elucreh | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

You know, I was going through crazy time when the whole womanhood-manhood thing was going on, so I hadn't time to respond; and Arch having just brought it up again--I'd like to share my thoughts.

I don't know exactly what it means to me, either. There are times when I am reveling in "girlishness"--trying on formals with my girlfriends and squeeing over the Orlando-Seale-lookalike in Latin (mmmmmmm...)--or in my "femininity"--usually when I've managed to look good and I know it, or I get just the right response from a guy I'm interested in. But womanhood, in its entirety--I just don't know.

I mean, you get the "gender is an integral part of us" thing. Okay, I'll buy that. But what does it mean? Which bits of you made it so that the body you were plunked down into is female?

I'm a traditional woman--I want to be a wife and I love babies. I like to cook and bake and sew and all that other crap. I don't like bugs or snakes--it's the way they move--and I have no qualms about making the closest guy kill spiders for me. But not everybody I know is like that, and they are still women, women of value and full feminine power.

I know someone who loves playing around in greasy engines and playing sports, someone who detests children, someone who wouldn't pick up a needle if you paid her. But I don't think of them as nonwomen.

And it comes to the things DD and I like to discuss--the chivalry thing, the ways that it's looked at now. I have a strong liberal friend who is very much offended when guys open doors for her, and hurt when they won't tell their dirty stories in front of her, even though she doesn't enjoy them and finds them offensive. I have to agree with Agatha Christie's statement that the Victorian era upper-class women had it best...they were regarded as delicate, so they didn't have to do anything difficult; and in fact if there was anything they didn't want to do they could have a headache and immediately everyone was all concern and she was urged to lie down in a darkened room.

I find chivalry more empowering than almost anything. Not only in the terms of what it did for women historically--elevating them from property to real people--but in terms of what it does for me today. I don't have to listen to the naughty words and the sexual jokes; strangers help me carry home the incredibly heavy groceries; I don't have to feel the poor disgusting wriggly things squish between my tissue-covered fingers. I take full advantage of it, and if my requests are being fulfilled, I don't have to do what I don't want to, and I have four or five men willing to defend me any way they can...that sounds like more power than I'd normally have to me.

I know that a lot of women see it as degrading because of the implication that they can't do the things men do for them. But I find it more like the idea that I'm being sheltered from having to do them. That I'm something precious that they're willing to protect from things that are unpleasant. That I'm worth showing not only common courtesy but careful courtesy to.

And I've strayed rather from my womanhood discussion, and I have to go to class; but since I have no defining parameters I suppose it doesn't matter anyway. *sigh*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm not a uber-feminist, nor am I trying to be, and I do like chivalry myself, but as far as its ancient roots,

"Not only in the terms of what it did for women historically--elevating them from property to real people"

Uh....hun......let me give you a book to read. It's not Harry Potter or Diana Wynne Jones, but you should read it.

What book is this?

Hmmm... yes, as a medieval historian I'd like to see this book you speak of as well. While the Courtly Love tradition had many double standards-- as do all traditions, it has long been commonly accepted by sober historians without an axe to grind, male and female, that it was also the medieval feminist response to the masculine-centered bigotry of either the Church or warlike feudal culture.

I know the feeling.

When I was pregnant for example, I hated when people treated me like glass. I wasn't any different than before I was pregnant, but instantly every ache or cramp was an emergency and I wasn't allowed to lift a damn thing. That got annoying very fast.
Oh the flip side, as soon as I gave birth, I was instantly shunted back to "Modern Woman" and was no longer pampered, or had doors held open. That was irritating too. I actually needed help with the baby in my arms, not inside my body.
I do like the fact that my husband treats me as a equal. My daddy still treats me like a princess, but that's his job. Paul will only open doors and such when we are out, together and alone. When he knows I need to feel special.
If he did it all the time, I would kill him.
Now, as for bugs...I once had a huge spider in my apartment just after my daughter was born. Paul was working all night so I snatched my sleeping baby from her crib, ran out the door and pounded on my neighbor's door. He smiled and killed the spider without question. I refuse to do it myself.
I am just weird....

I like your neighbor!

Ahh, the militant feminists would be after you with torches and pitchforks, but I happen to agree entirely. Chivalry is a good thing, and maybe I'm old-fashioned (at 17! There's a new one) but the small gestures like having doors held open for me really make my day.

Thank you for that, it was certainly an interesting read.

People probably get annoyed because chivalrous actions imply, to them, that they are unable to do things. But if you have enough respect for the men in your life, you'll understand that they're probably just trying to be nice. And little gestures like that really are very sweet. I'd get annoyed if people tried to open doors and the like for me all the time, and I certainly don't expect it, but there are times when it's just nice.

But even more importantly, chivalry is a form of respect towards women. Women certainly need to show their respect towards men, but in general, any extra respect in a world that doesn't ever seem to have enough is a very good thing.

I'm mostly okay with bugs...but I can't stand cockroaches. *shudders* And mosquitoes get on my nerves.

Gestures like opening doors and asking if it's okay before telling rude jokes extend to both sexes in my opinion. I hold doors open for people all the time, especially in school (aka Awkward Doors Mecca). It's just a courtesey thing, you know? No one wants to shuffle an armful of files around to reach for a door handle, no matter what sex they are.

By the by, I don't kill spiders if I can help it. They eat flies, therefore rock. :P

[I]...that sounds like more power than I'd normally have to me.[/I]

But the point is that women should already have that power unto themselves, not because men are giving it to them.

How would we acquire it? Paying bodyguards? Gagging all men as they come into our presence? Their actions and devotions and considerations aren't things we can control...we can only be grateful when they consider us worth their efforts.

::gapes::

What?!

Women are supposed to be empowered simply for being who they are. Empowerment comes from within. Women are supposed to empower themselves. Why do you need a man to do things for you to be considered of value or of power? You don't need to depend on a man to have power, you should be able to stand on your own two feet and empower yourself.

You don't need to depend on the behavior of another person, regardless of gender or anything else, for your worth, your sense of being, your empowerment. You need to self-empower. That's what everyone has to do. No one needs to acquire power through another, you need to find it in yourself and build it in yourself.

The power of a person comes from within. So it is with women too. To imply we need to depend on men to be powerful is to sexistly imply that women are inherently weaker and worth little/powerless on their own. Which we are not. Our power is to come from within. We have that power because we are born with it - because every person is born with this power and self-empowerment. That is everyone's inalienable God-given right, and so should be recognized as a woman's right too.

It's nice when people do things for each other, but not if it's because without that help the person would be powerless or worthless. I like when doors are held open for me (but if it was done all the time it wouldn't feel so special), and I love to hold doors open for other people. It's something we should all be doing for each other. Not as some kind of "compensation." Women don't need men to lift them up any more then men need women to lift them up.

Your value, self-worth, and self-empowwerment does not depend on anyone but you. Having a father like mine, I would have thought you would have learned that lesson already. You have the power. It is within you... Simply by virtue of being the wonderful person you are.

Yes, dear, I know...and I have a lot of power emotionally, but I don't have the power to control others. I like chivalry because it gives other people a reason to control themselves.

Okay, cause that last sentence in the previous comment sounded very disturbing.

You will always have limited power to control other people, everyone does. But you shouldn't need to... You should feel secure in your ability to handle anything. Your power si more than just emotional, it's everything.

Victorian women had it best? Are you insane? They were treated like perpetual children - like stupid, defenseless children. They were so suffocated and had such boundaries. Girls were hardly given an education because they literally thought to teach them long division was so beyond their mental capacity their heads would explode. I kid you not. There were barely any universities that would accept them. They were thought of as a man's property. They couldn't vote. Maybe they were given more excuses and didn't have to do certain things, but it's in the same way children were - they were thought unfit to look after themselves too stupid, too emotional, too delicate. They were taught to hate sex, hate their bodies, hate themselves. They belonged to their father and then their husband. They had far more limitations than freedoms.

Not all of them. Not nearly all of them.

AC was raised in the Victorian era. She was given as much education as her family could afford and treated as an individual and an equal. Not one woman in her autobiography is treated like that, and in the other biographies, historical fictions, and histories I've read it was a very uncommon thing for those ideas to be taken to extremes. Certainly it happened very little more then than it does now.

Quick point: AC's family might have felt that way, but look at what happened when she married dear Archie.

True...

AC was not the average Victorian woman, obviously. I don't know what histories you're referring to, but all the ones I've seen/read refer to "a woman's place," and a wife belonging to her husband (but not the other way around), the husband being the master of the house, head of the family, and wife having to be obedient to him. And a woman being too emotionally unstable to be capable to a lot of things, and if a woman is to educated she becomes too masculine and may turn into a man. Etc.

As far as education goes, look at the lives of such people as Susan B. Anthony and Virginia Woolfe, and Virginia Woolfe was post-Victorian, but she was raised in a Victorian household. Women were taught little, and the only other things they were taught were things like "social graces" and singing and things like that. And that was if they could afford it. The luxuries of women who could learn the arts and have everyone worry over their every move were those who had the wealth and/or prestige/social status to afford that, the average and poor women were not treated so. Furthermore, when they were fussed over even, it was in a childish kind of way. Sure, you could get away with certain things, but do you really want to get away with things THAT way? Do you want to confirm suspicions that you are incapable and unable to suck it up or do anything?

I think that kind of respect should be shown to everyone, regardless of age, race, class, religion, and sex.

My mother is a strong woman, and my dad treats her as an equal, and she treats him as an equal. They open each others' doors, hold each others' hands, and defend each other from everyone, sometimes even themselves. In fact, their marriage started with my mom defending my dad from family members who wished to convert him. They play to each others' strengths, but always work together. For example, they want to buy a dryer. So together they research online the best types and prices, but it's my dad who really knows how to navigate and find the best sites. Then they go to the store together, and my mom's the one to talk to the salesperson because she's the one who won't back down and will get the absolute best deal. Thanks to her, I bought a copy of the British GoF for $4 instead of five. And as a child, I always ran to my mom to kill the bugs. Eventually, I started killing them myself, because she had could do it, so I should at least try. I've heard my mom (raised in a religious atmosphere) swear more than my dad, and my mom and I were the only ones who go the accidental implications of my grandma telling my grandpa, "You're just upset because you didn't get any last night."

How many Victorian era books have you read by men? I just barely finished 2 books and a play concerning the Victorian era, and all of them said the same thing about women: they're alluring and some men can't help themselves, so the women must be protected from their sexuality. Women are behind the scenes and manipulative if they have any say in anything, and those women who go outside of the norm will evenutally be "punished." You should read some of the Tarzan series. There's even one point where Tarzan comes upon a civilization where the women rule over the men, and all is horror and chaos and love doesn't exist. When Tarzan sets things "right", one of the men shows how civilized he is by beating his wife, who falls at his feet and looks up at him adoringly. This is a book written by a man and it was phenomenonally popular with men and boys at its time and in the '60s.

Is it nice when a boy opens a door for me? Yes. Is it nice when a girl opens a door for me? Yes. To me, too many guys find chivalry a duty to women. The other day, I was leaving breakfast and a bunch of guys were coming in. There are double doors to our dining center, but the guys opened one of them and stood back, letting a couple of girls through. But when I came, I opened the other door so the guys and I could pass at the same time. One of them said (jokingly, but it still kinda bit), "Oh, so she's not good enough for us, eh?" It still doesn't make sense to me; they wanted breakfast, I wanted to get to class. Why not do the sensible thing and let us all get what we want at the same time? If it had been a single door, I would have gladly accepted their holding of the door.

I've determined that the only person I'll never have any qualms about opening the door for me will be my husband, but he'll know me well enough so I can open an equal number of doors for him.

Exactly the way I feel. And exactly the kind of marriage I want.

Well, except the only person thing... I don't mind when other people hold open doors for me, unless I know their intent is of a sexist nature, and usually they're strangers, so I don't know, and I am happy to be ignorant if I'm never going to see them again, and especially since they seem to accept it when I open the door for them. I like a boyfriend and husband to open doors for me, but only if I can open doors for them, as you said, and only on special occasions. It's not so nice if it's too frequent. And also if he knows I need to feel special or need cheering up. I would do the same for him.

I did not think my post would start all of this.

I try for the whole chivalry deal in showing respect for women. But I think the idea of chivalry has changed a lot in the last few years.

BTW: If you have a spider, you deal it and don't ask me. I need to ask my mum when I find one in my room. :)

I think you would have a hard time anyway.

Lol, I'm not blaming you; you just reminded me I had wanted to respond and never did.

I like that. ^_^

He's a good guy, isn't he?

Totally. DOn't know who he is, but just from that, totally. ^_^

remindmemremindmeremindme to read this and ur fic,... i'm a bit short on time (and sleep) at the moment. but once i read those, i'll be all caught up on your journal! :D

Seriously, you can ignore this, I'm just rambling...

lol! but those are the best parts! ramblings are fun ;)

okay, i'm not here, you didn't see me, but i've been meaning to reply to this since you posted it.

literally two cents, as I haven't read all of it and i'm not digging into the idea as a whole, but... a mebbe different side-reason it's not exactly pro-women: it's constrictive. When a boy wants to open a car door for you, you have to wait till he gets out of the car, walks around, and pulls on the handle. it meant, for me, that i had to sit still and not do what I wanted, which was get out of the damn car. Yes, it's sweet, no, it doesn't mean the boy thinks you're inferior (probably the opposite, which is another sticky wicket altogether that would be FAR too much for this one comment, but is very much related to the topic of your post). It just means you're waiting for somebody else to do something you could easy do and maybe WANT to do, like sit down at a table or reach for the sugar or open your car door. Hence, it bugged me. I'm all about my personal physical freedom/bubble/whathaveyou. :)

/rambling at Lu

Are you a fugitive? LOL.

Yes, I can see your point. And really, I am far from requiring it on a regular basis or anything. Most of the time I am like you and in too much of a dinged hurry to wait for it. I tend to take advantage of the good stuff and throw away what I don't like.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(no subject)

Uh....

Re: Uh....

Re: Uh....

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

::blinks disbelievingly::

Re: ::blinks disbelievingly::

Re: ::blinks disbelievingly::

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject