I KEEL YOU NOW!
Jul. 21st, 2006 06:50 pmSo I was having one of those initial get-to-know-you conversations with a new friend. She’d perused my blog a bit and had a couple interesting observations after reading my most recent post about feelings here.
In response to my lifelong question about whether I have emotions and to what degree, and my pursuit of those elusive feelings, she offered the following: Don’t confuse strength of emotion with depth of emotion.
That’s really an interesting thought: that one can have deep/meaningful emotions without being particularly demonstrative or effusive. Is it true? Can someone have such depth while still showing a placid demeanor to the world?
Certainly there are things I feel strongly about that I don’t visibly manifest for others’ benefit, and sometimes I’ve been criticized for expressing deep emotions in this journal that were hidden from others who were present at the time! So maybe it’s true: when talking about feelings, emotional strength and depth are independent variables.
The other thing dealt with gender roles and preconceptions.
We’re all very used to thinking about men as penile: all about probing and penetration and aggression. What people fail to remember is that men also have testes. And what do testicles do? They hang out. They’re there, but they generally don’t get in the way. They’re pretty simple and easygoing.
Can that be extended to our conception of masculinity? Certainly men have the ability to be laid back, easygoing, strong, and paternal, in a way that women generally do not manifest. It’s that quiet strength and calming presence that often gets very lost in the public conception of masculinity. My friend contrasted it with the nearly hysterical “dyke dramas” that spiraled out of control in an all-female household she’d lived in.
She also extended the metaphor to include the womb in childbirth as an alternative model for the feminine: embodying pushing, rejecting, and loss, rather than the usual welcoming and nurturing.
I don’t have so much to say about that, myself, but I thought it worth including as a point for thought. But I do definitely think we need to do a better job correcting the balance between the image of male as pushy, demanding, and violent versus that reassuring, protective, and steadying presence that is probably a more accurate depiction of masculinity.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-22 11:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-23 07:38 pm (UTC)Well, calmer and steadier I'll buy as a generalization, but with the caveat that all generalizations fail in individual instances.
Extrapolating that to "woman are untrustworthy" seems a rather substantial overreaction, though. I thought that whole "I have emotions, therefore I'm a danger to everyone around me" went out a long time ago, at least in my circles.
And then attributing all that to menses? That's just cracked. Sure, women have hormonal variations, but emotions are a much more than just a periodic fluctuation... and one which varies greatly in its effect from individual to individual.
It does bring up an interesting question, though. My understanding is that the BCP moderates women's hormonal fluctuations; I wonder whether there's been a noticeable change in the overall moodiness of women, or the perception thereof, as a result of the recent availability of BCPs. Huh. Just thinking out loud again...
no subject
Date: 2006-08-06 10:24 pm (UTC)Anyway, I don't think there's anything unreasonable in saying that women can have hormonally influenced emotional variation, or that BCP can affect that (actually I hear some fairly dramatic tales of the interaction between preexisting mental health issues and hormonal birth control from some of my friends), but I think it would be awfully hazardous to say that it affects all women similarly.