All 15 pages can be boiled down to this paragraph:
We can't put words to it, but deep down we fear there is something terribly wrong with us. If we were the princess, the prince would have come. If we were the daughter of a king, he would have fought for us. We can't help but believe that if we were different, if we were better, then we would have been loved as we so longed to be. It must be us.
In short, we are a product of our parents' attitudes toward gender roles and gender values.
Immediate reaction: Gag me with a stick. It's so dramatic. It's so...girly.
Maybe that reaction is evidence, the authors would say, of my upbringing. I must have been raised to believe that women should not be alluring or needy but...almost asexual. Not tomboys but simply not-male human beings. Low-maintenance, unemotional, self-reliant non-males.
And perhaps they would have a point. The chapter is full of stories about little girls in pink tutus who were either ignored or severely abused by their alcoholic fathers and embittered mothers. I kept thinking, "That little girl needs to stop looking for approval and go build a sandcastle in the backyard and leave the adults alone." (Except of course for the abuse, which was deplorable.)
Is femininity a blessing or a bother? When I think of femininity, I envision swooning and neediness for attention and admiration. Almost everything about it is abhorrent to me (though we'll not go into whether I display these traits myself). I nearly identified with Stasi's ("dramatic") tendency to hide away and be more comfortable when she's not available to be a source of problems.
I'm becoming more convinced that independence is not a such an incredible virtue after all (as I retreat further into hermit-hood), and that vulnerability -- despite the overwhelming odds of being hurt -- may be crucial.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So does femininity = vulnerability? Or is vulnerability part of what every human being wants and longs for? I'm talking about the kind of vulnerability that leads to intimacy. I'd hesitate to say that guys didn't long for this as well...everyone wants to be "known" and valued inside. Perhaps this urge is stronger in women than in men, I don't know.
LOL..it's funny to read your post after the post I posted early this morning: Clive Gilbert letter
My initial inclination is that femininity != vulnerability. ("!=" read "not equal"). Unfortunately, the association between masculinity and insensitivity and emotional distance (e.g. invulnerability) was established long ago and has since held. Thus, men who strive towards vulnerability are often left questioning their masculinity.
Also, though I cannot cite any examples, I would say that women can still be feminine in appearance and interests while still emotionally distant.
Post a Comment