Rose-Colored Glasses
October 9, 2009
by Kathryn Ciano
|The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of The New Agenda.
One of the best parts of my tiny, rigorous law school is the spiritual generosity of its affiliated community. Last year one evening I spirited myself away to a secluded restroom to freshen up before a late interview. I ran into my Property professor similarly composing herself; for a moment we leaned together towards the mirror over the sink and gossiped like sisters.
In that brief conversation my professor taught me two important lessons:
First, it is possible to be powerful and to be feminine.
Second, and perhaps more importantly: Women control the happiness factor in relationships.
When I say “feminine” I mean the way I’ve internalized the word. “Feminine” like my father’s mother, who rolled meatballs between her palms and kept her five kids tidy and respectful at the tail end of the Depression. “Powerful” then connotes the ability to command a room without being aggressive; without resorting to cheap ploys or wiles.
From time to time I am struck with the realization that we have bastardized the concept of femininity. Rather than appreciate and enjoy those fairer instincts to nurture, many women follow the Old Male Lead and assume Old Roles. Coquettish, apologetic, and cute. Or strong, aggressive, like our fathers. Finding balance proves difficult as each generation promptly outgrows our role models, and few female role models tend to bridge that generational gap.
Indeed my professor’s two critical notes of advice come hand-in-hand. The path to powerful femininity requires a woman to exhale, relax, and realize that she is already in fact powerful. No role playing necessary.
That exhalation becomes critical. We live in a time of gender flux. There is little need to burn our bras or march for suffrage, but this generation’s Lily Ledbetters do suggest that we are not yet accustomed to choice.
Choice represents a sort of responsibility conundrum. In this flux time women encounter glass ceilings only as high as we permit. We find statutory relief in equal pay for equal work. Key to that formula remains the requirement that we work as hard as we’d like to be paid.
Similarly, my professor suggests – and studies support – that both of a relationship’s parties’ happiness rests in the woman’s choice to be happy. Yesterday yet another study surfaced showing that not just a man’s happiness but his life span improve dramatically when a woman knowingly, intentionally determines that we will be happy.
Evidently a man’s education proves less determinative to his longevity than his partner’s education. This study’s authors postulate that the difference lies in educated women’s ability to sift through and find the best health messages available in our media-saturated age, or possibly that women’s greater responsibility for the household results in a cleaner, more livable environment for their men.
These hypotheses resonate, but I can’t help linking all of these case anecdotes together. Women, not men, initiate the lion’s share — more than 70% — of all divorce filings. Women, more than men, struggle with timely gender flux and a dearth of appropriate cross-generational role models. Greater even than the effect of tidiness on health lies the effects of stress.
That choosing an educated partner permits greater longevity suggests that powerful femininity leaves both partners happier in the long run. Indeed:
The general consensus of sociologists is that, whereas a woman’s marital satisfaction is dependent on a combination of economic, emotional and psychological realities, a man’s marital satisfaction is most determined by one factor: how happy his wife is. When she is happy, he is [happy].
Feminism isn’t about getting what we want; it’s about having equal opportunity in the pursuit of happiness. Powerful and feminine models ebb and flow; it remains to us to decide what will make us happy and then pursue it.
I, for one, would trade a fat male Ledbetter Act paycheck for flexible hours at home with my family. This choice may invite derision from the Winifred Banks types who marched for my choice in the first place, but here we are, and, frankly, I choose my choice.
And that is the interesting part. Flux comes not from external pressures, but from my generation’s own inner turmoil as we learn to exercise that grave responsibility, choice. Happiness, health, longevity. It may fail thresholds for both romance and sex appeal to choose a thousand times a day to remain powerful, feminine, happy, and yet that choice proves solid. Strong. Sustainable.
Employers pay women less because women seldom demand more. Failed relationships flounder at least as frequently in her restlessness as in his. Health, wealth, and longevity all rely on this simple co-dependence between women’s decision to exhale, to trust our instincts, and the less stressful, divorce-free environment (ideally) fostered by it.
I search frequently for a better word for equal opportunity than “feminism.” Until I find that term I’m grateful to my professor and to the female role models who remind me that the key is not to analyze, but to enjoy. There is something satisfying in accepting that the pursuit of happiness absent gendered caveats represents a profoundly noble goal, even as a young woman, even in flux, even for free.
[...] Rose-Colored Glasses Jump to Comments At The New Agenda: [...]
I’m all for flex-time but I’m still glad I’m divorced. To each her own.
I disagree with most of this article, and its theme.
Same here.
I mean, an approving link to Meghan Basham? Really?
Belittling the Ledbetter Act is not the act of a feminist.
I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt. I liked this article much better than the one which mentioned Mad Men. That being said, when I moved this over to LiveJournal, I ended it at the line “Feminism isn’t about getting what we want; it’s about having equal opportunity in the pursuit of happiness. Powerful and feminine models ebb and flow; it remains to us to decide what will make us happy and then pursue it.”
That was a strong and positive note to end on. However, everything after that was negative and “blame the woman,” so I cut those out of LiveJournal. One reason for TNA is to change women’s attitudes and ways of thinking to benefit all women; I would love to see how this author adjusts and changes.
Right. Again, this is an article embodying the principles of antifeminism, as defined. Some things are not surprising, such as the focus on happiness as the outcome of everyone behaving according to their most suitable roles. The female gender role is, of course, focused on the man and his needs, with her needs, preset of course, following after his are met.
I didn’t even bring up facts to the contrary of the authors initial anti-feminist article, because it was already “dejectable” on its face. But I found it fascinating that the author actually brings them up randomly in this article! I’m just curious what mental gymnastics it takes to reconcile that women initiate most of the divorces, and that marriage primarily benefits the longevity of men, while shortening the longevity of women, with the prior theme of women as wanting marriage and not men, therefore it is up to women to figure out men’s needs so they can ZOMG get married! Here she just states those facts, with no obvious connection to her hypothesis, much less supporting, almost as if to say, yes I know there is contrary evidence but it supports my hypothesis: see, I included it.
What the author talks about, happiness being a choice, is actually a philosophy. It’s called Stoic philosophy. The author is trying to sell stoic philosophy to women, and stoic philosophy, a philosophy of slaves, as well as other Eastern philosophies, can be very tempting, and sound right, especially to those who are oppressed. It’s generally pretty easy to sell these types of philosophies to the oppressed, and they can be powerful tools for the oppressed, no doubt. But Stoic philosophy should be adopted by the stoic for furthering his own good. Here she wants women to adopt stoic philosophy to further another groups good: men, in hopes that their good will follow along. You can’t take “happiness as a choice” Stoic philosophy, in an attempt to fuel the happiness of another person. Such a thing is unreasonable, illogical, and flies in the face of real Stoic Philosophy, and its main tenant: CHOICE. If you believe you have a choice to be happy, you shouldn’t care about the happiness of others, because it must follow that you also believe you cannot control their happiness, so, as real stoic philosophy would dictate, you shouldn’t bother trying to make others happy. It’s not your priority, and it certainly isn’t something you can control.
Please leave Stoic philosophy to the Stoics.
I guess you can say, if happiness is a choice; why can’t the men just choose to be happy? It would save us a lot of articles from Kathryn Ciano.
And then it’s just the fact that the articles don’t quite make sense. The first one had a bunch of sentences and paragraphs that I just couldn’t figure out what exactly it meant. And this one is no different: convoluted, with facts thrown in that don’t support the hypothesis of so-called “gender flux” that isn’t clearly explained in the first place, with enigmatic sentences like “I choose my choice”. It’s just bizarre, and certainly not indicative of a well-educated person, institutional or otherwise, as the author lauds. Feminism isn’t just education, though. Certainly a woman’s ability to pursue education and higher education is the result of Feminism. You can’t just laud women’s education and call yourself a Feminist, though, especially if you are lauding it for the reason that it makes men happier and healthier. Sure, you can market women’s education to men that way, but it’s not necessarily Feminism. The rest is anti-feminist sentiments, wrapped in feel good language, pseduo-research, and the authors own insecurity toward being an anti-feminist, who is obviously not going to be accepted by the feminist community, but who thinks she should be.
Yes, every single woman has to deal with gender stereotypes, and having to deal with the double binds that are applied to women everywhere. I honestly doubt that her conversation with her professor in the bathroom was really as flighty and gendered as she describes. But the difference is that the author seems to want to argue that the women’s failure to navigate the double binds is the cause of failed relationships and seems to imply that the gender stereotype double bind, that she calls “gender flux” is the result, not of gender stereotypes, but of Feminism. I think. But again it’s really not clear.
There is good aggression and bad aggression. I don’t see how you can “command a room” without being aggressive. Likely her professor simply gave some good advice that, before you step into a board room to do your proposal, or a conduct a meeting, or teach a class, take a deep breath and exhale and “go get em kid” like a coach might tell any athlete. That’s not gendered femininity, or instructions on how to be passive and accept things as the author construed. Aggressiveness in women is distasteful to the misogynist public. The author seems to think the answer is in eradicating aggressiveness in women, because if women are feminine, everyone will be happy, and not eradicating the unreasonable rejection of an aggressive woman.
Now:
“From time to time I am struck with the realization that we have bastardized the concept of femininity. Rather than appreciate and enjoy those fairer instincts to nurture, many women follow the Old Male Lead and assume Old Roles. Coquettish, apologetic, and cute. Or strong, aggressive, like our fathers.”
I doubt that women really have a fair instinct to nurture, without supposing that women have a strong instinct to provide, gain, gather, navigate, proliferate, and create. If a woman is being strong and aggressive she is like her father…??? If she is trying, as gender stereotypes dictate, in a culture that tells us to be feminine, not to piss anyone off, she is being “coquettish, apologetic, and cute.” This may be an insight into the authors own struggle with the gender double bind. Look, as much as you want to alleviate gender double binds by redefining feminine, you can’t. You will always be wrong trying.
Then:
““Powerful” then connotes the ability to command a room without being aggressive; without resorting to cheap ploys or wiles.”
Since she is correcting women on femininity, this tells the reader that she thinks women resort to cheap ploys and “wiles”. Not only is the language insulting, to women, but is also cased in negative unreal stereotypes. This is already going to piss off the reader.
Then:
“We find statutory relief in equal pay for equal work”
What is statutory relief? Couldn’t the author have chosen a better word, or does she just want to piss off feminists who deal with statutory rape as a subject on a regular basis?
“but this generation’s Lily Ledbetters do suggest that we are not yet accustomed to choice.”
Lily Ledbetters is derogative toward Feminists. And how does she suppose that we are not “accustomed to choice.” Is this more of the “gender flux”? Increasing divorce rates? Unequal pay? She doesn’t explain this, but seems to want to pin any further Feminist agendas on women’s not being accustomed to choice, or inability to handle choice as a reason why there is still inequality. Perhaps we just don’t understand how to be feminine and powerful. Then there wouldn’t be a problem with female leadership. Right?
Then it just careens into the topic of how to have a happy relationship. The whole thing is like a big train wreck of misogyny.
“These hypotheses resonate, but I can’t help linking all of these case anecdotes together. Women, not men, initiate the lion’s share — more than 70% — of all divorce filings. Women, more than men, struggle with timely gender flux and a dearth of appropriate cross-generational role models.”
This is just amazing. Not only does she not explain how women initiating divorces supports her hypothesis or her topic, but she doesn’t ever explain her hypothesis or topic or what “gender flux” is. But we are supposed to believe that somehow, women’s struggle with “timely gender flux” and dearth of so-called appropriate role models is the reason why women initiate divorces. The author does not explain, either because its ludicrous, or the author thinks that avoiding explaining her point makes it invulnerable but it is really difficult to see any connection here between women initiating divorces, and “struggling with timely gender flux”. Women divorcing men in higher amounts is probably because marriage is an economic choice to begin with, and that the breakdown of shame of divorce coupled with the increasing legality of divorce, has given women the choice not to marry, or divorce, and they are choosing divorce. Coupled with the fact that marriage benefits male longevity and decreases female longevity, we can see that men like being married and women do not, because it is good for them, and not for her. Given the economic feasibility of divorce and the ability of a woman to gain employment, the better choice for women becomes clear.
The author pretends to be a feminist by lauding female education -because it improves men’s welfare in marriage-. She quotes:
“The general consensus of sociologists is that, whereas a woman’s marital satisfaction is dependent on a combination of economic, emotional and psychological realities, a man’s marital satisfaction is most determined by one factor: how happy his wife is. When she is happy, he is [happy].”
Well, this is obvious because women married mostly for economical reasons. Men married to have a house servant and who wouldn’t want a house servant. So men and women marry for different reasons, it is obvious then that they should determine marital satisfaction by different reasons. In marriage the man already has a job so he doesn’t see that as part of the marriage. The man is the woman’s job and economy, and integral in her view of the marriage. This says nothing about men and women’s inherent instincts or gender. Sociologists and Psychologists are always trying to misconstrue the obvious in pursuit of the holy gender grail.
“Feminism isn’t about getting what we want; it’s about having equal opportunity in the pursuit of happiness. ”
Was Feminism ever about getting what we want? Again, gender stereotyped insulting language. Women are childish little prats trying to get what they want.
“I, for one, would trade a fat male Ledbetter Act paycheck for flexible hours at home with my family. This choice may invite derision from the Winifred Banks types who marched for my choice in the first place, but here we are, and, frankly,”
There are no types of women in Feminism. The authors reliance on typing people is going to piss some people off, but here she maintains that if you’re pissed off, it’s because she “chose” to be a housewife.
“Employers pay women less because women seldom demand more. Failed relationships flounder at least as frequently in her restlessness as in his. ”
Restlessness? WTF? “Be Still” “exhale” smile! PUKE. Another train wreck of misogyny, evo-psych-ish nonsense. These things don’t even go together. She just smashes stuff together. It’s so strange. Anyway “employers pay women less because women seldom demand more.” WRONG. I know from personal experience that it is wrong. The woman who demands more doesn’t have a job. There is a correlation between women who do not demand more, and employers who pay women less but its not causative; not nearly. There are some interesting studies on the social repercussions of women demanding more, women who negotiate, and women who ask for raises, and that women perceive this risk correctly. This is of course, after the woman is already priced lower than the man. The same resume with a man’s name on it is seen as being worth more than the same resume with a woman’s name on it. I demanded more. I didn’t get more. This is very “blame the woman”-y.
“Until I find that term I’m grateful to my professor and to the female role models who remind me that the key is not to analyze, but to enjoy. ”
Just relax and enjoy it. Right.
“Male Ledbetter Paycheck”?? Ledbetter will go along way toward improving the economy. You can either shove women back into the home, say she can’t work, even when it is desperately needed or you pay them fairly. In order to do that we need to legally force men to pay women fairly, because in my experience it takes an enormous amount of awareness over one’s own biases, and to fight it in order to respect a woman and pay her fairly. Paying half of the population which is doing the most of raising kids and domestic welfare low wages is going to ruin any economy. It is an unrealistic position to have women in the home unpaid. Stoicism is a profoundly noble philosophy, but I already elaborated on that above. Look I took this quote directly from the definition of antifeminism on wikipedia:
“There is no solid satisfaction in any career for a woman like myself. There is no home, no true freedom, no hope, no joy, no expectation for tomorrow, no contentment. I would rather cook a meal for a man and bring him his slippers and feel myself in the protection of his arms than have all the citations and awards and honors I have received worldwide, including the Ribbon of Legion of Honor and my property and my bank accounts. They mean nothing to me. And I am only one among the millions of sad women like myself.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifeminism
Now who does that sound like, and why is she trying to write as a Feminist?
Kiuku, I deeply appreciate this lengthy response of yours. You should email this to the women in charge of TNA. Everyone needs to read your response, but being in charge, they deserve to read it even more so. Your response is very illuminating, and it can help them in weeding out more veiled articles such as this one. You explained everything nicely and constructively. What I am trying to say is that I agree with all of your points, and I am dismayed that the author has not yet posted her own response to defend her statements.
Please email me: solarflare@att.net
This is the second time that Ms. Ciano has left me thinking that the air is full of smoke and that there is an arrangement of mirrors.
This woman’s a dipstick. If she doesn’t want a nice paycheck equal to a man’s, then she can damn well stay in the pink-collar ghetto if SHE wants.
Kathryn Ciano has written some good, thoughtful and empowering articles for New Agenda. But this is the second article (the first being about Mad Men) that has made me feel very uncomfortable as a woman trying to find community at a feminist organization.
We are all struggling trying to find ourselves as feminist but articles such as this do not reflect well on this new organization and may cause some newcomers to pause and not return.
My suggestion for New Agenda would be to edit out articles that are clearly not feminist. I am sure Kathryn will write more articles, most of which will likely be empowering. But I am really surprised and disappointed that this one was published here!
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 22, 2012 at 11:22 am
February 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...