Recently, I read yet another romance novel with a "strong" heroine who interjects herself into dangerous situations, in spite of her husband's explicit orders not to do so, because she decides he needs her help. Of course, he has to rescue her in the end, but only after she has solved the original problem for him. He ends up realizing her true worth and giving her his respect and admiration. Yeah, right. For most of the book, I kept thinking, "She needs a spanking. Stop with the empty threats to pack her off to the country. Man up and spank her already!"
For those who don't like the term "man up", how many times have you seen a spoiled brat of a woman who clearly could have done with a spanking and would have enjoyed being the one to give it to her? The story was set in the 19th century. The man would not have gone to jail for it. It was a failure on his part not to rein in his wife after her propensity for stupidity and putting herself in the middle of violent encounters became apparent. Telling him to man up would be appropriate here.
But then, the book was written by a woman who clearly has been influenced by feminist idiocy. There's no other way to explain why she thinks a woman can face a man twice her size in a fight with any hope of winning. Even she ought to be able to see though that a spanking or two would have improved both the book and the heroine.
It sounds like a feminist wrote the book to highlight that women and men have no differences. A few spanking would have been a good thing and would have most likely led to some fun under the sheets for both the man and the woman.
ReplyDeleteYeah, that seemed to have been the point of the book. Spankings would have shown at least one difference - the difference in physical strength between a man and woman.
ReplyDelete