The Happy Feminist

WHEN GETTING BACK IN TOUCH WITH LONG LOST FRIENDS

One of the things in life that makes me more stressed out and nervous than almost anything else in life is getting back in touch with long lost friends, especially if I am the one who lost touch to begin with.  Ironically, it is one reason I often procrastinate further about getting back in touch if I feel too much time has passed.  As a kid, I discovered one stress alleviator in this situation and thought you would get a kick out of it too.  I found it in an an issue of Cricket Magazine, December 1974. It is a letter from Lewis Carroll** to a child who had failed to write to him promptly:

"Now I want to know what you mean by calling yourself 'naughty' for not having written sooner! Naughty, indeed! Stuff and nonsense! Do you think I'd call myself naughty if I hadn't written to you, say for 50 years? Not a bit! I'd just begin as usual, 'My dear Mary, 50 years ago, you asked me what to do for your kitten, as it had a tooth-ache, and I have just remembered to write about it. Perhaps the tooth-ache has gone off by this time-- if not, wash it carefully in hasty-pudding, and give it 4 puncushions boiled in sealing-wax and just dip the end of its tail in hot coffee.  This remedy has never been known to fail.' There!  That's the proper way to write."

Of course, casually passing off one's errors and failings never sounds quite as bad in an English accent, especially when peppered with delightful old-fashioned phrasing. 

I am a little overwhelmed by the many kind comments to the prior post -- thank you so very, very much!  Lots to say regarding recent events in the blogosphere (which I am catching up on) and elsewhere so I am looking forward to resuming real posting!

** Please, no snarky pedophile comments, tempting though it may be.  Don't wreck this for me!

WHY CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN CAN BE SO MADDENING

My husband and I bickered a lot more a decade ago than we do now.  Over time, we have learned each other's quirks and have adjusted accordingly.  But here is a classic example of the kind of thing that used to occur all the time.  In this example, we were driving home after a day out and about:

ME:  Do you mind if we stop in the grocery store on the way home? 

HUSBAND: Yes.

I get pissed.  Fight ensues.  Husband is puzzled as to why I even "asked his permission" in the first place.  I get even more pissed.  (As in: "I did not (&#(*!#*(! ask your #*(!*)! permission!")

Of course, I WASN'T asking his permission.  I was doing two things: (a) politely acknowledging that my desire to stop at the grocery store would affect him too; and (b) starting a negotiation in the event that stopping at the grocery store would be inconvenient for him.  To me an appropriate response would have been: "I am worried that if we stop at the grocery store, we won't get home in time to watch the football game.  Is it okay if we  go tomorrow, or is there something you really need to get tonight?"  In my view, just saying, "Yes, I mind," was not a negotiation and failed to consider or acknowledge my stated wishes.  But in my husband's view, I hadn't stated any wishes; I had merely asked a question, which he had answered.

The problem was that we were both playing by very different rules and interpreting each other's statements according to a very different set of assumptions.  To my husband, it would have made more sense if I had just said, "I am stopping at the grocery store." Then he would have known unequivocally my desire and it would have been up to him to state his wishes if he disagreed.  He used to think that my communication style was indirect and deferential.   I used to think his was abrasive and inconsiderate.  But really they are just two different communications styles-- styles that happen to correspond in general to one's gender, styles that clash when used in the same conversation.

While  I am generally skeptical of popular books about gender differences, I really loved two books on this topic by Georgetown University linguist Deborah Tannen:You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation and Talking from 9 to 5: Men and Women at Work.  My example above is stikingly similar to some of the examples in her books, and she has numerous other examples of maddening communication gaps between men and women that will surely seem familiar to all of you.  Her thesis is that misunderstandings arise most frequently when we speak to people with an opposite communications style, usually someone of the opposite sex.

As you can imagine, women's communication style can have devastating consequences in the male-dominated workplace where it can lead to women being erroneously perceived as less confident, less knowledgeable, less decisive, and more deferential.  Tannen insists however that neither style is superior to the other -- it's just a matter of learning the rules  by which your conversational partner is operating and adjusting accordingly.  Both men and women can benefit by understanding and adopting aspects of the opposite communications style. 

Of course, there are political ramifications too (which Tannen doesn't generally address).  Many public spheres of society remain male-dominated.  Therefore, misunderstandings tend to inure to the detriment of women in the workplace and in public settings.  There are also expectations, not always consciously realized, that women should or will act a certain way.  If we break out of that mold, our actions may also be construed against us.  The classic example is when the men and women in a group talk for an equal amount of time, but people perceive the women as being overly talkative because the expectation is for women to be quiet.  That maddening prejudice is touched on in posts here and here, in light of a recent stupid David Brooks column about how gabby women are.  There is also the point that women tend to be perceived as more gabby because our words are considered silly or insignificant by definition.  (I am reminded of that ghastly "wingman" commercial in which the guy gets to dance with the hot girl because his "wingman" sacrifices himself by listening to the hot girl's friend endlessly gabbing away.)

 

IN PRAISE OF BANNED BOOKS -- UPDATED

Redneck Mother, and Pandagon (twice), and Feministe all write in honor of Banned Books week.  Most book banning in America takes place in public school libraries.  It never fails to amaze me that people want to control what their children read rather than encouraging them to read everything they can get their hands on.  I wrote in gratitude for my own unsheltered childhood here.

UPDATED: Joel Monka critiques the concept of Banned Books Week.  Joel comes out in defense of the right of parents to decide what books are carried in their local public school library.  I agree with much of what he says.  It is beyond question that parents should have the right to control and monitor their children's reading.  Of course, that is not to say that parents SHOULD prevent their children from reading certain books or prevent school libraries from carrying certain books.  Parents should have every right to forbid their children from reading "The Diary of Anne Frank" or Harry Potter - but I have the right to pity those children for what they are missing and to urge parents to let their children's minds have free reign.

To me, the beauty of Banned Books Week is that it clearly illustrates the power of the written word and informs us what topics and ideas scare or threaten American parents.  "To Kill a Mockingbird" is considered inapproriate, and "Huck Finn," too! Who knew?

Joel's post is also worth reading (and commenting on) because it touches on what I think is a crucial issue that I haven't quite figured out yet.  On the one hand, I sympathize with parents who feel at odds with the values their public schools are teaching.  Some parents believe that homosexuality is a sin, so isn't a public school overstepping the line if it teaches that homosexuality is not a sin?  What if it were the other way around and the public school were teaching kids that being gay is bad -- I certainly wouldn't like that.  So where do we draw the line as to what values are appropriately taught in public school and what teaching interferes with the parents' freedom to pass on their own values? 

On the other hand, aren't their certain values, civic values, that Americans all should share, and that should be taught in public education?  Is it worrisome that a significant minority of the population is now home schooled and therefore possibly learning a very different version of civics than the conventional?  (such as beliefs that Biblical law should enjoy equal precedence with the Constitution in governing the country or that judges should disregard precedent -- I don't know how many people actually believe this bu I know for a fact that such people are out there.)  Is it ever appropriate for the government to say, "There are certain principles regarding what it means to be American that all schoolkids should learn even if their parents disagree."

Also, at what point (if ever) should children be considered to have their own separate rights to educational opportunities?  I suppose most states require that children be taught the basics (reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic), but should there be any recognized right for children to be taught contraceptive and safe-sex practices essential to their health?  Or to be exposed to the theory of evolution and the scientific method?  Or to have access to certain literary classics? 

As a private matter and as a potential parent, I think children should have the opportunity to explore far and wide.  Your mind should be considered your own, even when you are eight. 

SUNDAY QUOTATION BLOGGING: CONTEMPT

I am slowly dipping my toe back into the blogosphere after an extraordinarily hectic few days.  By popular demand, I am chewing on my ideas for my philosophy post, but meanwhile, here is a quotation for your Sunday reading pleasure.  I had no idea when I posted about my experiences with contempt that contempt is such an important area of consideration in psychology:

The contempt for others in grandiose, successful people always includes disrespect for their own true selves, as their scorn implies: "Without these superior qualities of mine, a person is completely worthless."  This means further: "Without these achievements, these gifts, I could never be loved, would never have been loved."  Grandiosity in the adult guarantees that the illusion continues: "I was loved."

-- Alice Miller, The Drama of the Gifted Child

BOOKS I HAVE KNOWN

Ooh, now that I have found the mean feminists again, I am thrilled to discover that I have been tagged in their book survey.  So here we go:

1. One book that changed your life?

Hop on Pop by Dr. Seuss.  One spring day circa 1976 (when I was five), I was struggling mightily to sound out the words when all of a sudden something clicked and I became a fluent reader.  In that moment, my life drastically and permanently improved. 

2. One book you have read more than once?

The Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank.  I must have read this a gazillion times during my tween and early teen years and beyond.  I identified very strongly with Anne, as I am sure have millions of other girls and women. 

3. One book you would want on a desert island?

The Source by James Michener.  This is great escapist literature and I imagine a person stuck on a desert island would want some escapism.  Plus it's long, and I love the idea of watching family lines and a culture evolve over millenia -- and the fact that despite all the passions we experience over the course of our lives, all we really leave behind in the long run are a few tantalizing hints for the archeologists.   

4. One book that made you laugh?

The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell.  I got dumped on majorly in a college seminar for saying that I thought this was a funny book.  A woman in my class accused me of being insensitive to the plight of 1930s British miners.  But a book can make you laugh even when it addresses a serious topic -- and I believe that is exactly what Orwell intended. 

5. One book that made you cry?

Testament of Youth by Vera Brittain.  This brings home how World War I wreaked havoc on the lives of a generation of young people.  Multitudes of young men killed and maimed and young women left to mourn them and to mourn the loss of their happy and optimistic younger years, as well as seeing their own lives and ambitions turned upside down. 

6. One book you wish had been written?

The Biography of the Happy Feminist: The Story of a Brilliant, Wise, Kind . . .

Wait, I am getting carried away here.  The truth is I am kind of stumped on this one.  Suggestions most welcome in the comments thread.

7. One book you wish had never been written?

The Malleus Maleficarum by Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger.  While it's generally not my style to wish books out of existence, this one was directly responsible for the torture and murder of countless women in the European witch hunts of the 15th and 16th centuries (including one of my German ancestors, who was burned at the stake when she was an elderly lady).  According to the notes at Amazon, "After the witch trials swept through Europe, some villages were left with as few as two women."  (After typing this, I found that Resisterance had the same answer.)

8. One book you are currently reading?

Paradigm Found: Leading and Managing For Positive Change by Anne Firth Murray.  This is the story of the founding and growth of The Global Fund for Women, which seems to be a truly extraordinary organization.  You'll be hearing more about this book when I write post about it soon.

(I am also not done reading The Bible yet.  I seem to have gotten bogged down after Isaiah.  I intend to resume shortly, however.)

9. One Book you have been meaning to read?

A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell.  Skimming some chapters in this book got me through a couple of philosophy courses in college.  But I will never feel as though I am really an educated person until I have gone systematically through the whole thing.  Remind me to post sometime about why I wish I had majored in philosophy, and why I think studying philosophy is more important now than ever. 

*****************************************************************'

And now -- whom to tag, whom to tag, whom to tag . . .

Here goes:

1. Wolfa

2. Barbara P at Heart, Mind and Soul

3. Goddess Cassandra

4. Either Aspazia or Antheia at Mad, Melancholic Feminista (or both)

5. Sydney at The Long Road to Medical School

6. Everyone else!

(Note:  If you're not into being tagged, that's cool. No obligation.)

MID-WEEK QUOTATION BLOGGING: ELIZABETH I

I haven't yet indulged my Elizabeth I obsession on this blog, but she was sooooo my kind of person.  Check out this page of Elizabeth I quotations, including two of my faves:

If I were turned out of my realm in my petticoat, I would prosper anywhere in Christendom.

Better beggar woman and single than Queen and married.

How much would I love to have dinner with her.  We would talk books and religion and politics, ogle some handsome young men, and maybe dance a lively dance of some sort. 

SUNDAY QUOTATION BLOGGING: PROVERBS

Sunday quotation blogging is back-- at least for the time being.  I have gone through almost all of my notebook of quotations I collected in college, so Sunday quotation blogging is likely to become a more rare event. 

But, as some of you know, I am in the midst of reading the Bible straight through, and I got a kick out of some of the Proverbs I was reading yesterday. There are even a couple of Proverbs especially for lawyers!

The one who first states a case seems right,  until the other comes and cross-examines.     Proverbs 18:17.      

And this one speaks to those of us with massive billable hours requirements:

Do not love sleep, or else you will come to poverty; open your eyes, and you will have plenty of bread.  Proverbs 20:13.

There is a lot of complaining in Proverbs about annoying wives.  While my 21st century feminist self can't condone such "wisdom" written from a solely male viewpoint (what about the annoying husbands?), I couldn't help but laugh when I imagined the beleagured sage handing down this little chestnut:

A stupid child is a ruin to a father, and a wife's quarreling is a continuing dripping of rain. Proverbs 19:13.

And I can certainly get down with the smug vengefulness of the punchline in this famous one:

If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat; and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink; for you will heap coals of fire on their heads . . . Proverbs:21-22

There is a lot of talk of disciplining children with rods, and beating fools too.  As one who has struggled with suffering fools gladly, I can relate to the impulse behind the latter, although I can't condone it!

SATURDAY QUOTATION BLOGGING: HARSH BUT THOUGHT PROVOKING

Even then, as long as the temptations of convenience exist -- in the economic inequality that favors certain individuals and the recognized right of woman to sell herself to one of these privileged men -- she will need to make a greater moral effort than would a man in choosing the road of independence.  It has not been sufficiently realized that the temptation is also an obstacle and even one of the most dangerous.

-- Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex

THE PERFECT FEMINIST ROMANTIC HERO -- UPDATED

I am disturbed by this old editorial in the Guardian, which I found when I was writing my last post on Austen.  Cherry Potter expresses concern that Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice remains straight women's "favourite fictional romantic icon." As she notes, he is the character 1,900 women across the generations most want to date, according to a recent poll by the Orange Prize for Fiction. Potter believes this predilection for Mr. Darcy, especially among "educated literary feminist women," reflects confusion about what women really want.  But Potter -- like Elizabeth Benet herself -- has utterly misread Mr. Darcy, assuming that he is the "epitome of the dominant patriarchal male," and that upon marriage he will turn out to be "rigid, dominating and controlling."

I myself sighed quite a few yearning sighs over Mr. Darcy when I first read Pride and Prejudice as a teenager.  But my fantasies had nothing to do with deep down wanting a patriarchal, dominating or controlling man.  They had to do with a desire for total admiration from someone worthy to give it. 

Mr. Darcy is sexy and compelling because he is a strong and powerful figure and also because he respects the strength and power of Elizabeth Bennet.  Despite the fact that Elizabeth Bennet is rather unglamorous (with very embarrassing relatives, looks not quite up to par with her sister's, and very little wealth), Mr. Darcy sees her true worth.  Elizabeth Bennet is Mr. Darcy's equal in intelligence, wit, sense, and character, and Mr. Darcy loves her for it. The fantasy is to win the utter respect, admiration and passion of a man of great intelligence and great character, especially a man who is not easily won. 

Far from being dominating or controlling, Mr. Darcy does not presume that he can dictate anything to Elizabeth Bennet.  When she rejects his first proposal, he is surprised (and angry at her uncivil manner in refusing him), but he takes "no" for an answer. He also later comes to understand why she was insulted by his proposal.  When changed circumstances lead him to propose a second time, he promises never to bother her again if she doesn't want him.  His behavior contrasts favorably with that of Mr. Collins who refuses to believe her when she tells him she doesn't want him. 

Mr. Darcy also compares favorably to other romantic literary heroes.  Gone With the Wind's Rhett Butler slaps Scarlett O'Hara around, and he ridicules and patronizes her throughout their relationship.  He loves her passionately but without any attendant respect or admiration.  Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights is a controlling "batterer" type, indulging in terrible cruelty when his obsessive, all-consuming love-hate relationship with Catherine is not satisfied. 

While Potter believes that "no wonder men are confused" by the modern-day Darcy fixation, in fact, Mr. Darcy is the perfect feminist romantic hero.  His example gives lie to the notion that feminism is about wanting a weak and malleable romantic partner.  His example also gives lie to the notion that even self-professed feminist women really want to be dominated by men.  It's really quite simple: the best romances are between strong people who appreciate each other's strength and Jane Austen recognized that truth two whole centuries ago.   

(NOTE:  In light of recent blogging against heteronormativity, I am trying to figure out how to make this post not so heteronormative.  On the one hand, I was thinking of qualifying the post by stating that Mr. Darcy is the perfect romantic hero for heterosexual feminist women.  On the other hand, I have no reason to assume that only straight women yearn for a partner like Mr. Darcy.  I say this as someone who once had a mad crush on a remote and mysterious woman who was rather like Mr. Darcy in many ways.)   

UPDATED:  I am feeling all embarrassed and shy and pleased by Amanda's post on this post.  How great to wake up first thing in the morning to find nice things about yourself on the internet! And this on the mark observation:

And the book makes the case that often the best personalities sometimes are initially the most caustic.  For feminist women, many of whom are used to threatening people all the time with our unwillingness to show female submission, that’s a very alluring message.

Do check out the great comments thread after her post about people's favorite romantic couples from books and film.

EVERYONE LOVES JANE AUSTEN

When I first started to explore the conservative Christian blogosphere, I was surprised to learn how much affection there is among these folks for my very own Jane Austen.  If there is one thing extreme social conservatives and raving feminists have in common, it is a strong affection for Jane.  I suspect, however, that we see quite different things in her novels. 

The thing is that Jane Austen harshly criticized the social structures of her era but she was no revolutionary.  She wrote in a clear-eyed fashion about the very unromantic consequences of complete female dependence.  Notwithstanding the frothy, lighthearted surface of many of her novels, she always makes it quite clear that the marriage and courtship game was one of great and serious risk for women.  Refuse a man's proposal and you might well wind up enduring a lifetime of poverty and humiliating spinsterhood.  Austen, however, never proposed any alternatves to the strictures placed on women.  All of her heroines, spirited though some of them were, operated within the confines of their societal roles.

The lack of any open rebellion against patriarchal norms in Austen allows social conservatives to embrace her as one of their own.  Pride & Prejudice ends with a happy marriage, exults Charlotte Allen of the Independent Women's Forum.  The Feminists must hate that!   And oh how wonderfully chaste and "proper" the manners were in those days, notes Plugged In, the Focus on the Family online entertainment magazine. (That is assuming one considers it "proper" to obsessively discuss other people's income and to make material considerations primary when assessing another person's suitability as a marriage partner.)  Such interpretations, of course, completely overlook the fact that much of what conservatives love about Austen were simply conventions of her time (like the title "Mrs.," the fact that Austen remained in her father's household into adulthood or the fact that Mr. Bennet was the "head" of his house).  The areas in which Austen deviates from the conventions of her time however reveal the heart of a feminist forerunner. 

The agency with which Austen invests her female protagonists -- even in the face of unimaginable social and material pressures -- is in and of itself feminist.  In Pride & Prejudice, Elizabeth Bennet refuses to pander to Mr. Darcy, even though he was an eligible bachelor of rank and wealth, well situated to rescue her from a difficult future.  Ultimately, when Lizzie finally wins Mr. Darcy, it is not  because he has been captivated by her "fine eyes," but because he respects her intelligence, respects her spirit, and repsects her character. 

Even more impressive, Elizabeth Bennet declines quite decisively a marriage proposal from the dreadful and pompous Mr. Collins.  It is impossible to overstate what a gutsy move this is for Lizzie Bennett. Due to the quirk in the manner in which her father had inherited the house in which they all lived, Lizzie and her mother and her four sister were all to be turned out off the house upon the death of their father so that the house could pass to Mr. Collins.  And still Lizzie said no to Mr. Collins's proposal.  Jane Austen wrote this chapter in the most hilarious way possible -- with the condescending Mr. Collins refusing to take Lizzie's refusal seriously ("I shall chuse to attribute [your rejection of me] to your wish of increasing my love by suspense, according to the usual practice of elegant females.") and Lizzie insisting, "Do not consider me now as an elegant female intending to plague you, but as a rational creature speaking the truth from her heart."  Jane Austen may have been the first woman to insistently make the political point that No Means No! 

I don't mean for my discussion of Austen to be overly divisive.  There is something for everyone to love in Austen whether you are a feminist or not.  One loves Austen not only for the spiritedness of her protagonists and harsh social critique, but for her witty dialogue, the intimate portrait of domestic life in this period, strong characterization, and her basic values regarding the development and honing of one's character and behavior.  One romanticizes Austen's time and place at one's peril, however.  While there is no way to know what Austen would have thought about modern day feminism, she definitely didn't let the patriarchy off the hook and for that, among other things, I will always love her. 

NOTE:  I found some good stuff while I was surfing around to see what other feminist bloggers have to say about Jane.  This review by Bad Feminist of the recent Pride & Prejudice movie starring Keira Knightley is right on target.  And a major Austen fan, Amanda at Pandagon, notes about the movie as well:

. . . it irritated me to no end that Austen’s delicate portrayal of Charlotte Lucas’ decision to marry Mr. Collins was changed from a sad statement on the state of women to a tedious swipe at women who had to make unfortunate choices under oppression. And that’s mostly because the filmmakers’ didn’t want to trouble the audience with the idea that Mrs. Bennet’s desperation to marry off her daughters might have more to it than just a stereotypically shallow love of weddings.

SECOND NOTE:  The other reason Austen qualifies as feminist is that she's funny as hell.  She's exhibit A in opposition to the old canard that women aren't funny.