Mette Ivie Harrison's Blog, page 92
April 25, 2011
Invisible mothers
This must be in the air. Either that or it has always been there and I just didn't notice it.
It came up at church this week. In fact, it was the whole lesson at church this week. One thread of that discussion seemed to be: the work of motherhood is invisible, and that is just fine. God sees this invisible work, like he saw the work of the great cathedrals of Europe. Women can be content in their invisibility.
What I think: there is work that is done in society that is invisible. It is not always women who do this work, but women do a lot of invisible work. I am reminded strongly of BARRYAR which ends with Cordelia taking charge of the education of young Gregor and saying--I thought I wasn't supposed to have any power? But of course, she ends up influencing Gregor immensely in the male dominated society of Barrayar. Invisible work? Maybe. It's hard to imagine Cordelia being invisible even if she tried. Maybe she did try.
I remember when my children were really small, I was invited to dinner at a neighbor's house. Her husband was a professor at the local university. Her youngest was going to soon be school age and she had nine or ten children. Her identity was of a wife and a mother. But her husband was convinced that women needed to have another identity. He felt that at some point, the children grew up and a woman needed to have a job to fall back on. His wife was really upset about this. It seemed like another way to make her feel inadequate about her position in the world. She was content with the choices she had made and the woman she had become.
Over the last couple of years, I've had friends who stayed home with children who have:
1. Gone back to work when their husband became unemployed.
2. Gone back to school to train for a job.
3. Turned down a full-time dream job because of problems at home.
4. Continued to manage children's lives after school, volunteer in community projects, and help with husband's business as financial consultant.
5. Started up a home business related to skills learned raising children.
6. Done more athletic training to fill the time and enjoy life.
7. Become active grandparents--sometimes taking over parenting when necessary.
All of these seem perfectly good choices for the individual situations. For a long time, I gave up on the term "feminist" to describe myself because I felt like the political organization of American feminism would not have wanted me in their ranks. As a PhD who became a stay at home mother, I was sort of the opposite of what you would want an enlightened woman to do. But I am coming back to the word, trying to fight for the use of it more generally.
In the end, I feel that women need to have the freedom to make the choice, and they need to see that they have this freedom. Saying "I don't have a choice" or blaming others for the fact that we cannot have what we want leads to incredible stress and frustration. In the end, it is also untrue. We should choose what makes us truly happy, and then we should accept that we have made the choices we have made.
And one last thing: while women may feel their work is invisible to the world at large, there is no reason that our work has to remain invisible to those who are intimately connected with and benefiting from it. I think it is not only appropriate but important for women to point out to others the work they have done. I do this all the time. I remind my kids that they should thank me for running errands for them, for cleaning the walls, for sacrificing my schedule for theirs. Children don't always see on their own, but they can be guided to see. They should know that dishes don't magically get cleaned. They should take part, if possible, in cleaning them. Also, they should see that if they choose to take on life as a mother, that this is satisfying work, that happiness can be found in it, and that they have power to make their own choices in the world.
It came up at church this week. In fact, it was the whole lesson at church this week. One thread of that discussion seemed to be: the work of motherhood is invisible, and that is just fine. God sees this invisible work, like he saw the work of the great cathedrals of Europe. Women can be content in their invisibility.
What I think: there is work that is done in society that is invisible. It is not always women who do this work, but women do a lot of invisible work. I am reminded strongly of BARRYAR which ends with Cordelia taking charge of the education of young Gregor and saying--I thought I wasn't supposed to have any power? But of course, she ends up influencing Gregor immensely in the male dominated society of Barrayar. Invisible work? Maybe. It's hard to imagine Cordelia being invisible even if she tried. Maybe she did try.
I remember when my children were really small, I was invited to dinner at a neighbor's house. Her husband was a professor at the local university. Her youngest was going to soon be school age and she had nine or ten children. Her identity was of a wife and a mother. But her husband was convinced that women needed to have another identity. He felt that at some point, the children grew up and a woman needed to have a job to fall back on. His wife was really upset about this. It seemed like another way to make her feel inadequate about her position in the world. She was content with the choices she had made and the woman she had become.
Over the last couple of years, I've had friends who stayed home with children who have:
1. Gone back to work when their husband became unemployed.
2. Gone back to school to train for a job.
3. Turned down a full-time dream job because of problems at home.
4. Continued to manage children's lives after school, volunteer in community projects, and help with husband's business as financial consultant.
5. Started up a home business related to skills learned raising children.
6. Done more athletic training to fill the time and enjoy life.
7. Become active grandparents--sometimes taking over parenting when necessary.
All of these seem perfectly good choices for the individual situations. For a long time, I gave up on the term "feminist" to describe myself because I felt like the political organization of American feminism would not have wanted me in their ranks. As a PhD who became a stay at home mother, I was sort of the opposite of what you would want an enlightened woman to do. But I am coming back to the word, trying to fight for the use of it more generally.
In the end, I feel that women need to have the freedom to make the choice, and they need to see that they have this freedom. Saying "I don't have a choice" or blaming others for the fact that we cannot have what we want leads to incredible stress and frustration. In the end, it is also untrue. We should choose what makes us truly happy, and then we should accept that we have made the choices we have made.
And one last thing: while women may feel their work is invisible to the world at large, there is no reason that our work has to remain invisible to those who are intimately connected with and benefiting from it. I think it is not only appropriate but important for women to point out to others the work they have done. I do this all the time. I remind my kids that they should thank me for running errands for them, for cleaning the walls, for sacrificing my schedule for theirs. Children don't always see on their own, but they can be guided to see. They should know that dishes don't magically get cleaned. They should take part, if possible, in cleaning them. Also, they should see that if they choose to take on life as a mother, that this is satisfying work, that happiness can be found in it, and that they have power to make their own choices in the world.
April 22, 2011
the best thing that ever happened to me
This is a post fourteen years in the making. Wow has it taken me fourteen years to act like a grown up? I guess it has.
I am talking about not being hired for the university position for which I had applied and which I believed I deserved to get. In my head, for a long time I thought of this as "being fired." But of course, I was not fired. Partly because I never had anything other than an adjunct's position in the first place and also partly because there were people who were decent enough to still ask me to keep working as an adjunct, though in my head that was somehow worse than "firing" me because it was insulting for me to consider still working there after all the fallout.
It was with one exception the most painful thing that ever happened to me. In my old accounts of this story, what made me mad was that no one had the guts to actually call me up and tell me that I wasn't going to be in the top three candidates. I thought I "deserved" that, too. Looking back, I suspect it may not have been legal for anyone to tell me this. What happened was that I saw a flyer announcing a talk being given by a guy who had been a grad student at the first class I took as an undergrad in the summer before my first year at the university in question. I didn't realize what it meant until hours later. I eventually called up the chair and chewed him out. I have no idea why I thought that was a good idea. He acted calm and I'm sure he had lots of experience dealing with crazy angry people. For years, I thought of him as a jerk. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't, but this was not one of his jerk moments.
One of my friends from grad school (a woman) was eventually hired for the position. I left the university and was so angry that I had difficulty even walking onto campus (though it was the university in the town I was living in). I had difficulty being in the same room with any of the professors of that department (no, that didn't happen all that often, but I spent lots of angst imagining scenarios in which it would and worrying about them). When I talked about what had happened, people had to stand back because they might get splattered with the ashes of my self-respect. I didn't even think about applying to another university for a position, either. That whole part of my life was over. I didn't read German novels anymore. I wasn't a German professor anymore. I didn't even have a PhD anymore. I was an entirely new person.
I still have no idea what happened. I don't know if I pissed someone off, got a bad letter of recommendation, or simply wasn't as good as I thought I was at what I was doing. I can see how immature I acted in certain moments and what an impression that might have given. But you know what? It doesn't matter anymore. I am proud of some of the things that I did, and not proud of others. I am proud that I realized what a chance this blow to my ego was. In cutting my ties with my academic life, I was able to throw away all the baggage that came with it. I saw clearly somehow that if I was ever going to be a writer, then I had better be a writer then. There were no more excuses for it.
I threw myself into writing with a passion. All the time and energy I had once spent working at the university, I spent writing. I wrote with a frenzy to make up for lost time and to prove that everyone was wrong about me. And I wrote because I was--finally--doing what I had never had the courage to do before. Was there a better attitude to have about writing? I don't know. Maybe people who do it calmly are just as passionate. I don't think so. I think anger is one of the most useful things to channel into writing. Being angry is extremely freeing. Or it was for me. I was angry enough that I didn't care anymore about writing "literature." I wrote what I wanted to write. I didn't care about people looking over my shoulder anymore. I was done with that. Still today when I teach my fairy tale writing workshop, I try to find the kids who hate a certain fairy tale because that is a feeling that allows them to jump in to a fairy tale with both feet and tear it apart and make it what they want it to be.
This is the hidden story behind those driven years. How did I find the energy to wake up at 5 every morning and write? Why did I care enough about it that I juggled sleep schedules with four kids to find time to write during naptime? I was angry and I was also terrified that I was going to have to crawl back on my hands and knees and admit that they were right.
Not sure there was a specific moment when the anger disappeared. Maybe I hung onto it for a long time after I should have because it was fueling my creative production and I didn't know if something else would come along and take its place or not. I always thought that I wanted to know why it happened or maybe I didn't want to know why because I was a coward. But the wonderful thing now is that it doesn't matter anymore. I'm here where I am. I'm glad I am here. As many problems as there are with being a writer, the craziness of the publishing world, the angst of contracts and expectations, this is the life I always wanted. I wake up in the morning and the first thing I do is go downstairs in my pajamas and write about whatever I want to write about.
And somehow, the worst thing that ever happened to me became the best thing that ever happened to me. Not just by magic. But because of the choices I made to redefine myself and do what I had always wanted to do. Sometimes you need that kick in the butt. And so I say to those who I once thought treated me like crap, thank you.
I am talking about not being hired for the university position for which I had applied and which I believed I deserved to get. In my head, for a long time I thought of this as "being fired." But of course, I was not fired. Partly because I never had anything other than an adjunct's position in the first place and also partly because there were people who were decent enough to still ask me to keep working as an adjunct, though in my head that was somehow worse than "firing" me because it was insulting for me to consider still working there after all the fallout.
It was with one exception the most painful thing that ever happened to me. In my old accounts of this story, what made me mad was that no one had the guts to actually call me up and tell me that I wasn't going to be in the top three candidates. I thought I "deserved" that, too. Looking back, I suspect it may not have been legal for anyone to tell me this. What happened was that I saw a flyer announcing a talk being given by a guy who had been a grad student at the first class I took as an undergrad in the summer before my first year at the university in question. I didn't realize what it meant until hours later. I eventually called up the chair and chewed him out. I have no idea why I thought that was a good idea. He acted calm and I'm sure he had lots of experience dealing with crazy angry people. For years, I thought of him as a jerk. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't, but this was not one of his jerk moments.
One of my friends from grad school (a woman) was eventually hired for the position. I left the university and was so angry that I had difficulty even walking onto campus (though it was the university in the town I was living in). I had difficulty being in the same room with any of the professors of that department (no, that didn't happen all that often, but I spent lots of angst imagining scenarios in which it would and worrying about them). When I talked about what had happened, people had to stand back because they might get splattered with the ashes of my self-respect. I didn't even think about applying to another university for a position, either. That whole part of my life was over. I didn't read German novels anymore. I wasn't a German professor anymore. I didn't even have a PhD anymore. I was an entirely new person.
I still have no idea what happened. I don't know if I pissed someone off, got a bad letter of recommendation, or simply wasn't as good as I thought I was at what I was doing. I can see how immature I acted in certain moments and what an impression that might have given. But you know what? It doesn't matter anymore. I am proud of some of the things that I did, and not proud of others. I am proud that I realized what a chance this blow to my ego was. In cutting my ties with my academic life, I was able to throw away all the baggage that came with it. I saw clearly somehow that if I was ever going to be a writer, then I had better be a writer then. There were no more excuses for it.
I threw myself into writing with a passion. All the time and energy I had once spent working at the university, I spent writing. I wrote with a frenzy to make up for lost time and to prove that everyone was wrong about me. And I wrote because I was--finally--doing what I had never had the courage to do before. Was there a better attitude to have about writing? I don't know. Maybe people who do it calmly are just as passionate. I don't think so. I think anger is one of the most useful things to channel into writing. Being angry is extremely freeing. Or it was for me. I was angry enough that I didn't care anymore about writing "literature." I wrote what I wanted to write. I didn't care about people looking over my shoulder anymore. I was done with that. Still today when I teach my fairy tale writing workshop, I try to find the kids who hate a certain fairy tale because that is a feeling that allows them to jump in to a fairy tale with both feet and tear it apart and make it what they want it to be.
This is the hidden story behind those driven years. How did I find the energy to wake up at 5 every morning and write? Why did I care enough about it that I juggled sleep schedules with four kids to find time to write during naptime? I was angry and I was also terrified that I was going to have to crawl back on my hands and knees and admit that they were right.
Not sure there was a specific moment when the anger disappeared. Maybe I hung onto it for a long time after I should have because it was fueling my creative production and I didn't know if something else would come along and take its place or not. I always thought that I wanted to know why it happened or maybe I didn't want to know why because I was a coward. But the wonderful thing now is that it doesn't matter anymore. I'm here where I am. I'm glad I am here. As many problems as there are with being a writer, the craziness of the publishing world, the angst of contracts and expectations, this is the life I always wanted. I wake up in the morning and the first thing I do is go downstairs in my pajamas and write about whatever I want to write about.
And somehow, the worst thing that ever happened to me became the best thing that ever happened to me. Not just by magic. But because of the choices I made to redefine myself and do what I had always wanted to do. Sometimes you need that kick in the butt. And so I say to those who I once thought treated me like crap, thank you.
April 21, 2011
taking criticism
Today I took 15 to a voice lesson with a new and quite expensive voice teacher almost an hour away from our house. This is her third lesson, and I know very, very little about music, so I tend to bring a book to read. Is this bad of me? I listen in a little, but it's not MY music lesson and I'm a busy person. Plus, I like to read.
Anyway, I listened in on the conversation and afterward told my daughter that at 15, she was really mature to be able to handle that level of criticism. She would sing a few lines, and then he would stop her, tell her what she had done wrong. She would nod her head, say "I know." Then he would have her do an exercise to try to get her to the right place in her voice. And she would sing again. He would stop her again, tell her she wasn't quite there, and over and over again, the same two lines for most of the lesson (after some warmup exercises).
15's response was, where was the criticism? That was just him helping me.
And that said pretty much everything that needed to be said. Of course this is true. We are paying him money to get his opinion. Of course, he isn't trying to hurt her feelings. He wouldn't be teaching lessons unless he actually cared about helping people improve their music. I don't believe even the amount of money we pay him is enough to compensate him fully for his time. I'm sure he gets paid more for a lot of other things he does.
But how many times have you heard teenagers or even adults respond to criticism with either complete collapse or an argument about how you are wrong. The thing is, neither of these is helpful in the least. Of course, no one wants to collapse. It's a reaction to an overwhelmed feeling of never being able to see enough progress. And I'm sure that people who argue are just trying to figure out what they are doing wrong. Maybe. But if you can be at the place where you don't even see it as criticism, but as someone who is helping you to get better, that makes a huge difference.
As someone who does critiques in many situations, I can't tell you how annoying it is if someone argues. Or how horrible I feel when someone reacts with tears or absolute silence and despair. But the problem is that in both of these situations, I stop with my advice. I figure they're not ready to hear it. I am so not interested in arguing with someone and proving that I know what I am talking about. I'd rather give the money back for the critique (not a smart business move, I know) and then never have to speak to that person again. I don't want my time wasted. If you're not ready to hear, you're not ready to hear. It's not about me. It's about you.
I suppose that last is a phrase I have been using more and more. That, and my tendency to diagnose people with mental illnesses as an attempt to let go of whatever anger they have stirred up in me. If I were a doctor, I'm afraid I would just be dispensing prescriptions left and right to everyone I met at church, at school, and out shopping. Also, on-line.
Anyway, I listened in on the conversation and afterward told my daughter that at 15, she was really mature to be able to handle that level of criticism. She would sing a few lines, and then he would stop her, tell her what she had done wrong. She would nod her head, say "I know." Then he would have her do an exercise to try to get her to the right place in her voice. And she would sing again. He would stop her again, tell her she wasn't quite there, and over and over again, the same two lines for most of the lesson (after some warmup exercises).
15's response was, where was the criticism? That was just him helping me.
And that said pretty much everything that needed to be said. Of course this is true. We are paying him money to get his opinion. Of course, he isn't trying to hurt her feelings. He wouldn't be teaching lessons unless he actually cared about helping people improve their music. I don't believe even the amount of money we pay him is enough to compensate him fully for his time. I'm sure he gets paid more for a lot of other things he does.
But how many times have you heard teenagers or even adults respond to criticism with either complete collapse or an argument about how you are wrong. The thing is, neither of these is helpful in the least. Of course, no one wants to collapse. It's a reaction to an overwhelmed feeling of never being able to see enough progress. And I'm sure that people who argue are just trying to figure out what they are doing wrong. Maybe. But if you can be at the place where you don't even see it as criticism, but as someone who is helping you to get better, that makes a huge difference.
As someone who does critiques in many situations, I can't tell you how annoying it is if someone argues. Or how horrible I feel when someone reacts with tears or absolute silence and despair. But the problem is that in both of these situations, I stop with my advice. I figure they're not ready to hear it. I am so not interested in arguing with someone and proving that I know what I am talking about. I'd rather give the money back for the critique (not a smart business move, I know) and then never have to speak to that person again. I don't want my time wasted. If you're not ready to hear, you're not ready to hear. It's not about me. It's about you.
I suppose that last is a phrase I have been using more and more. That, and my tendency to diagnose people with mental illnesses as an attempt to let go of whatever anger they have stirred up in me. If I were a doctor, I'm afraid I would just be dispensing prescriptions left and right to everyone I met at church, at school, and out shopping. Also, on-line.
April 20, 2011
erasure, motherhood and feminine silence
I think I'm going to have to do a series of posts on this at some point to talk about specific erasure of female identities in novels. I want to be able to do it in a non-judgmental way because I think I have written some novels with female erasure, too. It's part of our cultural way of identifying motherhood and motherhood is generally seen as good. I mean, what can be bad about a mother who gives up herself or her life for her child? That's evolution, right? A mother who doesn't give up her life for her child isn't keeping the next generation alive, so her genes are going to die out, right?
So, some examples of female erasure from books that I either love now or once liked a lot:
1. Twilight
Bella gets pregnant with a vampire child and everyone around her tells her to get an abortion. But she loves her baby, so she is going to die to keep it protected, even if it's a demon. This isn't the only demon-baby story, but it's one that's well known right now. And it makes sense if you tilt your head a certain way. Mothers give up their lives for their children all the time, every day. It's a heroic thing to do. But one of the interesting things that fantasy does for us is it makes metaphors literal. So this mother is literally going to die. She is literally going to be eaten alive for her child to stay alive. And it makes me really uncomfortable as a mother.
2. Daughter of the Forest
This is a retelling of the Seven Swans fairy tale about the princess who has to stay silent until she has finished knitting the shirts for her brothers to turn them back into humans. She uses nettles to knit with and her hands are in pain every moment of every day. Self-sacrifice, yes? This should be heroic. I find this novelization deeply romantic. And yet, there is a part of me that thinks that this story about a woman being raped and silenced is just plain creepy. She loves her brothers, I get that. This is the only way to save them. But why do stories get set up like this? Why silence? There is some not so hidden meaning there about women who talk too much and secret sexuality.
3. I Don't Want to Kill You
The hero is going around looking for demons. He's killed two of them already, and now there's a demon who possesses people. His girlfriend gets killed by it. His best friend gets killed by it. And then, just when the demon is about to possess him, his mother intervenes, sacrifices herself so that the demon can take her over. And then she immolates herself to protect her son. So he can go on with his life and fight demons. And the reason that she is effective in luring the demon into herself? Because she loves her son SO MUCH. She is the only one who has ever really loved him. And he says that he is glad he had this experience, even though his mother died, because now he knows that he really does have the capacity to love. Because his mother is dead and he is sad. As a writer, I'm sure there were other possible endings to the plot, but this one rings true because mothers do this.
Mothers give themselves up for their children. That is what a good mother does. But really? I'm a mother and I think it's good for my kids to see that I won't give up everything for them, that I have a life of my own that doesn't belong to them and that they are not allowed to interrupt. I want my daughters to see that growing up to be a mother doesn't mean being erased. Some mothers do that, but it is not an inherent part of motherhood. It's not particularly feminine to be silent, either, or to be passive, or to let yourself die to save your child's life. I honestly am not sure that this myth is a good one to perpetuate. Yes, we want people to be loving and self-sacrificing, but for this to be the only model of motherhood seems to me to make it more and more difficult for young girls to want to grow up to be mothers.
So, some examples of female erasure from books that I either love now or once liked a lot:
1. Twilight
Bella gets pregnant with a vampire child and everyone around her tells her to get an abortion. But she loves her baby, so she is going to die to keep it protected, even if it's a demon. This isn't the only demon-baby story, but it's one that's well known right now. And it makes sense if you tilt your head a certain way. Mothers give up their lives for their children all the time, every day. It's a heroic thing to do. But one of the interesting things that fantasy does for us is it makes metaphors literal. So this mother is literally going to die. She is literally going to be eaten alive for her child to stay alive. And it makes me really uncomfortable as a mother.
2. Daughter of the Forest
This is a retelling of the Seven Swans fairy tale about the princess who has to stay silent until she has finished knitting the shirts for her brothers to turn them back into humans. She uses nettles to knit with and her hands are in pain every moment of every day. Self-sacrifice, yes? This should be heroic. I find this novelization deeply romantic. And yet, there is a part of me that thinks that this story about a woman being raped and silenced is just plain creepy. She loves her brothers, I get that. This is the only way to save them. But why do stories get set up like this? Why silence? There is some not so hidden meaning there about women who talk too much and secret sexuality.
3. I Don't Want to Kill You
The hero is going around looking for demons. He's killed two of them already, and now there's a demon who possesses people. His girlfriend gets killed by it. His best friend gets killed by it. And then, just when the demon is about to possess him, his mother intervenes, sacrifices herself so that the demon can take her over. And then she immolates herself to protect her son. So he can go on with his life and fight demons. And the reason that she is effective in luring the demon into herself? Because she loves her son SO MUCH. She is the only one who has ever really loved him. And he says that he is glad he had this experience, even though his mother died, because now he knows that he really does have the capacity to love. Because his mother is dead and he is sad. As a writer, I'm sure there were other possible endings to the plot, but this one rings true because mothers do this.
Mothers give themselves up for their children. That is what a good mother does. But really? I'm a mother and I think it's good for my kids to see that I won't give up everything for them, that I have a life of my own that doesn't belong to them and that they are not allowed to interrupt. I want my daughters to see that growing up to be a mother doesn't mean being erased. Some mothers do that, but it is not an inherent part of motherhood. It's not particularly feminine to be silent, either, or to be passive, or to let yourself die to save your child's life. I honestly am not sure that this myth is a good one to perpetuate. Yes, we want people to be loving and self-sacrificing, but for this to be the only model of motherhood seems to me to make it more and more difficult for young girls to want to grow up to be mothers.
April 18, 2011
white knight--destructive love myth #12
I guess this one is for guys. Because they think women want to be rescued. And sometimes women think so, too. There's that weird scene at the end of Pretty Woman where Richard Gere comes in on a white horse that is supposed to make us think that somehow these two could work together as a couple long term. But whenever writers use an old cliche like that and then a long camera angle, you know it's because they don't believe it, either.
The truth is, there are situations in which you'd think a woman would want to be rescued, right? From an abusive boyfriend. From a family life that is oppressive. From a rude and horrible boss at work. From the mean girls at school. From poverty. From her pimp/drug dealer. From a man's point of view, it seems so obvious. The woman is in a bad place. Get her out of bad place=happiness and long-lasting relationship. The woman will be forever grateful, right? She will know that the man is someone to be depended on, someone responsible and good. And women might at first believe they want this, too.
They don't. Women in general don't want to be grateful to a man. They don't want to have a relationship based on their past weaknesses. And they really, really don't want to be reminded that they couldn't solve a problem on their own. In fact, what usually happens is that women go back to the old situation, some sooner, some later. Back to the abusive boyfriend, or to a new abusive boyfriend, back to poverty, back to the family life. Why do they do this? It makes no sense, right? They go back because they are either more comfortable in that life or sometimes because they need to rescue themselves.
You know when a woman talks about problems, the last thing she wants is for the man listening to her to tell her the solution to everything, right? Well, most women. It's because this makes women feel stupid and powerless. And a woman who feels stupid and powerless doesn't fall in love all that fast. Go figure.
So what are you supposed to do, sit around and watch the woman you love up in that Tower? Wring your hands and wait around for her to do something for herself?
Well, um, yeah. Kinda, sorta.
Or you could, like, go look for a woman who is already together enough she doesn't need rescuing.
The truth is, there are situations in which you'd think a woman would want to be rescued, right? From an abusive boyfriend. From a family life that is oppressive. From a rude and horrible boss at work. From the mean girls at school. From poverty. From her pimp/drug dealer. From a man's point of view, it seems so obvious. The woman is in a bad place. Get her out of bad place=happiness and long-lasting relationship. The woman will be forever grateful, right? She will know that the man is someone to be depended on, someone responsible and good. And women might at first believe they want this, too.
They don't. Women in general don't want to be grateful to a man. They don't want to have a relationship based on their past weaknesses. And they really, really don't want to be reminded that they couldn't solve a problem on their own. In fact, what usually happens is that women go back to the old situation, some sooner, some later. Back to the abusive boyfriend, or to a new abusive boyfriend, back to poverty, back to the family life. Why do they do this? It makes no sense, right? They go back because they are either more comfortable in that life or sometimes because they need to rescue themselves.
You know when a woman talks about problems, the last thing she wants is for the man listening to her to tell her the solution to everything, right? Well, most women. It's because this makes women feel stupid and powerless. And a woman who feels stupid and powerless doesn't fall in love all that fast. Go figure.
So what are you supposed to do, sit around and watch the woman you love up in that Tower? Wring your hands and wait around for her to do something for herself?
Well, um, yeah. Kinda, sorta.
Or you could, like, go look for a woman who is already together enough she doesn't need rescuing.
April 15, 2011
do these jeans make me look fat?
15 and I had a conversation this week about female code and what it means. I could be wrong, but I translated the above sentence for her as:
I need reassurance and validation--could you give me some compliments right now?
This is a question that women ask other women and occasionally men who are close to them. The women seem to know instinctively what the right answer is. The men, on the other hand, feel paralyzed and use this phrase as an example of how everything you say to a woman can be wrong, and that women never want to hear the truth.
My explanation of this was very different. I think that this is all about power. We like to imagine that women are no longer oppressed, that feminism has succeeded, that girls can choose to be anything they want. And indeed, much progress has been made. I am happy that 17, who wants to study computer science, will be free to do so at any college she wants in the US. On the other hand, I think that women "code speak" is a sign that there are still a lot of problems. And of course, anyone who looks at statistics knows that women still aren't being paid an equal wage.
Code speak is what happens when you have a group of people who are unable to speak honestly to those in power. They are afraid that they will be punished for honesty, and so they learn ways to speak the truth slant, shall we say. Think about servants in the previous century or those in positions of service today. They get in trouble if they don't tell the truth and if they do, so they learn clever ways to do both at the same time, and neither.
Women instinctively understand the code of other women because it's not instinctual at all. It's cultural. They know what to say and what not to say out loud because they've been in trouble. Sometimes it is other women who wield the power over them and not men, but nonetheless, it is a power differential.
When people complain about the fact that girls in high school are more "vicious" than boys because boys just get out their aggression physically whereas girls tend to attack more socially and emotionally, I think the reason is the same. I honestly don't believe it's because women never feel physically aggressive. Look at a three year old. Boy or girl, they will hit. But by the time you get to high school, those reactions have been socialized out of you, and you react in anger in what is considered a culturally acceptable way.
I'm not saying there are no difference between boys and girls that have a physical basis. I just don't think we can figure out what those differences are because our scientists are so biased they can't tell what they are seeing.
I need reassurance and validation--could you give me some compliments right now?
This is a question that women ask other women and occasionally men who are close to them. The women seem to know instinctively what the right answer is. The men, on the other hand, feel paralyzed and use this phrase as an example of how everything you say to a woman can be wrong, and that women never want to hear the truth.
My explanation of this was very different. I think that this is all about power. We like to imagine that women are no longer oppressed, that feminism has succeeded, that girls can choose to be anything they want. And indeed, much progress has been made. I am happy that 17, who wants to study computer science, will be free to do so at any college she wants in the US. On the other hand, I think that women "code speak" is a sign that there are still a lot of problems. And of course, anyone who looks at statistics knows that women still aren't being paid an equal wage.
Code speak is what happens when you have a group of people who are unable to speak honestly to those in power. They are afraid that they will be punished for honesty, and so they learn ways to speak the truth slant, shall we say. Think about servants in the previous century or those in positions of service today. They get in trouble if they don't tell the truth and if they do, so they learn clever ways to do both at the same time, and neither.
Women instinctively understand the code of other women because it's not instinctual at all. It's cultural. They know what to say and what not to say out loud because they've been in trouble. Sometimes it is other women who wield the power over them and not men, but nonetheless, it is a power differential.
When people complain about the fact that girls in high school are more "vicious" than boys because boys just get out their aggression physically whereas girls tend to attack more socially and emotionally, I think the reason is the same. I honestly don't believe it's because women never feel physically aggressive. Look at a three year old. Boy or girl, they will hit. But by the time you get to high school, those reactions have been socialized out of you, and you react in anger in what is considered a culturally acceptable way.
I'm not saying there are no difference between boys and girls that have a physical basis. I just don't think we can figure out what those differences are because our scientists are so biased they can't tell what they are seeing.
April 14, 2011
unrequited love--destructive love myth #11
There is something genuinely romantic about people who fall in love at a young age and then remain in love, despite the passage of years. Austen's Persuasion is my favorite of her novels for precisely this reason. I think it requires some years of experience to realize how rare this is, and to relate to characters who are no longer going out to conquer the world, but have done it already and found it perhaps not entirely to their liking.
So it can be done well. I think one of the reasons I fell in love with Spike from Buffy is that he loves Buffy without any real hope that she will ever love him in return. He has sex with her, and he doesn't turn that down. That's not the kind of guy he is. But he knows it's only sex and he wants more. He wants her love. He wants her to admire him, and he goes in search of his soul for that reason, no matter what the cost.
Yet, the problems with unrequited love are:
1. Stalker love. This isn't that hot to me, and the line between the two is a hairline, if it exists at all. I suppose it's possible for you to love someone from afar and never meet them in public (a la Persuasion) and your unrequited love has nothing to do with stalking. But Spike is definitely into the stalker territory, along with other famous vampire loves. Watching someone from outside her bedroom window is just creepy to me, not romantic. Because it happens in real life, and when it does, there is usually not a good end.
2.If someone else doesn't love you back, or has moved on to another person, it is kind of pitiful that you can't move on, too. Maybe you're really just so much in love that you can't and you never will. Or maybe you were never a good fit to begin with and you need to grow up enough to see that clearly. Even if you do still love that person in a way, you can move on. Life is about moving on. So, yes, there are then the stories about the person who moved on and then they have a chance at the first love thing again and that always makes me really uncomfortable. You made your choice. Isn't romance in the moment, not in the past?
3. I think there's a song that's popular right now about a guy who never even speaks to a girl in a coffee shop, but he's in love with her and wants to marry her. Um, see my post on love at first sight. That's not real love. That's lust. Or obsession. I feel sorry for the guy because he doesn't have the social skills necessary to actually strike up a conversation with a girl, any girl. But until he does, there's really no point. All he's going to have is fantasies, and I don't think fantasies with fake people are as romantic as real love with real people. Fake people do everything you want them to do and they don't require you to change and grow. Real people do.
4. I am in favor of social rules. They are often in place to protect us from our more animal instincts. On the other hand, the idea of not being honest with someone else bugs me. Isn't there a new movie coming out about falling in love with your best friend's fiance? That's unrequited, I suppose. But communication would be helpful here. Also, honesty. And, are you really in love with her or just the idea of her? Or are you trying to back out of your current relationship so you don't have to commit completely. It can be really tempting to hold yourself back from the relationship in front of you because of the relationship you think you have in your head.
Any other ideas about unrequited love?
So it can be done well. I think one of the reasons I fell in love with Spike from Buffy is that he loves Buffy without any real hope that she will ever love him in return. He has sex with her, and he doesn't turn that down. That's not the kind of guy he is. But he knows it's only sex and he wants more. He wants her love. He wants her to admire him, and he goes in search of his soul for that reason, no matter what the cost.
Yet, the problems with unrequited love are:
1. Stalker love. This isn't that hot to me, and the line between the two is a hairline, if it exists at all. I suppose it's possible for you to love someone from afar and never meet them in public (a la Persuasion) and your unrequited love has nothing to do with stalking. But Spike is definitely into the stalker territory, along with other famous vampire loves. Watching someone from outside her bedroom window is just creepy to me, not romantic. Because it happens in real life, and when it does, there is usually not a good end.
2.If someone else doesn't love you back, or has moved on to another person, it is kind of pitiful that you can't move on, too. Maybe you're really just so much in love that you can't and you never will. Or maybe you were never a good fit to begin with and you need to grow up enough to see that clearly. Even if you do still love that person in a way, you can move on. Life is about moving on. So, yes, there are then the stories about the person who moved on and then they have a chance at the first love thing again and that always makes me really uncomfortable. You made your choice. Isn't romance in the moment, not in the past?
3. I think there's a song that's popular right now about a guy who never even speaks to a girl in a coffee shop, but he's in love with her and wants to marry her. Um, see my post on love at first sight. That's not real love. That's lust. Or obsession. I feel sorry for the guy because he doesn't have the social skills necessary to actually strike up a conversation with a girl, any girl. But until he does, there's really no point. All he's going to have is fantasies, and I don't think fantasies with fake people are as romantic as real love with real people. Fake people do everything you want them to do and they don't require you to change and grow. Real people do.
4. I am in favor of social rules. They are often in place to protect us from our more animal instincts. On the other hand, the idea of not being honest with someone else bugs me. Isn't there a new movie coming out about falling in love with your best friend's fiance? That's unrequited, I suppose. But communication would be helpful here. Also, honesty. And, are you really in love with her or just the idea of her? Or are you trying to back out of your current relationship so you don't have to commit completely. It can be really tempting to hold yourself back from the relationship in front of you because of the relationship you think you have in your head.
Any other ideas about unrequited love?
April 13, 2011
bad boys are hotter--destructive love myth #10
I suppose I have as much trouble as anyone with this myth. I fell for Spike pretty hard, for example, and am still trying to figure it out. That may be partly just James Marsters, but more likely it's that I have some deep, unconscious attachment to this myth. I can see what I am doing and I don't like it, but it happens anyway. Sometimes.
Is it some kind of evolutionary imperative? The alpha male is going to ensure better genes for your kid? It's not that he's going to protect you, I don't think, because the bad boy doesn't usually hang around that long. Some other possibilities:
1. The allure of winning some kind of competition with other women to get the guy who is physically most attractive?
2. Maybe in and out of your life is a good thing? It allows you independence?
3. Women have an aggressive side, too, and it's nice to be allowed to show that?
4. Women want to feel that we stir up deep feelings in another person, and so if he can't control himself around us, that means he must really love us a lot?
5. A bad boy will be able to save the world better in a crisis? Because he won't be afraid and run away? (Although he also won't sit down, draw a diagram of what needs to be made, and then shoot off a pea in just the right direction.)
6. The fantasy of sex as a one-night stand?
7. Being needed? Like the opposite of the white knight rescuing the damsel in distress? Women are attracted to a guy who is in a bad place because then we can civilize him? He'll keep coming back?
8. A reformed bad boy is a better mate because he has given it all up for you? He's fallen hard. He knows what the bad is and can see it coming for the kids?
The problem with the bad boy myth, of course, is that logically and in the long term emotionally, I want the good guy. He's the one who takes care of me and the kids, who is a responsible adult who earns money. He treats me respectfully and listens to me talk when I need to talk. I don't want a guy who is likely to disappear on me, who might hit me or anyone else in the vicinity. Although I married my high school motorcycle driving boyfriend and he sometimes talks about getting another motorcycle or doing things like sky diving, I consider it a bonus as a parent to count on him not dying suddenly.
Other things bad boys don't help with: doing the dishes, bringing you soup when you're sick, taxes (bad boys definitely don't do taxes), book reading (always hot), fixing things, making the world a better place, inventing stuff like Ziploc bags and iphones.
Is it some kind of evolutionary imperative? The alpha male is going to ensure better genes for your kid? It's not that he's going to protect you, I don't think, because the bad boy doesn't usually hang around that long. Some other possibilities:
1. The allure of winning some kind of competition with other women to get the guy who is physically most attractive?
2. Maybe in and out of your life is a good thing? It allows you independence?
3. Women have an aggressive side, too, and it's nice to be allowed to show that?
4. Women want to feel that we stir up deep feelings in another person, and so if he can't control himself around us, that means he must really love us a lot?
5. A bad boy will be able to save the world better in a crisis? Because he won't be afraid and run away? (Although he also won't sit down, draw a diagram of what needs to be made, and then shoot off a pea in just the right direction.)
6. The fantasy of sex as a one-night stand?
7. Being needed? Like the opposite of the white knight rescuing the damsel in distress? Women are attracted to a guy who is in a bad place because then we can civilize him? He'll keep coming back?
8. A reformed bad boy is a better mate because he has given it all up for you? He's fallen hard. He knows what the bad is and can see it coming for the kids?
The problem with the bad boy myth, of course, is that logically and in the long term emotionally, I want the good guy. He's the one who takes care of me and the kids, who is a responsible adult who earns money. He treats me respectfully and listens to me talk when I need to talk. I don't want a guy who is likely to disappear on me, who might hit me or anyone else in the vicinity. Although I married my high school motorcycle driving boyfriend and he sometimes talks about getting another motorcycle or doing things like sky diving, I consider it a bonus as a parent to count on him not dying suddenly.
Other things bad boys don't help with: doing the dishes, bringing you soup when you're sick, taxes (bad boys definitely don't do taxes), book reading (always hot), fixing things, making the world a better place, inventing stuff like Ziploc bags and iphones.
April 12, 2011
powerless women--destructive love myth #9
I struggle with our types of femininity and masculinity in America. Am I less of a woman if I don't like shopping of any kind? Amy I less of a woman if I don't like to collect shoes? Or if I hate wearing makeup? Or never do my hair? Am I not a woman at a triathlon when I fiercely compete with men? Or when I am at the gym on the upper body weight machines?
Am I more of a woman when I choose to wear flattering clothing to show off my curves? Am I more of a woman because I am by some stretch of the imagination a stay-at-home mother? Because I am in charge of the laundry and making dinner every night? Because I manage homework for other people and am a caretaker?
I wrote my dissertation (almost twenty years ago now) on the Bildungsroman and growing into gender and the need to play with gender stereotypes, sometimes with something as obvious as a Shakespearean play that allowing you to dress up as the "other." With my oldest daughter, I dressed her as gender neutral as possible, bought her trucks and male dolls. And then my second daughter came along and at about ten months began to insistently point and grunt at the clothes she wanted to wear. Those two girls have both stretched my ideas of gender. One has one set of female characteristics. The other has a completely different set. I remember buying my second daughter dinosaurs for Christmas when she was 2 and having the clerk give me negative feedback that they were for a daughter rather than a son. I remember my son begging to have his fingernails painted and my husband setting the rules for only one fingernail on each hand painted a day.
The most conservative romances simply reflect the most conservative gender stereotypes in our culture and that is to be expected. There are more interesting romances that play with gender and I suppose it is no surprise that I am drawn to the more playful romances. Lois McMaster Bujold's books about Cordelia Naismith, the warrior woman who is a "solution" to her husband's own gender confusion. The Queen of Attolia, which as another author pointed out, is a story about castration, is all about a mixed up power dynamic. Mixed up in terms of conservative gender stereotypes, that is.
This is not to say that I don't unconsciously enjoy fairy typical gender romances. I think a lot of the fantasy I read by men is more typical. I won't name names for fear of making it sound like a cut. But it is one thing to write a book in which the man is the main hero and the woman is ancillary and it is another thing to write a book in which the woman is absolutely passive and helpless. I think there are codes for this in romance. Women who are clumsy, who are bad at sports, who are physically slight, either small in stature or very thin. Women who don't eat because they are simply not part of a physical world but are more "spiritual." Women who stutter, get bad grades, lose arguments with boys. Women who literally change faces or in other less literal ways give up their identity as part of the plot. Women who give up their power or their magic in some concrete way by the end of the book in order to save the world.
This last is a plot twist in The Princess and the Bear and the more I think about the choice I made as an author with this book, the less I am comfortable about it. Why is it that I don't have my male character forced to make this choice? I tend to write without an outline, and I think this is one of the consequences of doing so. My instincts and my subconscious make choices. Sometimes that is a good thing. Sometimes my subconscious leans toward the conservative side because that is what I grew up with: passive mother, active, forceful father. But think about how many books you have read in which the female heroine ends up making a choice in which she is erased in some way? I can't think of a book in which the male hero makes this choice. I just don't think as readers we would accept it. Fantasy is a way in which we literalize our cultural metaphors, so we have stories about magic that is really about gender and race.
But when I criticize authors for their writing choices in romance and fantasy, I hope it doesn't sound like I am pointing a finger without acknowledging that I also make the same mistakes. What I hope is that we all look more carefully at the books we read and write, authors and readers together. What are the assumptions in these choices? What are the cultural stereotypes we are either perpetuating or shattering?
Am I more of a woman when I choose to wear flattering clothing to show off my curves? Am I more of a woman because I am by some stretch of the imagination a stay-at-home mother? Because I am in charge of the laundry and making dinner every night? Because I manage homework for other people and am a caretaker?
I wrote my dissertation (almost twenty years ago now) on the Bildungsroman and growing into gender and the need to play with gender stereotypes, sometimes with something as obvious as a Shakespearean play that allowing you to dress up as the "other." With my oldest daughter, I dressed her as gender neutral as possible, bought her trucks and male dolls. And then my second daughter came along and at about ten months began to insistently point and grunt at the clothes she wanted to wear. Those two girls have both stretched my ideas of gender. One has one set of female characteristics. The other has a completely different set. I remember buying my second daughter dinosaurs for Christmas when she was 2 and having the clerk give me negative feedback that they were for a daughter rather than a son. I remember my son begging to have his fingernails painted and my husband setting the rules for only one fingernail on each hand painted a day.
The most conservative romances simply reflect the most conservative gender stereotypes in our culture and that is to be expected. There are more interesting romances that play with gender and I suppose it is no surprise that I am drawn to the more playful romances. Lois McMaster Bujold's books about Cordelia Naismith, the warrior woman who is a "solution" to her husband's own gender confusion. The Queen of Attolia, which as another author pointed out, is a story about castration, is all about a mixed up power dynamic. Mixed up in terms of conservative gender stereotypes, that is.
This is not to say that I don't unconsciously enjoy fairy typical gender romances. I think a lot of the fantasy I read by men is more typical. I won't name names for fear of making it sound like a cut. But it is one thing to write a book in which the man is the main hero and the woman is ancillary and it is another thing to write a book in which the woman is absolutely passive and helpless. I think there are codes for this in romance. Women who are clumsy, who are bad at sports, who are physically slight, either small in stature or very thin. Women who don't eat because they are simply not part of a physical world but are more "spiritual." Women who stutter, get bad grades, lose arguments with boys. Women who literally change faces or in other less literal ways give up their identity as part of the plot. Women who give up their power or their magic in some concrete way by the end of the book in order to save the world.
This last is a plot twist in The Princess and the Bear and the more I think about the choice I made as an author with this book, the less I am comfortable about it. Why is it that I don't have my male character forced to make this choice? I tend to write without an outline, and I think this is one of the consequences of doing so. My instincts and my subconscious make choices. Sometimes that is a good thing. Sometimes my subconscious leans toward the conservative side because that is what I grew up with: passive mother, active, forceful father. But think about how many books you have read in which the female heroine ends up making a choice in which she is erased in some way? I can't think of a book in which the male hero makes this choice. I just don't think as readers we would accept it. Fantasy is a way in which we literalize our cultural metaphors, so we have stories about magic that is really about gender and race.
But when I criticize authors for their writing choices in romance and fantasy, I hope it doesn't sound like I am pointing a finger without acknowledging that I also make the same mistakes. What I hope is that we all look more carefully at the books we read and write, authors and readers together. What are the assumptions in these choices? What are the cultural stereotypes we are either perpetuating or shattering?
April 11, 2011
Cinderella--destructive love myth #8
I've done Beauty and the Beast, but I haven't done Cinderella. I think at first it just wasn't the fairy tale I loved the most, and then later I started to realize that there were problems with Cinderella for me. You know how Marx says that religion is opiate for the masses. Well, I think the Cinderella myth is the opiate for the masses. Lessons little girls are supposed to learn from Cinderella:
1. Everything that is wrong with your life is because all the people around you are just plain evil and mean.
2. Your best response to any challenge in life is to sing and keep doing the laundry and all other menial chores assigned to you. This will prove how morally superior you are to others.
3. People not genetically related to you will treat you badly.
4. If you run into the garden and cry, a fairy godmother will magically appear and solve all of your problems.
5. All you have to do is appear at the ball and the prince will fall in love with you immediately.
6. Running away from the prince (leaving him with a shoe) will of course cause him to chase after you. He will never give up until he finds you.
7. The other "little people" will help you against the evil of the world, and you will have a happy ending.
8. Big feet are a sign of true coarseness, and dainty little ones mean that you deserve better things. (Similarly, outer beauty and inner beauty have some correlation.)
I suppose there is nothing wrong inherently with a story about a girl in bad circumstances who ends up finding a better life for herself. There are versions of the Cinderella myth that I've read and loved (Ash by Malinda Lo, for instance). But I frankly am more interested in the stepsisters and the stepmother than I am in Cinderella.
Robin McKinkley never did Cinderella, either.
1. Everything that is wrong with your life is because all the people around you are just plain evil and mean.
2. Your best response to any challenge in life is to sing and keep doing the laundry and all other menial chores assigned to you. This will prove how morally superior you are to others.
3. People not genetically related to you will treat you badly.
4. If you run into the garden and cry, a fairy godmother will magically appear and solve all of your problems.
5. All you have to do is appear at the ball and the prince will fall in love with you immediately.
6. Running away from the prince (leaving him with a shoe) will of course cause him to chase after you. He will never give up until he finds you.
7. The other "little people" will help you against the evil of the world, and you will have a happy ending.
8. Big feet are a sign of true coarseness, and dainty little ones mean that you deserve better things. (Similarly, outer beauty and inner beauty have some correlation.)
I suppose there is nothing wrong inherently with a story about a girl in bad circumstances who ends up finding a better life for herself. There are versions of the Cinderella myth that I've read and loved (Ash by Malinda Lo, for instance). But I frankly am more interested in the stepsisters and the stepmother than I am in Cinderella.
Robin McKinkley never did Cinderella, either.
Mette Ivie Harrison's Blog
- Mette Ivie Harrison's profile
- 436 followers
Mette Ivie Harrison isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
