The other day, I came across a most interesting article entitled A Power to Persuade: The deeper meaning of glamour. In it, Postrel explores historical takes on glamour and the question as to whether a genuine glamour [a kind of modesty in actions] persists today or not. Most normally think of glamour as fancy dresses and expensive things, but when I say "glamour," I don't mean glitz and shine...I mean mystery, grace, and charm [albeit, often accompanied by some kind of classy "glitz"]. Thus, for example, Paris Hilton would not be considered glamorous whereas Grace Kelley would. Ke$ha would not be considered glamorous whereas Aubrey Hepburn would [you get the picture].
Now, I'm not going to sit here and get into the nitty-gritty social and political discussion that Postrel takes on [it's very interesting, though...please read if you have the chance]. But what she was saying got me thinking: "Hm, there really is no glamour today. We just put it all out there." And this is true with respect to clothing and even details of our personal lives. Nothing is private anymore. We dislike mystery. We want to know everything and conequently want everyone else to know everything about us. The worlds of tabloids, reality TV shows, and immodest Britney Spears inspired clothing have taken over much of our pop culture and infiltrated the average-Jane's idea of how to behave.
If anything, we aspire to be known rather than admired. And where does wanting to be "known" get us? Nowhere. It gets us mothers [like Kate Gosselin] who are more interested in their appearance and possession of material items than they are in personal and familial development. It gives us pop stars who go for shock-factor [yes, I am thinking of you, Gaga] before cultivating talents and truly inspiring others. It encourages people to focus on the external and rather unimportant aspects of our lives. And, unfortunately, women appear to be fairly guilty [at least more overtly guilty] for taking on this incorrect vision of "glamour."
While women were once known and admired for their demure and graceful personas, it seems that there is an overwhelming push to lose all modesty [I find true modesty to be synonymous with the definition of "glamour" put forth by Postrel]. Like those "naked" girls on the lawn or those booty-short dawning chubby girls, many women feel they must put it all out there to be recognized. And I blame the media as well as a societal misunderstanding of that which makes one glamorous and admirable.
There is something to be said for maintaining dignity and privacy of both self and family; there is value in keeping certain parts of our lives personal and--it is a way of honoring ourselves and our experiences. Such ideals, though, seem to have been lost in a society dominated by compulsions to lay our lives in the open [Twitter, Facebook, Myspace, etc.]. But we are fooling ourselves if we think that these lifestyles are at all glamorous, beneficial, or admirable--it's just the opposite. We are drowning in materialism and our own incompetence as soon as we put "being known" before being truly glamorous.
It is sad that characters like Grace Kelley have been "replaced" by attention-getting stars like Miley Cyrus or Paris Hilton. Glamour is a concept that was once embodied by well-known women, and it now seems to have been lost by both women and everyone else. I sincerely think that if women were to again respect themselves and truly embody glamour, our culture might be able to regain some of its modesty [/glamour]. Thus, it's kind of up to the women to "save" us all from our own foolishness.
Will glamour ever become respected and admired once again? I certainly hope so.
25 April 2010
11 April 2010
Being Modest When it's Hottest
Once again, the temperature is rising and more and more Georgetown students are taking advantage of the warm weather by running outside, walking around, picnicking, and [YES] wearing inappropriate clothing. I am well-aware that I already gave my two-cents about ridiculous summer wardrobes about a year ago [see: "Why I hate Spring"], so I'm not going to rant about that again...but I am going to complain about girls donning bikinis on the front lawn.
Yes, bikinis. All Georgetown students, administrators, faculty, and staff have witnessed the Georgetown "Jane's" tanning on the front lawn in their barely-there swimsuits [my personal favorites are the ones who go topless and then try to cover up the fact that they are topless in a half-ass attempt at faking modesty]. For whatever reason, tanning on Healy lawn between classes, as professors and priests walk by, has become a rational decision. In fact, it has become so seemingly acceptable that girls, like one with whom I have class, think they can just throw on a mesh cover-up over their bikinis and then go to class and be taken seriously [think again].
Now, why on earth would you want people to see you as such? I understand that girls want tans so that they can sport their odiously short mini-skirts [of which I do not approve] without ghastly pale legs...but, really? In front of Jesuits and teachers? It's just a bad idea. And here's why:
There is something to be said for enjoying the weather, but the most enjoyment can be experienced when young ladies uphold modesty that helps them to respect themselves and, in turn, others to respect young ladies. It's as simple as wearing real clothes.
Yes, bikinis. All Georgetown students, administrators, faculty, and staff have witnessed the Georgetown "Jane's" tanning on the front lawn in their barely-there swimsuits [my personal favorites are the ones who go topless and then try to cover up the fact that they are topless in a half-ass attempt at faking modesty]. For whatever reason, tanning on Healy lawn between classes, as professors and priests walk by, has become a rational decision. In fact, it has become so seemingly acceptable that girls, like one with whom I have class, think they can just throw on a mesh cover-up over their bikinis and then go to class and be taken seriously [think again].
Now, why on earth would you want people to see you as such? I understand that girls want tans so that they can sport their odiously short mini-skirts [of which I do not approve] without ghastly pale legs...but, really? In front of Jesuits and teachers? It's just a bad idea. And here's why:
Firstly, it is going to make people take you less seriously. Anyone who flaunts tanning in a public sphere where such behavior is certainly outside the norm [at least I like to think tanning is not a traditional part of the Georgetown experience] is going to come across as sadly needing attention and lacking self-awareness.
Secondly, it is going to be ridiculously immodest. No matter how attractive or shapely a young lady may be, there is absolutely no need to "show it off" in a primarily academic environment...or most environments. It shows a lack of self-respect and an ill-understanding of appropriate attire [very immature]. Girls are essentially sitting around in fancy, weather-proofed underwear [!!!].
Thirdly, it objectifies women. By sitting on the lawn, tanning in a bikini, young ladies make themselves objects to look at rather than people with whom to converse. It is just further solidifying ancient roles of women as "pretty things to look at."
Fourthly, it's not all that good for your skin. You might get skin cancer [and die].
There is something to be said for enjoying the weather, but the most enjoyment can be experienced when young ladies uphold modesty that helps them to respect themselves and, in turn, others to respect young ladies. It's as simple as wearing real clothes.
08 March 2010
Banning the F-Word
March 8, 2010: Happy International Women's Day!
As I looked over the news/blogs of the day about International Women's Day, the only one that especially caught my attention was one about the F-Word ["feminism"]. The article addresses the argument that for women to advance, the word "feminism" should no longer be used. Of course, the author, Sara M., vehemently rejects the idea that the word "feminism" is holding back women; she supports her claim with the argument that feminism is precisely what has brought women to where we are today and, therefore, should not be abandoned.
Hmmmm...I cannot help but disagree with Sara. I even remember discussing modern feminism in my high school Theory of Knowledge class and reaching an overwhelming consensus that "feminism" no longer means anything good, and I cannot help but think that anything with such negative perceptions would only hold the cause back. While I do not think that "feminism" has always been a "bad" word, I think it inevitably carries negative connotations today. Why is this?
Well, I cannot help but blame it on the fact that there are SO [too] MANY different understandings of what it means to be a feminist today: Anti-femininity, spiky haired, anti-shaving woman; Full-time working mother with emphasis on career before family or marriage; Stay-at-home mother who has no job outside of home; etc. None of these definitions are, per se, wrong, but [as you can tell] there is no general idea of how women should assert themselves in the world. And without any general understanding, people are going to understand it as whatever definition stands out the most---in this case, the most loudly negative.
I, for one, do not find "feminism" an attractive term, because I tend to associate it with women who deny intrinsically feminine qualities in favor of more masculine tendencies. And I think that that's what most people think of when they think of feminists [and it's not all that appealing OR helpful in advancing women]. People have such a negative understanding of feminism based on what some women do to assert themselves that it can potentially prevent other women from asserting themselves and their femininity with any success. If women think that in order to be "feminists" and assert themselves in society they must behave in a somewhat negative and rudely assertive fashion, chances are they're not going to do it...or anything else that might help advance their role in society.
Even though I do consider myself a feminist, I would never introduce myself as such because of the negative stereotype and that it would give people a very wrong idea of what I stand for [I mean, how many self-identified "feminists" that you know like aprons, brooches, and cardigans?]. I much prefer to introduce myself as a strong young woman who wants the best for all women.
Thus, I truly believe that for women to continue to advance in society, we must ban the F-word and simply focus on our actions rather than our name-identity. Leaving behind the word "feminism" is not an abandonment of causes to advance women; rather, it is a recognition that women are moving into a new era where the word "feminism" is not needed. In this era, we can act rather than worry about rallying/naming our cause...actions do speak louder than words.
Let's just move on, already.
As I looked over the news/blogs of the day about International Women's Day, the only one that especially caught my attention was one about the F-Word ["feminism"]. The article addresses the argument that for women to advance, the word "feminism" should no longer be used. Of course, the author, Sara M., vehemently rejects the idea that the word "feminism" is holding back women; she supports her claim with the argument that feminism is precisely what has brought women to where we are today and, therefore, should not be abandoned.
Hmmmm...I cannot help but disagree with Sara. I even remember discussing modern feminism in my high school Theory of Knowledge class and reaching an overwhelming consensus that "feminism" no longer means anything good, and I cannot help but think that anything with such negative perceptions would only hold the cause back. While I do not think that "feminism" has always been a "bad" word, I think it inevitably carries negative connotations today. Why is this?
Well, I cannot help but blame it on the fact that there are SO [too] MANY different understandings of what it means to be a feminist today: Anti-femininity, spiky haired, anti-shaving woman; Full-time working mother with emphasis on career before family or marriage; Stay-at-home mother who has no job outside of home; etc. None of these definitions are, per se, wrong, but [as you can tell] there is no general idea of how women should assert themselves in the world. And without any general understanding, people are going to understand it as whatever definition stands out the most---in this case, the most loudly negative.
I, for one, do not find "feminism" an attractive term, because I tend to associate it with women who deny intrinsically feminine qualities in favor of more masculine tendencies. And I think that that's what most people think of when they think of feminists [and it's not all that appealing OR helpful in advancing women]. People have such a negative understanding of feminism based on what some women do to assert themselves that it can potentially prevent other women from asserting themselves and their femininity with any success. If women think that in order to be "feminists" and assert themselves in society they must behave in a somewhat negative and rudely assertive fashion, chances are they're not going to do it...or anything else that might help advance their role in society.
Even though I do consider myself a feminist, I would never introduce myself as such because of the negative stereotype and that it would give people a very wrong idea of what I stand for [I mean, how many self-identified "feminists" that you know like aprons, brooches, and cardigans?]. I much prefer to introduce myself as a strong young woman who wants the best for all women.
Thus, I truly believe that for women to continue to advance in society, we must ban the F-word and simply focus on our actions rather than our name-identity. Leaving behind the word "feminism" is not an abandonment of causes to advance women; rather, it is a recognition that women are moving into a new era where the word "feminism" is not needed. In this era, we can act rather than worry about rallying/naming our cause...actions do speak louder than words.
Let's just move on, already.
28 February 2010
Sexy Thursday Talk
Below is a response I gave to a talk entitled "The Joy of Sex: A Christian Perspective." I found writing it to be great time for reflection and thought on marriage. Even though the response isn't explicitly feminine, it certainly was a distinctly feminine perspective. I hope that you get something out of my [rather organized] ramblings:
I’m sure that everyone is at least somewhat familiar with the ever-popular Taylor Swift song, “Love Story.” But just in case you don’t remember it, some of its lyrics include:
Nice, right? Many of Swift’s lyrics ring true with me and with many of my peers. A lot of us feel an overwhelming sense of loneliness and hopeless waiting when it comes to our desires to have a great and joyfully intimate relationship. I know that I am personally very excited about the prospect of marriage and finding that “special somebody.” All too often, though, many of us, Swift included, put immediate gratification, whether it be emotional OR physical, before what I think the true love story is—Some might delve into relationships simply to stop feeling alone, others might simply “hook up” to try to fill this void. The love story, for me, though, is more than the ring, the white dress, or the “wedding night” sex—the love story is the actual relationship that comes before, during, and after the physical intimacy, and it is precisely this story, this history between two people that I think makes sex and any intimate relationship genuinely joy-filled.
While the fairytale idea is nice to sing about and important to have in that it establishes ideals, I firmly believe that a real love story should be understood as so much more. It should be founded in an understanding that the relationship should deeply acknowledge Christ’s love for us and Christ’s call for us to walk together, especially in romantic relationships, as His disciples. The problem with people wanting an immediate fairytale in which their partner asserts, “I love you and that’s all I really know,” is that there seems to be no room for either person to grow; and in not recognizing any space for growth and fooling oneself of perfection, we are depriving ourselves of the joys and the closeness to Christ that come from bettering ourselves and more deeply recognizing our sinfulness. Such recognition is what I find to be an essential part of being a disciple, part of wanting to not only better serve God but also our fellow humanity; and a truly intimate relationship should encourage us to be the best disciples we can be.
But what I think is even worse than trying to have an unattainable fairytale relationship is settling for immediate physical gratification and intimacy in having casual sex—“hooking up;” even though this could bring about some sense of elation, it is not at all the joy that is intended to accompany sex. It completely lacks any idea of growth or discipleship—it is based in an almost primal desire to fulfill “wants,” wants that I imagine sex void of any genuine friendship and understanding can never meet. People are more than physical beings; we have souls that should be nourished by all that we do, especially such deeply intimate actions as sex.
But…what college kid wants to have to deal with “rules and standards” that would come from deep contemplation about what a romantic relationship means? Rules and standards, for many of us, scream of losing freedom, and a loss of “freedom” inherently means less happiness…right? [pause] Well, I think that’s wrong. It is in maintaining certain rules, like saving oneself for marriage, remaining chaste, and looking at any solidly intimate relationship as being based on more than sex, that I believe we can free ourselves to more openly experience God’s grace and the joy that accompanies physical intimacy in allowing us to more deeply connect with another person who truly understands us at all levels of human complexity.
But Georgetown students simply don’t “make” (or we might prefer to say “have”) the time to build a genuine love story—doing what feels good and is easily pleasurable fits much better into our planners and calendars. Many don’t even take the time to build the truest kinds of friendships—and if we cannot even find time to build friendships that are based on more than temporal pleasures like partying and drinking, it is unlikely that we will find time for any kind of genuinely joy-filled romantic relationship. Just as having an immensely joyful, genuine, and respectful platonic relationship takes a certain amount of time, experience, and understanding to develop, any truly fulfilling physically intimate relationship requires the same…and, most likely, even MORE time. For me, the true “love story” to is a story of friendship, helping, learning, and growing, accompanied by joyful sex and intimacy while building a domestic Church.
It’s probably clear now that I’m not the biggest fan of Swift’s rather vacant take on the love story. And even though Taylor Swift’s love story might seem to promise a “happily ever after” ending, the fact remains that she uses Romeo and Juliet, one of literature’s most tragic romances, as an allusion for her idyllic relationship, and in doing so, the song implies her story’s unrealistic expectations...chances are…any relationship’s excitement that comes from the prospect of a white dress and overwhelming emotional love, is not going to bear the fruits or the joy that a relationship founded in the idea of discipleship would. In fact, it will probably end, possibly even tragically.
So, seeing as I might have ruined “Love Story” for some diehard T. Swift fans, I feel I must leave you with another song that I think more beautifully captures all that one should really hope to have in a romantic relationship and physical intimacy: “For Good” from Wicked.
Glinda says to her friend, Elphaba:
I truly believe that the best friendships challenge us to grow. And since sex is so deeply connected to the different levels of the self, the most freely given sexual intimacy is based in this best form of friendship. And it takes time for this essential friendship to be built…it takes time to live a genuine love story…and I am confident that it’s certainly worth the time commitment and the wait.
I’m sure that everyone is at least somewhat familiar with the ever-popular Taylor Swift song, “Love Story.” But just in case you don’t remember it, some of its lyrics include:
“Romeo, save me, I’ve been feeling so alone. I keep waiting for you, but you never come. Is this in my head? I don’t know what to think. He knelt to the ground pulled out a ring, and said, ‘Marry me, Juliet, you’ll never have to be alone. I love you and that’s all I really know. I talked to your dad, go pick out a white dress. It’s a love story, baby, just say yes.’”
Nice, right? Many of Swift’s lyrics ring true with me and with many of my peers. A lot of us feel an overwhelming sense of loneliness and hopeless waiting when it comes to our desires to have a great and joyfully intimate relationship. I know that I am personally very excited about the prospect of marriage and finding that “special somebody.” All too often, though, many of us, Swift included, put immediate gratification, whether it be emotional OR physical, before what I think the true love story is—Some might delve into relationships simply to stop feeling alone, others might simply “hook up” to try to fill this void. The love story, for me, though, is more than the ring, the white dress, or the “wedding night” sex—the love story is the actual relationship that comes before, during, and after the physical intimacy, and it is precisely this story, this history between two people that I think makes sex and any intimate relationship genuinely joy-filled.
While the fairytale idea is nice to sing about and important to have in that it establishes ideals, I firmly believe that a real love story should be understood as so much more. It should be founded in an understanding that the relationship should deeply acknowledge Christ’s love for us and Christ’s call for us to walk together, especially in romantic relationships, as His disciples. The problem with people wanting an immediate fairytale in which their partner asserts, “I love you and that’s all I really know,” is that there seems to be no room for either person to grow; and in not recognizing any space for growth and fooling oneself of perfection, we are depriving ourselves of the joys and the closeness to Christ that come from bettering ourselves and more deeply recognizing our sinfulness. Such recognition is what I find to be an essential part of being a disciple, part of wanting to not only better serve God but also our fellow humanity; and a truly intimate relationship should encourage us to be the best disciples we can be.
But what I think is even worse than trying to have an unattainable fairytale relationship is settling for immediate physical gratification and intimacy in having casual sex—“hooking up;” even though this could bring about some sense of elation, it is not at all the joy that is intended to accompany sex. It completely lacks any idea of growth or discipleship—it is based in an almost primal desire to fulfill “wants,” wants that I imagine sex void of any genuine friendship and understanding can never meet. People are more than physical beings; we have souls that should be nourished by all that we do, especially such deeply intimate actions as sex.
But…what college kid wants to have to deal with “rules and standards” that would come from deep contemplation about what a romantic relationship means? Rules and standards, for many of us, scream of losing freedom, and a loss of “freedom” inherently means less happiness…right? [pause] Well, I think that’s wrong. It is in maintaining certain rules, like saving oneself for marriage, remaining chaste, and looking at any solidly intimate relationship as being based on more than sex, that I believe we can free ourselves to more openly experience God’s grace and the joy that accompanies physical intimacy in allowing us to more deeply connect with another person who truly understands us at all levels of human complexity.
But Georgetown students simply don’t “make” (or we might prefer to say “have”) the time to build a genuine love story—doing what feels good and is easily pleasurable fits much better into our planners and calendars. Many don’t even take the time to build the truest kinds of friendships—and if we cannot even find time to build friendships that are based on more than temporal pleasures like partying and drinking, it is unlikely that we will find time for any kind of genuinely joy-filled romantic relationship. Just as having an immensely joyful, genuine, and respectful platonic relationship takes a certain amount of time, experience, and understanding to develop, any truly fulfilling physically intimate relationship requires the same…and, most likely, even MORE time. For me, the true “love story” to is a story of friendship, helping, learning, and growing, accompanied by joyful sex and intimacy while building a domestic Church.
It’s probably clear now that I’m not the biggest fan of Swift’s rather vacant take on the love story. And even though Taylor Swift’s love story might seem to promise a “happily ever after” ending, the fact remains that she uses Romeo and Juliet, one of literature’s most tragic romances, as an allusion for her idyllic relationship, and in doing so, the song implies her story’s unrealistic expectations...chances are…any relationship’s excitement that comes from the prospect of a white dress and overwhelming emotional love, is not going to bear the fruits or the joy that a relationship founded in the idea of discipleship would. In fact, it will probably end, possibly even tragically.
So, seeing as I might have ruined “Love Story” for some diehard T. Swift fans, I feel I must leave you with another song that I think more beautifully captures all that one should really hope to have in a romantic relationship and physical intimacy: “For Good” from Wicked.
Glinda says to her friend, Elphaba:
“People come into our lives for a reason, bringing something we must learn. And we are led to those who help us most to grow if we let them and we help them in return.”
I truly believe that the best friendships challenge us to grow. And since sex is so deeply connected to the different levels of the self, the most freely given sexual intimacy is based in this best form of friendship. And it takes time for this essential friendship to be built…it takes time to live a genuine love story…and I am confident that it’s certainly worth the time commitment and the wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)