Thoughts On Middle Age And Society's Values For Women

[tabular_rasa]

I'm having an interesting identity crisis. I think it got started talking about "being a mom" with Lisa, and then later today seeing some very aggressive 40-ish-year-old woman yammering rather unpleasantly to an older gentleman on my way back from campus today. I was struck with the thought that becoming a middle-aged woman doesn't really appeal to me. There are a lot of grim choices in being an adult woman . . . dependent or independent? Family or career? It's not as simple as all that, though, of course; how much does one bend from a scripted role? Are there even scripted roles out there? Are they even appealing? On one hand, this creates the freedom to create an identity. However, on the other, I think it leads to a lot of personal grief on behalf of the woman . . . and, come on, there are roles. Our society could never be that nice . . .

There used to be the whole mother thing as the only option. There's still the role of mother open, of course, but I feel like it's been warped, a lot. I almost prefer the older version, better (as I've said before, I think I'm actually pretty chauvinistic :-P but, hey, as long as I don't inflict the role on anyone else, it's all well and fine that I choose it for myself :-P): She's sturdy, from childbirth and running the large household singlehandedly. She's capable; she can organize and produce, sewing, cooking, cleaning, building, organizing, teaching, securing. Yet she's also an emotional backbone, supportive and acquiescing to her husband (I can totally do the "acquiesce" thing :-P), and consoling and caring to her children-- sort of the softer cheek who consoles when the father is playing the role of head disciplinarian, etc. The stereotypical mother of today, however, doesn't really seem to do much of the softer-cheek thing; she's in there even more than the father, and, not only that, she's aggressive with pressuring the children to participate and succeed, in everything-- schoolwork, sports, activities. Think soccer mom. She runs the house but not with the personal devotion to it, and, depending, she may share it with the father (who sure as hell better help if the wife is a career woman!). She also has her own career goals. Like I said, I like the traditional bit better; I really want to be a stay-at-home mom. I do not want to divide myself between career and family; I feel like both would suffer, and I could never forgive myself, particularly in regards to my children. (This is in no way to suggest career-family juggling cannot be successfully done; I merely feel I personally would break under the stress and always be perpetually worrying about failure in one or the other). I don't even like the physical image of the modern so-called soccer mom, done-up so that she's trying to be a pretty 20-year-old, but she's no longer 20 so it just looks fake.

(Actually, is it awful that the "dead mother" image appeals most to me?-- the pretty, feeble thing, that dies when the kid is an infant and is remembered only fondly as a lovely fuzzy vision to both the child and husband? I think it may be the fact that she never has any reason to be aggressive, because the child was too young for that . . . ).

So what else does a middle-aged woman do? There's delving whole-heartedly into a career, which I will most assuredly do before I start a family-- I need funds, after all :-P but I couldn't keep that up forever, since I want a family and I said I can't balance both. That's part of the logic in my studying to become a teacher; since I can't depend on my future husband's funds at this point, I can plan, if need be, on going back to work (as a Japanese language teacher in a high school, etc . . . ) once my children are school-aged, since we'll have the same schedules.

Some of the more alternative things appeal to me, but a fair few won't work with young children. I've love to be super-involved in some sort of social cause, engaging in volunteer work and organizing rallies. That can be coupled with anything, though-- though I'd feel pathetic only putting "a little bit of time" in. There's that little wishful part of everyone, I think, too, who'd like to somehow be thrust into the limelight and live something exciting, for a while, too-- publish some best-selling novel, appear in some blockbuster movie, etc . . . On top of everything, I'd love to travel . . . but, erm, little old not-so-ambitious me probably won't have much of the funds to do much of that /-: unless I do it through volunteer organizations (and see places like Tanzania and Bangladesh rather than Paris and Auckland :-P)-- which, well, is totally an option, when there are no kids . . .

I guess a lot of my distaste for the life paths mentioned is their aggression. I'm not ambitious and pushy so I'm never going to be in an extremely powerful career position, and I don't care to be. My failings as a mother will probably all have to do with lenience. I'm too tactful and care too much about the feelings of others, probably (why am I so damn tolerant?), to make much of a powerful statement in anything I choose to embrace )-: (I enjoy the subtleties of novel-writing; one can be delicious subversive without coming out and asking explicitly to be shot, for one's beliefs, etc . . . ).

On top of that, I'm rather skeptical of the virtues of "independence." This is probably grossly skewed by my probable Dependent Personality Disorder, but, really . . . we're social creatures. We need each other more than we need our individuality-- point-blank! Societies with no concept of individuality have functioned for centuries; however, name one successful hermit culture for me? (You can't-- it wouldn't be a culture :-P). I've got nothing against having a personal identity separate from a social whole, but it's a privilege, not a need or virtue (and it's actually quite stressful!). It also seems like it's so easy to slip over too far in indepedence-- one can alienate others, which leads to social rejection (and then personal depression)-- which can ultimately lead to death, particulary in traditional societies. Yesterday, Patricia proudly informed me she's become "more independent" this year. I didn't really know how to respond; I was happy she was happy in achieving this goal of hers, but I myself have no real desire to reach that point-- I couldn't truly empathize with the happiness. Indepedence for independence's sake seems worthless to me. Our society, particularly our age, group, however, thinks the world of it.

Maybe I'm really unhealthy (by today's standards, certainly!), but that's really it, isn't it? I was never one for "strong females," as they're called. They all kind of pissed me off, actually. Disney heroines started getting more and more outspoken as time went on and I began to like them less and less (well, Snow White's sweet agreeableness was cloiying; but think Cinderella-types who are strong in a quiet way and allow the changes to come to them by being good and patient-- that's more my ideal. Is that sad?). I could embrace Jasmine's "dare to dream/follow her heart" and Mulan's literally masculine behavior because it was motivated by family-pleasing, and, well, she wasn't that good at that; it was endearing and more easily related to. However, though I liked Esmeralda's sense of justice, she was overly bold, sarcastic, and even conceited at times, and Megara was just contrary and unpleasant in her man-hating (wait-- are we supposed to admire that? Plus, pssh, what sort of mixed messages are we getting when she's felled by love, in the end, anyway?). As for real-life, "modern heros," the kind they do TV specials and American Girl spreads on, they sometimes come off as so previously embittered and presently proud of their struggles that they seem almost weaker because of it, that it affected them so much (I mean, everybody struggles-- and it's easier to prove someone wrong when they say "You can't because you're a girl" than "You can't because you're terrible at math," etc . . . ). Society's mostly to blame, for having created the obstacles they needed to become strong to overcome, but, like I said, everyone's got their little battles.

Modern social standards might label me weak, or too subject to old tradition. Yet just as I wholeheartedly stand that women who wanted to be unconventionally "strong," career-oriented, intelligent, and powerful back in a day of "weak" traditional women should have been entitled to it, I stand I should be able to be "weak" and traditional in a day of strong women. I wouldn't wish to be back then, though, of course; I like being allowed to be educated and have the option to speak my mind just a little bit too much :-P

I'm sure there must be a middle ground, though, too-- a happy medium in which the feminists will not shoot me but I'm not required to kick a man in the pants every time he treats me as a subordinate. Equality and freedom for both men and women in society, including equal weight and the absolute freedom for both sexes to make choices about their roles in careers and families (which chooses to be subordinate? A man should not be forced to be provider, either, just as a woman should not be forced to the the subordinate!).



Well, my Japanese Literature professor decided to send out the Take-Home Final Examination question 23 minutes early, and I haven't heard from Danny in terms of the cupcakes for Orgo student test-takers and Improv people, so I'd better get started on those . . .

Comments

[gingitsune3.livejournal.com]

Well when I grow up I most certainly dont want to be the crazy artsy lady with the funny clothes and crazy hair that lives down the street and communes with nature and butterflies and hummingbirds. But I probably will be. And I dont want to be one crazy independent women with a biting sarcastic wit who wears pant-suits AH. I want to just be. Like a crazy genderless entity that just so happens to pee while sitting down. And makes cookies and thinks kittens are cute. And likes dudes.. . I want to be like RAFIKI in the Lion King. That is what I want to be when I grow up.

[tarmetiel.livejournal.com]

You do realize that they are making more and more strong women as a backlash from the "typical 50s wife" right?? Technically, we are due for a traditional outbreak again, because about every 50 years or so in history there is some kind of tradtion revival. Example: The early 1800s into the 1850s. The clothing reflects how more skin was okay etc. and so on, and then Civil War happened and Queen Victoria lost her husband and the bustle period began where everything was covered up. Then that transformed into the Edwardian period which skin was okay, which went into the 20s were skin was everywhere, then that followed the 30s and 40s where top skin wasnt cool, but ballet length(mid calf) was cool in skirts. Then to the 50s....

Its a cycle. You are not the only one who thinks that. Tradional stuff is coming back -- have you all not seen the clothing getting longer? I mean the formal stuff, not the whorish ones.

Just an observation.

[bibliohermione.livejournal.com]

Of course, you may change your mind as you grown and change and learn what you can and cannot handle....
While I am of the same mind, that education/work shouldn't be overtly mixed with family, I see a LOT of grad students doing it, both here and at ND. So...something's working for them. Most of the time it's marriage and grad school, but there are kids wandering around in the married grad student housing. And they seem to be happy enough, as do their parents. I think maybe we know ourselves as we are now, and might be projecting what we think of as our limits upon our future selves...ourselves right now in no way could handle school, marriage and kids. But ourselves in 5, 7, 9 years? Who knows.
[Also note that the "ZOMG BABIES" kicked in for me over the summer....stupid biological clock. It doesn't help that I know about 4 people from high school that got married this summer/fall and I know others (not the same nor are they of our age group) having babies/with kids and I love being with them.]

[mona-lisa-73.livejournal.com]

Mmmm cupcakes!

I don't think there's any point in me saying this, but don't stress too much about it now. You've still got years to go before you need to make the "starting a family" decision. You had better anyway. Tell Danny to keep his pants on :-P.

Go with the flow of life, and enjoy the ride.

[wuestenfuchschn.livejournal.com]

interesting. my take on the independence thing is about the total opposite. :)
i think our culture is big on psuedo-independence.. i.e. 'live for yourself' but don't rock the boat. being truly someone who LIKES being alone is still seen as abnormal and is still very much frowned upon. having hobbies and interests that don't jibe with the majority of the population is likewise frowned upon.
i personally find social interaction to be stressful and solitude to be peaceful/soothing. i like the opportunity to be alone with my thoughts. and i definitely need it - without solitude my brain gets so fried i can barely think. i actually had a whole rant about this the other day but my computer ate it. :(
that said, i think our whole society and social roles are horribly warped anyway. if you want to be a strong woman in the sense of being the emotional support for a family and keeping the household running, that is totally valid. it's only because of society's twisted take on reality that somehow a 'strong woman' has to be career driven, and aggressive, and hypersexual and etc.
but the REALLY twisted thing is that (and i speak from personal experience here) when a female says that she doesn't WANT to have children/start a family everyone flips! it's 'oh, you'll change your mind' or 'i used to say that too' or any number of arguments for why this person WILL want to have children and never mind what her reasons are.
that i still can't fathom.

wow. ok. i'll shut up now... that was a really long 'comment'...

[wuestenfuchschn.livejournal.com]

i hate to post again especially after what ended up as kind of a mini-rant but i think i should add that when i'm in the right mood i do enjoy socializing - i'm not a total hermit/unabomber type. i just need time out to recharge every so often. socializing can be great fun, it's just draining for me.
which is something that the public school system failed to recognize and through their attempts to 'help' me only made me even more f***ed up and "antisocial"

[tabular-rasa.livejournal.com]

Oh, I definitely understand that-- I'm a bit of the same thing. When I said independent, I meant self-sufficient rather than introverted-- the idea of taking care of one's self, with no help from others. I've heard it's self-satisfying; however, I have no craving to pursue it. I like having symbiotic relationships with other people-- helping and knowing I will be helped if I need it. It doesn't bother me to give up a little extra of myself, losing it to the good of others, as long as I can depend on others being willing to do the same for me.

In both our cases, it's about denying the standards and creating our own. Silly, silly social roles . . .

[wuestenfuchschn.livejournal.com]

ah. that clarifies things. in that case yeah, i totally agree that it's virtually impossible to be independent in terms of being 100% self-sufficient.
and even if you were you'd be spending so much time on basic survival needs you'd have little time to do anything else. much easier just to mooch off other people. lol. (j/k).
i understand what you're saying now. :)