"Strong Characters"
Oct. 20th, 2010 01:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cereusInspired by reading Amanda Forest Vivian's post "Disabling Queerness"
http://adeepercountry.blogspot.com/2010/10/disabling-queerness.html
When I was growing up, there was a big excitement about the "strong female characters" now being written in books and a lot of those selfsame books were shoved into my hands. I loved to read and read fast, so a supply of books was a good thing. And there were good parts to them - in many ways they were what the last era needed - the antidote to the last era.
There's a lot of emphasis in feminism, at least of my mother's generation,of telling girls they can be strong. On letting "Strong women" develop their potential. Because women are really as strong as men. But what about the women who aren't "strong"?
Whatever way you determine strength there's a lot of people that are going to be weak. Because not everybody has the strength, verbal agility, stamina and physical energy level, and personality (not to mention equal economic opportunities) to make it in this world if we change nothing but allowing women to compete. If you want to make the lives of women better how much have we accomplished if a large group are still struggling.
In many ways feminism was trying to get woman to be seen in the same way as men. But there's a trap in how men are seen, too.
There's a dark side to the male role in society is just that if you're strong, great, but if you're weak, if you can't handle it, you're gone. If the dark side of the female role is the housewife/drudge then the masculine dark side is cannon fodder. Can't handle the responsibilities of high-power lifestyle? Bang. Show weakness? Bang. Show emotion, or compassion for the wrong person? Bang. Love another man? (Everyone knows that men are gross, you'd have to be sick.) Bang. Dress in feminine clothes? Bang. Have trouble focusing in class and so barely graduate high school and then try to go to community college and try to hold a minimum wage job, and end up short on money? You can go into the army. It's a great opportunity. Many of the male roles are designed to make a crop of obedient soldiers. But it's not a good life anymore than the life of a drudge, or a doll is.
In a talk I went to recently on Math Anxiety they showed a chart that showed what most men and women said their sucess or failure at math was caused by:
Success Failure
Men Skill Lack of Effort
Women Luck Lack of skill
I've seen so many disabled people fall into the trap of "I'm just not trying hard enough". So this makes me wonder...
Telling me, a "girl*" that was (and still is) struggling to speak, to use words at all, to not slur - that she should be speaking "louder" with more "confidence" if she wants any one to pay attention to her or care for her. That "She" doesn't "have to speak so softly because she's female" wasn't a good idea. It was almost hurtful in a lot of ways.
Can't we find a way to treat all people well, without falling into either of there traps? Can we build a society that works for the Weak and the Strong and the WeakandStrong, and everyone else?
* Not that much of a girl actually, just as much of a boy. They had no way of knowing about the parts that were there but didn't match my physical body.
http://adeepercountry.blogspot.com/2010/10/disabling-queerness.html
When I was growing up, there was a big excitement about the "strong female characters" now being written in books and a lot of those selfsame books were shoved into my hands. I loved to read and read fast, so a supply of books was a good thing. And there were good parts to them - in many ways they were what the last era needed - the antidote to the last era.
There's a lot of emphasis in feminism, at least of my mother's generation,of telling girls they can be strong. On letting "Strong women" develop their potential. Because women are really as strong as men. But what about the women who aren't "strong"?
Whatever way you determine strength there's a lot of people that are going to be weak. Because not everybody has the strength, verbal agility, stamina and physical energy level, and personality (not to mention equal economic opportunities) to make it in this world if we change nothing but allowing women to compete. If you want to make the lives of women better how much have we accomplished if a large group are still struggling.
In many ways feminism was trying to get woman to be seen in the same way as men. But there's a trap in how men are seen, too.
There's a dark side to the male role in society is just that if you're strong, great, but if you're weak, if you can't handle it, you're gone. If the dark side of the female role is the housewife/drudge then the masculine dark side is cannon fodder. Can't handle the responsibilities of high-power lifestyle? Bang. Show weakness? Bang. Show emotion, or compassion for the wrong person? Bang. Love another man? (Everyone knows that men are gross, you'd have to be sick.) Bang. Dress in feminine clothes? Bang. Have trouble focusing in class and so barely graduate high school and then try to go to community college and try to hold a minimum wage job, and end up short on money? You can go into the army. It's a great opportunity. Many of the male roles are designed to make a crop of obedient soldiers. But it's not a good life anymore than the life of a drudge, or a doll is.
In a talk I went to recently on Math Anxiety they showed a chart that showed what most men and women said their sucess or failure at math was caused by:
Success Failure
Men Skill Lack of Effort
Women Luck Lack of skill
I've seen so many disabled people fall into the trap of "I'm just not trying hard enough". So this makes me wonder...
Telling me, a "girl*" that was (and still is) struggling to speak, to use words at all, to not slur - that she should be speaking "louder" with more "confidence" if she wants any one to pay attention to her or care for her. That "She" doesn't "have to speak so softly because she's female" wasn't a good idea. It was almost hurtful in a lot of ways.
Can't we find a way to treat all people well, without falling into either of there traps? Can we build a society that works for the Weak and the Strong and the WeakandStrong, and everyone else?
* Not that much of a girl actually, just as much of a boy. They had no way of knowing about the parts that were there but didn't match my physical body.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-10-20 10:23 pm (UTC)Some people would make a big deal out of saying, "Oh, don't worry about it, don't apologize so much!" in a way that made me feel like I was being rude and not fitting into their set of social norms, just because I tended to be confused about what was going on and was trying to be careful and polite.
There's also the assumption that I am insecure, immature, etc.--sure I might be, but no more than people who never apologize and barrel their way through life. I'd rather be like I am now than be like them (and I'm speaking as a person who once apologized to someone because he knocked me down with his bicycle and gave me a concussion).
Also some people would say that it made them uncomfortable and upset how much I apologized. First of all they seemed to think that if I just knew other people felt bad, I would be able to stop. The apologizing stuff was a big part of me, not something superficial that I could turn on and off. But also, it's just kind of annoying that people can't handle the way someone else talks. (To be clear, I wasn't like tearfully, endlessly apologizing for stuff; I would just neutrally say "sorry" a lot and make self-deprecating comments. My intent was to give an impression of being slow, which I am, while also being somewhat funny.)
Anyway, I know this isn't exactly what you're talking about, but anyway I like your post.