I've been re-watching The West Wing lately. And yes -- for those of you keeping track, this marks the second time I've watched the series in less than 8 months -- a level of nerdiness on my part that is only eclipsed by the fact that I read the Tolkien cannon with even higher average frequency...
But I digress. Last night I watched an episode in which the First Family's oldest daughter, Elizabeth, has decided to help her politically clueless husband run for Congress. Her father (President Bartlet) isn't a fan of the arrangement:
BARTLET
[Your husband's] a great guy and a fantastic father. You're the politician. Why the hell don't you run?
LIZ
Because Annie [Liz's teenaged daughter] pierced her face. And this one [holding up her son's baseball mitt] can't catch, or bathe.
BARTLET
You can handle it.
LIZ
You can't. Forgive me, Ms. Steinem and Ms. Friedan, you cannot do it
all.
BARTLET
Your mother did.
LIZ
No, Daddy. She didn't.
Bartlet goes on to apologize (in so many words) for the moments he sacrificed fatherhood on behalf of a political career, but later in the episode the First Lady -- Dr Bartlet -- also apologizes for the sacrifice her children made on behalf of her career.
And that's what got me thinking. Elizabeth Bartlet is wrong to invoke famous feminists in the scene quoted above, because she's only taking one side of the perspective -- that of the woman/mother -- whereas the parents, President and Dr Bartlet, correctly recognize that when both parents have a career, neither parent can "have it all". Nor should they expect to.
If "having it all" for a woman means being able to pursue her career just as she would were she not a mother, than this old feminist mantra is an obvious (and, I might add, rather silly) falsehood: having kids requires sacrifice. But the same is true for men, and this is something we've not often talked about in connection to the question of "having it all". Should men with children be urged or expected to pursue a career as if they didn't have children? Should women?
If what is meant by "having it all" is that women can and should be enabled to successfully manage a career and a family at the same time, then I couldn't agree more -- but with qualification: it must be recognized that the success of both career and family on the part of the woman is contingent on the man's also pitching in and sacrificing in his career in order to have a family. In other words: a woman cannot have it all if she's the only one making sacrifices.
The ultimate goal for society should not be, contra third-wave feminists, to get to a place where women can approach their careers "as if on a par with men", because this view relies on an overturned, outmoded, misplaced Mad-Men-esque gender bias that allows -- nay, encourages or even expects -- all men, including those with children, to go on behaving like bachelors. That is, to align their time, energies, focus and career priorities in a way that supersedes or neglects all other considerations. Instead, we should aim for a society that encourages both women and men to think very differently about their careers and how they will direct their own finite resources once children are part of their story. Hint: it ought to look different than if they were single.
This is a point the church has understood for several millennia now. It's why until very recently (relative to its venerable age, that is) the church has always had celibates in prominent leadership roles -- people without children, without spouses. Because the church has always recognized that the project of puzzling the deep questions of God and leading God's people in right ways is a job that requires total sacrifice to the gig. When one has a wife or a husband or children, one cannot serve the church in the same way, and that's because he or she has a family requiring nurture as well.
The same is true of other callings, and for me that means as an academic. I will use this time of my life when I am single to give all I can to the sort of research, teaching, and building of personal and professional relationships as only a single person can. Because I know that if one day I should enter a relationship, then having children will become a possibility and that will mean sacrifice in lots of directions... as well as great reward, of course.
Just as I was finalizing this entry, I was forwarded by a dear friend (thanks B!) a really excellent HuffPost article about Having It All, written by a woman/mother/author I know and greatly admire. I resonated with her deeply on her main point: it's important to ponder how we're defining the "all" in "having it all". Give it a whirl (click here to read) and get back to me, will ya? Otherwise I'll go on re-watching The West Wing ad infinitum instead of pondering the deep questions of life...
Showing posts with label gender roles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender roles. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 27, 2014
Thursday, February 27, 2014
Hunh? (Faculty Edition)
I have had these conversations about my appearance this week:
Faculty Person 1: "That's a nice dress. In fact, that color actually looks GOOD on you!"
Me (in tasteful --- albeit very green --- dress): "Thank you."
I am pretty sure that this person was trying to compliment me, but the shock and awe in the tone of voice undermined that intention a bit.
Faculty Person 2: "Even in the twenty-first century, a young female theologian should look non-threatening... and be wearing rather less lipstick than your good self!"
Me (in black turtleneck and grey slacks, with a swipe of a color called "pure red" on the lips): "Well, fortunately I'm not a theologian!"
And I am pretty sure that this person has, as my father would say, all the social skills of a charging water buffalo. But really? Really, folks, is this the best we can do?
Faculty Person 1: "That's a nice dress. In fact, that color actually looks GOOD on you!"
Me (in tasteful --- albeit very green --- dress): "Thank you."
I am pretty sure that this person was trying to compliment me, but the shock and awe in the tone of voice undermined that intention a bit.
Faculty Person 2: "Even in the twenty-first century, a young female theologian should look non-threatening... and be wearing rather less lipstick than your good self!"
Me (in black turtleneck and grey slacks, with a swipe of a color called "pure red" on the lips): "Well, fortunately I'm not a theologian!"
And I am pretty sure that this person has, as my father would say, all the social skills of a charging water buffalo. But really? Really, folks, is this the best we can do?
Friday, January 31, 2014
A Date or Not-A-Date
I went on a very nice Not-A-Date recently. That is, I spent a chunk of time one-on-one with a straight, attractive, single man whose company I enjoy doing reasonably Date-Like things.(1)
As a side note, how, you may ask, do I know it was Not-A-Date?
Because he did not ask me.
These days, I really do think it is that simple. I didn't always. I have spent lots of time trying to interpret and re-interpret behavior. I am also a committed egalitarian, and I do not believe that All Men are one way and All Women are another. But increasingly, I am becoming enamoured of letting the guy make the move, and here's why: if they really like you, they will ask you out. The pulling petals off of daisies disappear, the angels sing, and everything is clear. There may be plenty of room for ambiguity in human relationships, but I do not think it is here. Want to know if he likes you? Here's what you do: ask yourself, "Self, has he asked you out on a date?" If the answer is "yes," then he does. If it is "no," then he does not.(2)
Anyway, we know this nice day was Not-A-Date because he did not ask me to go on a date. And that's fine with me. I was not expecting a date. He is my friend, and I like spending time with him, and we were doing things I wanted to do anyway.
But some time later, I find myself a little bothered by the whole thing. First, it did look awfully like a date, and while I'm not going to spend a lot of time worried about the thoughts of random passers-by, I am going to note that when I mentioned it in passing to a couple of good friends, each of them asked, "Wait, was that a date?" "No," I said, "he didn't ask me." "Well, it sounds like a date," both retorted. So appearances were, at least to my female friends, a little suspicious.
Second, I've been down this path before. Most of the women of my acquaintance have been. In fact, between the two of us here at the Béguinage, this story arc has happened with a good half-dozen men. Here's how the story usually goes: guy and girl are friends. They enjoy each others' company. They spend some time together. They go on some Not-A-Dates. They have lots of fun. Then the guy meets another girl and the friendship dissolves overnight, leaving the girl to wonder what happened.
There are variations on this narrative. Sometimes the girl falls in love with the guy in that process of spending time together and going on Not-A-Dates, and then is heartbroken when the guy tells her -- or doesn't tell her!! -- that he's seeing somebody. Most times, she doesn't fall in love with him, but she still tortures herself by wondering what the new girlfriend has that she doesn't. Sometimes, the guy intentionally asks the girl on Actual Dates for some time before confessing that he isn't really ready to date anybody, as though dating were some sort of arctic adventure that required outfitting a year in advance instead of what they had, in fact, been doing. And it is this messiness that I want to avoid. I don't want to be a placeholder, the cardboard cutout girlfriend until somebody cuter, somebody who's really girlfriend potential, comes along. And I don't like losing my friends when they fall for somebody.
So I don't know what, if anything, to do. I can refuse to go on Not-A-Dates, but that's not a great solution, because I like my friends. Deciding not to spend time with them on principle because they're men is obnoxious. I can keep doing what I'm doing, and try to be at peace with the inevitable replacement. Or I can abandon friends, dating, and social interaction altogether and just write my dissertation...
Thoughts? Advice? Suggestions?
Yes, I am footnoting my blog posts. Too long in academia, friends. Too, too long.
(1.) Not kissing. Kissing is usually a pretty good indication that you're on An Actual Date instead of Not-A-Date.
(2.) This is where I give the obligatory reminder that a date, even An Actual Date, is neither a declaration of undying love nor a marriage proposal. It is only a date. This has been a public service announcement.
As a side note, how, you may ask, do I know it was Not-A-Date?
Because he did not ask me.
These days, I really do think it is that simple. I didn't always. I have spent lots of time trying to interpret and re-interpret behavior. I am also a committed egalitarian, and I do not believe that All Men are one way and All Women are another. But increasingly, I am becoming enamoured of letting the guy make the move, and here's why: if they really like you, they will ask you out. The pulling petals off of daisies disappear, the angels sing, and everything is clear. There may be plenty of room for ambiguity in human relationships, but I do not think it is here. Want to know if he likes you? Here's what you do: ask yourself, "Self, has he asked you out on a date?" If the answer is "yes," then he does. If it is "no," then he does not.(2)
Anyway, we know this nice day was Not-A-Date because he did not ask me to go on a date. And that's fine with me. I was not expecting a date. He is my friend, and I like spending time with him, and we were doing things I wanted to do anyway.
But some time later, I find myself a little bothered by the whole thing. First, it did look awfully like a date, and while I'm not going to spend a lot of time worried about the thoughts of random passers-by, I am going to note that when I mentioned it in passing to a couple of good friends, each of them asked, "Wait, was that a date?" "No," I said, "he didn't ask me." "Well, it sounds like a date," both retorted. So appearances were, at least to my female friends, a little suspicious.
Second, I've been down this path before. Most of the women of my acquaintance have been. In fact, between the two of us here at the Béguinage, this story arc has happened with a good half-dozen men. Here's how the story usually goes: guy and girl are friends. They enjoy each others' company. They spend some time together. They go on some Not-A-Dates. They have lots of fun. Then the guy meets another girl and the friendship dissolves overnight, leaving the girl to wonder what happened.
There are variations on this narrative. Sometimes the girl falls in love with the guy in that process of spending time together and going on Not-A-Dates, and then is heartbroken when the guy tells her -- or doesn't tell her!! -- that he's seeing somebody. Most times, she doesn't fall in love with him, but she still tortures herself by wondering what the new girlfriend has that she doesn't. Sometimes, the guy intentionally asks the girl on Actual Dates for some time before confessing that he isn't really ready to date anybody, as though dating were some sort of arctic adventure that required outfitting a year in advance instead of what they had, in fact, been doing. And it is this messiness that I want to avoid. I don't want to be a placeholder, the cardboard cutout girlfriend until somebody cuter, somebody who's really girlfriend potential, comes along. And I don't like losing my friends when they fall for somebody.
So I don't know what, if anything, to do. I can refuse to go on Not-A-Dates, but that's not a great solution, because I like my friends. Deciding not to spend time with them on principle because they're men is obnoxious. I can keep doing what I'm doing, and try to be at peace with the inevitable replacement. Or I can abandon friends, dating, and social interaction altogether and just write my dissertation...
Thoughts? Advice? Suggestions?
Yes, I am footnoting my blog posts. Too long in academia, friends. Too, too long.
(1.) Not kissing. Kissing is usually a pretty good indication that you're on An Actual Date instead of Not-A-Date.
(2.) This is where I give the obligatory reminder that a date, even An Actual Date, is neither a declaration of undying love nor a marriage proposal. It is only a date. This has been a public service announcement.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Young (Female) Historians
Why yes, I am taking the Daily Mail seriously enough to respond to it.
It occurs to me that I can respond in about six different ways:
1. Look! Female historians! With jobs!
2. Lady, get your fingers off the ink on that manuscript page.
3. Why are they all white?
4. Actually, why are they all young and attractive?
5. I wonder what it would take to get the tenured male profs I know to wear outfits and poses like this.
And finally, as always:
Are you £@$%-ing kidding me?
It occurs to me that I can respond in about six different ways:
1. Look! Female historians! With jobs!
2. Lady, get your fingers off the ink on that manuscript page.
3. Why are they all white?
4. Actually, why are they all young and attractive?
5. I wonder what it would take to get the tenured male profs I know to wear outfits and poses like this.
And finally, as always:
Are you £@$%-ing kidding me?
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
A Practical Suggestion
"I've been in academia for 20 years. During that time I’ve had the
pleasure of meeting many talented male and female scholars. I’ve also
watched a disproportionate number of the female scholars in this group
drop out of grad school, be denied tenure and fail to reach the highest
levels of professional success. As one of the few women who have made
it to full professor at an elite research university, I often ask
myself, 'Where have all the women gone?'" Read it all.
We can discuss whether quantifying citations -- or recording" impact factor" -- is a legitimate way to assess actual scholarly significance. For a humanities field that relies less on journals than it does on books, this may be a flawed methodology. We can also discuss whether or not "full professor at an elite research university" is, and should be, the goal of every one who pursues an academic career. However, well done to B. F. Walter for making a practical, achievable suggestion for a minor policy change that could potentially have very significant results.
Once upon a time, I submitted a thesis to a university that did blind evaluations. I was given a number, and the readers had no idea who I was. I was awarded a very high mark. Would I have gotten that high mark if the readers had seen my name?
We can discuss whether quantifying citations -- or recording" impact factor" -- is a legitimate way to assess actual scholarly significance. For a humanities field that relies less on journals than it does on books, this may be a flawed methodology. We can also discuss whether or not "full professor at an elite research university" is, and should be, the goal of every one who pursues an academic career. However, well done to B. F. Walter for making a practical, achievable suggestion for a minor policy change that could potentially have very significant results.
Once upon a time, I submitted a thesis to a university that did blind evaluations. I was given a number, and the readers had no idea who I was. I was awarded a very high mark. Would I have gotten that high mark if the readers had seen my name?
Friday, July 26, 2013
Gender Flipping
So apparently there's been for some time now a media meme called 'gender flipping'.
As usual, I'm late to join in all the trendy-bloggers' reindeer games. But fear not! If you, like me, are hearing about gender flipping for the first time and are curious to learn about this sometimes hilarious, often disturbing and always thought-provoking movement, I direct you here.
(Readers may be interested to see that the author kicks off her article with the very same Dustin Hoffman clip posted earlier this month on BtheB. I just, you know, want it to be noted for posterity: I at one time managed to post something while it was trending. Let's all give me a nerd high-five!)
As usual, I'm late to join in all the trendy-bloggers' reindeer games. But fear not! If you, like me, are hearing about gender flipping for the first time and are curious to learn about this sometimes hilarious, often disturbing and always thought-provoking movement, I direct you here.
(Readers may be interested to see that the author kicks off her article with the very same Dustin Hoffman clip posted earlier this month on BtheB. I just, you know, want it to be noted for posterity: I at one time managed to post something while it was trending. Let's all give me a nerd high-five!)
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Historians with(out) kids
Sunday, July 14, 2013
Don't be an Interrupting Cow
The joke, a favorite of small children I know, goes like this:
Knock, knock!
Who's there?
Interrupting cow!
Interrupt...
MOOOOOO!!!
And I've been thinking about that as I continue my international disciplinary workshop / gender theatre 101. I have noticed a woman interrupting a man precisely once in discussion. Every woman, including me, has been interrupted by men multiple times. Last week, a male participant interrupted a female participant about three times in as many minutes, insisting that she wasn't answering his question. Of course she wasn't answering. She was supposed to have the floor, and couldn't get a word in edgewise. Yesterday, the female presenter, when answering a question, was interrupted by a male participant who started his comment with, "I demand that you fix this."
Don't be an interrupting cow. Shut up. Listen.
Knock, knock!
Who's there?
Interrupting cow!
Interrupt...
MOOOOOO!!!
And I've been thinking about that as I continue my international disciplinary workshop / gender theatre 101. I have noticed a woman interrupting a man precisely once in discussion. Every woman, including me, has been interrupted by men multiple times. Last week, a male participant interrupted a female participant about three times in as many minutes, insisting that she wasn't answering his question. Of course she wasn't answering. She was supposed to have the floor, and couldn't get a word in edgewise. Yesterday, the female presenter, when answering a question, was interrupted by a male participant who started his comment with, "I demand that you fix this."
Don't be an interrupting cow. Shut up. Listen.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Tootsie: More than Just a Pretty Face
Today on Facebook a friend posted this 3-ish minute video of Dustin Hoffman, an actor I love, discussing a deep insight about women he had while getting ready for one of his greatest roles, Tootsie.
Go here to watch it, then come back and share your thoughts.
Go here to watch it, then come back and share your thoughts.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
Great idea! (Or not.)
The scene: I'm at the opening reception of a multi-week international seminar for graduate students in my field and associated fields, chatting with strangers, eating unidentifiable canapés, being charming, trying to remember names, and drinking a magically-refilling glass of wine.
Editorial note: Despite the fact that the relevant fields are about 50-50 men-women at my university, and quite possibly majority female on a national level, women make up less than a third of the cohort of seminar participants.
The great idea: Male graduate student from another university declares, "I have a great idea! Since we're all staying in adjacent flats, why don't you girls just cook us all dinner every night?"
Me: Dumfounded. "Ha! Or not."
Editorial note: What a comeback, hmm? And here's the thing: even if he didn't mean anything by it, even if he was just trying to be funny, he wasn't. It's not about the cooking. It's not even about the comment. It's about his assumption: we do the work, you do the cooking.
Editorial note: Despite the fact that the relevant fields are about 50-50 men-women at my university, and quite possibly majority female on a national level, women make up less than a third of the cohort of seminar participants.
The great idea: Male graduate student from another university declares, "I have a great idea! Since we're all staying in adjacent flats, why don't you girls just cook us all dinner every night?"
Me: Dumfounded. "Ha! Or not."
Editorial note: What a comeback, hmm? And here's the thing: even if he didn't mean anything by it, even if he was just trying to be funny, he wasn't. It's not about the cooking. It's not even about the comment. It's about his assumption: we do the work, you do the cooking.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Feminist masculinity
From the women of WiT:
"So I end up having to defend the legitimacy of feminist concerns and method to somebody who has never taken the time to learn these fundamentals and who perhaps asks questions from the baseless presupposition that feminist concerns are invalid and perhaps even dangerous.... This kind of exchange can be infuriating, as it feels like an exploitation of my labor: men who proudly proclaim their ignorance or at least lack of familiarity with feminism and feminist theology (or, even worse: they don’t know that they don’t know) then insist that I, in that one exchange, answer all their questions and concerns as they have seen fit to articulate them."
Read it all.
"So I end up having to defend the legitimacy of feminist concerns and method to somebody who has never taken the time to learn these fundamentals and who perhaps asks questions from the baseless presupposition that feminist concerns are invalid and perhaps even dangerous.... This kind of exchange can be infuriating, as it feels like an exploitation of my labor: men who proudly proclaim their ignorance or at least lack of familiarity with feminism and feminist theology (or, even worse: they don’t know that they don’t know) then insist that I, in that one exchange, answer all their questions and concerns as they have seen fit to articulate them."
Read it all.
Friday, April 5, 2013
Transcendgendering
I read a brief essay today on Huffington Post written by Lauren Dubinsky. She echoes many of the gender role issues mentioned in my friend's letter (see yesterday's post) as well as the viewing-woman--beyond-gender theme in the writing of Ranier Maria Rilke that I mentioned a while ago (cf. this post). You can read Dubinsky here. I've coined this philosophy of going beyond gender (and its associated social baggage) "Transcendgendering".
(Come on, that's pretty good, eh?)
Marriage (& dating) is not about a woman struggling to understand a man qua his being "a man" (and therefore other); neither is it a man trying to cope with the intricacies of some fictional collective called 'women'. It is primarily about two infinite and infinitely different souls trying to live in communion with one another. And this is a calling-- this project of sharing one's life meaningfully with others--that is unqualifiedly universal.
Frankly, every time I encounter the sort of wisdom Dubinsky presents I feel immense relief. Because while gender roles/stereotypes are surely contributors to some marital strife or misunderstanding, it is far from the sole explanans for it. The same goes for the positive aspects of marriage. This means that part of what makes marriages special, intimate, outrageously hard yet wonderfully rewarding...has to do with two people learning how to do life alongside one another. And that kind of relationship is by no means restricted to and cultivated only within the marriage club.
Thus as a single woman, I am not missing out, not excluded from some super duper special class of women who really "get" men, who really understand their ways (again, referring to an idealized collective). By choosing not to date (or having that choice made for me, let's be honest) I have not cut myself off or been denied access to crucial information about the other sex that would help me find and keep my future husband (if there is such a one), or to become a paradigm of my own sex.
Nor am I missing out on a more general human experience-- the deep pain and joy of really loving someone other than myself. I too can cultivate the Wisdom of Truly Loving the Other, and the Other can be any, or many: my sister, my father, my colleague, my nieces, my God. Being single frees me to partake of a deep intimacy with whole communities of my choosing without primary obligations to a husband or children. I can, and ought to expect, to participate in the same joys and hardships of giving and receiving love whether I am married or not.
(Come on, that's pretty good, eh?)
Marriage (& dating) is not about a woman struggling to understand a man qua his being "a man" (and therefore other); neither is it a man trying to cope with the intricacies of some fictional collective called 'women'. It is primarily about two infinite and infinitely different souls trying to live in communion with one another. And this is a calling-- this project of sharing one's life meaningfully with others--that is unqualifiedly universal.
Frankly, every time I encounter the sort of wisdom Dubinsky presents I feel immense relief. Because while gender roles/stereotypes are surely contributors to some marital strife or misunderstanding, it is far from the sole explanans for it. The same goes for the positive aspects of marriage. This means that part of what makes marriages special, intimate, outrageously hard yet wonderfully rewarding...has to do with two people learning how to do life alongside one another. And that kind of relationship is by no means restricted to and cultivated only within the marriage club.
Thus as a single woman, I am not missing out, not excluded from some super duper special class of women who really "get" men, who really understand their ways (again, referring to an idealized collective). By choosing not to date (or having that choice made for me, let's be honest) I have not cut myself off or been denied access to crucial information about the other sex that would help me find and keep my future husband (if there is such a one), or to become a paradigm of my own sex.
Nor am I missing out on a more general human experience-- the deep pain and joy of really loving someone other than myself. I too can cultivate the Wisdom of Truly Loving the Other, and the Other can be any, or many: my sister, my father, my colleague, my nieces, my God. Being single frees me to partake of a deep intimacy with whole communities of my choosing without primary obligations to a husband or children. I can, and ought to expect, to participate in the same joys and hardships of giving and receiving love whether I am married or not.
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Who Wears the Pants
A while ago a very wise, very dear friend of mine shared some thoughts on her struggles with gender roles in church, work and marriage. I asked if I could post excerpts from her letter, as she presents a different perspective than we at BtheB can provide, yet one that I am sure will resonate with many of our readers. She writes:
As always, thanks to Friend for sharing this with me and allowing me to pass it on, and for welcoming me into both the hard and the beautiful aspects of your life. I shall do my best to return the favor.
While I am not single and haven't been for a long time, and I am not an academic, I deeply feel I push against assumptions of what it means to be a woman on a regular basis. Most recently (and probably most consistently), this has been in the realm of church life. One of my strongest traits is also one of the least "feminine": assertiveness. And it seems particularly problematic that this trait is one [Husband] does not particularly exemplify. Questions of "who wears the pants in the family" seem to come down to this one trait. The model in our church, and it seems many churches, is that women have roles of leadership over other women, children, music, or other more "feeling-oriented" positions. Few women find themselves in places where they are in executive, decision-making roles in the church, and yet these seem to be where I belong the most. I like thinking about systems and creating structure where none exists and helping empower people to use their gifts in fulfilling ways. I find that I can't help but thinking this way. It is for this reason that I have realized that I need to be fully "in" or fully disengaged from the initiatives I care about. I can't half-ass it. [Husband] has helped me realize this. I think this is also the reason that people either really appreciate me or don't like me.
In the work setting, it is a little easier having this trait of assertiveness as a female. I definitely have more role models. However, I still rub raw against other women especially. The strong, independent, yet passive-aggressive female is the one I have yet figured out how to work with--someone with whom I continually have conflict yet refuses to actually address that conflict. I find it infuriating. I work with several women like this who I know do not like me. I desperately want to bridge the gap that exists, and yet, they seem to keep their power by not letting the gap be bridged. Perhaps men also operate like this and I am not aware of it, but so far I only have this sort of conflict with women. It deeply saddens me.
In my own marriage, I struggle to find ways and places to "choose weakness" in order to give space for my marriage to thrive. This may seem counter-intuitive or maybe not the place for a feminist, and yet after 10+ years of marriage, here I am. Just like as Christians it is often true that in our weakness, Christ lives. I think I am learning more of what it means to die to self--that I can choose to be less assertive, choose to not always be completely truthful (not in lying but in keeping thoughts to myself), choose to not insist on co-leading in every situation--all in order to empower someone else whom I care about deeply. I think this probably spills over into my other relationships, but I am working on practicing it first in my most important, and most difficult one.
Now, as [Husband] is in the [N]th year of being on the job market, I am in a place where I struggling to find what it means to look to the needs of our kids and me, but to support [Husband] as his "helpmate." I cringe to use that word, as I think it is often applied only to wives as a means to force them into a one-way role of submission. But, maybe as a couple we take turns being "helpmates" in various aspects of our lives? Maybe this is true of friendships also?
As always, thanks to Friend for sharing this with me and allowing me to pass it on, and for welcoming me into both the hard and the beautiful aspects of your life. I shall do my best to return the favor.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Rainer Maria Rilke
I've been on a wee bit of a Rilke-kick this past week, mostly because (i) I realized I finally knew enough German to read him in the original (well....mostly. As for my ongoing hopes of reading Goethe, Thomas Mann and the first Harry Potter in German, don't ask); and (ii) I was recently visiting my sister-in-law, who often speaks with admiration about RMR, especially Letters to a Young Poet, and I decided it was high time I investigated her claims. (For the record, sis-in-law is usually spot-on in these matter. I heart sis-in-law. Are you reading this, sis-in-law?).
The Rilkefest has thus far been a twofold daily celebration for me: at night before sleep I curl up in bed with a hot water baby (uh, I mean bottle) under a thick duvet and read a few of his poems in both languages, sometimes alternating languages with lines, sometimes by stanza, and sometimes whole poems first in one language then the other. I have found in so doing that (unsurprisingly) the German radiates in a wholly different way than the English ever could (e.g., consider this stanza from "The Three Kings":
Drei Könige von Unterwegs
und der Stern Überall
die zogen alle (überlegs!)
so rechts ein Rex und links ein Rex
zu einem stillen Stall
You needn't understand the German-- just reading it aloud is a wondrous experiment).
I have also found in alternating languages that (surprisingly) I prefer a few of his lines in their English incarnation. This has left me feeling weirdly conflicted: is it still Rilke that I am loving? Or the translator, who has become in the act of translating herself a poet? I digress...)
The other daily Rilke-infusion (and indeed the reason for the present post) occurs during my morning commute where I have been devouring Letters. Today I read a particular passage relevant to the blog which caused me to pause and think. (Indeed, sis-in-law was correct. I find myself stopping to ponder nearly every sentence in this dear little collection. I find that, to borrow RMR's own phrase, "es fluten Wassertiefen im Aquamarin").
Rilke writes in his letter to Kappus on 14 May 1904*:
-E
* pp.40-45 of M. D. Herter Norton translation, 2004 edition.
The Rilkefest has thus far been a twofold daily celebration for me: at night before sleep I curl up in bed with a hot water baby (uh, I mean bottle) under a thick duvet and read a few of his poems in both languages, sometimes alternating languages with lines, sometimes by stanza, and sometimes whole poems first in one language then the other. I have found in so doing that (unsurprisingly) the German radiates in a wholly different way than the English ever could (e.g., consider this stanza from "The Three Kings":
Drei Könige von Unterwegs
und der Stern Überall
die zogen alle (überlegs!)
so rechts ein Rex und links ein Rex
zu einem stillen Stall
You needn't understand the German-- just reading it aloud is a wondrous experiment).
I have also found in alternating languages that (surprisingly) I prefer a few of his lines in their English incarnation. This has left me feeling weirdly conflicted: is it still Rilke that I am loving? Or the translator, who has become in the act of translating herself a poet? I digress...)
The other daily Rilke-infusion (and indeed the reason for the present post) occurs during my morning commute where I have been devouring Letters. Today I read a particular passage relevant to the blog which caused me to pause and think. (Indeed, sis-in-law was correct. I find myself stopping to ponder nearly every sentence in this dear little collection. I find that, to borrow RMR's own phrase, "es fluten Wassertiefen im Aquamarin").
Rilke writes in his letter to Kappus on 14 May 1904*:
"Women, in whom life lingers and dwells more immediately, more fruitfully and more confidently, must surely have become fundamentally riper people, more human people, than easygoing man, who is not pulled down below the surface of life by the weight of any fruit of his body, and who, presumptuous and hasty, undervalues what he thinks he loves. This humanity of woman, borne its full time in suffering and humiliation, will come to light when she will have stripped off the conventions of mere femininity in the mutations of her outward status... [S]ome day there will be girls and women whose name will no longer signify merely an opposite of the masculine, but something in itself, something that makes one think, not of any complement and limit, but only of life and existence: the feminine human being."Your reactions?
-E
* pp.40-45 of M. D. Herter Norton translation, 2004 edition.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
The béguinage goes to Sephora
Several years ago, E and I were in a show. There we were in the dressing room, before the performance, getting gussied up, laughing, carrying on, pooling our limited makeup supplies so we could each slather on the requisite amount of stuff to appear under bright lights.
And a Diva-In-Training, nearly a decade younger than the average age in the béguinage, joined our conversation, remarking that when she was a girl, her mother had insisted that if she was going to wear makeup, she was going to learn to put it on properly. So the mother had taken the early-teen Diva-In-Training to some place where she learned all about the stuff.
This did not happen in my house. It did not happen in E's house either.
(And, for the record, I am EXTREMELY glad it did not. Thanks, Mom! Thanks for valuing my brain and teaching -- and living -- that the worth of a woman is about far, far more than her appearance.)
But this meant that I was in my very late twenties before I had ever learned the first thing about makeup.
So the lack of knowledge and lack of confidence make me nervous. But I am slowly learning that I can decide to be confident. I am as beautiful as any of the women in that store... or at least my money works as well as theirs does. Buying eyeliner is not an act of betrayal of the feminist sisterhood. And it really is ok to ask for help. I tell my students that one of the most important lessons they can learn in college is how to ask the relevant people for help. In Sephora, the relevant person is the woman with the nametag and apron full of makeup brushes.
And a Diva-In-Training, nearly a decade younger than the average age in the béguinage, joined our conversation, remarking that when she was a girl, her mother had insisted that if she was going to wear makeup, she was going to learn to put it on properly. So the mother had taken the early-teen Diva-In-Training to some place where she learned all about the stuff.
This did not happen in my house. It did not happen in E's house either.
(And, for the record, I am EXTREMELY glad it did not. Thanks, Mom! Thanks for valuing my brain and teaching -- and living -- that the worth of a woman is about far, far more than her appearance.)
But this meant that I was in my very late twenties before I had ever learned the first thing about makeup.
So the lack of knowledge and lack of confidence make me nervous. But I am slowly learning that I can decide to be confident. I am as beautiful as any of the women in that store... or at least my money works as well as theirs does. Buying eyeliner is not an act of betrayal of the feminist sisterhood. And it really is ok to ask for help. I tell my students that one of the most important lessons they can learn in college is how to ask the relevant people for help. In Sephora, the relevant person is the woman with the nametag and apron full of makeup brushes.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
Conferences and photo ops
In this month's glossy magazine for my field, I found a photo montage with snapshots from the recent Annual Conference.
Now, if one were to describe the roles women play in The Field by looking at the photos, here's what one might say. Women, judging by these photos:
In these pictures, the men:
There are twenty-five photos over three pages. Not a single photo shows a woman giving a paper. "Oh, I know," quipped a colleague, "they must be at a conference where only men are allowed to speak!" I'm terribly tempted to write a scathing letter to the editor... but I want a job. I don't dare.
Now, if one were to describe the roles women play in The Field by looking at the photos, here's what one might say. Women, judging by these photos:
- Sell books
- Listen to men and diligently take notes
- Have men point to a large map and explain things to them
- Drink wine
- Serve cake
- Buy books
- Sit in cafés
In these pictures, the men:
- Walk and look important
- Talk into a microphone
- Lecture
- Explain things
- Think Deep Thoughts
- Drink beer
- Use smartphones
- Buy books
- Walk other places looking important
- Lecture again
- Interview for jobs
There are twenty-five photos over three pages. Not a single photo shows a woman giving a paper. "Oh, I know," quipped a colleague, "they must be at a conference where only men are allowed to speak!" I'm terribly tempted to write a scathing letter to the editor... but I want a job. I don't dare.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Plus ça change...
"Do you know any man who sincerely admires a woman for her brains?"
"Well," said Harriet, "certainly not many."
"You may think you know one," said Miss Hillyard with a bitter emphasis. "Most of us think at some time or other that we know one. But the man usually has some other little axe to grind."
"Very likely," said Harriet. "You don't seem to have a very high opinion of men -- of the male character, I mean, as such."
"No," said Miss Hillyard, "not very high. But they have an admirable talent for imposing their point of view on society in general. All women are sensitive to male criticism. Men are not sensitive to female criticism. They despise the critics."
"Do you, personally, despise male criticism?"
"Heartily," said Miss Hilliard. "But it does damage. Look at this University. All the men have been amazingly kind and sympathetic about the Wome's Colleges. Certainly. But you won't find them appointing women to big University posts. That would never do. The women might perform their work in a way beyond criticism. But they are quite pleased to see us playing with our little toys."
Dorothy L. Sayers, Gaudy Night (1935)
Sorry for the brief descent into bitterness. I'm trying -- and obviously, not being wildly successful in this -- to spend less time in bitterness mode. But that's where we are tonight, folks. And, as usual, Dorothy L. Sayers says it very well indeed.
"Well," said Harriet, "certainly not many."
"You may think you know one," said Miss Hillyard with a bitter emphasis. "Most of us think at some time or other that we know one. But the man usually has some other little axe to grind."
"Very likely," said Harriet. "You don't seem to have a very high opinion of men -- of the male character, I mean, as such."
"No," said Miss Hillyard, "not very high. But they have an admirable talent for imposing their point of view on society in general. All women are sensitive to male criticism. Men are not sensitive to female criticism. They despise the critics."
"Do you, personally, despise male criticism?"
"Heartily," said Miss Hilliard. "But it does damage. Look at this University. All the men have been amazingly kind and sympathetic about the Wome's Colleges. Certainly. But you won't find them appointing women to big University posts. That would never do. The women might perform their work in a way beyond criticism. But they are quite pleased to see us playing with our little toys."
Dorothy L. Sayers, Gaudy Night (1935)
Sorry for the brief descent into bitterness. I'm trying -- and obviously, not being wildly successful in this -- to spend less time in bitterness mode. But that's where we are tonight, folks. And, as usual, Dorothy L. Sayers says it very well indeed.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The "Placeholder Syndrome"
"We judge others by their actions and ourselves by our intentions."
On Monday L posted an interesting NYTimes piece and some thought-provoking commentary. I agree with her entirely that the idea of having no alternative between "hookups & hangouts" and Joshua-Harris-inspired courtship/dating is as unimaginative as it is harmful.
L suggests as a positive way towards establishing middle-ground options, that "dating" in a reasonable sense should definitely be left on the table. I'm all for the "intent begetting actions" motto that I suspect undergirds her thinking: the intent of getting to know each other as multidimensional, unique people gives rise to interesting, meaningful interaction issued from both sides. The details of how this plays out will of course differ, but this foundation remains to guide.
But here's my question: What happens when there is meaningful action or behavior (beyond or excluding the physical) without any intent? I've seen it happen with both men and women, and I call it the "Placeholder Syndrome": A person who is perhaps a good friend (and yes, perhaps a la When Harry Met Sally there has always been a little something "extra" in the mix) begins to act in ways traditionally interpreted as "significant" toward the other. For example, you go to concerts together, you make each other dinner, you are each other's plus-one to dances or informal gatherings with colleagues, you are spending most of your free time with each other, and mostly uno-y-uno. And yet no clear intent is declared until finally, at a point of utter confusion (or in some cases, the arrival of another...more datable?...person on the scene), one party forces the other to protest that s/he never meant anything other than good, even best friendship, and that is all.
Maybe this is an inevitable if heartbreaking byproduct of our being humans and thus often misunderstanding one another. Maybe it all boils down to the age-old question of whether singles can be friends if the possibility for romance exists even as a hope in the glimmer of the twinkling of the eye for either party. And it must be stated for the record that many true and lasting romantic relationships ARE borne of the awkward, ambiguous friendship stage.
But I want to ask this question specifically in terms of intention verses action, and what this might look like in a dating culture where the rules of interaction between "potentials"--and in particular between "potentials-qua-friends"--are in such flux that we are told to give up on anything that isn't easily managed, convenient, self-serving. So I ask: can we hope to get rid of the Placeholder Syndrome? Or more generally, are there better rules of conduct for engagement here, regarding one's intention verses one's actions, that help us avoid the extremes of never going deep enough (either via perennial hanging out or hooking up) or always going too deep (marriage-or-bust)?
On Monday L posted an interesting NYTimes piece and some thought-provoking commentary. I agree with her entirely that the idea of having no alternative between "hookups & hangouts" and Joshua-Harris-inspired courtship/dating is as unimaginative as it is harmful.
L suggests as a positive way towards establishing middle-ground options, that "dating" in a reasonable sense should definitely be left on the table. I'm all for the "intent begetting actions" motto that I suspect undergirds her thinking: the intent of getting to know each other as multidimensional, unique people gives rise to interesting, meaningful interaction issued from both sides. The details of how this plays out will of course differ, but this foundation remains to guide.
But here's my question: What happens when there is meaningful action or behavior (beyond or excluding the physical) without any intent? I've seen it happen with both men and women, and I call it the "Placeholder Syndrome": A person who is perhaps a good friend (and yes, perhaps a la When Harry Met Sally there has always been a little something "extra" in the mix) begins to act in ways traditionally interpreted as "significant" toward the other. For example, you go to concerts together, you make each other dinner, you are each other's plus-one to dances or informal gatherings with colleagues, you are spending most of your free time with each other, and mostly uno-y-uno. And yet no clear intent is declared until finally, at a point of utter confusion (or in some cases, the arrival of another...more datable?...person on the scene), one party forces the other to protest that s/he never meant anything other than good, even best friendship, and that is all.
Maybe this is an inevitable if heartbreaking byproduct of our being humans and thus often misunderstanding one another. Maybe it all boils down to the age-old question of whether singles can be friends if the possibility for romance exists even as a hope in the glimmer of the twinkling of the eye for either party. And it must be stated for the record that many true and lasting romantic relationships ARE borne of the awkward, ambiguous friendship stage.
But I want to ask this question specifically in terms of intention verses action, and what this might look like in a dating culture where the rules of interaction between "potentials"--and in particular between "potentials-qua-friends"--are in such flux that we are told to give up on anything that isn't easily managed, convenient, self-serving. So I ask: can we hope to get rid of the Placeholder Syndrome? Or more generally, are there better rules of conduct for engagement here, regarding one's intention verses one's actions, that help us avoid the extremes of never going deep enough (either via perennial hanging out or hooking up) or always going too deep (marriage-or-bust)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)