The Talk, Part 4 of 10,000–In Which There Are More than Two Ways to Be a Woman

Dear Lily June,

The very definition of a “double-edged sword” is a weapon that can cut both ways–possibly injuring the one who wields it as much as the target it’s turned against. Think of King Midas, whose ability to turn everything to gold meant that he could not eat–each grape, steak or plate of humus was instantly turned luminous, but inedible. (It’s said that he starved to death.) Mythology holds that he turned his own beloved daughter into a statue, and thus his vain wish come true was also its own punishment. In some ways, this is true of being a woman–in the sexual world, a female identity is often a double-edged sword.

On the one hand, adopting a traditional feminine gender role has its benefits. Though society is changing (slowly, but surely), a woman is still, by and large, expected to be pursued rather than to be the pursuer. But what takes the pressure off in one direction (less fear of rejection by the one asked out) puts more on in the other: This means a woman is expected to pursue being pursued. She is, in certain places and even today, expected to function as a kind of accessory that, once a man “chooses” her, completes his outfit of victory. I’m reminded of the words of Sylvia Plath in “The Applicant”:

“Naked as paper to start / But in twenty-five years she’ll be silver, / In fifty, gold. / A living doll, everywhere you look. / It can sew, it can cook, / It can talk, talk, talk.”

A woman who rejects this vision of womanhood–the “living doll” bred to sew and cook for her partner–who does the sexual hunting rather than being the hunted is often degraded, being called a “slut” or “whore.” On the other hand, a woman who eschews sexual pursuit altogether, deciding to save her body until she feels absolutely ready (if ever) to engage in intercourse is mocked (or was in my day, so get ready to dust the cobwebs off this one) as a “prude.” Lily, you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.

Essentially, as a woman, you’re given the option of being one of two Madonnas. Option one is to be impossible virginal and pure.

Option 2–The Other Madonna–is impossibly sensual and attractive. Choose wisely, Lily, or better yet, wisely refuse to choose.

How far back does this dichotomy extend? Even the Bible presents two distinct possibilities: The (Virgin) Mary or Mary (the Prostitute) Magdalene. Sigmund Freud, an Austrian psychologist and the presumed father of psychoanalysis, in attempting to analyze the sexual frustrations of his era in 1912, referred to a “Madonna-whore complex,” in which men who looked at women often either saw a saintly matron or a debased prostitute. (Hence the joke that a Freudian slip is when you say one thing, but mean “your mother.”)

Freud also said that this caused a kind of “psychic impotence” for men, in that they could only respond affectionately to the “Madonnas” and passionately to the “whores.” In his words,

“Where such men love, they have no desire, and where they desire, they cannot love.”

Rita Hayworth, a famous actress from the 1940’s, described this predicament from the woman’s perspective. Referring to Gilda, the titular and highly seductive femme fetale from a 1946 noir film, Hayworth said bitterly of her sex life,

“Men go to bed with Gilda but wake up with me.”

For perspective, Lily, here is the character of Gilda that men lay down with.

This is the woman, Rita (whose real name was Margarita Carmen Cansino), who men woke back up with.

As late as 1997, American author and third-wave feminist Naomi Wolf argued that this complex–sometimes referred to as the Virgin-Whore dichotomy–is still a pervasive way of thinking about the roles of women. Assuming this terrible sociological stereotype still exists by the time you come of age, what does that mean for you as a woman?

One, that you should know your logical fallacies, so you know how to avoid them. The virgin-whore dichotomy is a classic example of a “false dilemma,” an argument that avoids the complexities along an entire spectrum of possibility. In other words, a woman has far more choices available to her than the promiscuous vixen or the procreative saint. The old “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” line of thinking denies the third option that you’re sympathetic to both sides. Or the fourth option that you don’t give a rat’s butt about either.

Two, that you should not, as a woman, be solely defined by how you serve a man. You’re neither just the person who bears them babies, nor the woman who bares her flesh. The feminist Gloria Steinem is famous, amongst other things, for her oft repeated line,

“A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.”

In other words, a woman does not require a man to be a human! I also always liked the joke for this, that an English teacher wrote the words “Woman without her man is nothing” on the board and asked her students to punctuate the “sentence.” The male students wrote,

“Woman, without her man, is nothing.”

The female students wrote,

“Woman! Without her, man is nothing.”

Of course, both miss the point, because neither requires the other to be who they are. For one thing, you might decide you like women instead of men, and that’s fine, so long as you no more define yourself by who you are to a female partner than you would by who you are to a male one. For another thing, you might decide you want to transition into being a male, and that’s also fine, as long as you resist the urge, then, to just decide that a male is defined as the opposite of a female.

The idea of their even being an “opposite sex” is so outdated and limiting, Lily. Women aren’t the “hot” to men’s “cold” nor the “black” to men’s “white.” A woman can be as warm and gray as she wants to be (and so can a man).

Three, in fact, you shouldn’t define yourself in terms of anyone else, regardless of gender. Though I cherish the role, I’m more than only your mother, just as you’re more than only my child. Those roles may influence the ways we interact with each other, but they shouldn’t limit how we see ourselves. (Because baby, unless it’s medically necessary, I sure don’t want to be diapering you into your thirties!)

Four, that malevolent sexism exists even now. No one should impose upon you the label of “slut” or assign you to do the “walk of shame” just because you are in control of your own sexual body and its desires.

Five, likewise, that benevolent sexism exists, too. It may seem more complimentary to be compared with the Virgin Mary, but it can be exhausting to serve as the heroine of a maternal fantasy. As Ani DiFranco sings,

“I know men are delicate origami creatures who need women to unfold them and hold them when they cry. But I am tired of being your savior. And I am tired of telling you why.”

Finally, that it’s okay, right, and just to stand up to these pervasive myths and detrimental ideologies. It doesn’t make you a “FemiNazi” or a “man-basher” to believe that you deserve to be treated as a fully fleshed out person in your own right and with your own rights. I always liked Marie Shear’s definition that Feminism is

“..the radical notion that women are people.”

And, Lily–with a man or with a woman or without both or with both or as a woman or as a man, you’re as much a person as they come. Be who you are, whosoever you choose that to be. And dull down that sword–on both edges–so you can use it as a club with which to beat over the head any who would try to limit you!

***

 Picture Credits:

• “Cpg339 135r” by Wolfram von Eschenbach; Werkstatt Diebold Lauber in Hagenau – Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Cod. Pal. germ. 339, I. Buch, Blatt 135r – Spätmittelalterliche Bilderhandschriften aus der Bibliotheca Palatina – digital, Kooperationsprojekt der Universitätsbibliothek und des Kunsthistorischen Instituts der Universität Heidelberg.. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cpg339_135r.jpg#/media/File:Cpg339_135r.jpg
• “Fra Angelico 046” by {{creator:|Permission=[1]}} – The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei. DVD-ROM, 2002. ISBN 3936122202. Distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH.. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fra_Angelico_046.jpg#/media/File:Fra_Angelico_046.jpg
• “Madonna performing Human Nature 4” by U2005.com – Madonna Berlin 2012-06-30. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Madonna_performing_Human_Nature_4.jpg#/media/File:Madonna_performing_Human_Nature_4.jpg
• “Rita-Hayworth-Argentinean-Magazine-1935” by Fox Film Corporation, supplied to CINELANDIA magazine – ebay. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rita-Hayworth-Argentinean-Magazine-1935.jpg#/media/File:Rita-Hayworth-Argentinean-Magazine-1935.jpg
• “Gilda trailer hayworth1” by Trailer distributed by Columbia Pictures – DVD with the film & the trailer. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gilda_trailer_hayworth1.JPG#/media/File:Gilda_trailer_hayworth1.JPG