Thank you for "caricature" -- I think that was a word for which I was searching yesterday.
and thank you for spelling it correctly! id give muh fiefdom for spellcheck here. left to my own devices i can be very er creative:)
Maybe we're saying the same thing here, maybe not, but yeah, the chivalry thing factors in, somewhat, I think. I wonder if it's perhaps in part an idealization of something which was absent in one's formative years.
I think we really are saying similar things. im thinking its more a bifurcation than an absence perhaps? bifurcation of what happens in those years anyway. seeing the mother figure (and its nearly always the mother) getting slapped around or treated poorly and its witnessed thru a childs eyes and translated in a childs mind in a way that the child can make sense of his/her surroundings. perhaps that child senses that they do not ever want to be in that position of subjugation and articulates their developing gender to accomdate those desires but on the other hand also wishes to gift their own love object with a more desireable experience, the experience that is written about, filmed, sung and witnessed by the world as the "ideal" which is maybe what we are both saying here.
hen he left, I had two very strong, conflicting feelings/thoughts about him. One was great anger/hurt, but the other, I think, was that I was left to subconsciously imagine what it might have been like had he stayed, and in that subconscous dreaming, I think I probably idealized the relationship, not unlike what one sometimes does when a loved one dies. I think a father/daughter relationship is hugely instrumental in a woman's future relationships with men, although that's purely supposition on my part, albeit, I think, wellfounded supposition.
and do you think it shaped your lesbian relationships as well? what is the part that looks to the masculine? this is where i was stuck yesterday in writing my response. i was thinking about sexuality and desire as manifestations of difference with respect to b/f roles and wonder how our taking up of male figures is represented within a lesbian relationship? if we witness a lot of violence growing up is this the manifestation that occurs or is it a censoring of that violence leaving only what is perceived as good?
common sense courtesy things, really, with no gender overtones, but the whole "dance" about the door opening when a man and woman arrive at the door at the same moment still befuddles me somewhat. I've been around enough guys who were offended, and told me as much when I would reach for the door, to be still a little gun shy about that thing.
and that makes sense. there are common sense courtesy aspects to manners and gawd knows i love manners no matter what side of the gender fence someone is seated on:) but its the infantalizing the keeping from or doing for that is overdone or the assumption that because one is femme that one cannot do it. I used to have this happen a lot when i was younger. id date someone a few times and shed want to move in and would point out how i needed a butch around the house and id ask why and get the so i can fix the, whatever it was at the time that needed fixing, for you. never mind that i could do all of those things for myself. as a good femme i was supposed to defer to "my butch" and let her do it for me. It became almost comical because in some instances i was better at these things than she (whichever partner) was. I coined a phrase for it at the time: "helpful butch syndrome" which sorta sums it up. It was often the first obstacle in the relationship, the asserting that i could do those things myself and id ask for help when it was needed and have it be ok and not some threat to the ego of the women i was with. i view the "helpful" thing as something that is toxic to women in much the same way as males asserting that women shouldnt or couldnt do these things would be.
thats the place im trying to delineate. at what point does it cease to be a sharing of tasks or common courtesy and goes beyond to patronizing or condescension? or to take the role playing to a place of silliness. For instance, once i was with my then partner at an outdoor concert where the chairs were lined up so closely that a dime wouldnt fit between them. im tall. close to 5'10 and my arms and legs are long. i placed my arms over the backs of the chairs on either side of me one side with my partner and the other side a friend. After the concert my partner was upset with me, saying id embarrassed her in public by "outbutching" her with the arm on the back of her chair. all i could say was youre kidding, right? well wrong. she wasnt kidding. Another time this same woman got very flustered when i grabbed her hand in public. not because id grabbed her hand but because my hand, visible to onlookers, was on the top. to me these are toxic moments. role playing is one thing but taking it to its illogical extremes is another. and its the illogical extremes that i find troubling. i wonder if they are often recognized within relationships?
I have never been a female comfortable in a dress. I've worn plenty of them, but they've never been my go-to choice. I hated them when I was four, and pretty much hated them equally at forty four. There was, though, one "exception" to that, and it was when I felt I was dressing for "my butch." One relationship, and really, one night, only, but it was a fairly dressy occasion, and I basked in her adoring looks when I emerged all "girled up" and found myself swooning in her more masculine appearance. Recounting this now is ... odd for me. Odd because looking back, it was "play acting" which I'd happily bought into, and I knew it at the time, really, but I liked it a lot.
ok go with this for a moment. what was it that sparked that feeling of desire was it the occasion, the looks or the "difference"?
, in some ways, as if I'd stepped into the pages of a "Heart Throb" comic book from the 60's, or something, or had reverted back to when I had these idealized notions as a pre-adolescent about my dream boyfriend, who always wore jeans, a clean white tee shirt, and spent a lot of time working under my car parked in front of my house. (I didn't HAVE a car yet, and when I DID get one, I did all the work underneath it myself, and happily so, but still.)
and when you remember those dreams why do you suppose these things were emblematic of relationships? ya dont have to answer im just curious and will have to think of some of my own adolescent thoughts vis a vis desire and see what the theme was in them.
I don't know. For me, even though we may manipulate our minds at some level, given enough time, into believing something is real or true when it doesn't begin that way, there seems to always be a nagging part of me which suggests my behavior to be a lie of sorts, and that seems to be not living, but rather traversing a path running parallel to life, and not something with which I think I could ever be content, long term.
there is also a cultural aspect of this. there is a whole butch/femme etiquitte thing. the whole head nod to another butch one might encounter or the hey bud thing which to me is a masculinization as well as an idealization of some sort of male bonding thing. (im having a margaret mead moment thinking of these things. lol)
PS: coincidentally, (or maybe not) it was during this particular relationship mentioned above I first began IDing as "femme." Former lovers/partners had had butch nuances, but they were subtle, and I think my thinking was muddied by stereotypical thinking, which told me that because I was usually the taller woman in the relationship, and liked to do things like work with tools, and mow yards, and had an interest in cars, and didn't like to do things like wear dresses, and spend a lot of time thinking about nail polish, and shoes, that I was what I determined to be a "soft butch." In retrospect, I now think to have been a flawed and faulty self accessment, brought about by erroneous stereotyping on my part, as much as anything.
and i think that is important to consider when thinking of the whole spectrum of ways these roles play out. you may appear to others by mannerism or interest to be more to the butch end of things while your interior cannot relate to the label. and i think this happens a lot to people who are in the middle of the continuum and perhaps in the middle there is more comfort in the taking up of both "roles"?
agreed. and im sorry if i wasnt clear. that was aimed at anyone reading who might read into what i was writing and assume i was saying one thing when instead i was saying another. my intent is not to bash role playing or bf roles in their entirety rather it was to try and separate what might be toxic in some cases from what is not. its a tough subject to dissect because of all of the political and social aspects that intertwine and if you (at least for me anyway) tug at one of those strings youre likely to come to a hmmm moment with regard to separating out our own biases or beliefs from actuality.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify, Psych. Appreciate it.
I like the proposition of finding a way to separate my biases from actuality, and hope, with some open and candid discussion here, I, as well as others, are able to do just that.
I know I tend to have a penchant for "rushing in where angels fear to tread" and it's been known to come back upon me a hundred fold, but really, I believe just about anything becomes enhanced in a positive way, when shown fully in under the light of truth and candor, and that a lot of dangerous and hurtful misconceptions may be eliminated in such an environment. I also think that in better understanding others, we better understand ourselves, and really, that's sort of my default intention when I post on message boards -- to learn more, both about what other people think, and also what I think that I may not realize I think.
This forum seems a good place to explore this issue because A.) It's for lesbians only, and B.) If things are too personal, posters have the option of posting anonymously. Again: it's not the "this person did that" thing which engages me, it's the: "this happens in the world too, whether you knew it before or not" thing. That sounds sloppily naive, I suppose, but there ya are. LOL. It's the possibility of opening dialogue, and growing, perhaps becoming "better" from that experience, which most entices me, yanno?
?? I don't see how I've approached diminishing respect for our foremothers, here. I continue to hold them in the highest regard. I also am keenly aware of the difference between those of us (by pure nature) who can "pass" as straight, and those who cannot, and how every day in the life of either is radically different. Clearly, a "girlie looking" woman is going to have it a hell of a lot easier in this society as it presently exists, than will a woman not similarly put together. I understand and appreciate that unfair (in terms of societal discrimination) distinction. I'm not guilty of imposing the same discrimination, and frankly, in my behavior, am more prone to make an extra effort in public to provide an alternative interaction where I sense an aura of disdain from others.
agreed. and im sorry if i wasnt clear. that was aimed at anyone reading who might read into what i was writing and assume i was saying one thing when instead i was saying another. my intent is not to bash role playing or bf roles in their entirety rather it was to try and separate what might be toxic in some cases from what is not. its a tough subject to dissect because of all of the political and social aspects that intertwine and if you (at least for me anyway) tug at one of those strings youre likely to come to a hmmm moment with regard to separating out our own biases or beliefs from actuality.
I've never been drawn to the suggestion to be cautious in my thinking. It suggests, to me, that things are better left in the mysterious shadows to which only supposition shapes. I remember, vividly, riding in my grandparent's car, with them in the front seat, and me and my mom in the back, and my asking innocently: "But Grandma, how do you know God exists?" The reply was: "How daaaaaaaaaare you question God!!!!!" I didn't appreciate my mother's fingernails digging into my leg at the time, and I guess that's sort of carried over to the rest of my life insofar as asking questions about things I don't understand.
actually i love that you asked the question and love that its getting batted around on this board. being careful in thinking for me is more of a think two steps ahead thing before i type rather than a lets not talk about it. I do think that we never know who might be reading and the weight they may put upon what we say and so better to clarify as much as possible. But its never, ever, about not talking about it and not listening when someone thinks or feels differently than i do, which is, btw, most of the time. lol.
Why should this topic be taboo? What about it is fearsome? Why can we not, as intelligent, adult lesbians, share information about our individual and unique life styles, and why should this forum not be a clearing house for that sort of candid information?
No, really. Where else, if not here?
agreed in full. it should and lets keep it coming!
Psych Lit wrote:. a few years back i did a lot of group type things and i noticed that there were a lot of lesbians who had lived for a good amount of their childhood in abusive familial relationships or relationships where there was a lot of substance abuse. i also noticed that there were a lot of these folks who were at the extreme end of the bf spectrum. what i noticed was that there was a certain sort of charicature in the expression of gendered relationships within their now primary partnerships. an exaggerated chivalry for instance or an over the top domestic goddess type relationship for some and what occured to me was that the children that they once were, the children who had witnessed a loving parent being subject to abuse might redefine that partner love relationship in ways where those aspects of hetero relationships that were viewed as positive, being helpful, being courtly, doing the "male" role job were exaggerated while those roles of more overt domination or danger were sort of recessed into the background tho visible thru possessiveness of dismissiveness of their partners life apart or viewpoints.
Thank you for "caricature" -- I think that was a word for which I was searching yesterday.
Maybe we're saying the same thing here, maybe not, but yeah, the chivalry thing factors in, somewhat, I think. I wonder if it's perhaps in part an idealization of something which was absent in one's formative years. I, for instance, basically didn't have a Dad after I was about 13, except the one in my imagination. The one who did do all those things I seemed to see other dads doing for their daughters. In retrospect, my deductions were flawed on several levels -- first, the relationship I had had with my Dad prior to his departure was really, extraordinary. I later learned how many of my elementary school classmates, who seemingly had such perfect families, had been somewhat jealous of the relationship my Dad and I shared. I attribute the good parts of that relationship to several things, including the fact that I was one of only two children, thus, he had more available time to dedicate to me as an individual, and too, he was a university professor, and department chair, so although he was busy with work a lot, he also had some flexibility in his schedule other fathers didn't enjoy in their professions. Also, I attended grade school on the same university campus where he taught, and so he and I would walk to school together every day, and after school, I was free, if I wanted, to swing by his office and hang out, and if it was between classes, and he had time, we could hang out together.
When he left, I had two very strong, conflicting feelings/thoughts about him. One was great anger/hurt, but the other, I think, was that I was left to subconsciously imagine what it might have been like had he stayed, and in that subconscous dreaming, I think I probably idealized the relationship, not unlike what one sometimes does when a loved one dies. I think a father/daughter relationship is hugely instrumental in a woman's future relationships with men, although that's purely supposition on my part, albeit, I think, wellfounded supposition.
It's difficult for me to be objective about my past "relationships" with subsequent men, in part because, well, it's me, but mostly because I'm not clear on when exactly I began blossoming as a lesbian, and when I dated guys, it always felt like "play acting" to me, with me acting out presumed "normal" roles within the relationship. Waiting for him to open the car door -- antiquated, and sexist stuff like that. It irks the hell out of me that I still occasionally fall into that pattern when around men. I tell myself it's about courtesy, and yeah, I'm the first to open the door for a guy, if his hands or full, and I will hold the door for a man if I'm the first through it -- common sense courtesy things, really, with no gender overtones, but the whole "dance" about the door opening when a man and woman arrive at the door at the same moment still befuddles me somewhat. I've been around enough guys who were offended, and told me as much when I would reach for the door, to be still a little gun shy about that thing.
I have never been a female comfortable in a dress. I've worn plenty of them, but they've never been my go-to choice. I hated them when I was four, and pretty much hated them equally at forty four. There was, though, one "exception" to that, and it was when I felt I was dressing for "my butch." One relationship, and really, one night, only, but it was a fairly dressy occasion, and I basked in her adoring looks when I emerged all "girled up" and found myself swooning in her more masculine appearance. Recounting this now is ... odd for me. Odd because looking back, it was "play acting" which I'd happily bought into, and I knew it at the time, really, but I liked it a lot. Really, though, it was no more "real" than when I'd done the same for male "dates" in school. It was play acting -- role playing, and it was "fun" and a little exciting. It was also surreal to me the whole time. It was, in some ways, as if I'd stepped into the pages of a "Heart Throb" comic book from the 60's, or something, or had reverted back to when I had these idealized notions as a pre-adolescent about my dream boyfriend, who always wore jeans, a clean white tee shirt, and spent a lot of time working under my car parked in front of my house. (I didn't HAVE a car yet, and when I DID get one, I did all the work underneath it myself, and happily so, but still.) Granted, my training as an actor readily lends its self to this sort of exploration -- indeed, demanded it, professionally, but there comes a time when the curtain falls, and I've always then stepped back into my own skin waiting for me back in the 21st century. I've never stayed on that admittedly "fun" stage long after the house lights have gone up, nor, do I think I'd want to, because as fun and exciting as it was, it was "fake" on several levels, and I was never not cognizant of that. It was about as "real" as my play acting being heterosexual, and really, I guess that's the point to which I may be winding my way. Maybe this is just a personal conflict somewhat unique to me, with which I must grapple. I don't know. For me, even though we may manipulate our minds at some level, given enough time, into believing something is real or true when it doesn't begin that way, there seems to always be a nagging part of me which suggests my behavior to be a lie of sorts, and that seems to be not living, but rather traversing a path running parallel to life, and not something with which I think I could ever be content, long term.
PS: coincidentally, (or maybe not) it was during this particular relationship mentioned above I first began IDing as "femme." Former lovers/partners had had butch nuances, but they were subtle, and I think my thinking was muddied by stereotypical thinking, which told me that because I was usually the taller woman in the relationship, and liked to do things like work with tools, and mow yards, and had an interest in cars, and didn't like to do things like wear dresses, and spend a lot of time thinking about nail polish, and shoes, that I was what I determined to be a "soft butch." In retrospect, I now think to have been a flawed and faulty self accessment, brought about by erroneous stereotyping on my part, as much as anything.
It would be interesting to compile a list of perceived stereotypical roles within a heterosexual relationship (man mows lawn, woman washes dishes -- man works on cars, woman vacuums house, etc.) and see both how those perceptions have changed generationally, and how many of them are assumed by homosexuals in their "butch/femme" relationships. Why is it we're still surprised on some level, when, in a butch/femme relationship, the "butch" is the one who likes to iron and wash the dishes, and the "femme" is the one who gets into working on the car? I ask that from personal experience, in terms of feedback, verbal and otherwise, from within our own community. I wonder how many generations will subscribe to the notion that tasks are either "male" or "female" oriented, and further that "butch" women are presumed to be "male" and "femme" women "female"?
there is a whole history to the b/f way of life and id like to be cautious in my thinking about this. there is a debt we all owe for our obvious butch sisters, for the women who paved the way for the rest of us with their courage, who have borne the scars of the battles far more than the rest of us. they are the face of the public perception of lesbians. (well they and the two sexy vixens on the cover or playboy...shaking head...) and they take the brunt of the crap.
?? I don't see how I've approached diminishing respect for our foremothers, here. I continue to hold them in the highest regard. I also am keenly aware of the difference between those of us (by pure nature) who can "pass" as straight, and those who cannot, and how every day in the life of either is radically different. Clearly, a "girlie looking" woman is going to have it a hell of a lot easier in this society as it presently exists, than will a woman not similarly put together. I understand and appreciate that unfair (in terms of societal discrimination) distinction. I'm not guilty of imposing the same discrimination, and frankly, in my behavior, am more prone to make an extra effort in public to provide an alternative interaction where I sense an aura of disdain from others.
I've never been drawn to the suggestion to be cautious in my thinking. It suggests, to me, that things are better left in the mysterious shadows to which only supposition shapes. I remember, vividly, riding in my grandparent's car, with them in the front seat, and me and my mom in the back, and my asking innocently: "But Grandma, how do you know God exists?" The reply was: "How daaaaaaaaaare you question God!!!!!" I didn't appreciate my mother's fingernails digging into my leg at the time, and I guess that's sort of carried over to the rest of my life insofar as asking questions about things I don't understand. It seems to me, that if you're not "allowed" to question something, then there must be some secretly "bad" thing which might be uncovered, and I certainly don't think that is the case here. I was looking at the issue from an overall perspective, and not wanting to get into specific personalities, or people, from an objective and non-judgmental POV. There are things I simply don't understand, and perhaps others of us don't either, and it seems to me that a discussion forum is a fair place to explore what lies behind some of those within-the-community closet doors. If there exists some sort of stigmatization in regard to a portion of our community, is it not better to get it out in the open light of day, and begin dispelling some of the myths, and misunderstandings?
Why should this topic be taboo? What about it is fearsome? Why can we not, as intelligent, adult lesbians, share information about our individual and unique life styles, and why should this forum not be a clearing house for that sort of candid information?
Psych Lit wrote: i dont want to go to the idea that domestic violence is a butch thing because it isnt. its a power and control thing.
Agreed, absolutely, and I really hope I was clear in earlier posts that I do understand that. I was just thinking about role playing, and the stereotypical mirroring by a small population within that community, and wondering if perhaps perceived heterosexual standards of behavior within a relationship aren't also embraced, in the general package, and would include domestic violence -- both as the abuser and as the victim.
thats sort of where i was going in the observation that i mentioned earlier but hadnt researched. a few years back i did a lot of group type things and i noticed that there were a lot of lesbians who had lived for a good amount of their childhood in abusive familial relationships or relationships where there was a lot of substance abuse. i also noticed that there were a lot of these folks who were at the extreme end of the bf spectrum. what i noticed was that there was a certain sort of charicature in the expression of gendered relationships within their now primary partnerships. an exaggerated chivalry for instance or an over the top domestic goddess type relationship for some and what occured to me was that the children that they once were, the children who had witnessed a loving parent being subject to abuse might redefine that partner love relationship in ways where those aspects of hetero relationships that were viewed as positive, being helpful, being courtly, doing the "male" role job were exaggerated while those roles of more overt domination or danger were sort of recessed into the background tho visible thru possessiveness of dismissiveness of their partners life apart or viewpoints. it would be a very difficult thing to research since it would involve a lot of self report and self reporting in the dyke community is subject to all sorts of problems. without good reseach tho its only anecdotal. there are a variety of other things that might have led to those behaviors and despite that one obvious thing that these people had in common we dont know how many others who had similar experiences did not share these behaviors nor does it account for those other things like local culture, geography, or anyother not previously disclosed similarity.
Just as we may learn a lot about a child's parents by watching the child play house, (although it's not always accurate, and is sometimes more the product of a childs socialization outside the home) I think we may obtain insight into an adult's domestic history, by watching them
"play house."
that is interesting.
It would be interesting to compile a list of perceived stereotypical roles within a heterosexual relationship (man mows lawn, woman washes dishes -- man works on cars, woman vacuums house, etc.) and see both how those perceptions have changed generationally, and how many of them are assumed by homosexuals in their "butch/femme" relationships. Why is it we're still surprised on some level, when, in a butch/femme relationship, the "butch" is the one who likes to iron and wash the dishes, and the "femme" is the one who gets into working on the car? I ask that from personal experience, in terms of feedback, verbal and otherwise, from within our own community. I wonder how many generations will subscribe to the notion that tasks are either "male" or "female" oriented, and further that "butch" women are presumed to be "male" and "femme" women "female"?
there is a whole history to the b/f way of life and id like to be cautious in my thinking about this. there is a debt we all owe for our obvious butch sisters, for the women who paved the way for the rest of us with their courage, who have borne the scars of the battles far more than the rest of us. they are the face of the public perception of lesbians. (well they and the two sexy vixens on the cover or playboy...shaking head...) and they take the brunt of the crap. for me the problem with the extreme role playing, if one exists, comes about when we think of whether these relationships as either transgressive or oppressive or none of the above. some would say that despite the taking on of traditional het roles the participants are women engaged in sexualized relations and therefore whatever happens within these relationships is transgressive and lesbian identified while others might say these roles are a result of patriarchal kinds of thinking that is internalized by lesbians as well as hets and is therefore oppressive and behaviors that keep women from breaking free of those patriarchal bonds. on the whole i think most b/f role playing falls into the transgressive category but when there is harm to either party, intentional or otherwise, then im thinking more towards the oppressive end of things.
Psych Lit wrote: i dont want to go to the idea that domestic violence is a butch thing because it isnt. its a power and control thing.
Agreed, absolutely, and I really hope I was clear in earlier posts that I do understand that. I was just thinking about role playing, and the stereotypical mirroring by a small population within that community, and wondering if perhaps perceived heterosexual standards of behavior within a relationship aren't also embraced, in the general package, and would include domestic violence -- both as the abuser and as the victim.
I know there are plenty of heterosexual relationships where the woman is the abuser, but that's not the stereotype. If one were making the conscious decision to emulate a heterosexual relationship, and domestic abuse was perceived as being an acceptable, if not regrettable part of that, I wonder if, on some level, that behavior isn't also written into the script either intentionally or otherwise.
Just as we may learn a lot about a child's parents by watching the child play house, (although it's not always accurate, and is sometimes more the product of a childs socialization outside the home) I think we may obtain insight into an adult's domestic history, by watching them "play house."
It would be interesting to compile a list of perceived stereotypical roles within a heterosexual relationship (man mows lawn, woman washes dishes -- man works on cars, woman vacuums house, etc.) and see both how those perceptions have changed generationally, and how many of them are assumed by homosexuals in their "butch/femme" relationships. Why is it we're still surprised on some level, when, in a butch/femme relationship, the "butch" is the one who likes to iron and wash the dishes, and the "femme" is the one who gets into working on the car? I ask that from personal experience, in terms of feedback, verbal and otherwise, from within our own community. I wonder how many generations will subscribe to the notion that tasks are either "male" or "female" oriented, and further that "butch" women are presumed to be "male" and "femme" women "female"? There still exists, I think, a subliminal pressure present to act accordingly. Perhaps its a "trickle down" effect in some ways. If, say, a woman goes into an auto parts store to get ... whatever .... a radiator for their car ... and they're in a building populated predominately by men, it would automatically behoove the woman, would it not, for her to "fit in" with the general population in subtle ways, if she wants to sort of fly under the radar. It's not "right" but it's still true -- if she's in jeans and a T shirt, she's going to get more in-depth, intelligent information from the clerk about that radiator, than if she's in heels and a mini skirt. We all "costume" ourselves daily according, somewhat, to the tasks before us, and there are also other nuances we project beyond wardrobe, "language" being a biggie. It's a game we as people play, really, isn't it? We are inclined all the time, to make assumptions about jobs, right down to and including the political persuasion of the employees. I know I've been guilty of this myself -- I got a new set of tires put on my car back during the 2000 election. At the time, I had a somewhat snarky anti-bush bumper sticker. Can't remember what it was, now, but it was funny if you weren't a GW Bush fan -- not really offensive, but pointed, you know? Anyway, I was quite cognizant of the vulnerability to which I was exposing both myself and my vehicle (and yes, as a matter of fact it WAS "keyed" during that time period, although not at the tire store) in "outing" myself that way. Anyway, I remember being, well? "Happily surprised" when I heard two mechanics discussing and laughing really hard over my bumper sticker. I'd mistakenly assumed they would be more politically conservative, based solely upon their place of employment -- I'd not escaped the prejudicial thinking, and that realization disturbed me greatly -- in part, I suppose, because I so rail against that very thing when it's applied to me.
Back to the auto parts store: my sense is ... if I go into an auto parts store, and there are, say, five clerks on duty, and four of them are men, then the woman working there is going to be one of two things: either less informed than the men (in part because of socialization beginning in elementary school, and continued thoughout her educational life as well as home life -- I was the first girl in my grade school to be "allowed" to leave home ec and instead take wood working with the boys) about cars per se, OR she will be MORE knowledgeable than at least three of the guys, because she HAS to be.
Boy, I'm all over the place today, aren't I. What was the question? Ah yes... "male" and "female" tasks and inanimate objects as viewed by different generations. I remember seeing an ad for something the other day, where something ... I dunno ... something mundane, really, was being sold as "for women" which meant they'd put it in a PINK case. Now, that's just WRONG. LOL.
It just strikes me that we tend to affix male and or female attributes to things AND BEHAVIORS still more often than we might realize, and I guess I was wondering if we've assigned, as was suggested in that book review, certain behaviors to men which are both good AND BAD, and that if a woman is patterning herself, consciously, after a man, if she too will absorb those negative behaviors along with the positive -- whether it's an accurate assumption, or not.
Psych, when you were talking about the stereotypical roles of males, I couldn't help but think about that segment of lesbians who ID as butch who seem compelled to somehow emulate males. And again, I don't mean ALL BUTCH WOMEN! Sheesh! LOL. But there ARE women, both butch and femme, who seem to try to model heterosexual stereotypes -- which in and of its self seems unfortunate, but I'm just an outsider looking in, and can't really say, and frankly, I figure "Hey, whatever floats yer boat."
hmmm i think that no matter what floats the boat of desire there will always be someone willing to meet the demand and for those who like the sort of extreme end of things that youre describing all i can say is its a bit too heterosexist for me but im sure there are some people who enjoy it. i see a whole continuum of b/f roles and like you, i id as femme, and enjoy that dance from somewhere in the mid range of that span id. i dont see a lot of the b/f extremes in younger lesbians but perhaps that has more to do with the population that i most encounter and they are mostly students. I wonder if those roles are more of a working class or an older lesbian phenomenon, or maybe a geographic phenom? not b/f roles but those helpless tho so not really femme and the daddys that protect them kind of thing. i once had a theory about the emulating of those sort of stereotypical roles in lesbian relationships that had to do with picking and choosing behaviors from a past colored by domestic violence but ive not researched it much beyond my initial wonder so it remains a theory. like you say, as long as nobody gets hurt its their business id guess. but then you get into the whole idea of what causes harm for people relationally and there are some dynamics in those extreme roles that either appear to be harmful or might over time lead to other behaviors that are harmful. controlling money or how the roles will be played out for example or falling into rituals that infantilize women and lead over time to a dangerous dependence. abuse is about power and control not sexual orientation and it happens in lesbian and gay relationships too. im going to try and post the lgbt domestic violence wheel. its an adobe thang so i dunno if it will post on here. theres more that id like to say on the issue of violence and will try. i was in a 3 hour meeting today with 6 people 4 of whom had the flu. not a bad cold but the real flu. i got to hear all about how theyve not been this sick in years and im thinking and what? you thought youd come in and share it with the rest of us? geez thanks. so i gotta get the netti pot and zinc out and decontaminate. lol anyway i am digressing. if you look at the wheel consider the relationships that youve been in and see if any of these things have ever happened. i dont want to go to the idea that domestic violence is a butch thing because it isnt. its a power and control thing.
Psych, when you were talking about the stereotypical roles of males, I couldn't help but think about that segment of lesbians who ID as butch who seem compelled to somehow emulate males. And again, I don't mean ALL BUTCH WOMEN! Sheesh! LOL. But there ARE women, both butch and femme, who seem to try to model heterosexual stereotypes -- which in and of its self seems unfortunate, but I'm just an outsider looking in, and can't really say, and frankly, I figure "Hey, whatever floats yer boat." What I find tremendously distracting, though, is that so many women seem to idealize the '50's, and in a way different from my having a 50's kitchen. Of those women, those lesbians, who ID as butch, many of them seem to be caught in this ... time warp thing, where women are treated ... well, pretty much the way women were treated in the 1950's. And there seem to be plenty of women who ID as femme who are more than happy to play that role as "the little woman." It sometimes strikes me that in some ways, it's an extravagant "scene" which is okay in its place, I guess, but I can't imagine living that fantasy scene my whole life.
I am so often shocked at what women will embrace as "acceptable" treatment by other women. That whole dynamic just ... eludes me completely. I often wonder how some of these femmes would react if a male treated them the diminishing way their butch lesbian associates do. It seems, sometimes, that the whole women's movement just simply never happened in some corners -- a femme woman is a "girl" regardless of her age, and quite often, not even a "girl" out of diapers, when it comes to salutations -- and sometimes, the "model" appears to be of an incestuous nature, as well.
It just ... stumps me, really. I don't "get" it at all. And again, to their own, each.
I do wonder, then, if people in this flavor of relationship, where mores of the 50's prevail, also emulate the physical, mental, and emotional abuse of women, socially accepted back then, as well. I wonder if femmes in these relationships submit to, say, a butch's suggestion that they need to "slap the b-word around a little, to keep her in line."
In short, I wonder if those who play the role of the 50's male opt to include corporal punishment in their relationships, out of hand. I'm not talking S&M here -- that's a wholly different issue, as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, perhaps someone can explain this phenomenon to me, so that I might better wrap my brain around it, 'cause honest to Pete, I don't "get" it at ALL.
And again, just for emphasis: If this doesn't apply to YOU, then I'm not talking about YOU. I absolutely realize this is not the way it is with all butch women. I'm also not saying that butch women in general are "trying to emulate men." I AM NOT SAYING THAT. What I AM saying is there does seem to be a small portion -- a very small portion, at that, of butch lesbian women who seem to consciously make that choice. I understand this is different from "the third sex" thing. I'm talking about those few who are consciously "play acting" a role of ... well?? A male chauvanist, if you get right down to it.
If you don't have the power to wound, Ms. Scofield's novel suggests, you don't have the power to love.The notion that men, in becoming sensitive, have abdicated some essential maleness makes "Beyond Deserving" a timely novel; it's one woman's view of the "Iron John" phenomenon.
---------- end of snippet -- balance of review may be found in today's NYT.
i was on a panel discussing this very thing a few years ago. Robert Blys work has been interpreted in some very scary ways. what i most often witness is that it is a rationalization for abuse. when men abuse women and are sent somewhere to deal with it they often encounter the bly converts. what they hear out of that is that men are necessarily confused by their roles in recent years and yes, its all womens fault. the thought goes that women need that take charge take care of knuckle dragging club wielding cave man to protect the tribe and the extended tribe and that were all socialized to expect men to do the dirty work and fight the wars while we sit on our pillows. and once we train and set out these poor orbs of humanity apparently they cannot turn off their baser instincts and since underneath it all, women want men in their society to be those brutes not the sensitive caring folks that they claim to want and all this leaves those poor men who beat their women, well very confused.
i do agree that there are stereotypical roles that males in this culture are expected to play and i agree that if we are ever going to change the domestic violence statistics we will have to change that cultural demand. where i disagree with the blyborgs tho is in the idea that nobody has to change here. we only need give more understanding and acceptance for the poor brutes who, like the chained junk yard dog, attack out of some primitive response system. there is never any reason for violence, either emotional or physical, in a relationship. that is not love. it is some twisted image of love.
Excellent points, Psych -- thanks.
What strikes me, though, is that we've no reason to believe (or, to my knowledge, data to support) the notion that domestic violence occurs less in lesbian relationships, than in heterosexual ones, and I can't help but wonder, then, what THAT'S about.
You know, as a lesbian vulnerable to the "butch/femme" dance (and happily so) I find myself sexually drawn to the "butch" X factor. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but I know it attracts me.
Having put that information out there up front for a long time, I've encountered a lot of woman who ID as "butch" to whom I feel no attraction whatsoever -- to the contrary, I'm frankly more apt to flee than anything else.
I guess that's a round-about way of saying that we're all unique, and of course each "femme" or "butch" woman is of course unique as well.
Psych, when you were talking about the stereotypical roles of males, I couldn't help but think about that segment of lesbians who ID as butch who seem compelled to somehow emulate males. And again, I don't mean ALL BUTCH WOMEN! Sheesh! LOL. But there ARE women, both butch and femme, who seem to try to model heterosexual stereotypes -- which in and of its self seems unfortunate, but I'm just an outsider looking in, and can't really say, and frankly, I figure "Hey, whatever floats yer boat." What I find tremendously distracting, though, is that so many women seem to idealize the '50's, and in a way different from my having a 50's kitchen. Of those women, those lesbians, who ID as butch, many of them seem to be caught in this ... time warp thing, where women are treated ... well, pretty much the way women were treated in the 1950's. And there seem to be plenty of women who ID as femme who are more than happy to play that role as "the little woman." It sometimes strikes me that in some ways, it's an extravagant "scene" which is okay in its place, I guess, but I can't imagine living that fantasy scene my whole life.
I am so often shocked at what women will embrace as "acceptable" treatment by other women. That whole dynamic just ... eludes me completely. I often wonder how some of these femmes would react if a male treated them the diminishing way their butch lesbian associates do. It seems, sometimes, that the whole women's movement just simply never happened in some corners -- a femme woman is a "girl" regardless of her age, and quite often, not even a "girl" out of diapers, when it comes to salutations -- and sometimes, the "model" appears to be of an incestuous nature, as well.
It just ... stumps me, really. I don't "get" it at all. And again, to their own, each.
I do wonder, then, if people in this flavor of relationship, where mores of the 50's prevail, also emulate the physical, mental, and emotional abuse of women, socially accepted back then, as well. I wonder if femmes in these relationships submit to, say, a butch's suggestion that they need to "slap the b-word around a little, to keep her in line."
In short, I wonder if those who play the role of the 50's male opt to include corporal punishment in their relationships, out of hand. I'm not talking S&M here -- that's a wholly different issue, as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, perhaps someone can explain this phenomenon to me, so that I might better wrap my brain around it, 'cause honest to Pete, I don't "get" it at ALL.
If you don't have the power to wound, Ms. Scofield's novel suggests, you don't have the power to love.The notion that men, in becoming sensitive, have abdicated some essential maleness makes "Beyond Deserving" a timely novel; it's one woman's view of the "Iron John" phenomenon.
---------- end of snippet -- balance of review may be found in today's NYT.
i was on a panel discussing this very thing a few years ago. Robert Blys work has been interpreted in some very scary ways. what i most often witness is that it is a rationalization for abuse. when men abuse women and are sent somewhere to deal with it they often encounter the bly converts. what they hear out of that is that men are necessarily confused by their roles in recent years and yes, its all womens fault. the thought goes that women need that take charge take care of knuckle dragging club wielding cave man to protect the tribe and the extended tribe and that were all socialized to expect men to do the dirty work and fight the wars while we sit on our pillows. and once we train and set out these poor orbs of humanity apparently they cannot turn off their baser instincts and since underneath it all, women want men in their society to be those brutes not the sensitive caring folks that they claim to want and all this leaves those poor men who beat their women, well very confused.
i do agree that there are stereotypical roles that males in this culture are expected to play and i agree that if we are ever going to change the domestic violence statistics we will have to change that cultural demand. where i disagree with the blyborgs tho is in the idea that nobody has to change here. we only need give more understanding and acceptance for the poor brutes who, like the chained junk yard dog, attack out of some primitive response system. there is never any reason for violence, either emotional or physical, in a relationship. that is not love. it is some twisted image of love.
Excellent points, Psych -- thanks.
What strikes me, though, is that we've no reason to believe (or, to my knowledge, data to support) the notion that domestic violence occurs less in lesbian relationships, than in heterosexual ones, and I can't help but wonder, then, what THAT'S about.
If you don't have the power to wound, Ms. Scofield's novel suggests, you don't have the power to love.The notion that men, in becoming sensitive, have abdicated some essential maleness makes "Beyond Deserving" a timely novel; it's one woman's view of the "Iron John" phenomenon.
---------- end of snippet -- balance of review may be found in today's NYT.
i was on a panel discussing this very thing a few years ago. Robert Blys work has been interpreted in some very scary ways. what i most often witness is that it is a rationalization for abuse. when men abuse women and are sent somewhere to deal with it they often encounter the bly converts. what they hear out of that is that men are necessarily confused by their roles in recent years and yes, its all womens fault. the thought goes that women need that take charge take care of knuckle dragging club wielding cave man to protect the tribe and the extended tribe and that were all socialized to expect men to do the dirty work and fight the wars while we sit on our pillows. and once we train and set out these poor orbs of humanity apparently they cannot turn off their baser instincts and since underneath it all, women want men in their society to be those brutes not the sensitive caring folks that they claim to want and all this leaves those poor men who beat their women, well very confused.
i do agree that there are stereotypical roles that males in this culture are expected to play and i agree that if we are ever going to change the domestic violence statistics we will have to change that cultural demand. where i disagree with the blyborgs tho is in the idea that nobody has to change here. we only need give more understanding and acceptance for the poor brutes who, like the chained junk yard dog, attack out of some primitive response system. there is never any reason for violence, either emotional or physical, in a relationship. that is not love. it is some twisted image of love.
Just read this NYT book review, and thought it interesting. (Bold in red font mine, for emphasis)
Macho Men and the Women Who Love Them
By RAND RICHARDS COOPER;
Published: October 13, 1991
BEYOND DESERVING By Sandra Scofield. 310 pp. Sag Harbor, N.Y.: The Permanent Press. $21.95.
Katie Fisher loves her husband, Fish. Trouble is, she can't stand living with him. He's a Vietnam veteran prone to rages, he drinks too much, he never fixes the car when he promises. When a troublesome habit of borrowing strangers' cars lands him in prison for a year, Katie has some time to think things over. She draws a line down the middle of a sheet of paper. LOVE, she writes on one side, and on the other, THE REST OF IT.
Ursula Fisher loves her husband, Michael -- Fish's twin. A high school teacher, Michael is a somewhat civilized version of his renegade brother. Ursula and Michael have managed to cobble together a decent middle-class life, featuring a daughter who dances and a son who's a computer whiz. But Michael dreams of the old days of hunting with his brother, and seems to chafe quietly at his own respectability.
Geneva Fisher, meanwhile, loves her husband, Gully, the twins' father. But Gully is ornery. He likes hanging out in the woods with his friend Melroy and Melroy's dogs; dragged to his own 50th wedding anniversary, he submits himself to eating cake from his wife's hand "with the enthusiasm of someone eating a sock."
What are women to do with men like these? The answers form the matter of "Beyond Deserving," Sandra Scofield's story of family entanglements, set in the woods of southern Oregon. Like Ms. Scofield's previous novel, "Gringa," "Beyond Deserving" sets forth a fascination for strong men and the women who love them. Katie listens to Fish's war stories as raptly as Desdemona listening to Othello. Having passed through worlds of violence (in "Gringa" the homme fatal is a bullfighter) seems to confer upon men a superior, irresistible authenticity. The novel dishes out broad swipes at the figure of the Sensitive Man, embodied in Katie's lover, Jeff, whom she takes on during Fish's prison term. Jeff, an agricultural geneticist, has developed an orange baby cauliflower and a "delicate, blush-red pear." (Rather than confronting nature in a manly way -- by hunting, say, or fishing -- he sneakily manipulates it.) Well-schooled in relationship talk, Jeff lacks passion. There's no real eccentricity in him, and no anger.
If you don't have the power to wound, Ms. Scofield's novel suggests, you don't have the power to love.The notion that men, in becoming sensitive, have abdicated some essential maleness makes "Beyond Deserving" a timely novel; it's one woman's view of the "Iron John" phenomenon.
---------- end of snippet -- balance of review may be found in today's NYT.
That sounds sloppily naive, I suppose, but there ya are. LOL. It's the possibility of opening dialogue, and growing, perhaps becoming "better" from that experience, which most entices me, yanno?
