Blog It Like Its Hot

I’ve had access to Delara’s thoughts since last week… I mean the thoughts on femininity… not all of them. (but watch out Delara, I may try to mind meld with you soon! J/k)  And its taken me a while to sit down and give a good response to them. Her thoughts and questions are so insightful that I couldn’t read them all in one sitting. Each paragraph lead me to my own thoughts and questions and so I found myself putting the e-mail aside and reflecting for a while. (In my mind, this is the mark of a well written, meaningful essay, Delara.) Then there was the issue of turning my reflections into something cohesive… that remains an issue. However, here are my initial responses to some of what Delara has shared.

Oh, by the way, this was drafted before I read most of the comments to Delara's posting... so it doesn't completely reflect further synthesis of ideas that has occurred since seeing all of the other related thoughts.

D quoted Rilke saying:

The girl and the woman, in their new, their own unfolding, will but in passing be imitators of masculine ways, good and bad, and repeaters of masculine professions.

And later D asked:

Ok, so back to "everything in creation reflects a spiritual reality" and redefining femininity since Tahirih removed the veil. Was the veil a symbol of the limiting definitions of women? If so, then removing it invited us to redefine ourselves, redefine our function, redefine what it means to reflect our spiritual reality.

And I began to think:  WEB DuBois talked about a veil in the first essay of The Souls of Black Folk, an essay called “Of Our Spiritual Strivings.” (Actually the concept of a veil is a thread throughout most of the other essays in this collection.) Admittedly my understanding of what DuBois means by the veil is neither full nor necessarily personal, since I don’t have the firsthand experience of being Black in America just one generation after slavery. But the concept resonates on basic, human and spiritual levels. And while we can’t compare experiences of injustice and call them the same, I think how he articulates his experience as being “other” than the distorted standard of an acceptable human being -- in his case not being white -- can have application to what we’re exploring here.

DuBois begins to explain the concept after telling a story of the first time he became conscious of his “otherness” as a child, when a white female classmate refused to accept a gift from him. 

Then it dawned upon me with a certain suddenness that I was different from the others; or like, mayhap, in heart and life and longing, but shut out from their world by a vast veil.

He goes on (btw this was written in 1903),

...the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world,—a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.

I think it is safe to say that, as women, we also still see ourselves through the revelation of an other world and we may not even be aware of this double-consciousness. When our mothers were presented with a choice of how to be women and/or how to be feminine, they often responded with “I can do anything a man does. And I can walk my walk the way a man would. And I can have the same style as a man and still be a woman. Et cetera.” This is true. But is a definition in reaction to or in comparison to something else really a definition?

I think we still bear the torch of pursuing equality, handed to us in the generational relay race towards a more civilized world. And in some cases that torch is still lit with the same old flame. While I think we’re getting beyond the clichés out here in blogland, oftentimes our definitions of femininity seem to be in comparison to maleness which has become the standard for what is right in the world. And equality has become the pursuit of women attaining what men have decided is the highest attainment of human life and striving for it in a style that allows men to see us as worthy of such attainment.

For some of us the light in the torch has gone out. We are not even aware that we should be developing a double-consciousness… an ability to identify those images of femininity that are created by an other and discern between them and our own true reality. This development becomes especially difficult in a media saturated society like ours, where sometimes we consume as much television as we do air. Its hard to constantly remember to distinguish between true reality and the reality constructed out of the fantasies of image-makers.

Now back to Rilke again. I was also struck by what he had to say about sex… not in terms of gender, but in terms of relationships between men and women

Here is no thoroughly mature and clean sex world, but one that is not sufficiently human, that is only male… laden with the old prejudices and arrogances with which man has disfigured and burdened love. Because he loves as man ONLY, not as human being…

Again, in this sense women have to see themselves through the eyes of another -- or the sexuality of women is defined by prejudices and arrogances that disfigure and burden love. And the concept of what is sexy, what is sensual, what is attractive in women changes as quickly as any fad. I’ve had some time to watch music videos today… a sign that I am truly on vacation. First I saw Beyonce’s “I Want a Soldier” and thought “this isn’t such a bad song. Yeah, she wants a tough guy who will protect her, but at least she’s not asking to be gang banged. Thank God there’s a clean song out there.”

A few minutes later Zhane’s “Hey Mr DJ” from the early/mid 90s came on and I was struck by the contrast. Here were three women, with beautiful voices, singing about having a good time and enjoying music. And they were gorgeous to match.

But, creating a beautiful presentation of themselves did not diminish my ability or desire to respct them. In fact their physical appearance demanded respect. They were fully clothed – wearing jerseys in some scenes. Their hair was natural and cut short.  Their jewelry was mainly beads and shells. I realize all  of this was a product of the times. Just 10 years ago it was fashionable to respect yourself… It was not fashionable to pigeonhole women as animalistic beings who enjoy rough sex and abuse. But, so many images have filled our music videos, songs and minds since then that we’ve almost forgotten that respect was ever en vogue.

Well, I’ve written three pages and I’m sure I’m missing the connective tissue that would add value to these points. But, it’s such a weighty, confusing subject. My family even talked about it at dinnertime the other night and half the time I wasn’t sure if I knew what I was saying… so I offer this as just a few more tidbits and hope it helps.

Comments

[Sarah I]

I have been thinking a lot about all of these entries. I don't feel that I have much to say beyond what was already said. I definitely feel the pull to compare feminity to masculinity and reading your statements made me realize that this too doesn't work.

Also, something I've been thinking about for a while during this discussion that has been touched upon but not directly discussed: the choice between being a mother and having a career. This really, really bugs me. I'm gritting my teeth just thinking about it. I don't think it should be a choice. I think both are worthwile, so I want to do both. I'm sick of people taking sides. Should you stay home and raise your child, thereby forfitting your career that you spent a lot of money and time getting ahead in; or should you stay with your career, thereby either abandoning your children to wilds of tv and after-school daycare or not experiencing the amazing adventure of having children in the first place. I want both. I say again, I WANT BOTH! I don't understand why it's so hard to get flex time and maternity time. I do believe this is a symptom of the male dominated society. You are either a mom or a man. You either have a job or you stay at home with your kids (like that isn't a job). I understand both sides, but I don't think there should be sides. I know there will be many more posts touting both views, but really, should it be a choice? Can't I have both?

It's also hard for dads who actually want to participate in their children's lives (the horror), but we can tackle that another time.

Sorry to post so long, but I finally had to participate.

[Sholeh]

Aahh Sarah you hit one of my biggest struggles on the head.

Kari, love what you've said in this post. "...oftentimes our definitions of femininity seem to be in comparison to maleness which has become the standard for what is right in the world."

RIGHT ON. I don't have to act, look, or strive to be like a man to be equal. Our definitions are definitely rooted in old world order stuff. This topic inspired me to do a quick search of the Writings (which I posted here: http://sholeh.calmstorm.net/blog/archives/000289.html).

For me, that says it all. This is my favorite sentence in the whole post: "Inasmuch as human society consists of two parts, the male and female, each the complement of the other, the happiness and stability of humanity cannot be assured unless both are perfected." -Abdu'l-Baha

[mahtab]

Wow ladies! You have hit the nail on the head for me in your comments. As someone who is currently LIVING the whole mother vs. working mother thing- I have to say THANK YOU thank you thank you Sarah and Sholeh for your thoughts. So often , I experience such simplistic and narrow-minded viewpoints on the subject- particularly from my faith community, that hearing your thoughts and words is like a balm to me.

What you’ve said made me think about that line from the Two Wings of Bird statement that stated, “Reverence for, and protection of, motherhood have often been used as justification for keeping women socially and economically disadvantaged.” – and to me- nothing demonstrates this more than the often prevailing (and in my opinion erroneous) viewpoint that motherhood is best accomplished by being a stay at home mother. I just want to scream when people continue to perpetuate this notion that motherhood is best accomplished when you have a happy, integrated, fulfilled mother- and if she accomplishes this by pursuing interests other than spending all of her time at home with her child, and if she is compensated financially for pursuing those interests (because somehow you are still safe from a level of derision if the work you are doing is free, such as volunteer work, charity work, ‘hobbies’, etc.) then power to her!

Also, one critical aspect that I feel missing from this discourse when I and others discuss this topic is socio/economic status. So often as we discuss this topic, we assume the luxury of choice- we assume that we are discussing TWO viable options- staying at home or working. I don’t hear often enough (from my own mouth- let alone the words of others) the acknowledgement of the fact that for many women, there IS no choice- there is just the reality of needing to work. A classmate of mine in college angrily stated once that “The stay at home mom thing is a rich white woman’s issue.” While I do think that this statement is overly simplistic and grossly over-generalized, it does bring up a point we all need to be aware of when discussing this topic.

[kari]

Mahtab's back! Yay!
Point well taken, Mahtab. Staying home to take care of children is often a choice of the priveleged. Interesting too when history looks back at the 20th century -- at lease pop-history -- and tells us that women in America didn't start working until World War 2. Some women - many women, maybe most women - have always worked.

[Mara]

Actually, it's not simply a dilemma for the privileged. There are a lot of poor women (of all shades) who 'choose' not to work because they don't have the earning power to support children if they did go to work. So they stay home - possibly on welfare, especially because if they work - at all - they lose their assistance. Which, of course, brings us right back to the issue of socioeconomics. Women don't have the same earning power, access to education - and encouragement to pursue these things.

This brings me to something I've been very, very confused about lately. I don't know if any of you are familiar with a certain online Baha'i Parenting journal, but someone sent one to me and I just about blew a fuse. In it was an article by a woman (stay at home mom w/ a law degree under her belt) who was claiming that feminism had destroyed the American family and that today's working mothers were actively engaged in this destruction. This blew me away largely because of the quote from 'Abdu'l-Baha that states:

So it will come to pass that when women participate fully and equally in the affairs of the world, when they enter confidently and capably the great arena of laws and politics, war will cease; for woman will be the obstacle and hindrance to it. This is true and without doubt.
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace)

Does that refer only to women who are not mothers? Or will we leave that to the women who are not Baha'is? The Faith says we as women should be educated, involved and mothers. We need to find a way to synthesize.

[It turned out the woman was not a Baha'i, which leads me to this question: why put it in a publication that goes to both Baha'is and others - clearly stating it is a Baha'i magazine? Gah!]

We are paradigm shifters, not people sitting around mooning over some past 'golden era'. If working and having children doesn't work for mothers, what about the fathers? Does working and not seeing their children work any better for them? How do we have to restructure society so that we can value our children and still be productive in society?

I think the key lies in this quote:
The happiness of mankind will be realized when women and men coordinate and advance equally, for each is the complement and helpmeet of the other.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith)

I suppose this is something my husband and I should really be deepening on. It's the crux of our marriage I feel. If we keep this quote in mind at all times, we can't go wrong. And of course, it's not just about advancement of me as a woman, or because I'm a woman, it's his advancement as well, so that we can both relate as humans. Wow, that's so powerful. I feel like I have an old skin I need to go shed.

[mahtab]

wow mara! i read that same article and had the EXACT same reaction. i couldn't understand why a Baha'i publication would publish such a blatantly misogynistic article. it's good to have more context/background about it.

the points you shared are so critical- and it does involve that constant re-evaluation with a new lense. the quote you shared about women and men being the helpmeet of each other and the thought of using it as the crux of a marriage really resonated! i'm lucky to be married to someone who engages with me in a constant re-evaluation of these issues and the lifestyle choices that result from them. for us, this has precipitated lifestyle choices such as my being the primary breadwinner and his being the primary childcare provider and working on his art that have enabled us to live more fully, freely, and authentically to our own desires and definitions of masculinity and femininity. what you stated about the effect of being the primary breadwinner on the fathers is such a critical point that is frequently overlooked. too often, working outside the home and not spending enough time with the child are coupled together as though they are a given. i know for myself and several of my friends who have made similar lifestyle choices, the very fact that we are "the mommy" and the primary source of food and comfort (for those of us who choose to/are able to nurse our children) has preserved a strong/primary bond with our children, but the fact that our children are with their fathers for 8-10 hours during the day has served to elevate and strengthen their relationship with their fathers, putting both parents on more equal footing in the parent/child relationship.

this process of continual consultation and evaluation has enabled my husband and i to create a culture of marriage and family that neither of us has observed and experienced in our lives but is nourishing to both of us mentally, emotionally and spiritually. i am so encouraged because i observe more and more couples working together to define their own cultures of marriage and family- and live their lives by them- in ways that are unique and authentic to the couple. i feel like these collective actions promote not only the happiness of those individuals in the marriages, but also the evolution of the constructs of family, gender, and equality in our community.