The Great Write Way, Chapter Two: Twice upon a time...
A place for Buffistas to discuss, beta and otherwise deal and dish on their non-fan fiction projects.
Totally in the air.
It comes from the old patriarchic idea of gender roles: Man in the workplace, Woman in the home. Women aren't supposed to excell in matters outside the home, they're not even supposed to be interested in or understand them, because that's invading "men's" territory.
It's a terrible standard to be held to, for both men and women, though a lot of men don't grasp that, nor do a few women.
Some women are willing to trade agency in the world for safety from what they percieve as threats. Protection for submission. An age-old idea, and one that gives me a giant wiggins. I have no problem with anybody who wants to live that way. Just don't force it on me, or on anybody else who doesn't want it.
Totally in the air.
I never heard it, growing up. It wasn't modeled to me by my parents or the other families I knew. I probably even heard the opposite. I still knew about playing dumb, etc.
I saw girls who did it, too. Another Buffista and I were talking about what she called the Scarlett trip. I wasn't immune to it, but I (thankfully) outgrew it right quickly (and early) because I don't have the patience or attention to detail that believable pretense requires if you're going to stretch it out, more than five minutes.
It's Pink's reaction to girls who are all about being sexy over smart and strong, girls who think that having their breasts enlarged is more important than whether or not they're going to college
See, mine goes sideways in the middle of that. Where is it written that I can't be smart, strong AND sexy? Where is it written that I have to be one or the other? Fuck that. I was a terrible student, had zero interest in college, and have great legs. Anyone out there want to call me stupid? Bring it on. I do believe I have the evidence in hand to refute it.
I know plenty of college grads I consider nincompoops. Quite a few of them are PhD's: no social skills, no sense of humanism, no sense of self. I've seen far too many people whose glory years were their college years, who couldn't grow out of it, who still live there mentally and emotionally.
One does not have to negate the other.
One does not have to negate the other.
Actually, I should have mentioned that she made a point of saying that. Pink is sexy, herself, and she was very clear about exactly what you said -- you don't have to forego sexiness at all, but you should *never* play dumb.
And mentioning college was my fault -- lazy shorthand. I never graduated college, either, and I don't consider myself stupid at all.
One does not have to negate the other.
No, it emphaticially doesn't, but it cuts both ways. One shouldn't have to decide either/or, but that seems to be the choice as presented to girls: Sexy OR smart. Choose and enter.
I can't fault girls who choose smart over sexy, given that's the perception they have. I do confess a little contempt for those who choose sexy *over* smart, but that's my own biases at work. Deb's right though. Both are preferable to one or the other.
Total contempt for people who don't finish college is another part the gestalt. There really does seem to be the idea in the air that if you don't attend or finish college then that pretty much proves your overall worthlessness in life; you deserve to live like a cockroach.
I'm trying to think of a good movie or sitcom example here, but I would swear I've encountered it often.
And mentioning college was my fault -- lazy shorthand. I never graduated college, either, and I don't consider myself stupid at all.
No, no, your mentioning it was right. Because I *do* get that from people, with college as the signifcator. And my reaction is, oh puhLEEZE, just deal with it. I was a snotty pompous intellectual by the time I was thirteen and I was over it by the time I was fifteen. Not only am I not stupid - I'm not uneducated. I just didn't get my education traditionally.
And I'm not humble, either. I get what Allyson was saying about bragging, and I agree completely with Ginger: women, specifically, will always have more of a squick about being perceived as bragging if they say something good about themselves. My lack of humility about what I do well is part and parcel; it comes with me. If anyone can't cope, they're free to avoid me. How's THAT for lack of humble? Not giving a damn?
But I give really short shrift to anyone - and I'm pissier toward women than men on this one, because I love my sisters, I'm a feminist at the bone deep level and always have been, and I tend to hold other women to a higher standard, fair or not - who tells me that it's somehow my duty to "prove to the men I'm as good they are, by being as good as the men in fields women aren't supposed to be good in! You MUST be good in math! Science! Engineering! Computers!"
Um, no. I don't have to prove jackshit - I know I'm good at what I want to do, and I don't owe it to anyone to be good at what I'm not. I feel no need to prove it to anyone. But if I say so, I'm bragging. Just can't win.
So I shrug, and grin, and say hey there, you think you can outwrite me? You graduated phi beta kappa in creative writing from an accredited university - wanna give it a pop?
Oh and to add my thing about college and cockroachs. The weird thing is that it co-exists nicely with a whole huge anti-intellectual thing that a good heart and good instincts are that is required for good decision making. No actual intelligence, knowledge or skills required. As in "I don't need no fancy degree to understand this here science stuff".
Gar, yep - and once again, there's the extremes. I've found that anyone choosing to stroll down the middle path is in grave danger of getting pelted with shit from both sides.
On the "sexy versus smart" thing, I think the critical point is that most people don't get that if I choose to wear makeup, or high heels, or raw silk against my skin, it isn't for the benefit of outside admirers. I could give a damn about the world's reaction. It's for me. My body, my playground, my wonderland. I'm not peacocking to attract a mate or compete with anyone. I'm peacocking out of pure narcissistic sensuality. It's for the benefit of me, and me alone.
People is weird, weird, weird.
But I give really short shrift to anyone - and I'm pissier toward women than men on this one, because I love my sisters, I'm a feminist at the bone deep level and always have been, and I tend to hold other women to a higher standard, fair or not - who tells me that it's somehow my duty to "prove to the men I'm as good they are, by being as good as the men in fields women aren't supposed to be good in! You MUST be good in math! Science! Engineering! Computers!"
I always hold my own people to a higher standard. For example, I can't get mad at Republicans, they way I get or have gotten mad at Democrats, because I never accepted the Republican platform in the first place. I get much more angry at bad behavior from Christians than I do when it comes from anyone else, because they're (I believe) perverting something that to me is pure. It's just like my own children acting up in a restaurant (they know better *g*) would bother me far more than someone else's.
Um, no. I don't have to prove jackshit - I know I'm good at what I want to do, and I don't owe it to anyone to be good at what I'm not.
I agree. Completely (except where I think my own natural tendency in favor of a certain attitude or behavior is not right to begin with, in that case, I owe it to myself to clean up my act).
I feel no need to prove it to anyone. But if I say so, I'm bragging. Just can't win.
You prove by doing and how you do what you do. Some people aren't going to accept whatever anyone else offers as proof, about anything.
