Lately I've been thinking about femininity and what it means to be a woman.
20 is an awkward age. People start referring to you as a woman (provided that you are female, I guess). But for me at least, the title always sounds weird.
Part of the oddity in being called a woman is that I'm not exactly sure what it means to be a woman. I was thinking about this the other day. Then when I arrived at my voice lesson, my voice teacher and her accompanist were talking about a friend who majored in Women's Studies at UC Santa Cruz. My voice teacher, who is around 80 years old, thought the whole idea of Women's Studies was ridiculous. She said something like, "In my day nobody had to teach you how to be a woman. These things were common knowledge." (I thought this was a funny comment. :) Then her accompanist, who is rather conservative, chimed in, "No, Women's Studies is really the opposite. It's basically learning how not to be a woman."
Though I value Women's Studies and don't completely agree with her statement, it made me think. In a certain sense, she's right. Modern ideology teaches women "how not to be women," in that it questions the standardized schema for the female sex which society had originally constructed. (Yet in certain ways women are still objectified...) Don't get me wrong, I'm all for empowerment and equality. I think that it's healthy to question societal norms, because having to mold yourself to fit any kind of "role" can be crippling. But in the case of femininity, what is the cost of questioning the status quo? Does too much empowerment and not enough "femininity" cause marriages and relationships to fail (or never even begin in the first place)?
How can a woman be empowered and still be feminine?
Though I value Women's Studies and don't completely agree with her statement, it made me think. In a certain sense, she's right. Modern ideology teaches women "how not to be women," in that it questions the standardized schema for the female sex which society had originally constructed. (Yet in certain ways women are still objectified...) Don't get me wrong, I'm all for empowerment and equality. I think that it's healthy to question societal norms, because having to mold yourself to fit any kind of "role" can be crippling. But in the case of femininity, what is the cost of questioning the status quo? Does too much empowerment and not enough "femininity" cause marriages and relationships to fail (or never even begin in the first place)?
How can a woman be empowered and still be feminine?
I'm not the kind of person who cheapens myself, dumbs myself down, or pretends to operate on surface-level. But most guys are intimidated by intelligence and confidence, even if it's understated. And honestly, most choose to date girls who are simple and surfacey. Though I do recognize that not every guy is looking for the same thing in a relationship and that this is not always the case, it seems to be the trend. And as a female, it's almost like you're left with the choice of either being the smart girl who ends up lonely, or the surfacey girl who everyone loves. And if you're not satisfied with either choice, you find yourself trying to be everything: empowered yet passive, vocal yet submissive, equality-minded yet role-conscious, contemplative yet carefree. And in my case at least, you over-analyze your behavior so much that you end up silent most of the time. I don't want to pretend to be something I'm not, so I don't dumb myself down. But at the same time I don't want to steamroll over people. So a lot of the time, I say nothing. (This doesn't happen all the time. But it's gotten worse since I started going to Westmont.) Silence obviously isn't the answer though. In the overly-quoted, yet still insightful words of Marianne Williamson:
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."
This seems to be a more constructive mindset. And it's a welcome reminder. I'm personally sick of watering myself down, trying to play two parts, and worrying about how I come across to people. I think maybe the key in this whole gender issue is to not dwell on it so much. Because sometimes when you dwell on difference and prejudice, you end up highlighting the difference and alienating people from one another so that they learn to expect the prejudice.
Thoughts?
7 comments:
Ah!
Yeah! This is amazing. I totally agree.
So be yourself! And speak up, girl!
It is so much better to be liked (or even disliked) for who you are than to pretend to be someone you're not, or to confuse yourself in the process.
:)
Morgan is right...this is amazing.
We're told so many different things: "Be empowered", "be yourself", "be confident". And then when we are those things, others respond by saying with their actions "Be quiet" and "stop being intimidating."
I don't know if I agree with Marianne Williamson that by shining, we give others permission to shine. I think more often we're just giving people permission to tell us to shut up (that sounds bitter. Sorry). But honestly, wouldn't it be awesome if one person's confidence bred confidence in those around them, rather than intimidation?
Thanks guys!
Hmm...yeah I agree with you about the part on giving others permission to shine. That part of the passage has kind of bothered me before too. I think that it can be true in some cases (ie: if you're a really engaging person, and you're not afraid to draw others out and encourage them). But yeah, confidence can be really intimidating in a lot of cases.
(Side note: I hate typos.)
Not sure how useful a non-female perspective is, but here it is:
You're correct in noting that most males (or at least this one - I am assuming most guys are like me. Perhaps this is a poor assumption) are intimidated by intelligence and confidence. This is true whether the intelligent, confident person is female or male. Many men tend to put a lot of weight on being perceived as being competent (this played to the extreme leads to the male stereotypical gender role of needing to be the "provider"), and if we don't learn to adequately deal with this, it can manifest itself in unhealthy ways, among them childish isolation from those who intimidate us, male or female. Given (at least in my perception - this again may be fallacious) that many women tend to place more of an emphasis on relationships, I can see how they would be tempted to "play the part" and become more relationally appealing (and thus less intelligent/confident/empowered) as opposed to taking to task and showing men how they need to grow up (nobody likes being told this, I suspect). Thus two potentials are wasted because neither gender is fully able to integrate its unique aspects into a more holistic way of operating.
Dealing with these gender roles is an exceedingly complicated matter. As you say, the balance between deconstructing the Woman® role and being feminine is likely to be difficult to find. Does the feminist who doesn't feel like she's being taken seriously keep advancing on traditionally masculine territory until she's the successfull CEO of X conglomorations but has lost any potential of having a happy family life with all but the most under-developed weak-minded man? I would argue that this situation is no better than it would be if the genders were flipped, except in that the woman has won a "victory" for can-do feminism. What of the women who are naturally quiet and sensitive, with more natural affinity for the typically "feminine" pursuits? Should she be chastised for not "furthering the cause"? Should her natural tendencies be abandoned because they don't fit the "empowerment mold"?
On the male side, I frequently wonder how it's even possible for me to act in a manner that correctly empowers women. Using the example of holding a door open as a metaphor for "opening doors"; will she think that I am doing it because I don't think she's capable of opening them herself? If I don't open it will I be flayed for not acting in a way that empowers women? Am I even now enraging one or more camps of feminists by suggesting that there is even a question here? How can I encourage a woman to be empowered, vocal, equality-minded, and contemplative in a way that doesn't allow myself to become shallow, passive, submissive, and role-conscious in the process? Surely it wouldn't be any better if all of the gender roles we ascribe to males and females respectively were simply switched? They'd still be there, after all.
I think the realization I think I am coming to is this: A woman can be empowered and still be feminine by realizing that femininity isn't a social distinction or a gender role any more than masculinity is - it's an attribute given to us by God in his shaping of us. God created male and female in his image, yet for some reason he made us different. The fact that he didn't just create asexual creatures to bear his image tells me that he had some purpose for making us different, and I think those differences are what make us masculine and feminine. Embracing true masculinity means taking my inborn male tendencies and abilities and following Christ, not worrying about how competent people think I am at my job (likely knowing the answer to this question would not prove ego-boosting for me) or whether I'm providing enough for my non-existent family. I think the same is true of femininity. The trick is to learn to be women and men of God without being Women® and Men®. We are called to so much more than just playing silly parts in the soap opera that our society is become.
Alicia, I love that you are addressing this issue! If you read the above posts about the ncgs and the gcbs, you definitely know that you've added to a conversation that we've all been thinking about for a while.
I think my favorite part of this post is when you highlighted the problem of women trying to be both sides of the coin: submissive and empowered, etc. I feel I put myself in that category a lot, toning down my personality and beliefs to fit the people I'm with. I also tend to become silent instead of confrontational, although I'm not sure if that's a bad thing.
I'm glad you wrote this. :0)
Thanks, Erika! =]
And Mike, you bring up some really good points. Thanks for your perspective!
Maybe all of this does lie in the whole relationship between confidence and intimidation. I think this idea can be applied to all relationships - not just romantic ones. People are going to want to be around other people who make them feel good about themselves. It’s just a matter of how they’re being validated by the other person…whether it’s a healthy and balanced process or not.
Maybe it’s ok to be empowered as long as you’re still eager to affirm those around you, instead of just sucking confidence from people in a parasitic way by belittling them. It’s all a trade off I guess.
You’re right about women who are more naturally sensitive getting a bad rap. They should be allowed the freedom to be whatever they want without feeling like they’re giving in, whether that means being a homemaker or not. But at the same time, what about men who are naturally more quiet and sensitive, or those who end up being stay at home dads? Doesn’t our society equally belittle them? I think this is really telling of how power-obsessed our culture is. Submission is seen as a form of weakness, when maybe it takes the greatest strength of all (in certain circumstances, of course. I’m not saying that a woman who cowers under an overbearing husband in fear is necessarily strong).
And about the door situation: open them. =]
I think it’s ridiculous when girls yell at guys for opening doors. Of course they think you can open them on your own. It’s a courteous gesture, and any thoughtful person would hold a door open for someone regardless of gender. The best way to empower a person is by treating them with the respect you would want to be showed. You shouldn’t be required to over analyze your actions, and you don’t need to belittle yourself in the process. (Easier said than done, I guess.)
Great point about learning to be “women and men of God without being Women® and Men®! Well-said!
Also, just a question:
You mention that women tend to place more emphasis on relationships. Is this merely because they have been conditioned by society to care more about relationships? Is this a case of women becoming what everyone expects them to become? (I’m asking this as someone who does tend to care more about relationships.)
Agreed that non-norm-fitting folks of both genders tend to receive bad raps. I'm not sure why so many people tend to angst against new dynamics like the stay-at-home dad and working mom.
Response to your question: I'm not sure. It's a very interesting question. I'm certain that at least some of the relationship / competence dichotomy between female and male gender roles does come from societal conditioning, and I think that oftentimes people in general become what they perceive others expect them to become.
If we track it back far enough though, I imagine some sort of pre-conditioned reality must exist. This is kind of nerdy, but I'm tempted to think about it like early-universe cosmology. Everything is pretty even overall, but here and there little pockets of matter form that are slightly denser than their surroundings. Gravity sets in and suddenly those slightly more massive lumps become a bit more massive still, and before you know it they are galaxies and nebulae, giant new things that are only causally connected to the blips of matter they formed from.
Maybe it's similar with our stereotypical gender roles; somewhere along the way somebody noticed that a group of men tended to care more about getting the job done than their wives, and that their wives cared more about having a good relationship with their husbands, and made a connection, and shared it, and people caught on and blew it out of proportion and people started filling roles and now here we are with complex structures that aren't nearly as beautiful as galaxies and still only bear passing resemblence to the clumps of social matter that caused them.
I'm sure somebody has even made a case that this goes back as far as Adam and Eve; the "your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you" verse could definitely be interpreted in such a way as to support the relationship / competence dichotomy. Who knows if that's a correct interpretation (probably someone does), and it's possible that none of what I've just said is even true as I was kind of spitballing.
Post a Comment