Female Characters

LongDistanceConversations

I just read an article in Time magazine about an author named Curtis Sittenfeld (a woman despite what her name may lead you to think) who has, to date, written two novels centered around unconventional female characters. I say that her characters are unconventional because they're described as realistically awkward. This is hardly something that happens very often, typically in movies and novels women are characterized as beautiful but awkward. One can only assume that the rules of convention apply to beauty, and in Sittenfeld's words "when a female character feels insecure, and then all the other characters are saying, 'but you're so awesome, you're so funny, you're the best!' you almost know that it's false insecurity." I don't think that I've come across that too much in novels, per se. I've been fortunate enough to read incredible authors like Jean Rhys, Chuck Palahniuk and Brett Easton Ellis; whose female characters are incredible. But I will say that in movies Sittenfeld's comments ring true. But I've been watching Shopgirl (which is a tremendous novella, by Steve Martin) and I must say that in both the book and the movie, the characterization of Mirabelle is incredible. I would have to say that pain and loneliness that she is shown to live with, are not only authentically feminine; they're human. I know that I may not necessarily qualify to comment on what is feminine, but her pain and loneliness is not generic. It really isn't something that you could put anyone into and still come out with a great story.

A lot of this comes back to the fact that there are differences between men and women. Obviously there are biological differences. But there are different psychological and physical needs within relationships as well. This is something that, in the struggle for equality between the genders, has been forgotten. We've replaced equality with same-ness. Because of the drive inherent within feminism to achieve equality without totally rethinking the power structures. It seems to me like we're trying to renovate a house infested with termites, and not replace a single piece of wood. Women are told from childhood on that they need to be self-reliant and not ever depend on a man. This is, of course, in reference to money. So what results is women who are educated, skilled and most certainly financially independent. Their scared to death of commitments, children and any type of devotion to someone other than themselves. In short, you get the four prattling heads of Sex and the City. Vile women who have ultimately been robbed of essential pieces of their femininity all because we're too dumb to see that equality and same-ness are mutually exclusive.

A friend once shared this analogy with me: men and women are like flowers and trees, which are both equal to one another. Flowers are beautiful, sweet smelling wonders within the world. And trees are rugged, sturdy things that we can build homes and boats with. But the pragmatic quality of a tree is no more valuable than that of a flower's aesthetic quality. Don't be fooled, like I was initially, into thinking that either of these plants is meant to represent a specific gender. It's not a one-for-one exchange; just a loose representation.

I suppose my point is that culturally femininity is completely misunderstood. And that this is reflected in the movies and novels that our culture creates. Mother hood is rarely ever specifically the focus of much attention. I would hope that much of feminism's attempts t reconstruct our world in a much more equitable way without robbing women or men of their god given identities would filter into the popular conscience. Maybe then high school girls would not feel the need to make sexuality into a commodity because Kim Catrell (sp?) does.