general population goes, but he looked at porn as a teenager and likes beautiful women, I'm a bit shy and insecure and like to dress up. We're honest about each other to each other, basically. And we're also not afraid to call each other out or tease each other when we disagree about something.
I think judging and making conclusions about a concept based on its 1 word descriptive term is a little silly.
I.e. there's nothing friendly about "friendly fire"
My 2 cents on this interesting issue:
For me, getting past traditional romantic ideals starts at the beginning. Approach people in bars. Ask people out. Pay for dinner. Heck - propose, if that's what you want. I completely agree about dropping the word 'feminist' in conversation early on, but I think you can also easily show a man what sort of person you are by setting up and operating under a completely new set of rules. Any man who is scared off by these simple behaviors is obviously not comfortable with a relationship of equals. I've had success with this approach, at least, in creating a relationship that is true to my vision of myself and my role in the world and the home.
What sort of feminist literature exists on the subject of love and romance? What does feminist romance look like?
The Guide to Getting it On is pretty fem for a sex book-talking with your partner etc, etc, etc.
For Fiction, I'd say most things by Anne McCaffery, Mercedes Lackey, Urusula K. LeGuin (ish on the romance, but the relationship between Shevek and Takver in The Dispossessed got to me), and Tamora Pierce (for the younger set).
I've always been interested in a feminist dating guide, especially as a 19-year-old without a lot of dating experience who could use some advice on the matter, but is sick of being handed the same old sexist bullshit about being pursued, trying to be a polite little lady and not swearing so he knows you're a "good girl," no kissing on the first date, blah blah blah.
I mean, I know there are feminist sex books, and romance novels, and academic/philosophical discussions of love...but are there any just straightforward dating guides?
I feel like so many of the problems young women have with guys at first are because they're getting advice from all the wrong places. It would be nice if some of the "right places" started adding their voices to the mix when it comes to teenage dating. I really wish I had known about sites like this when I was sixteen.
"What does feminist romance look like?"
http://fr.tinypic.com/r/xyijk/3
:P