At my last therapy session, Debbie asked me a bit about my fiction writing — particularly, whether it is based on real events in my life. I have never written fiction that has any relation to actual things that have happened to me, which may be one reason why I am such a slow writer; there aren’t any shortcuts for me. However, the philosophical and emotional subtexts in my fiction are always related to issues that are important to me in real life. The first novel I wrote was about how people reinvent themselves under restrictive or oppressive circumstances. The novel I’m (kind of) writing now is about my perceptions of women’s enslavement; since it is set in Victorian England, the reader has the option to pretend that I’m not making observations about modern life.
I went on to tell Debbie that while certainly there have been improvements in how women are perceived, and the opportunities open to them, my opinion is that women’s liberation hasn’t done much more than set the bar impossibly high. 120 years ago, an intelligent man expected a woman to be beautiful, pleasant, a decent mother to his children, and an acceptable household manager. These days, an intelligent man expects a woman to be self-actualizing, educated, goal-oriented, entertaining, politically aware, financially stable, capable of raising his children by herself after he divorces her … and still, he expects her to be pleasant and beautiful — and beautiful by modern standards, which are impossible for many women to attain. Despite the fad of tight corseting, the Victorians at least had some idea of what a woman’s body naturally looked like, as any observation of Victorian erotic photography will prove.
Debbie laughed at this, and said that based on her own experience of being a middle-aged single woman, she felt I had a point. Or possibly a series of points.
In my opinion, the greatest problem with the liberation of women is that men aren’t changing at the same rate of speed. The second greatest problem is that intelligent women tend to think they would like to have an intelligent man as a partner. Guess what? The self-identified “intelligent” guy is the one most likely to still be emotionally stuck in high school, trying desperately to date the adult equivalent of a cheerleader, because he’s never gotten over being a science geek who never took Barbie Bouncetits to the prom. You’re better off with a guy who is smarter than he realizes, or who doesn’t advertise himself as intelligent. In the long run, social and personal interaction skills will make you happier than how bright he thinks he is.
My casual observations would suggest that the third greatest problem is the ways in which women undermine themselves. Women would not be enslaved to fashion, for example, if they didn’t buy into it. If every woman everywhere in the world voluntarily stopped accepting the fashion industry’s idea of how women should look and dress (an industry run primarily by men) then we would be forced to take women on their own merits … and perhaps more importantly, women would be forced to take themselves and each other on their own merits. Although I work a great deal from home, I do occasionally go into a main office, where there are a lot of women who hang around in the common area where I have to stand in order to make photocopies, etc. Fully half of their conversations revolve around their weight, their diets, their clothes, or other women’s weight, diet, and clothes. It is amazing to me how women voluntarily perpetuate the images and stereotypes that keep them enslaved. The enslavement of women is a massive industry, as is the exploitation of women. There are very few products that are not sold with sexualized images of women.
No, women are no longer the legal property of their husbands; but womankind is the sexual property of every stranger who opens a magazine. Women are degraded and insulted by every television program and film that mates an average-looking guy with a gorgeous woman, but never does the reverse except as a joke. Female liberation is undermined and moved backward by every television program and film that mates an intelligent, ambitious woman with a lazy man-child. And yet, we are encouraged to think that such things are funny.
I don’t think they’re funny. I think they’re evidence of the fact that as a society, we’re deteriorating rather than progressing.
And if you’re concerned about women’s rights, I might suggest paying attention to the recent popularity of films that have a subtle anti-abortion agenda, particularly Waitress, Juno, and Knocked Up. Single parenthood is no laughing matter; neither are one-night stands that result in pregnancy, and neither is teen pregnancy. Do you think I’m taking all this too seriously? Ask yourself, then, what message you are intended to take away from these films. Entertainment has always been propaganda, and it always will be.
February 3, 2008 at 8:13 am |
As our society becomes more and more a consumer society, men become more and more demanding of fancier female products to consume and women become more and more eager to turn themselves into fancier and fancier products. Eventually we end up with products such as the poor, pathetic, Britney
Spears.
February 3, 2008 at 9:18 am |
As a woman reading this, it was a bit difficult not to stand up and cheer.
February 3, 2008 at 11:27 am |
David? You took my breath away with this post. I too, stand up and applaud!!
February 3, 2008 at 11:34 am |
By the way: I had the pleasure to experience what it feels like to be fitted by a real corset a few weeks ago. I dont think I would want to wear one everyday however, as an ex-tomboy, it was a wonderful feeling to allow myself to feel “feminine.” What a catch-22.
February 3, 2008 at 11:56 am |
Word.
The average-guy-with-hot-girl situation: something I call “King of Queens Syndrome.” Every beer-gut-bearing slob is entitled to a surgically enhanced hottie wife. But of course</i.
February 3, 2008 at 11:57 am |
Except without the random html pieces.
February 3, 2008 at 12:00 pm |
I’m sure I have something intelligent to say about this, but I’ll go get my beauty sleep first.
February 3, 2008 at 2:06 pm |
There’s been an obvious trend lately toward women sexualizing themselves more, but I think it’s a bit of a pendulum effect after the rejection of such behaviors by the original feminist movement. I don’t think that the freedoms that we won have been taken away–there are now many options available, and we don’t have to play the look-like-a-celebrity game.
I certainly wouldn’t like to go back too far in history, when the dollhouse scenario you describe would only apply if I were from the higher classes…. As a lower class woman, I would work but not be paid (if it’s family land or business, which of course I couldn’t own), or work for much less than a man, with most areas closed to me. If I were married, my husband could still happily leave me, without a legal divorce–he could just go about his business if he felt like it, and there would be nothing anyone could do to make him take responsibility for me or his children. Etc…
February 3, 2008 at 2:20 pm |
Aniko — I didn’t want to go on and on about the Victorian class system, but of course you’re right, which is why I (too briefly) mentioned the change in opportunities open to women. Of course there have been vast improvements … kind of. My cousin, and many women like her, still can’t get her deadbeat husband to pay child support, and there are still plenty of women trapped in physically abusive relationships.
However, it’s also true that family relationships were different then than they are now. Certainly a lower-class woman couldn’t afford to hire legal help to have her husband prosecuted for desertion (which was grounds for divorce), but her family and friends might stand by her in a way that is unusual now. Or she might just end up on the street as a prostitute to support her children because she wouldn’t be paid enough as a slopwork seamstress … the 19th-century equivalent of working for Wal-mart, I fear.
What bothers me is what I perceive to be the deliberate relinquishing of those improvements by many women whom I personally know. You are an exceptionally intelligent, educated, and free-thinking woman, and so yes, of course you reject the games. But many women aren’t that secure or confident … or at least, they think they can’t be.
February 3, 2008 at 7:29 pm |
David, your comment #9 triggered a memory. When I was a high school teacher in the 1970s I (dimly) perceived this attitude among many of my female students and I (very clumsily) tried to tell them, “Don’t depend on looks and a man to take you through life; they’ll both desert you some day.”
The message was generally not well received. By then their boobs had developed and they were too old to accept the message.
(Women often justly accuse men of thinking with their penises instead of their brains. Fair enough, but the most common request among high school girls for a graduation present is a boob job. This is not a medical enhancement that notably improves reasoning.)
My granddaughter will be a very good looking woman. I am going to try and tell her by the time she is five, “Be smart and tough as well as cute.”
She won’t remember Sylvie the very cute and very smart little female cat in the days of Sebastian, the big dumb male.
Sebastian would chase and torment Sylvie, who usually would just run away or leap up onto some high furniture where he couldn’t reach her.
But sometimes he would corner her. Then sweet little Sylvie would turn into a snarling little ball of thrashing claws. Although Sebastian was twice as big, he would immediately think of some important task he had to do elsewhere (usually go to sleep).
My niece married a French boy after being an exchange student. A couple of years later, she divorced him. (This may be a racial slur on the French; if so, I apologize to every French person reading this comment.) My brother just told me his daughter’s French husband had “issues.”
Now my niece makes a living as a martial arts teacher. It will offend my wife, my daughter, and her partner, but I am tempted to leave money in my will to pay for RG to go study “don’t take crap from any man–here’s how to break his knee cap if necessary” lessons from my niece.
I may just be imagining things.
February 3, 2008 at 11:55 pm |
Mr. R — I think every woman should know how to break a guy’s kneecap. At least once in her life, she’ll be in a situation where at least the threat of it is warranted.
February 4, 2008 at 1:06 am |
Sometimes I wonder if my ongoing midlife crisis really is a manifestation of being “emotionally stuck in high school,” and though I honestly don’t care that I “never took Barbie Bouncetits to the prom” I still wonder, if I were single, if I would end up “trying desperately to date the adult equivalent of a cheerleader,” just because that’s what single middle aged men do. I also wonder if I would get it out of my system in a span of time equivalent to attending high school, or if it would take much longer now, and if so that’s why there are so many pathetic, unhappy, self-ignorant old men out there.
The rest of your comments strike a richer chord, as I am bothered frequently by the increasing objectification of female flesh in the global culture, and I wonder what effect this is having on the psyches of young women all over, and if the phenomenon of Everygirl putting pics of herself in lingerie on her Myspace isn’t a reflection and a warning.
February 4, 2008 at 1:06 am |
Very well put but do you really believe that (and I know this is not the purpose of your post but just a tag-on) all entertainment is propaganda?
February 4, 2008 at 1:28 am |
Don — I’m sure that not all bright guys are still mourning their lack of attention from the popular girls in high school, but I am amazed at how many seemingly-intelligent men whom I know personally, regardless of age, really are stuck in that mindset. I notice it most, though, among men who self-identify as intelligent or intellectual … who verbalize that about themselves on a regular basis. To be fair, a lot of women are stuck in a similar mindset, too — both sexes are prone, I think, to wanting a trophy date. I just think that women snap out of it sooner.
Aos — Yes, I do think that all “big” entertainment is propaganda- or agenda-driven. That’s not always a bad thing. Ibsen, for example, gave us some excellent feminist propaganda with A Doll’s House. But entertainment seeks to provoke a response. It doesn’t exist simply for its own sake … it has a purpose.
Even reality TV is a form of propaganda, in my opinion. We’re living in an age in which spectacular individual achievement is seldom possible. Not too long ago, there were self-made men everywhere … there were people who broke the mold. That’s harder and harder to do — individual success and fame is largely out of the reach of Everyman. So what do we do? We come up with a form of entertainment that elevates some idea of Everyman. To some extent, it stills the people’s discontent with their inability to achieve; they can cheer on someone with whom they identify on TV. I don’t think this kind of thing is accidental.
I don’t know whether you’ve ever seen the film Network — if you haven’t, I highly recommend it. I saw it for the first time a couple of years ago, and was enormously relieved to find that I’m not the only person who has these ideas about the media.
February 4, 2008 at 1:51 am |
#11 David,
When my granddaughter was two years old, I observed her being introduced to another two-year-old boy. She immediately slapped him on the face, without further ado, much to the embarrassment of her Mommy.
My guess is that RG channeled some future event requiring a slap. Not being a patient child, she probably decided to take care of the matter right away. I hope the little boy got the point, but as we all know, boys are a little clueless.
February 4, 2008 at 9:27 am |
David,
I agree that there is a political subtext to much entertainment (and never as much as in reality tv), I’m just not convinced about applying that brush to all. Though it is impossible to create without investing it without your own political slant, it is possible to keep that to a minimum, an unintentional small tinge to the proceedings. Perhaps you mean to distinguish the “big” entertainment but I wonder – both big and small have people who believe they are doing the right things. I wonder about Buster Keaton, about Seinfeld. You could say that Seinfeld is part of a superstructure of political distraction even as it commented on the lack of values in modern life.
I most heartily agree with your argument for the wholesale elevation of everyman, the illusionary heroism, the plebians new clothes, this new opiate of the masses, after all if they are the crowns of creation why challenge the existing order?
Huge topic..
February 4, 2008 at 10:01 am |
So much of what you have said here is exactly right… but I also agree with thirdculturemom… some of what we’re seeing now is an overreaction to feeling forced by our mothers’ generation to be strong pseudo-masculine asexual creatures in order to garner the respect of a man’s world. Now, women are trying to prove that they can be both sexual creatures and feminists… and as TCM said, the pendulum has swung too far. But yes, it does seem that, in every period of history, we get stuck in the role of trying to do too much, trying to be everything to everyone.
February 4, 2008 at 11:16 am |
1. If I didn’t already have a crush on you, this would have done it!
2. I laughed myself sick over “Barbie Bouncetits”.
3. We also cause some of our own problems by thinking we can have a do “it all”. Personaly I can’t do everything that needs done around here, work forty hours, and be the perfect wife and sex-pot. Sometimes I have to look Hubby straight in the eye tell him he’s expecting too much, and if he wants something done he should get on it.
4. Those who want to be slaves to fashion can have it, and they can give me all the nonsense they want while they are trying to sit thin. I’ll watch comfortably in my jeans and t-shirt.
February 5, 2008 at 1:21 am |
Shawn — Glad you enjoyed this.
Pmousse (and TCM) — I think there is a huge difference between women celebrating and owning their sexuality, and womankind being commercially exploited. There is nothing empowering about suggestively-clad young women being used to sell beer or cars. That is exploitation. A woman who chooses to dress in a way that makes her feel confident and sexy is another matter.
I’m all for women owning their sexuality, as long as they’re really doing it in a way that feels right and good to them. Many women feel that they cannot embrace their sexual power unless they look like the girls in the beer and car ads. And that is why I would like to see women stop buying into those images by trying to imitate them.
February 7, 2008 at 10:12 am |
IT IS BETTER TO BE A PERFECT COPY OF OUR TRUE SELF THAN A CHEAP COPY OF SOMEONE ELSE.
And yes David, your post says it like it is. Everyone has the right to their own opinion and might disagree with you, but in reality, that is how it is, including what you say about entertainment TV.
On several occasions I have had men ask me to turn on my camera so they can see me. I have turned it on so they can see my face, but the minute they ask me to stand up, I tell them that I am not on display. I just then proceed to delete them from my contacts because it lets me know what I will be dealing with if I continue with the friendship.
When will we all understand that it is not the perfect body, perfect clothing, perfect make-up, perfect anything, that gets us anywhere? It is our essence, who we truly are, that is the most captivating.
I enjoy reading your blog David, it is the best! I don’t usually leave comments because then I read the comments the your readers leave and they are all so well written that I just can’t bring myself to write anything else.
By the way, who else besides Shawn and myself has a crush on you?
(Any grammatical of orthographic mistakes, just ignore…)
February 7, 2008 at 11:22 am |
I find it particularly heartening to hear from a younger woman with such a healthy attitude — I remember other posts of yours from Blogsource, Julia, that were similarly healthy about yourself and your friends.
And by the way, your comments are just as well-thought-out and well-written as anyone else’s. I always enjoy hearing what you have to say,and I’m glad that you stop in.
February 9, 2008 at 10:13 am |
David…first off I have to tell you that I laughed so hard over the “Barbie Bouncetits” remark that I scared my dogs!
I just had this conversation with…I guess no one the other day, because as usual, I’m sure my husband didn’t hear a word I said. But we were watching one of those documentaries about some tribe in Africa where all members of the tribe run around completely nude, including the children. Believe it or not, every woman was shown completely nude…I’m talking full frontal nudity, while every man’s penis and butt were blurred out! I don’t understand at all! So I said, “Why do you suppose it is okay to show a woman’s full frontal nudity, but it’s not okay to show a man’s penis or even his backside?” To which I got no response because my husband is incapable of hearing my voice…so I answered myself. “It’s because men make these documentaries.”
I also recall watching a movie once that showed a morgue with lots of bodies on tables. Every one of the women were completely nude, while all of the men had a towel over their midsection’s. What the hell? It’s not like I want to look at nude men, but I want to know why it’s so unacceptable, when it’s okay to show totally nude women!
Pardon my nastiness…I am so ticked! My old job cheated me out of over $1000! I’m so tempted to instant message you and see if you want to bitch with me…lol!
But seriously…this post is exactly why so many people are infatuated with you…including myself.